Turning Points that Failed to Turn

[Barrister]

Ok, but it was a transmission of goods and if Chinese goods could be obtained directly from the Chinese in their tribute ships then where is the impetus to find a route to China which bypasses the Venitians and Muslims if the Chinese have already done it?

Tribute fleets are a "transmissions of good" in sort of the way that a country World's Fair pavillion is. (or used to be when they held World's Fairs).  The whole notion of a trade route is that there is regular long-distance trade which is being done to supply established market demands.  Tribute fleets are by nature one-off enterprises; it would be grossly uneconomic and inefficient to conduct regular trade using massive fleets of large prestige-built ships.

It's not very different from early Spanish trade with China however - once a year Spanish galleons would travel to Manilla where they would trade with Chinese traders.  I think they even couched it in terms of "tribute" and "gifts" as well.

[The Minsky Moment]

I keep hearing this trotted out as a fact. Every time I do, I wonder - do the people making this argument simply forget that the Mongols managed to take Sung China? Or are they under the impression that southern China is open steppeland? 

The conquest of Sung China took about 30-40 years, despite the closer proximity to the Mongol heartland and centers of power.  That kind of time frame and long-term commitment would not have been plausible for a Mongel conquest of western Europe.  Also, the conquest of China ultimately was accomplished by having a Sinicizing Khan with intimate familiarity with Chinese culture assume the role of Emperor; it would have been far more tricky for a Mongol chieftain to assume simultaneously the titles of King of France, Doge of Venice, His Apostolic Holiness the Pope, Podesta of Florence, Genoa, Milan etc.

Also - historically their failure at the battle of Ain Jalut had exactly zero to do with "logistics", and everything to do with internal Mongol politics - namely, that the Mongols were divided, and took most of their army home to contest the leadership.

Right, but as I noted before, those kinds of contests were an inherent weakness of Mongol political structure.  That made logistical stretch matter because the ability of Mongol chieftains to hold territory in the long-run while facing endemic civil wars depended in part on their ability to be able to continue to recruit fresh troops from the heartland.  That was easier to do in areas easier to access from the heartlands like the Ukranian sttepes or the Iranian plateau then would be the case in North Africa or Italy.

Indeed, who exactly were the *victors* at Ain Jalut? They were Mamluks - soldiers imported from central Asia who fought, in need hardly be added, as light cavalry - eactly like the Mongols. The Mongols, as one Arab historian wrote, were "defeated by men of their own kind". 

Which is demonstrates another of an inherent weakness of the Mongol empire - their vulnerability to an opponent who could fight fire with fire.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's not very different from early Spanish trade with China however - once a year Spanish galleons would travel to Manilla where they would trade with Chinese traders.  I think they even couched it in terms of "tribute" and "gifts" as well.

Once a year is a much greater a frequency than what we are talking about.

The Zheng voyages averaged about once every 4 years, and even that required a massive expenditure of resources well beyond any commercial value.   Zheng's expeditions traversed already established routes where ethnic Chiense traders were already operational - they were basically imperial "show the flag" operations.

[Malthus]

I keep hearing this trotted out as a fact. Every time I do, I wonder - do the people making this argument simply forget that the Mongols managed to take Sung China? Or are they under the impression that southern China is open steppeland? 

The conquest of Sung China took about 30-40 years, despite the closer proximity to the Mongol heartland and centers of power.  That kind of time frame and long-term commitment would not have been plausible for a Mongel conquest of western Europe.  Also, the conquest of China ultimately was accomplished by having a Sinicizing Khan with intimate familiarity with Chinese culture assume the role of Emperor; it would have been far more tricky for a Mongol chieftain to assume simultaneously the titles of King of France, Doge of Venice, His Apostolic Holiness the Pope, Podesta of Florence, Genoa, Milan etc.

The Mongols were clever and adaptable enough to work with local quislings and adopt local customs - as they did in China. For example, hostorically the Venetians were perfectly willing to cooperate with the Mongols - gave them an advantage over their real enemy, Genoa. See The Mongol Invasion of Europe which describes the intimacy with which Venetians and Mongols co-operated.

There would never be a Mongol Pope, but the Mongols may have been willing to work with an existing Pope. The Mongols were very adamant about respecting religious authorities (unless they refused to cooperate) and there were enough Nestorian Christian Mongols about to make the notion of "Mongol Crusaders" non-laughable. Historically, the Pope never ceased his attempts to convert the Mongols. It would not stretch credulity that Mongols could as easily "Christianize" as they could "Sinicize" and (as Il-Khans) "Islamify".

One could foresee a Mongol invasion in which the Mongols made overtures to the Papacy, offering possible conversion (would cost no more than words - and a bath), and offered to "deal" with the Pope's problems with the HRE. Incidentally, promising to restore Jerusalem & beat up the Islamic world. 

Right, but as I noted before, those kinds of contests were an inherent weakness of Mongol political structure.  That made logistical stretch matter because the ability of Mongol chieftains to hold territory in the long-run while facing endemic civil wars depended in part on their ability to be able to continue to recruit fresh troops from the heartland.  That was easier to do in areas easier to access from the heartlands like the Ukranian sttepes or the Iranian plateau then would be the case in North Africa or Italy.

Sure, no-one can expect the Mongols to last. But they would not have to last, to have a big impact. The Il-Khans did not last long, but no-one can say they did not affect Persia!

Which is demonstrates another of an inherent weakness of the Mongol empire - their vulnerability to an opponent who could fight fire with fire.

Sure, but the European ability to use light-horse techniques was minimal. Unlike the Mamluks, they did not import young central asian lads as soldiers, and culturally light horse was not how they fought. 

[crazy canuck]

Ok, but it was a transmission of goods and if Chinese goods could be obtained directly from the Chinese in their tribute ships then where is the impetus to find a route to China which bypasses the Venitians and Muslims if the Chinese have already done it?

Tribute fleets are a "transmissions of good" in sort of the way that a country World's Fair pavillion is. (or used to be when they held World's Fairs).  The whole notion of a trade route is that there is regular long-distance trade which is being done to supply established market demands.  Tribute fleets are by nature one-off enterprises; it would be grossly uneconomic and inefficient to conduct regular trade using massive fleets of large prestige-built ships.

Well those voyages were not one off things.  There were multiple voyages made.  From the European perspective, if the treasure ships had made it to European ports, it would not matter if the system of transmission was inefficient for the Chinese.  The only thing that would matter to whether the Euros would themselves devote resources to making their own voyages but why would they do that if the goods are coming to them?

They only way that would make sense is if the Chinese could not adequately supply the market - but that is the nature of a turning point isnt it?  That the Chinese would make such a realization and not lose the chance to dominate world trade.

[Malthus]

It's not very different from early Spanish trade with China however - once a year Spanish galleons would travel to Manilla where they would trade with Chinese traders.  I think they even couched it in terms of "tribute" and "gifts" as well.

Once a year is a much greater a frequency than what we are talking about.

The Zheng voyages averaged about once every 4 years, and even that required a massive expenditure of resources well beyond any commercial value.   Zheng's expeditions traversed already established routes where ethnic Chiense traders were already operational - they were basically imperial "show the flag" operations.

Well yeah, but they were tribute bearers and navy all in one. You would not need to use the navy aspect all the time - it is enough to know that you could.

[Faeelin]

I keep hearing this trotted out as a fact. Every time I do, I wonder - do the people making this argument simply forget that the Mongols managed to take Sung China? Or are they under the impression that southern China is open steppeland? 

Didn't this take them decades?

[Valmy]

Sure, but the European ability to use light-horse techniques was minimal. Unlike the Mamluks, they did not import young central asian lads as soldiers, and culturally light horse was not how they fought. 

Yeah Western Armies have always been bruisers, favoring hand to hand fighting and shock tactics.  I have no idea if that is some sort of cultural thing or just about geography. 

[Valmy]

Didn't this take them decades?

Yeah I thought it was a multi-generational affair and involved the Mongols using masses of Chinese infantry.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, but the European ability to use light-horse techniques was minimal. Unlike the Mamluks, they did not import young central asian lads as soldiers, and culturally light horse was not how they fought. 

Yeah Western Armies have always been bruisers, favoring hand to hand fighting and shock tactics.  I have no idea if that is some sort of cultural thing or just about geography.

Culture had a great deal to do with it.  The Feudal system required heavily armed men to control the local area who in turn required heavy horses that could support them.

Nomadic tribesmen required light horses in their day to day lives (not to mention raiding other nomads or defending against such raids) which converted nicely into lightening fast warefare.

[Malthus]

I keep hearing this trotted out as a fact. Every time I do, I wonder - do the people making this argument simply forget that the Mongols managed to take Sung China? Or are they under the impression that southern China is open steppeland? 

Didn't this take them decades?

Sure - but also, Sung China was a far more formidable power than any that existed in Europe at the time. If there was a centre of advanced world culture and military technology, it was Sung China, or perhaps the Islamic World - not Europe.

Europe was in every way a softer target - more divided and leaderless, more clueless about the Mongols, more riddled with actual and potential quislings, less professional soldiers. The notion that the Mongols could never leave the steppe for more than 2 weeks, and so Europe was safe, is simply incorrect. 

More significant is the fact that Mongols were vulnerable to leadership chrises.

[Valmy]

Culture had a great deal to do with it.  The Feudal system required heavily armed men to control the local area who in turn required heavy horses that could support them.

Well feudal-esque systems were not exactly uncommon in the East either.  Besides this was a quality that goes right back to the Ancient Greeks.

[DGuller]

Weren't Iberians pretty handy with light cavalry?  Though I imagine that the damage would be already done if it would be left to Iberians to fight the Mongols.

[Malthus]

Didn't this take them decades?

Yeah I thought it was a multi-generational affair and involved the Mongols using masses of Chinese infantry.

The rate-limiting step was not the necessity of infantry, but of siege engineers. The Mongols required Chinese experts to smash down the walls (freaking huge walls - I've walked on the restored walls of Xi'an, and although these were Ming they show what the Mongols were up against!)

Now, when the Mongols invaded Europe, they had already access to Chinese siege engineers - in point of fact, Hungary was first mapped by - the Chinese. In the employ of the Mongols.

[crazy canuck]

Culture had a great deal to do with it.  The Feudal system required heavily armed men to control the local area who in turn required heavy horses that could support them.

Well feudal-esque systems were not exactly uncommon in the East either.  Besides this was a quality that goes right back to the Ancient Greeks.

Different types of systems.  In Western Europe the castle was built by local warlords to control the local population.  That control was maintained by a small group of heavily armed men - not enough food to have large forces.

In the East the system was different.  Castles were generally built to guard against the Northern barbarians and they were garrisoned by large armies of foot soldiers who were supported by an even larger army of peasants who could supply food.

I am not sure what your reference to Ancient times means.