I've been reading about the dark ages lately, and in particular the Norse. I've always been a bit fascinated by the tale of Vinland; some Vikings reach the Americas, trade with natives, build a small settlement (hell, a child is born), and... They pack up, and no Europeans reach the Americas for centuries.
It's obious in hindsight why this was preordained; Vinland was too far from Norse society, and even Greenland was cut off from Iceland for months at a time. Europe wasn't short of furs or lumber, so there were no obvious goods. And yet it's still sort of amazing.
What are other moments in history that seem like they should have had momentous, long-range consequences, but didn't?
I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this. The Americas could have been wiped out and recovered before the Europeans were in a position to colonize. It is one of those possibilities that makes me doubt the Jared Diamond school of thinking that tends toward a certain amount of predestination.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 02, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
I've been reading about the dark ages lately, and in particular the Norse. I've always been a bit fascinated by the tale of Vinland; some Vikings reach the Americas, trade with natives, build a small settlement (hell, a child is born), and... They pack up, and no Europeans reach the Americas for centuries.
It's obious in hindsight why this was preordained; Vinland was too far from Norse society, and even Greenland was cut off from Iceland for months at a time. Europe wasn't short of furs or lumber, so there were no obvious goods. And yet it's still sort of amazing.
What are other moments in history that seem like they should have had momentous, long-range consequences, but didn't?
Mongol invasion of Europe seems like one.
Unstoppable Mongol armies massacre in turn each European army sent against them and occupy Hungary; nothing stands in their way - Europeans are hopelessly divided against each other and clueless as to how to oppose the Mongol threat (and full of people, like the Venetians, happily selling the Mongols accurate information). All Europe is about to join the middle east and China in being plundered and occupied - meaning likely no Renaissance and no European domination of the world in the future.
Then the Mongol leader drinks himself to an early grave and they go home for his funeral. They never come back.
A commonly mentioned one would be the closing of China to outside exploration after Zeng He. Much like Vinland there are also explanations for just why this happened (increasing pressures from Mongol tribes led to greater need to focus on land defence, not naval exploration), but a wonderful sense of "what if" nonetheless.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 10:09:39 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 02, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
I've been reading about the dark ages lately, and in particular the Norse. I've always been a bit fascinated by the tale of Vinland; some Vikings reach the Americas, trade with natives, build a small settlement (hell, a child is born), and... They pack up, and no Europeans reach the Americas for centuries.
It's obious in hindsight why this was preordained; Vinland was too far from Norse society, and even Greenland was cut off from Iceland for months at a time. Europe wasn't short of furs or lumber, so there were no obvious goods. And yet it's still sort of amazing.
What are other moments in history that seem like they should have had momentous, long-range consequences, but didn't?
Mongol invasion of Europe seems like one.
Unstoppable Mongol armies massacre in turn each European army sent against them and occupy Hungary; nothing stands in their way - Europeans are hopelessly divided against each other and clueless as to how to oppose the Mongol threat (and full of people, like the Venetians, happily selling the Mongols accurate information). All Europe is about to join the middle east and China in being plundered and occupied - meaning likely no Renaissance and no European domination of the world in the future.
Then the Mongol leader drinks himself to an early grave and they go home for his funeral. They never come back.
Well, I think it is not THAT big of a turning point. I think Hungary gave an indication to the Mongols that Europe was not such an easy picking.
First of all, while they did destroy the Hungarian army, it was because the Hungarians had themselves hopelessy trapped in their own encampment, and yet, the battle was in question for a while, according to Chinese (IIRC) records.
More importantly, the feudal forces which did not reach the battle continued to harass the occupying force, and several fortified cities managed to keep out the Mongols.
They left completely because they couldn't count on moving enough force back to "vote" and keep the country pacified, since they couldn't achieve that with their main force, either.
Again, I don't think it was a special Magyar thing (altough I do think it was badass to wage quasi guerilla war against evil mofos like the Mongols), but rather a condition of the Mongols encountering a more developed and stable European country, and not managing to replace it's institutions and break it's neck.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 02, 2012, 10:07:57 AM
I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this. The Americas could have been wiped out and recovered before the Europeans were in a position to colonize.
That seems... unlikely to me. It wasn't one single disease that caused the general indigenous american collapse - but the wave after wave of differing strains and different viruses that did it.
Quote from: Tamas on October 02, 2012, 10:33:45 AM
Well, I think it is not THAT big of a turning point. I think Hungary gave an indication to the Mongols that Europe was not such an easy picking.
First of all, while they did destroy the Hungarian army, it was because the Hungarians had themselves hopelessy trapped in their own encampment, and yet, the battle was in question for a while, according to Chinese (IIRC) records.
More importantly, the feudal forces which did not reach the battle continued to harass the occupying force, and several fortified cities managed to keep out the Mongols.
They left completely because they couldn't count on moving enough force back to "vote" and keep the country pacified, since they couldn't achieve that with their main force, either.
Again, I don't think it was a special Magyar thing (altough I do think it was badass to wage quasi guerilla war against evil mofos like the Mongols), but rather a condition of the Mongols encountering a more developed and stable European country, and not managing to replace it's institutions and break it's neck.
I rather suspect that Hungarians somewhat over-estimate the amount of resistance they put up and its significance to the Mongols - naturally enough, as the Mongols left their lands and aside from the occasional raid did not come back, so the tendancy is to think 'well, they may have destroyed our main army, but we hurt 'em so much they ran off with tails between legs'.
In reality, the Mongol reaction had nothing whatsoever to do with Hungarian resistance, which was nothing compared with the fight put up by (say) the Chinese, and not even on the order of the fight put up by the Khwarzerim Empire. Hungary (and Europe) was the beneficiary of internal Mongol politics having nothing to do with them (but of course quite invisible to them.
The Mongol solution to "pacify" a country that resisted by guerilla style resistance was pretty effective - kill everyone. They did it before, and it tended to work.
wikipedia says otherwise :P
Quote from: Tamas on October 02, 2012, 10:54:24 AM
wikipedia says otherwise :P
With 700 edits by Fidezsians :p
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 10:34:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 02, 2012, 10:07:57 AM
I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this. The Americas could have been wiped out and recovered before the Europeans were in a position to colonize.
That seems... unlikely to me. It wasn't one single disease that caused the general indigenous american collapse - but the wave after wave of differing strains and different viruses that did it.
The native american population collapse began almost immediately after contact was made and before many europeans arrived. I don't think that any secondary wave was nearly as devestating as the first.
It isn't hard to think of scenarios where contact could have been accelerated. Had the Greeks or Romans recorded contact, or the Vikings, then there probably would have been lower level contact long before Columbus.
From German history: the liberal revolution of 1848 fizzled out after Prussia's king rejected the German crown.
Anglo-French History:
Henry V's diarrhea :contract:
Icelandic History:
Thorgeir Ljosvetningagodi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Eorgeir_Lj%C3%B3svetningago%C3%B0i) has a different dream. :pope: :worthy:
Quote from: alfred russel on October 02, 2012, 11:08:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 10:34:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 02, 2012, 10:07:57 AM
I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this. The Americas could have been wiped out and recovered before the Europeans were in a position to colonize.
That seems... unlikely to me. It wasn't one single disease that caused the general indigenous american collapse - but the wave after wave of differing strains and different viruses that did it.
The native american population collapse began almost immediately after contact was made and before many europeans arrived. I don't think that any secondary wave was nearly as devestating as the first.
It isn't hard to think of scenarios where contact could have been accelerated. Had the Greeks or Romans recorded contact, or the Vikings, then there probably would have been lower level contact long before Columbus.
The collapse began in fairly densely populated areas though. The big empires in South and Central America, for one. The relatively sparesley populated North East might not have been as condusive to spreading the plague as to the regions that had more communication with the urban areas.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 02, 2012, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 02, 2012, 11:08:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 10:34:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 02, 2012, 10:07:57 AM
I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this. The Americas could have been wiped out and recovered before the Europeans were in a position to colonize.
That seems... unlikely to me. It wasn't one single disease that caused the general indigenous american collapse - but the wave after wave of differing strains and different viruses that did it.
The native american population collapse began almost immediately after contact was made and before many europeans arrived. I don't think that any secondary wave was nearly as devestating as the first.
It isn't hard to think of scenarios where contact could have been accelerated. Had the Greeks or Romans recorded contact, or the Vikings, then there probably would have been lower level contact long before Columbus.
The collapse began in fairly densely populated areas though. The big empires in South and Central America, for one. The relatively sparesley populated North East might not have been as condusive to spreading the plague as to the regions that had more communication with the urban areas.
Mind you our concept of a "sparsely populated north east" comes from contact with the area that was significantly post-1492...
I think the Mongols could have wreacked a great deal of havoc all over the North German Plain but subjugating Italy, France, Spain, the Swiss (much less Scandinavia or the British Isles) would have been a different story. Looking farther south, the Mongols not that long afterwards were stymied in their drive to Egypt and their high water mark receded.
Also it's not like Ogodai died in the flower of his youth; by medieval standards he has already pretty advanced in age and it was inevitable that at some point he would die and trigger succession struggles.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 10:33:33 AM
A commonly mentioned one would be the closing of China to outside exploration after Zeng He.
That wasn't really a classic exploration effort in the Colombian sense.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 10:33:33 AM
A commonly mentioned one would be the closing of China to outside exploration after Zeng He.
That wasn't really a classic exploration effort in the Colombian sense.
Minsky - it's one sentence, 92 characters. I wasn't writing a whole treatise on Zeng He. I am aware of that.
Quote from: Tamas on October 02, 2012, 10:54:24 AM
wikipedia says otherwise :P
The Mongols would have hunted those editors down and killed them, too. :P
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 12:11:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2012, 10:33:33 AM
A commonly mentioned one would be the closing of China to outside exploration after Zeng He.
That wasn't really a classic exploration effort in the Colombian sense.
Minsky - it's one sentence, 92 characters. I wasn't writing a whole treatise on Zeng He. I am aware of that.
With so much misinformation about Zeng He going around one cannot be too careful. I blame Gavin Menzies.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 12:05:12 PM
I think the Mongols could have wreacked a great deal of havoc all over the North German Plain but subjugating Italy, France, Spain, the Swiss (much less Scandinavia or the British Isles) would have been a different story. Looking farther south, the Mongols not that long afterwards were stymied in their drive to Egypt and their high water mark receded.
Also it's not like Ogodai died in the flower of his youth; by medieval standards he has already pretty advanced in age and it was inevitable that at some point he would die and trigger succession struggles.
I don't see how the French or the Italians would have resisted. Hell, even with the Mongols at the very gates, the Pope and Emperor couldn't resolve their petty differences! I don't see the Swiss as fairing any better in their mountains than (say) the Ismailis. Scandinavia was probably too remote and unattractive in terms of plunder.
Sure, Odegai was in his 50s, but he could easily have lasted another decade without a miracle. That would have been enough.
As for Ain Jalut, that was just another casualty caused by Mongol disunity - the death of Mongke saved the Egyptians exactly as the death of Odegai saved the Europeans. The main mongol army had to withdraw for an election, leaving only a subsidiary army behind to face the Mamluks - which failed.
I think what BB was getting at was the turning away from such ventures rather than expanding on them. That was one of those pivotal historical decisions. Imagine the impact on the trading States of Europe and the Muslims if the Chinese became long distance traders who traded directly with the markets seeking their goods rather than using Muslim and European middlemen.
Take one example - without the profit motive of seeking out routes to cut out the Venetians and their Muslim trading partners would the other nations have spent the resources on voyages of exploration to find a better route to Asia?
To put it another way - could the Portuguese and later European colonialists have been able to dominate the trade throughout SE Asia for centuries if the Chinese were actively and officially involved?
The Chung Ho thing was really just a symptom of the Chinese more or less abandoning naval affairs.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 12:42:05 PM
To put it another way - could the Portuguese and later European colonialists have been able to dominate the trade throughout SE Asia for centuries if the Chinese were actively and officially involved?
The Chung Ho thing was really just a symptom of the Chinese more or less abandoning naval affairs.
Would there have been such a thing as European colonists at all? If the goods are coming direct to European ports via Chinese fleets what happens to the development of European naval power, naval exploration and subsequent colonization of lands discovered as a result of that exploration?
Sure someone might have had the bright idea of trying to cut into the Chinese trade but they would first have to undercut the Chinese somehow.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 12:35:57 PM
I think what BB was getting at was the turning away from such ventures rather than expanding on them. That was one of those pivotal historical decisions. Imagine the impact on the trading States of Europe and the Muslims if the Chinese became long distance traders who traded directly with the markets seeking their goods rather than using Muslim and European middlemen.
Take one example - without the profit motive of seeking out routes to cut out the Venetians and their Muslim trading partners would the other nations have spent the resources on voyages of exploration to find a better route to Asia?
Yes. I didn't mean to imply Chinese colonies in Peru were very likely (though if you follow through on Chinese expansion, who knows long-term). But what if China, instead of trying to close its borders, and let foreigners come to them, instead sent its traders out, established Chinese trading colonies much like the Portuguese and Spanish subsequently did...
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 12:42:05 PM
To put it another way - could the Portuguese and later European colonialists have been able to dominate the trade throughout SE Asia for centuries if the Chinese were actively and officially involved?
The Chung Ho thing was really just a symptom of the Chinese more or less abandoning naval affairs.
Would there have been such a thing as European colonists at all? If the goods are coming direct to European ports via Chinese fleets what happens to the development of European naval power, naval exploration and subsequent colonization of lands discovered as a result of that exploration?
Sure someone might have had the bright idea of trying to cut into the Chinese trade but they would first have to undercut the Chinese somehow.
It may be a stretch to say that Chinese ships would have rounded the horn - but they certainly could have dominated the SE Asia trade.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 12:52:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 12:42:05 PM
To put it another way - could the Portuguese and later European colonialists have been able to dominate the trade throughout SE Asia for centuries if the Chinese were actively and officially involved?
The Chung Ho thing was really just a symptom of the Chinese more or less abandoning naval affairs.
Would there have been such a thing as European colonists at all? If the goods are coming direct to European ports via Chinese fleets what happens to the development of European naval power, naval exploration and subsequent colonization of lands discovered as a result of that exploration?
Sure someone might have had the bright idea of trying to cut into the Chinese trade but they would first have to undercut the Chinese somehow.
It may be a stretch to say that Chinese ships would have rounded the horn - but they certainly could have dominated the SE Asia trade.
They could have dominated trade no only in SE asia, but through India and Persia and Arabia.
IIRC his voyage stopped in at East African ports. Not much of a stretch to think about future ventures making it around the horn, expecially since they would know what they were aiming at once they realized how lucrative trading with the backward Euros could be.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2012, 12:32:47 PM
I don't see how the French or the Italians would have resisted.
St. Louis would have made a more determined and resourceful foe than the fractious Magyars and the feudal and physical geographies of France would have posed challenges (as they did to the French kings themselves at various times in the period). In Italy, if the Mongol cavalry managed to penetrate the Alps in sufficient number, they could have conducted devastating raids, but the Venetians would have just retreated to their lagoons, and it is difficult to imagine setting themselves up long term as podestas in urban medieval Italy. the history of medieval Italy is in part of the history of ability of the city-states to maintain independence despite repeated exertions of superior military force.
QuoteI don't see the Swiss as fairing any better in their mountains than (say) the Ismailis. Scandinavia was probably too remote and unattractive in terms of plunder.
The khans initially left the Nizaris alone, and only later went after them specifically to make an example of them. Unlikely that they would seek to tackle the Swiss at the very extremes of their logistical reach, given the low value of the potential gain.
Quotehe could easily have lasted another decade without a miracle. That would have been enough.
As for Ain Jalut, that was just another casualty caused by Mongol disunity - the death of Mongke saved the Egyptians exactly as the death of Odegai saved the Europeans. The main mongol army had to withdraw for an election, leaving only a subsidiary army behind to face the Mamluks - which failed.
"Disunity" was an inherent problem in the Mongol organization structure - assuming a few individuals lived longer doesn't solve that problem. A few extra years would be time enough to launch raids and large scale plundering expenditions; not sufficient to establish long-term permanent rule over areas at the far extremes of the Mongol reach.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 12:35:57 PM
I think what BB was getting at was the turning away from such ventures rather than expanding on them. That was one of those pivotal historical decisions. Imagine the impact on the trading States of Europe and the Muslims if the Chinese became long distance traders who traded directly with the markets seeking their goods rather than using Muslim and European middlemen.
But the Chinese Empire being involved in sustained long distance trade was never in the cards. That wasn't the purpose or concept behind Zheng's expeditions and it would have required a radical ideological shift.
My birth. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 01:00:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 12:35:57 PM
I think what BB was getting at was the turning away from such ventures rather than expanding on them. That was one of those pivotal historical decisions. Imagine the impact on the trading States of Europe and the Muslims if the Chinese became long distance traders who traded directly with the markets seeking their goods rather than using Muslim and European middlemen.
But the Chinese Empire being involved in sustained long distance trade was never in the cards. That wasn't the purpose or concept behind Zheng's expeditions and it would have required a radical ideological shift.
You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage. But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift - the turning point. You know, the thing this thread is about. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 01:45:45 PM
You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage. But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift - the turning point. You know, the thing this thread is about. :P
OK but there are a couple problems. First, in order to be interesting the turning points have to have a minimum level of plausibility to prevent Timmy Tipover. Second, if the relevant turning point is long-term engagement of China in long-distance trade with Europe and the Middle East, then the Zheng He voyages are at best orthogonal to that and arguably running counter to such a development; so the "turning point" would be not be expanding on those voyages but rather a hypothetical ideological and cultural shift that would have bypassed them altogether.
The failure to follow through on the scientific and empirical investigations of classical Greek culture would be a good example of what the OP seeks. Except like all these other examples, there are good reasons it didn't happen and it is hard to imagine things coming out very differently.
Italians and French not resisting the Mongols? Why not?
About half of Hungary's population was wiped out, yet the real strongholds held out. And I am quite convinced Western Europe was ahead in fortification efforts.
Our king drew the conclusions himself, and his massive fortification program played a big part in making future mongol raids insignificant.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 02, 2012, 10:07:57 AM
I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this. The Americas could have been wiped out and recovered before the Europeans were in a position to colonize. It is one of those possibilities that makes me doubt the Jared Diamond school of thinking that tends toward a certain amount of predestination.
I was talking about this the other day. Once Euros arrive in the New World, millions are going to be wiped out by smallpox. This is basically unavoidable, prior to the advent of the smallpox vaccine. I tried to imagine any alternative to this--if there is a plausible or moral way to deal with the problem, i.e. how would a modern, less ignorant and more compassionate society would handle encountering a completely isolated human grounp for the first time. A continental quarantine?
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2012, 11:50:39 AM
From German history: the liberal revolution of 1848 fizzled out after Prussia's king rejected the German crown.
That's a very interesting one. There's a few in 1848.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 01:53:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 01:45:45 PM
You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage. But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift - the turning point. You know, the thing this thread is about. :P
OK but there are a couple problems. First, in order to be interesting the turning points have to have a minimum level of plausibility to prevent Timmy Tipover. Second, if the relevant turning point is long-term engagement of China in long-distance trade with Europe and the Middle East, then the Zheng He voyages are at best orthogonal to that and arguably running counter to such a development; so the "turning point" would be not be expanding on those voyages but rather a hypothetical ideological and cultural shift that would have bypassed them altogether.
Why do you say Zheng He was sent out?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 04:31:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 01:53:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 01:45:45 PM
You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage. But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift - the turning point. You know, the thing this thread is about. :P
OK but there are a couple problems. First, in order to be interesting the turning points have to have a minimum level of plausibility to prevent Timmy Tipover. Second, if the relevant turning point is long-term engagement of China in long-distance trade with Europe and the Middle East, then the Zheng He voyages are at best orthogonal to that and arguably running counter to such a development; so the "turning point" would be not be expanding on those voyages but rather a hypothetical ideological and cultural shift that would have bypassed them altogether.
Why do you say Zheng He was sent out?
Theory I heard - ostensibly to look for an absconding "pretender" to the throne (the former emperor); really, to bring back ambassadors from foreign parts to kowtow to the (usurping) emperor, to boost his legitimacy and to extend China's "tributary system".
Chinese foreign trade was always at this time couched within the terminology of "tribute". Foreigners brought ambassadors, acknowledged the Chinese emperor as the lord of all humanity, and brought rich goods as "tribute". In return, the emperor, out of the goodness of his heart, gave "gifts" (which somehow miraculously were of equal value as the "tribute").
It was (much later) European unwillingness to go along with this system that originally caused much trouble, under the later Ch'ing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 02, 2012, 04:31:01 PM
That's a very interesting one. There's a few in 1848.
Yeah like an Austrian led Western Slavic Confederation.
@ Malthus,
That is my understanding as well, which is why I am a bit curious as to why JR thinks that it would be impossible for the Chinese to have expanded such a notion to trading with Europe, in the sense that the Chinese understood the concept.
Huh, this is interesting. Apparently there is at least some evidence that a Chinese Junk did indeed attempt to round Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Mauro_map
QuoteThe description of Africa is reasonably accurate.[5] Fra Mauro puts the following inscription by the southern tip of Africa, which he names the "Cape of Diab", describing the exploration by a ship from the East around 1420:[3][4]
"Around 1420 a ship, or junk, from India crossed the Sea of India towards the Island of Men and the Island of Women, off Cape Diab, between the Green Islands and the shadows. It sailed for 40 days in a south-westerly direction without ever finding anything other than wind and water. According to these people themselves, the ship went some 2,000 miles ahead until - once favourable conditions came to an end - it turned round and sailed back to Cape Diab in 70 days".
"The ships called junks (lit. "Zonchi") that navigate these seas carry four masts or more, some of which can be raised or lowered, and have 40 to 60 cabins for the merchants and only one tiller. They can navigate without a compass, because they have an astrologer, who stands on the side and, with an astrolabe in hand, gives orders to the navigator". (Text from the Fra Mauro map, 09-P25.)
Fra Mauro explained that he obtained the information from "a trustworthy source", who traveled with the expedition, possibly the Venetian explorer Niccolò da Conti who happened to be in Calicut, India at the time the expedition left:
"What is more, I have spoken with a person worthy of trust, who says that he sailed in an Indian ship caught in the fury of a tempest for 40 days out in the Sea of India, beyond the Cape of Soffala and the Green Islands towards west-southwest; and according to the astrologers who act as their guides, they had advanced almost 2,000 miles. Thus one can believe and confirm what is said by both these and those, and that they had therefore sailed 4,000 miles".
Some of the islands named in the area of the southern tip of Africa bear Arabian and Indian names: Nebila ("celebration" or "beautiful" in Arabic), and Mangla ("fortunate" in Sanskrit.) These are normally identified as aforementioned "Islands of Men and Women". According to an old Arabian legend as retold by Marco Polo, one of these islands was populated exclusively by men and the other was populated exclusively by women, and the two would only meet for conjugal relations once a year. Their location was not certain and the location proposed by Fra Mauro is but one of multiple possibilities: Marco Polo himself located them in the neighborhood of Socotra, and other medieval cartographers offered locations in Southeast Asia, near Singapore or in the Philippines. It is generally thought that the islands are mythical.[6]
Fra Mauro also comments that the account of this expedition, together with the relation by Strabo of the travels of Eudoxus of Cyzicus from Arabia to Gibraltar through the southern Ocean in Antiquity, led him to believe that the Indian Ocean was not a closed sea and that Africa could be circumnavigated by her southern end (Text from Fra Mauro map, 11,G2). This knowledge, together with the map depiction of the African continent, probably encouraged the Portuguese to intensify their effort to round the tip of Africa.
Quote from: mongers on October 02, 2012, 01:00:37 PM
My birth. :hmm:
Think of it this way: you don't yet know what "momentous, long-range consequences" your death will have. :ph34r:
Quote from: Faeelin on October 02, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
I've been reading about the dark ages lately, and in particular the Norse. I've always been a bit fascinated by the tale of Vinland; some Vikings reach the Americas, trade with natives, build a small settlement (hell, a child is born), and...
... they get repeatedly attacked by the locals, who heavily outnumber them and make life impossible. And there isn't an obvious source of gold there to attract tons of scandinavians/royal interest to the area.
Quote from: alfred russell
I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this.
The diseases that decimated the Americas in the XVIth century came from Iberians of the period, who had been exposed to the severe disease period that started in the XIVth century (especially with the black plague).
Inhabitants of early XIth century Scandinavia not only had not experienced any of those diseases (which were centuries into the future), had lived past the epidemics that that ravaged Europe into the VIIIth century and also came from an area that was exceptionally healthy for the time [there is a reason why Scandinavia experienced a population boom in this period].
So no, there is no chance of diseases ravaging the Americas at the time - Viking settlement of Vinland took plane on a healthy period and geographical area of European history.
Quote from: Malthus
Unstoppable Mongol armies massacre in turn each European army sent against them and occupy Hungary; nothing stands in their way...
...except for the fact that, in order to operate effectively, Mongol armies need vast spaces to feed their hordes of ponies (a Mongol horsemen used up to six ponies during a campaign), and those ended at the Hungarian Alfold.
That means the Mongol army range is restricted to about 1-2 weeks march from Hungary. More than that, their mounts start to starve and they risk becoming dismounted after a battle or two - a death sentence to them.
The chances of a Mongol conquest of Europe were precisely 0%, due to logistical constraints.
(this is also why they couldn't get Egypt - their pasture grounds stopped at the Mesopotamian plains. Holding Palestine was already a serious problem).
Quote from: Barrister
A commonly mentioned one would be the closing of China to outside exploration after Zeng He.
The Chinese explorations were detailed - the Imperial Court simply decided Africa wasn't worth it; remember, Europeans wanted to get to Asia to get access to Indian spices; China already had access to those. Europe created holdings in Africa [which were only truly developed in the XIXth century] simply because it was in the way.
By itself, Africa was not economically a good idea to get in the XVth century. Hence the Chinese decision not to waste resources with it. New resources would change that by the early XXIst century.
Quote from: Syt
From German history: the liberal revolution of 1848 fizzled out after Prussia's king rejected the German crown.
An aristocrat could never accept; if he had, Germany would have been attacked by everyone in Europe (which went against everything Bismarck believed in. He knew how to bring Germany about, and so he did).
Also, France had previously shown what happens with those revolutions - they cannot hold on their own and need a strong ruler. Napoleon ultimately failed because he had no legitimacy (he tried it by marrying into the Habsburgs). To succeed, one needed royal legitimacy, which was not attained through the People at the time - even the USA, fighting only against Britain, needed help from France on the ground, and of France, Spain and the Netherlands on the seas.
Bottom line, things happen for a reason.
Now, that's not to say small changes haven't happened for odd reasons:
One story tells that the Count of Soissons, leading a rebellion against Richelieu in 1641, severly defeated the royal army, taking minimal losses. Paris was open to him and the Cardinal was already packing up to flee. The strongest Kingdom of Europe was his for the taking.
But the count decided to survey the field of his brilliant victory. And to do that, he wanted to rise the visor of his helm. Which he did - with the barrel of the pistol he had in his hand... and which fired accidentaly.
He died on the spot, ending the rebellion. Richelieu couldn't even believe that he won.
Epic fail.
Later stories try to put the count murdered at the last hour by some unknown assassin, but that does not seem to have been the case.
Some people have no luck.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
@ Malthus,
That is my understanding as well, which is why I am a bit curious as to why JR thinks that it would be impossible for the Chinese to have expanded such a notion to trading with Europe, in the sense that the Chinese understood the concept.
Because the sense the Chinese understood the concept was categorically different from the way that Europeans (or indeed Arab traders) understood it. The concept of "tribute" was not just some linguistic cover for face; it was an accurate description of what the Chinese understood themselves as doing.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
Also, France had previously shown what happens with those revolutions - they cannot hold on their own and need a strong ruler. Napoleon ultimately failed because he had no legitimacy (he tried it by marrying into the Habsburgs). To succeed, one needed royal legitimacy, which was not attained through the People at the time - even the USA, fighting only against Britain, needed help from France on the ground, and of France, Spain and the Netherlands on the seas.
The US needed help from other European countries because they lacked royal legitimacy? Am I reading this right? :huh:
Mongols in Europe: They would have failed. Europe didn't have the neat and tidy unified system of knock off the emperor in his very northerly capital and you become the rightful ruler.
Europe was densely forested and full of castles and independent rulers. Terrain which is completely unfavourable to the Mongols.
Vikings in North America: It could certainly have been interesting if more had decided to head over to carve out little kingdoms for themselves. Would give European colonisation a totally different set up to 500 years later.
Diseases though wouldn't have mattered. You have to keep the diseases alive in order for the population to keep immunity for them, the population density of the US/Canadian natives just wasn't high enough to do this. There were a lot of diseases too....
Quote
Because the sense the Chinese understood the concept was categorically different from the way that Europeans (or indeed Arab traders) understood it. The concept of "tribute" was not just some linguistic cover for face; it was an accurate description of what the Chinese understood themselves as doing.
The Chinese government yeah, it had a crazy world view.
Chinese people though? Chinese merchants wouldn't see much issue with trade as we know it.
Could be rather interesting to have Chinese communities as you find in Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.... popping up in other places too.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2012, 04:55:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 02, 2012, 04:31:01 PM
That's a very interesting one. There's a few in 1848.
Yeah like an Austrian led Western Slavic Confederation.
But that was never really going to happen. The Croats weren't working out of nationalism when they helped the Austrians crush the Hungarian rebellion, but out of hatred for foreign tyrants who were planning to mistreat them, and out of loyalty to a hero.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2012, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
Also, France had previously shown what happens with those revolutions - they cannot hold on their own and need a strong ruler. Napoleon ultimately failed because he had no legitimacy (he tried it by marrying into the Habsburgs). To succeed, one needed royal legitimacy, which was not attained through the People at the time - even the USA, fighting only against Britain, needed help from France on the ground, and of France, Spain and the Netherlands on the seas.
The US needed help from other European countries because they lacked royal legitimacy? Am I reading this right? :huh:
You are reading this at all, so you're already not doing something right.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 06:26:41 PM
Because the sense the Chinese understood the concept was categorically different from the way that Europeans (or indeed Arab traders) understood it. The concept of "tribute" was not just some linguistic cover for face; it was an accurate description of what the Chinese understood themselves as doing.
Chinese colonization of Xinjiang, the expansion of the Han ethnicity south throughout a thousand year period?
I don't think it is totally impossible that a few Chinese dynasties would have tried to relieve population growth with something vaguely akin to the Greek emporiai.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2012, 06:50:17 PM
The US needed help from other European countries because they lacked royal legitimacy? Am I reading this right? :huh:
Like it or not, the AWI was a revolt by commoners against their King, nothing else.
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil. Victory was only made possible by foreign intervention, and that because other powers wanted to reduce British power (France in particular was still smarting from the Seven Years' War, and with her Bourbon Spain).
The Americans did win their greatest victory before European intervention.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 08:07:00 PM
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil.
:lol: The British certainly didn't think this.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 08:07:00 PM
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil.
:lol: The British certainly didn't think this.
John Burgoyne and Johann Rall may have.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 08:07:00 PM
Like it or not, the AWI was a revolt by commoners against their King, nothing else.
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil. Victory was only made possible by foreign intervention, and that because other powers wanted to reduce British power (France in particular was still smarting from the Seven Years' War, and with her Bourbon Spain).
You didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not claim that the US needed help from European allies *because* they lacked royal legitimacy?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 08:07:00 PM
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil.
:lol: The British certainly didn't think this.
must have been an ambassadorial thing...
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2012, 11:57:50 AM
Anglo-French History:
This is a good example. Henry V lives, and then... he does what? Spends his years begging England for money, besieging castles along the Loire?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 06:26:10 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 08:07:00 PM
Like it or not, the AWI was a revolt by commoners against their King, nothing else.
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil. Victory was only made possible by foreign intervention, and that because other powers wanted to reduce British power (France in particular was still smarting from the Seven Years' War, and with her Bourbon Spain).
You didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not claim that the US needed help from European allies *because* they lacked royal legitimacy?
You're asking a screwball Euro with a screwball worldview of history to explain his screwball logic?
Gets recognised as King of France heralding a new age of French oppression of England.
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2012, 08:52:27 AM
Gets recognised as King of France heralding a new age of French oppression of England.
Leaving aside the myth of poor little England (as its basically rampaging around France at will), who would recognize him that didn't?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 02, 2012, 12:00:34 PM
The collapse began in fairly densely populated areas though. The big empires in South and Central America, for one. The relatively sparesley populated North East might not have been as condusive to spreading the plague as to the regions that had more communication with the urban areas.
They were populated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture
they were decimated after first contact with the Spanish.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 08:07:00 PM
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil.
:lol: The British certainly didn't think this.
Yeah the British generals and soldiers actually arriving over here were pretty sobered by what they found. I think in Britain they thought the Patriots were some sort of radical minority and the majority of the population would support the King if they could somehow isolate the cancer. In reality even the people who were personally loyal to the King were not all that useful to the British or all that enthusiastic about supporting the British cause (unless, like the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia or the African-American slaves, they had some sort of reason to hate the Patriots).
As a result it became quickly evident that the British Army simply did not have the resources or the will to finsh the job. But without the French the Patriots had no ability to defeat the British either unless the Brits badly blundered like at Saratoga. So who knows how long the thing might have dragged on or what sort of compromise peace the Americans would have had to live with once our economy collapsed under the constant strain without the French?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 03, 2012, 09:06:52 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2012, 08:52:27 AM
Gets recognised as King of France heralding a new age of French oppression of England.
Leaving aside the myth of poor little England (as its basically rampaging around France at will), who would recognize him that didn't?
:huh:
What myth of poor little England?
The myth is of big bad England and poor little France despite England just being dragged along for the ride in a French civil war. If the English side won the HYW though then France would be the dominant kingdom and the English more likely to be unhappy with the state of affairs.
Been ages since I read on the area so can't think of any actual names or deep details of French politics (not that I was ever an expert). Things were really going heavily in his favour when he died, it was really bad timing, if he'd hung on just a few more years then he could have secured things so his son could inherit safely.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2012, 09:25:35 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 02, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 08:07:00 PM
Regardless of how right they may have been in our eyes, the chance of success of the American patriots by themselves was nil.
:lol: The British certainly didn't think this.
John Burgoyne and Johann Rall may have.
They were operating on the entirely false assumption once the British Army arrived the oppressed loyalists would join them. When nobody came Burgoyne got frustrated and stupidly said if they did not join he would sic his Native American allies on the people which naturally was the best recruiting tool the local militia could possibly have. The problem was Burgoyne, and the British government in general, were just out of touch with what the circumstances were on the ground and bad assumptions and information leads to bad plans with disastrous results. Even if that British Army had successfully made it to Albany they would have been surrounded in hostile country and pretty much useless at anything except controlling the territory within reach of their bayonets. Just like all the other British Armies.
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2012, 09:21:42 AM
Things were really going heavily in his favour when he died, it was really bad timing, if he'd hung on just a few more years then he could have secured things so his son could inherit safely.
But we are talking about the Lancastrians here not Edward III. They were pretty English in culture would they have gone native so readily?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2012, 08:09:58 PM
The Americans did win their greatest victory before European intervention.
True. But without a war with Spain and France, all England had to do was send more troops. They controlled the South, they controlled Canada, and there were indians to the west, not to keen on seeing foreing invaders. AFAIK, most ports were still blockaded, so it was impossible to trade with foreign powers.
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
True. But without a war with Spain and France, all England had to do was send more troops. They controlled the South, they controlled Canada, and there were indians to the west, not to keen on seeing foreing invaders. AFAIK, most ports were still blockaded, so it was impossible to trade with foreign powers.
Yeah it was going to be impossible to really beat the British without foreign help. Even just holding out was going to be tough without any money or foreign trade.
Also the whole reason Saratoga is the greatest victory was because it led to French intervention in the first place.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 10:12:51 AM
Yeah it was going to be impossible to really beat the British without foreign help.
If we hadn't beaten them on the field, either we'd have beaten them politically(parliament giving the colonies seats) or kept up an insurgency that made occupation not worthwhile.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2012, 11:28:14 AM
If we hadn't beaten them on the field, either we'd have beaten them politically(parliament giving the colonies seats) or kept up an insurgency that made occupation not worthwhile.
Oh I am sure we would have reached some sort of deal that included some sort of self rule as everybody went broke and got exhausted. But in the event the US pretty much got to dictate the terms and got everything they wanted.
I'm sure having the French help us was supremely useful, but I was under impression that it was their troops, ships, and materiel support that did it, not their royal legitimacy. :hmm:
What the French did best was give the new USA someone to play the Brits off of at the peace table. Hell, the US got the entire Ohio Valley because of it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2012, 06:26:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
@ Malthus,
That is my understanding as well, which is why I am a bit curious as to why JR thinks that it would be impossible for the Chinese to have expanded such a notion to trading with Europe, in the sense that the Chinese understood the concept.
Because the sense the Chinese understood the concept was categorically different from the way that Europeans (or indeed Arab traders) understood it. The concept of "tribute" was not just some linguistic cover for face; it was an accurate description of what the Chinese understood themselves as doing.
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?
As far as turning points go an article in this Ecomonist this week reminded me of the opportunities the Americans had to acquire British Columbia and large chunks of Western Canada.
Your energy self sufficiency problems would be solved.
Quote from: PDH on October 03, 2012, 12:17:45 PM
What the French did best was give the new USA someone to play the Brits off of at the peace table. Hell, the US got the entire Ohio Valley because of it.
Yep. The British were so desperate to split the US and the French they basically paid us off. And we backstabbed King Louis. Good times.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
...except for the fact that, in order to operate effectively, Mongol armies need vast spaces to feed their hordes of ponies (a Mongol horsemen used up to six ponies during a campaign), and those ended at the Hungarian Alfold.
That means the Mongol army range is restricted to about 1-2 weeks march from Hungary. More than that, their mounts start to starve and they risk becoming dismounted after a battle or two - a death sentence to them.
The chances of a Mongol conquest of Europe were precisely 0%, due to logistical constraints.
(this is also why they couldn't get Egypt - their pasture grounds stopped at the Mesopotamian plains. Holding Palestine was already a serious problem).
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? :hmm:
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. 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".
If an army of light cavalry were "logistically impossible", it is kinda hard to explain why the Mamluks were able to dominate the area for a few hundred years with light cavalry, isn't it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 12:22:01 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 12:22:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
QuoteAlso - 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.
QuoteIndeed, 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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2012, 01:06:50 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2012, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
QuoteRight, 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!
QuoteWhich 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 12:22:01 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2012, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2012, 01:06:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
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? :hmm:
Didn't this take them decades?
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 03, 2012, 01:39:48 PM
Didn't this take them decades?
Yeah I thought it was a multi-generational affair and involved the Mongols using masses of Chinese infantry.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:40:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 03, 2012, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:44:36 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:40:55 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 03, 2012, 01:39:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:44:36 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2012, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2012, 01:06:50 PM
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.
But the treasure ships themselves were meant to exert control. Following in their footsteps were large numbers of other Chinese.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:44:36 PM
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.
He's refering to the "western way of warfare". The theory that western soldiers have always favored hand-to-hand fighting while eastern warriors like raining arrows on their enemies.
Yeah yeah what Malthus said.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 01:46:26 PM
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.
Good case in point - non feudal tribesmen who moved into Iberian during the collapse of the Roman Empire who later became Feudal in nature. However not sure how effective they would have been. The Muslims were able to kick in that door pretty easily.
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 01:54:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:44:36 PM
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.
He's refering to the "western way of warfare". The theory that western soldiers have always favored hand-to-hand fighting while eastern warriors like raining arrows on their enemies.
Not sure what Ancient Greece has to with Feudal armies in Western Europe who didnt even know about Ancient Greece....
Unless of course Valmy is suggesting transmission of secret knowledge overtime which myseriously compelled warriors in the west to fight on heavy horses with heavy armour and heavy weapons because the hopolites fought with heavy armour and spears :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 01:54:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:44:36 PM
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.
He's refering to the "western way of warfare". The theory that western soldiers have always favored hand-to-hand fighting while eastern warriors like raining arrows on their enemies.
Not sure what Ancient Greece has to with Feudal armies in Western Europe who didnt even know about Ancient Greece....
Unless of course Valmy is suggesting transmission of secret knowledge overtime which myseriously compelled warriors in the west to fight on heavy horses with heavy armour and heavy weapons because the hopolites fought with heavy armour and spears :P
I'm not sure that's a sensible attack given that Rome also had hoplites and was certainly influence by Greece.
Anyway, I think Valmy was just trying to look at a meta narrative of people in Europe not preferring light cavalry.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 02:09:02 PM
I'm not sure that's a sensible attack given that Rome also had hoplites and was certainly influence by Greece.
Anyway, I think Valmy was just trying to look at a meta narrative of people in Europe not preferring light cavalry.
That justification doesnt make much sense since late Roman Empire started to move to light cavalry units more than they had done in the past.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:00:25 PM
Not sure what Ancient Greece has to with Feudal armies in Western Europe who didnt even know about Ancient Greece....
Unless of course Valmy is suggesting transmission of secret knowledge overtime which myseriously compelled warriors in the west to fight on heavy horses with heavy armour and heavy weapons because the hopolites fought with heavy armour and spears :P
I'm not a big fan of the theory myself, but Valmy isn't to blame for inventing it. That would be Victor Davis Hanson. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 02:09:02 PM
I'm not sure that's a sensible attack given that Rome also had hoplites and was certainly influence by Greece.
Anyway, I think Valmy was just trying to look at a meta narrative of people in Europe not preferring light cavalry.
That justification doesnt make much sense since late Roman Empire started to move to light cavalry units more than they had done in the past.
Hey I'm not the one supporting said meta-narrative. I don't even like those. :x
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
That justification doesnt make much sense since late Roman Empire started to move to light cavalry units more than they had done in the past.
They still used shock tactics though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:00:25 PM
Not sure what Ancient Greece has to with Feudal armies in Western Europe who didnt even know about Ancient Greece....
Unless of course Valmy is suggesting transmission of secret knowledge overtime which myseriously compelled warriors in the west to fight on heavy horses with heavy armour and heavy weapons because the hopolites fought with heavy armour and spears :P
I said Western Armies tended to prefer shock tactics and hand to hand combat. I was speculating if these similarities throughout history were some sort of cultural thing reflecting cultural ties through centuries or a result of European geography.
QuoteWhich is demonstrates another of an inherent weakness of the Mongol empire - their vulnerability to an opponent who could fight fire with fire.
The Khara Khitai, Khwarezmian, Naiman, Jin, Rum Seljuks, Alans and the Cumans were all more likely more talented horsemen than the Mameluks. All of them were annihilated and incorporated in equal measure.
Also, the Mamluks were as likely to be Slavs or Caucasians as Steppe Turks.
Yeah there is really no evidence horse archers were some sort of achilles heel of the Mongols. They knew how to fight their own and were much more disciplined and organized than their peers...at least at their height.
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 02:11:25 PM
I'm not a big fan of the theory myself, but Valmy isn't to blame for inventing it. That would be Victor Davis Hanson. ;)
Ah good so you know what I am talking about. What about it do you find unconvincing and if it was a geographical thing wouldn't that make sense?
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 02:50:34 PM
if it was a geographical thing wouldn't that make sense?
Isn't the geography (and climate) of Europe rather varied?
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 02:11:25 PM
I'm not a big fan of the theory myself, but Valmy isn't to blame for inventing it. That would be Victor Davis Hanson. ;)
Ah good so you know what I am talking about. What about it do you find unconvincing and if it was a geographical thing wouldn't that make sense?
What is it about the geography of Europe which would explain heavily armoured knights riding heavy horse vs some other form of fighting.
Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry? I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest. I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry? I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest. I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.
Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles. It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.
Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain. The perfect thing for fuedal society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 03:37:53 PM
Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles. It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.
Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain. The perfect thing for fuedal society.
Well the nice thing about heavily armored cavalrymen if they can dismount and still be a powerful force on foot...and the Knights did do that all the time. Ironically it was only during the Crusades that the Shock Charge became famous.
I think attempts to bring that home were less effective. But granted I am basing that observation a bit too much on that one battle when Henry Beauclerc defeated Robert Curthose's knights (just returned from the First Crusade) by having his own dismount and fight back their shock charge. The name of the battle escapes me. But, granted that may not have been typical the shock charge may indeed have ruled the day.
My understanding is that the reason horsemen were prefered in feudal times was part prestige - riding horseback is simply more aristocratic than walking, as it literally puts you above the pedestrian crowd - and part practical.
The practical aspect was that, when two groups of armed men fight, generally speaking horsemen will beat infantry where both are fighting in an individualistic style - that is, without stern discipline and unity; whereas infantry is cheaper per man, and tends to beat cavalry - where the infantry is under regular, effective discipline.
Another benefit of being on horseback, of course, is that if shit goes bad and you are beat, your chances of escaping capture, death (or worse) is much better if you are on a horse - particularly if you are wearing armour. Fighting in armour is very tiring and the chances or armoured infantry running away to fight another day are lesser.
In short, where warriors are fighting as an armed gang or mob, per-unit it is better to be on horseback - your are likely to beat the man on foot similarly armed and armoured, and if you don't, well you can escape. However, if your armies are fighting in a regularly disciplined and organized manner, you want more infantry - per-unit they are much cheaper, and a cavalry charge is unlikely to break them; indeed, using dismounted knights to fend off a cavalry charge was a tactic used on occasion.
As to why Europe had less light horsemen, you guys are looking at it the wrong way around. The Steppe produces light horsemen naturally, because that is simply how steppe nomads usually live. The skills of light horse - to use the "turkish" bow on horseback - are hard to learn and thus expensive to re-create artificially away from the steppe. Euros did adopt archery tactics - think of English Longbowmen - but again, they were expensive to train (hence their habit of hiring themselves out as mercenaries).
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 03:37:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry? I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest. I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.
Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles. It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.
Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain. The perfect thing for fuedal society.
It's a matter of balance. Heavy cavalry is devastating in the open, so you want to have that upper hand if that's where you can manage to force the battle, but is still not completely useless in rougher terrain. On the other hand, I would imagine that lightly armored horse archers are going to be riding to their slaughter if they ever set hooves in the woods.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:52:43 PM
But the treasure ships themselves were meant to exert control. Following in their footsteps were large numbers of other Chinese.
No the Chinese traders preceded the treasure ships; they were already long established before the Zheng voyages. They were however, based alomost entirely overseas
The key point here is that although there was a long history of ethnic overseas Chinese sea traders , the Zheng voyages were NOT commercial expeditions. Seen as such, they would have been totally unviable because the costs of constructing, operating and maintaining such large numbers of enormous ships far exceeded whatever value could be obtained by exchanging Chinese silks and spices for exotic creatures to fill the imperial menageries.
As political-diplomatic iniatives, the Zheng voyages may have had some meaningful purpose, but the notion that they could have been "followed up" as some kind of useful commercial trading venture doesn't make a lot of sense. It would have required a radical transformation of ideology and cultural presuppositions.
QuoteEuros did adopt archery tactics - think of English Longbowmen - but again, they were expensive to train (hence their habit of hiring themselves out as mercenaries).
Yeah attempts to make Longbowmen outside of England were about as successful as the Seleucids trying to make Roman Legions.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 03:46:59 PM
Well the nice thing about heavily armored cavalrymen if they can dismount and still be a powerful force on foot...and the Knights did do that all the time.
:huh:
A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 03:56:08 PM
QuoteEuros did adopt archery tactics - think of English Longbowmen - but again, they were expensive to train (hence their habit of hiring themselves out as mercenaries).
Yeah attempts to make Longbowmen outside of England were about as successful as the Seleucids trying to make Roman Legions.
Wales :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 03:52:39 PM
As to why Europe had less light horsemen, you guys are looking at it the wrong way around. The Steppe produces light horsemen naturally, because that is simply how steppe nomads usually live.
Thats the very thing I have been saying.... :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:06:28 PM
:huh:
A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.
Nonsense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:40:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
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.
Bump to try to get this back on track.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:09:20 PM
Thats the very thing I have been saying.... :P
I thought that is what I was saying.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:06:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 03:46:59 PM
Well the nice thing about heavily armored cavalrymen if they can dismount and still be a powerful force on foot...and the Knights did do that all the time.
:huh:
A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.
:huh: I can think of many famous battles that featured dismounted knights, and I'm no history buff.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:06:28 PM
:huh:
A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.
Nonsense.
The Richard III called for a horse when he lost his - and then died because of the lack of it... I agree. He should have had a trusted squire nearby.
Depending on the period we are talking about the weight of a knights armour was too heavy to make walking around - never mind fighting - problematic at best.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:12:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:06:28 PM
:huh:
A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.
Nonsense.
The Richard III called for a horse when he lost his - and then died because of the lack of it... I agree. He should have had a trusted squire nearby.
Depending on the period we are talking about the weight of a knights armour was too heavy to make walking around - never mind fighting - problematic at best.
Nope. The image of knights being winched up onto their horses is a modern invention.
It is true that some tournament armour was exceptionally heavy, but that was a late development. War armour was tiring to fight in, but you could walk in the stuff no problem - it was no heavier, and probably lighter, than the infantryman's kit these days.
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
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".
It seems a little stretchy to me. It's true that the Pope and other European leaders dreamed of Mongol alliances and had fantasies about "Prester John" and his anti-Islamic hordes, but those ideas were more a function of western ignorance and sheer desperation given the precarious position of the late crusade states. Also its one thing for Mongols in Syria to ally themselves with crusaders; another for Mongol khans and their vast retinues to set themsleves up as French monarchs or Italian city councillors.
QuoteSure, 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.
The problems that the Mongols would face in Europe would be different though. I agree with you that the Mongols were more than successful in learning the arts of siegecraft (or at least exploiting the services of those who did). But the problem in European warfare in the Middle Ages wasn't capturing a castle - given time and effort, the castle would almost always fall. The problem for an invading army was always how to deal with garrisoning the inummerable small and midsize fortifications throughout the countryside without quickly diluting your force - or alternatively, choosing not to garrison and thus allowing the hostile population to reoccupy centers of resistance. Medieval European states weren't able to mobilize large striking forces of the size the Chinese empire could but at the same time their very segmentation made them difficult to permanently subdue.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 03, 2012, 04:17:14 PM
It seems a little stretchy to me. It's true that the Pope and other European leaders dreamed of Mongol alliances and had fantasies about "Prester John" and his anti-Islamic hordes, but those ideas were more a function of western ignorance and sheer desperation given the precarious position of the late crusade states. Also its one thing for Mongols in Syria to ally themselves with crusaders; another for Mongol khans and their vast retinues to set themsleves up as French monarchs or Italian city councillors.
The ideas did have a certain basis in reality, though - Mongols had a very adaptable attitude towards religion, many were in fact Christian (if Nestorian), and were often astute enough to know about their victim's perspectives (and make use of them for their own ends).
QuoteThe problems that the Mongols would face in Europe would be different though. I agree with you that the Mongols were more than successful in learning the arts of siegecraft (or at least exploiting the services of those who did). But the problem in European warfare in the Middle Ages wasn't capturing a castle - given time and effort, the castle would almost always fall. The problem for an invading army was always how to deal with garrisoning the inummerable small and midsize fortifications throughout the countryside without quickly diluting your force - or alternatively, choosing not to garrison and thus allowing the hostile population to reoccupy centers of resistance. Medieval European states weren't able to mobilize large striking forces of the size the Chinese empire could but at the same time their very segmentation made them difficult to permanently subdue.
The Mongols had some solutions that were not readily available to Europeans for various reasons (at least, usually) - such as committing large-scale genocide in regions that were tough to govern. Kill everyone you can catch and there is no "hostile population" to resume resistance when your back is turned - the traumatized survivors are not in a position to mount effective resistance. This is what the Mongols did, for example, in Kwarzarim - also to a lesser extent in parts of Hungary. In fact, at one point the Mongols used distinctly Nazi-like methods to get the subject population to report for "work" then killed them all.
On occasion, Europeans were willing to do the same - William the Bastard's "scouring of the north" springs to mind, or earlier, Charlemagne and the Saxons - but usually a combination of self-interest (dead people pay no taxes), fear of consequences, and lack of systemic ability prevented truely wholesale countryside suppression by these means.
Quote
But we are talking about the Lancastrians here not Edward III. They were pretty English in culture would they have gone native so readily?
I doubt Henry would have gone native but he would likely devote most of his time to France and his children would likely have most of their upbringing there.
His kids would probally be more French than English, his grandkids...not English at all.
QuoteAs political-diplomatic iniatives, the Zheng voyages may have had some meaningful purpose, but the notion that they could have been "followed up" as some kind of useful commercial trading venture doesn't make a lot of sense. It would have required a radical transformation of ideology and cultural presuppositions.
You're thinking of it as something planned however.
The voyages were indeed all about tribute, diplomacy, etc...
Once they are succesful and better links are established with other parts of the world however, then, despite it not being part of the original plan, traders would likely follow.
The battle of Grunwald of 1410.
What turning point didn't turn with Grunwald? The Teutonic Knights declined into irrelevancy, and the the P-L commonwealth emerged as a major power for centuries, exactly what one would expect.
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2012, 07:52:31 PM
I doubt Henry would have gone native but he would likely devote most of his time to France and his children would likely have most of their upbringing there.
His kids would probally be more French than English, his grandkids...not English at all.
Why? The Habsburgs didn't all end up speaking Spanish.
This is what I mean by poor little England. England was one of Europe's richest and most powerful states consistently between 1300 and 1800. Yet somehow its culture would be swallowed up because of France?
But I don't see how Henry V would be ale to do better than his son's regents, who were pretty damn capable OTL. The real problem was that the English base depended on Burgundy, who had no desire to be neighbors with a Frenglish superstate.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 04, 2012, 09:33:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2012, 07:52:31 PM
I doubt Henry would have gone native but he would likely devote most of his time to France and his children would likely have most of their upbringing there.
His kids would probally be more French than English, his grandkids...not English at all.
Why? The Habsburgs didn't all end up speaking Spanish.
This is what I mean by poor little England. England was one of Europe's richest and most powerful states consistently between 1300 and 1800. Yet somehow its culture would be swallowed up because of France?
Yes they did.
Phillip II was quite thoroughly Spanish.
And for a more apt comparison you have the Norman English kings becoming steadily more English.
England's culture would be swallowed up by France? Why do you say that? That seems pretty unlikely to me.
QuoteBut I don't see how Henry V would be ale to do better than his son's regents, who were pretty damn capable OTL. The real problem was that the English base depended on Burgundy, who had no desire to be neighbors with a Frenglish superstate.
Established monarchs usually do better than regents. Pretty sure I recall there was a fair bit of politicalinfighting amongst Henry VIs council.
Even keeping up the momentum without having to set up a new government would put him quite far ahead to begin with. Having the king there leading from the front with a clear vision is a far more inspiring thing than fighting for some baby in London, whose will is being given to you buy a bunch of different men looking out for their own interests.
Its far from a certain thing that Henry V would have continued to be succesful in France, but then nothing is certain. It certainly seems likely however.
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2012, 04:16:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:12:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:06:28 PM
:huh:
A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.
Nonsense.
The Richard III called for a horse when he lost his - and then died because of the lack of it... I agree. He should have had a trusted squire nearby.
Depending on the period we are talking about the weight of a knights armour was too heavy to make walking around - never mind fighting - problematic at best.
Nope. The image of knights being winched up onto their horses is a modern invention.
It is true that some tournament armour was exceptionally heavy, but that was a late development. War armour was tiring to fight in, but you could walk in the stuff no problem - it was no heavier, and probably lighter, than the infantryman's kit these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=player_embedded :hug:
Its a well established fact though that although the modern soldier carries a heavier load since much of it rests on the hip the body expends less energy moving it around. Having armour on your legs and feet is apparently extremely cost inefficient for the body.
Quote from: Cecil on October 04, 2012, 10:49:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=player_embedded :hug:
Its a well established fact though that although the modern soldier carries a heavier load since much of it rests on the hip the body expends less energy moving it around. Having armour on your legs and feet is apparently extremely cost inefficient for the body.
True enough - and fighting in armour for any length of time, never mind being forced to run over bad terrain, would certainly wear you out.
For example, at the battle of Agincourt one of the reasons the French were defeated so badly is that their dismounted knights had to trudge through fresh mud to fight the English, and could not even open their visors for fear of the arrow-storm. When set upon by more lightly armoured and thus less encumbered English archers after they had fired off all their arrows, these tired and encumbered knights, whose breathing and vision had been impaired, made easy targets - the English smashed em over with mallets and stuck daggers in their visor-slits.
So armour encumberance could certainly be a problem when fighting, given the right (or wrong) conditions - but this is as you know much exaggerated in modern mythology.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 03:37:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry? I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest. I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.
Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles. It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.
Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain. The perfect thing for fuedal society.
I think it has more to do with the mobility then anything else. Knights grew out of mounted infantry which were used after the fall of the Roman empire to fight barbarian raiders. Because armies were fairly small, warriors needed to be quick to react to threats over a large geographic area. Fighting on horseback and the increased status of being a knight didn't come till later.
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2012, 11:02:28 AM
So armour encumberance could certainly be a problem when fighting, given the right (or wrong) conditions - but this is as you know much exaggerated in modern mythology.
Tell me about it. Every time I see it I go "Not this crap AGAIN" and do a Picard facepalm impression.
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2012, 11:02:28 AM
So armour encumberance could certainly be a problem when fighting, given the right (or wrong) conditions - but this is as you know much exaggerated in modern mythology.
Worked on the Eastern Front.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2012, 11:18:32 AM
I think it has more to do with the mobility then anything else. Knights grew out of mounted infantry which were used after the fall of the Roman empire to fight barbarian raiders. Because armies were fairly small, warriors needed to be quick to react to threats over a large geographic area. Fighting on horseback and the increased status of being a knight didn't come till later.
There has always been more to it than that.
Being charged by horsemen is damned frightening. Unless you are trained and experienced, most people when faced with a line of charging horse
will run - which is of course fatal (on the level, a man wearing armour generally cannot actually outrun a horse carrying an armoured rider; and it is very easy for that rider to strike down any number of fleeing enemies).
It is this effect - getting people to run - which forms a large part of "shock". Not so much actually having the horse physically slam into infantry. In point of fact, that rarely happens - the horse will typically refuse to actually run into a line of infantry carrying sharp pointy things.
Quote from: Tyr on October 04, 2012, 10:02:24 AM
Yes they did.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Philip II example combats an all statement? :huh:
I have plate mail +5
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2012, 01:16:34 PM
I have plate mail +5
Will matter not when I cast withering gaze.
Sorry my dear, I'm immune to withering gaze.
You haven't experienced mine. :menace:
:lol:
Garbon casts Lightning Bolt, Lightning Bolt with his eyes.
DM: you hear a hissing sound
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2012, 01:25:40 PM
DM: you hear a hissing sound
And then a boylike figure dances into the light shouting look at me look at me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2012, 01:25:40 PM
DM: you hear a hissing sound
[domdeluise]Sounds like steam escaping.[/domdeluise]
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2012, 12:25:14 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 04, 2012, 10:02:24 AM
Yes they did.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Philip II example combats an all statement? :huh:
Whats with people these days always accusing me of not reading? Its bizzare and out of nowhere.
Of course I read what he said. He obviously didn't literally mean all the Habsburgs though, that would be stupid given there were entire branches of the family that had nothing to do with Spain. Those that are relevant however, those who were kings of Spain- they went native from Phil onwards.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 02, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
Also, France had previously shown what happens with those revolutions - they cannot hold on their own and need a strong ruler. Napoleon ultimately failed because he had no legitimacy (he tried it by marrying into the Habsburgs). To succeed, one needed royal legitimacy, which was not attained through the People at the time - even the USA, fighting only against Britain, needed help from France on the ground, and of France, Spain and the Netherlands on the seas.
Both points in this are so fucking retarded it beggars belief.
Napoleon didn't need to worry about legitimacy in the eyes of the European aristocrats, he had to worry about his legitimacy in the eyes of the French people and he had that until he overstretched himself and lost a war.
As for the US needing royal legitimacy, what the hell...it needed ships and the French had them, simple as that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 12:25:35 PM
As far as turning points go an article in this Ecomonist this week reminded me of the opportunities the Americans had to acquire British Columbia and large chunks of Western Canada.
Your energy self sufficiency problems would be solved.
Ooh...got a link?
Quote from: Tyr on October 04, 2012, 08:59:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2012, 12:25:14 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 04, 2012, 10:02:24 AM
Yes they did.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Philip II example combats an all statement? :huh:
Whats with people these days always accusing me of not reading? Its bizzare and out of nowhere.
Of course I read what he said. He obviously didn't literally mean all the Habsburgs though, that would be stupid given there were entire branches of the family that had nothing to do with Spain. Those that are relevant however, those who were kings of Spain- they went native from Phil onwards.
You get accused of not reading when you make nonsensical replies.
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2012, 12:05:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2012, 11:18:32 AM
I think it has more to do with the mobility then anything else. Knights grew out of mounted infantry which were used after the fall of the Roman empire to fight barbarian raiders. Because armies were fairly small, warriors needed to be quick to react to threats over a large geographic area. Fighting on horseback and the increased status of being a knight didn't come till later.
There has always been more to it than that.
Being charged by horsemen is damned frightening. Unless you are trained and experienced, most people when faced with a line of charging horse will run - which is of course fatal (on the level, a man wearing armour generally cannot actually outrun a horse carrying an armoured rider; and it is very easy for that rider to strike down any number of fleeing enemies).
It is this effect - getting people to run - which forms a large part of "shock". Not so much actually having the horse physically slam into infantry. In point of fact, that rarely happens - the horse will typically refuse to actually run into a line of infantry carrying sharp pointy things.
The thing is, the forerunners of knights
didn't fight from horseback. They just rode them to where they were going and fought on foot. The Anglo-Saxons at the battle of Hastings are a good demonstration of this. The core fighters had horses, and used the mobility to ride from York down to Hastings. Once there, they dismounted and fought as infantry. This had been the way of fighting in continental Europe as well, but there had been a shift in fighting in the late Carolingian period, a shift from fighting on foot to fighting on horseback. The English were late to adopt this, and thus lost the battle of Hastings.
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2012, 11:49:34 PM
You get accused of not reading when you make nonsensical replies.
Its much more often than that. Like this time for instance.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2012, 01:11:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 04, 2012, 12:05:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2012, 11:18:32 AM
I think it has more to do with the mobility then anything else. Knights grew out of mounted infantry which were used after the fall of the Roman empire to fight barbarian raiders. Because armies were fairly small, warriors needed to be quick to react to threats over a large geographic area. Fighting on horseback and the increased status of being a knight didn't come till later.
There has always been more to it than that.
Being charged by horsemen is damned frightening. Unless you are trained and experienced, most people when faced with a line of charging horse will run - which is of course fatal (on the level, a man wearing armour generally cannot actually outrun a horse carrying an armoured rider; and it is very easy for that rider to strike down any number of fleeing enemies).
It is this effect - getting people to run - which forms a large part of "shock". Not so much actually having the horse physically slam into infantry. In point of fact, that rarely happens - the horse will typically refuse to actually run into a line of infantry carrying sharp pointy things.
The thing is, the forerunners of knights didn't fight from horseback. They just rode them to where they were going and fought on foot. The Anglo-Saxons at the battle of Hastings are a good demonstration of this. The core fighters had horses, and used the mobility to ride from York down to Hastings. Once there, they dismounted and fought as infantry. This had been the way of fighting in continental Europe as well, but there had been a shift in fighting in the late Carolingian period, a shift from fighting on foot to fighting on horseback. The English were late to adopt this, and thus lost the battle of Hastings.
Certainly, the saxons and vikings did not use cavalry in battle. They fought in the shield wall, on foot. But then, they are not exactly the forerunners of mounted knights.
The Normans picked up that technique in France.
In any event, the battle of Hastings demonstrates some of the limits of cavalry as a tactic against an organized shield wall. Contrary to popular belief, it was actually a very close-run thing. The Norman mounted knights were making no headway at all againt the hausecarls - until that is they did a feigned retreat, which drew part of the Saxon army to pursue them; these warriors were then isolated and killed.
Had Harold not been forced to fight another battle at York immediately before, chances are he would have won, mounted knights or not.