Why did only Asian based countries defeat the Mongol invasions?

Dec 2011
558
Texas
#41
But Central Europe was far more well fortified than Eastern Europe, where they were undeniably having trouble with the sieges. And also there is the problem of the steppe running out. That they could have called upon a coalition of European allies is speculation.
Very true, Western Europe was, far, far more well-fortified than Eastern Europe. If anything Eastern Europe military resembles that of the east than it does of the West at these times; even to the tactics as well as the very arms & armor they had. Western Europe was a bit of a different animal all together.


As stated before Central European fortifications were mostly mottes and baileys, albeit at this time they were undergoing the transition from wood to stone. The Mongols had seen far worse. Cental Europe was also undergoing a lot of infighting, with the Holy Roman Empire waging war against the Pope and the Chrisitians waging war against the Lithuainians.
Not very true, by the late 12th century many castles in Western Europe were built in stone. In fact I had a huge list of Castles upon castles in Western Europe all built before the 14th century. Hell, the most impressive castles in the Middle East were built by the Europeans. The Crusader Castle Krak des Chevaliers was said to be the most impressive fortification built in the world at the time; European castles were marvels of military engineering.


We are talking about a chain of such fornications that was concentrated in such a small aria. I had a fire that lived in Germany and he says he remembers well on how they are big castles that are in site from each other. Germany alone had more fortifications than most if not all of Eastern Europe combined.

As said here: "The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them, nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because they are fortified in such a way that everyone thinks the taking of them by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public depots enough for one year's eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them." --The Prince (Annotated) By Niccolò Machiavelli


This OP is a bit silly. Considering that the Vietnamese and Mamelukes have absolutely zero in common, it is unlikely their methods of fighting the Mongols is the same and the fact that both may have had victories over the Mongols has nothing to do with them being Asian.

It seems like what the OP is really asking is why the eastern Europeans of the time had such a hard time of it.
Well that is the thing, there is a lot to take into account. Vietnamese had very closed terrain just like Western Europe, not so good for Steppe tactics.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,453
#42
[URL="http://historum.com/members/landsknecht.html" said:
Landsknecht[/URL]]Not very true, by the late 12th century many castles in Western Europe were built in stone. In fact I had a huge list of Castles upon castles in Western Europe all built before the 14th century. Hell, the most impressive castles in the Middle East were built by the Europeans. The Crusader Castle Krak des Chevaliers was said to be the most impressive fortification built in the world at the time; European castles were marvels of military engineering.


We are talking about a chain of such fornications that was concentrated in such a small aria. I had a fire that lived in Germany and he says he remembers well on how they are big castles that are in site from each other. Germany alone had more fortifications than most if not all of Eastern Europe combined.

As said here: "The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them, nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because they are fortified in such a way that everyone thinks the taking of them by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public depots enough for one year's eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them." --The Prince (Annotated) By Niccolò Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli and whoever you know personally lived long after the Mongol invasion and such things they say about the situation of their time does not apply at all.

If you have a huge list of castles in Germany that existed during the 1240s and MAYBE the early 1250s, then please give the list, along with details of its fortifications that is RELEVANT to the time period. Castles that was later renovated to stone does not count and it would not look like its post-renovation during the Mongol invasion. Castles that only existed outside of this period wouldn't matter either, because it would be outside of the relevant time frame.

Btw, motte and baileys were undergoing a midway process of transitioning from wood to stone durng the 1300ds, but a stone motte and bailey is still a motte and bailey nonetheless. I never said they were all made of wood.

The Crusader Castle Krak des Chevaliers was said to be the most impressive fortification built in the world at the time; European castles were marvels of military engineering.
That's not even in Europe, much less Germany, and the Krak des Chevalier puts pretty much put all contemporary castles in Europe to shame, so it cannot be used to reflect the type of fortifications the Mongols would be facing in Germany.

Now Ogedei's death reached the Mongols in Europe during the spring of 1242. During this time the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany), Frederick II, was excommunicated. The New Pope Innocent IV hated Frederick, there was Heinrich Raspe who claimed that he rather than Frederick was the rightful king of Germany, with his own armies to oppose that of Frederick (as shown by how Henry defeated his son in the battle of Nidia), and also there was the Lombard League who were just about to turn the tide against Frederic in the battle of Parma of 1247-48. If Mongols decide to invade Germany during this critical time, one has to ask how the political circumstance of Germany could possibly fair better for the Mongols short of having every German noble drop dead from a heart attack at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,595
#43
Not very true, by the late 12th century many castles in Western Europe were built in stone. In fact I had a huge list of Castles upon castles in Western Europe all built before the 14th century. Hell, the most impressive castles in the Middle East were built by the Europeans. The Crusader Castle Krak des Chevaliers was said to be the most impressive fortification built in the world at the time; European castles were marvels of military engineering.
As a side-note, a fine example of Central European castle architecture is Zips castle in modern-day Slovakia, even though it reached its final extension only after the Mongol invasion.
 
Feb 2011
1,018
#44
I don't need sources when its common knowledge.
Then why did Marc Abramson, an expert on ancient Chinese ethnography, make the following appendix, which directly contradicts your "common knowledge" but directly supports unity's list?

https://books.google.com/books?id=-GLGnRspmcAC&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false

The idea that Marc Abramson, who did his Ph. D at the prestigious Princeton department of East Asian studies on the topic of Chinese ethnography, with a special focus on Tang ethnography, was ignorant of "common knowledge" is absurd.

Show me sources saying that the Shang and Zhou was all 1 ethnicity then?
Unity said "Sinitic," which is not equivalent to "one ethnicity." By the standard of "one ethnicity," Goguryeo and Silla were of different ethnic groups, as the Silla kings never traced themselves to Buyeo, and never considered themselves Goguryeo people. Further, Silla, Goguryeo, and Baekje also never traced themselves to Gojoseon. Where then is your evidence that Goguryeo, Silla, and Gojoseon had the same ethnicity?

Very few scholars are capable of saying anything about the ethnic continuity of Korean states, because contemporary records compiled by those states are sorely lacking. We have no records whatsoever from before the Three Kingdoms, and only scant records from the Three Kingdoms themselves. It wasn't until the Goryeo dynasty in the 12th century that there was an actual narrative of Korean history, but by then Korea had been unified for centuries and there were no longer other voices to be heard. Even still, using linguistic and archaeological analysis, along with limited evidence from Chinese records, scholars have long observed that there were a diversity of groups in the Korean peninsula. The idea that Korea has been ruled continuously by the same ethnic group is vacuous nationalist revisionism.

In fact, a widely held view among historical linguists with regards to the Korean peninsula is that Koreanic speakers were invaders to the Korean peninsula within the last two thousand years. Such an idea is not historically untenable: there is no evidence, in the first place, that Gojoseon was native to Korea; Goguryeo and Baekje's ruling classes traced themselves to Buyeo, which was a Manchurian state with no known connection to Gojoseon; even Silla had a myth of its rulers being descended from Xiongnu. Given how many states that ruled the peninsula actually came from outside of the peninsula, I don't see how to even say what is native, and what is not, with respect to "Korea."
 
Last edited:
#46
Then why did Marc Abramson, an expert on ancient Chinese ethnography, make the following appendix, which directly contradicts your "common knowledge" but directly supports unity's list?

https://books.google.com/books?id=-GLGnRspmcAC&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false

The idea that Marc Abramson, who did his Ph. D at the prestigious Princeton department of East Asian studies on the topic of Chinese ethnography, with a special focus on Tang ethnography, was ignorant of "common knowledge" is absurd.



Unity said "Sinitic," which is not equivalent to "one ethnicity." By the standard of "one ethnicity," Goguryeo and Silla were of different ethnic groups, as the Silla kings never traced themselves to Buyeo, and never considered themselves Goguryeo people. Further, Silla, Goguryeo, and Baekje also never traced themselves to Gojoseon. Where then is your evidence that Goguryeo, Silla, and Gojoseon had the same ethnicity?

Very few scholars are capable of saying anything about the ethnic continuity of Korean states, because contemporary records compiled by those states are sorely lacking. We have no records whatsoever from before the Three Kingdoms, and only scant records from the Three Kingdoms themselves. It wasn't until the Goryeo dynasty in the 12th century that there was an actual narrative of Korean history, but by then Korea had been unified for centuries and there were no longer other voices to be heard. Even still, using linguistic and archaeological analysis, along with limited evidence from Chinese records, scholars have long observed that there were a diversity of groups in the Korean peninsula. The idea that Korea has been ruled continuously by the same ethnic group is vacuous nationalist revisionism.

In fact, a widely held view among historical linguists with regards to the Korean peninsula is that Koreanic speakers were invaders to the Korean peninsula within the last two thousand years. Such an idea is not historically untenable: there is no evidence, in the first place, that Gojoseon was native to Korea; Goguryeo and Baekje's ruling classes traced themselves to Buyeo, which was a Manchurian state with no known connection to Gojoseon; even Silla had a myth of its rulers being descended from Xiongnu. Given how many states that ruled the peninsula actually came from outside of the peninsula, I don't see how to even say what is native, and what is not, with respect to "Korea."

I do not understand that you repeat your personal opinions in the historum. Moverover, John Khan is not Korean and He does not know Korean history. Without me, these discussion about Ancient Korean ethinic origin and credibility of Three Kingdom saga by Kim bu sik with beween Legionarious and you and chinese already were finished. Legionarious refuted it. Why you put it again? Just stop it.
 
Feb 2011
1,018
#47
Has the Zhou or Shang refer to one another as barbarian before?
The Shang referred to the Zhou primarily as Zhou-fang and Zhou-bo. Fang is a generic Shang designation for other countries - ie Tufang, Guifang, Qiangfang, Yifang, etc. Bo is a Shang designation for vassals of the Shang kings, which the Zhou was during certain periods.

The Zhou referred to the Shang simply as Shang/Yin during times of peace, but turned to using "Rong Shang" or "Rong Yin", using the term Rong 戎 which was later used to describe western barbarians, ie 西戎, during times of war. For example, in the Zhou's Great Declaration, it is said:

惟天惠民,惟辟奉天。有夏桀弗克若天,流毒下國。天乃佑命成湯,降黜夏命。惟受罪浮于桀。剝喪元良,賊虐諫輔。謂己有天命,謂敬不足行,謂祭無益,謂暴無傷。厥監惟不遠,在彼夏王。天其以予乂民,朕夢協朕卜,襲于休祥,戎商必克

However, scholars have argued that the term "Rong" 戎 primarily stood for "belligerents" during the early Zhou, as opposed to cultural other. It was, for example, used for "weapons," "war," "attack," etc. in sentences, and as an adjective equivalent to "military." See Uffe Bergeton for a detailed study & other examples.

In this respect, it is not known whether the Zhou and the Shang considered each other barbarians, as the concept of a divide between barbarian and civilized was not yet operative. Indeed, it'd have been difficult for the Zhou to consider the Shang barbarians when they readily took up Shang culture. They were, however, obviously not members of the same state, except during times when the Zhou were actual vassals of the Shang.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
#48
I do not understand that you repeat your personal opinions in the historum. Moverover, John Khan is not Korean and He does not know Korean history. Without me, these discussion about Ancient Korean ethinic origin and credibility of Three Kingdom saga by Kim bu sik with beween Legionarious and you and chinese already were finished. Legionarious refuted it. Why you put it again? Just stop it.
Legionnarious is welcome to join this thread. You do not have to speak for him. Last I remember, he only provided evidence that certain elites in Goguryeo considered themselves Samhan, which is hardly evidence that Goguryeo and Samhan shared the same identity, as Goguryeo never traced itself to Samhan in contemporary records. The latter practice of identifying Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla with Samhan was in the 12th century, by Goryeo scholars. In fact, the continued existence of Samhan identity under the rule of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla indicates that Samhan identity was not necessarily wiped out by the advent of the Three Kingdoms.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2009
5,615
Canada
#49
(The Japanese were saved by a wind)
No they weren't. They completely drove the Mongols back to their ships in both invasions (and in the second invasion they annihilated the Mongol fleet). "Saved by a wind" is completely untrue. They forced the Mongols into a position where their ships could be destroyed by typhoons. But even then, during both invasions the Mongols were decisively defeated by the Japanese. The typhoons had very little to do with "saving" anything.

In the first invasion they were already leaving when they were struck by a typhoon. In the second they were pretty much wiped out by July 7th, a significant amount of time before the typhoon hit on August 15th.
 
#50
Legionnarious is welcome to join this thread. You do not have to speak for him. Last I remember, he only provided evidence that certain elites in Goguryeo considered themselves Samhan, which is hardly evidence that Goguryeo and Samhan shared the same identity, as Goguryeo never traced itself to Samhan in contemporary records. The latter practice of identifying Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla with Samhan was in the 12th century, by Goryeo scholars. In fact, the continued existence of Samhan identity under the rule of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla indicates that Samhan identity was not necessarily wiped out by the advent of the Three Kingdoms.

Legionnarrious is the one of a few Korean I found in this site. I know him in another history forum in Korea. Him, me, Swinburne and maybe fox are certainly Korean. I can talk him. He gave you examples of epitaphs of Korean traiters for Tang. It said they mentioned definition of their origin as Samhan. These epitaphs were founded in Tang period. Another example is Japanese historical record like Nihonshoki. This books written by that three Kingdoms as Samhan. I remember Legionnarrious said like that and I said you like that. That is enough refutations against your personal insistance, That means contemporary neighbours called Three kingdoms as Samhan. Additionally, your Samhan identity opinion were refuted by both Japanese and Korean scholars, correctly, geneticists and anthropologists. I want to keep this problem in here, But you know these are banning mention of that. So that is all. Just stop it