Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
To many historians, the death of the Great Khan prevented the utter destruction of the remainder of Europe. Had Ogedei not died that year, Batu and Subutai planned to invade Austria first, destroy Vienna, then proceed to conquer the German principalities, then invade Italy. The following year, if all went all, would have probably seen France and Spain meet the same fate, given the complete failure of the European Knights Templar and Teutonic Knights at Legnitz. In the chaos that followed the retreat of Batu, an Englishman in Mongolian service was captured and tortured. He confessed to be Batu's main foreign language specialist and two time envoy to King Belá of Hungary, ranking him as the most important diplomat in the Mongolian European campaign.
Asian bows, such as the Mongol bow and especially the Turkish bow had ranges much longer than any other hand weapon until the arrival of modern breach-loading firearms in the early 20th Century. Estimates for the Mongol bow give it a draw force greater than the English longbow (75 pounds and range of 250 yards) of about 100 to 160 pounds and a range of 320 to 350 yards or more.[6]. A more contemporary review by Hildinger (1997, pg 27-31)[citation needed] suggests that it was only accurate at up to 80 yards when fired from horseback, but "shooting in arcade" (at 45 degrees) allowed for much greater ranges.
I wonder. I suppose you're right. Canada would certainly be quite different, in that we'd undoubtedly have taken a lot longer to push for autonomy from the Crown (ceremonial reasons not withstanding). We'd probably still be flying the Red Ensign, singing The Maple Leaf Forever as our national anthem, and still be wearing British patterned uniforms the way the Australians still do.An higher English presence in Canada would have changed the history of Canada, obviously. But I'm not sure if it would affect anyone else, the most obvious choice would be the United States.
No disrespect, but Sabotai would not have been tolerant. The Mongol horde was not tolerant of city living which would lead to the complete destruction of European civilisation. Paris, the intellectual heart of 13th Century Europe, would have been flattened. If any European city resisted it would have been been burnt with its inhabitants beheaded, just like what happened in Nishapur.
As for religious tolerance, the caliphate (Ismalic equal to Catholic pope) was put in a bag and trampled to death. The only religious tolerance shown there was that the Mongolians found it sacred to die without spilling blood. Islam has never reinstated another caliphate after that.
If the Mongolians treat the Pope the same as they did the caliphate, then there would be no Protestant reformation. So, there definately wouldn't have been any distaste for Catholics amongst them. Christianity would fall into millions of pieces.
If Ogadi had not died, the Europe would have been obliterated. And any link to the Greek and Roman studies would have been destroyed with it.
I don't know much about the Mexican history. Was there much chance of Mexico suppressing the rebellion? Any particular event that would have changed the course of events?
If the U.S was not to become what we know. Would it have the strength to aid in the fight against Germany in the Great War? Or World War II? Would Mexico be the one helping? Or would both forces take up arms against one another later on as they wished to expand?
If neither aided the Allies, would Germany win any of the World Wars? If the Allies did emerge victorious in World War I (with the advent of the tank, Germany had little chance of victory) - the map of Europe would be vastly different without the influence of Wilson. World War II may never have happened.
mkloby:
That's interesting. I'll have to read up on Mexico's defeat. But what do you think would have been the result? Maybe the U.S would have assaulted Mexico anyway in it's bid for expansion?
I'm not exactly sure how you mean. I don't think we'd have failed to achieve nation status, through the long road of Responsible Government, Confederation (the BNA Act), the Statute of Westminster, etc. Our ties to the British Crown today would be even stronger than they already are I'm sure, and the Canada Act of 1982 may yet to have occurred, but Canada would still have become, for all intents and purposes, an independant country. It is very possible that we'd continue to view ourselves as being more dependant on the UK to this day, but I think that doubtful. It certainly hasn't been the case with Australia, but then they have their own unique history and circumstances as well. They way I view this is that we'd either have managed to form a stronger, more uniculturaled identity with a more focused national agenda, or we'd have gone in the opposite direction, remaining a more divided collection of provinces, and have been gradually (or maybe not so gradually) absorbed into the United States. On the other hand, that may well have happened even if we were united in our cause. The US casts a powerful shadow over Canada. It's unavoidable. They're an extremely powerful and influential neighbour, and have forged ahead aggressively since their creation. In that light, maybe it's very likely that Canada would have been more susceptible to the American influence very early on, without the loud French voice in Québec to make us stop and think about our identity.NS: I was thinking more about the Canada question. Would it be possible that Canada become LESS of nation without the population that it did have with French and British?
This thread is making my head spin, especially with the discussion on the Mongol Hordes...