Is this plausible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2013, 09:01 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 08:34 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Still, Some Proto-Nahuatl peoples could conquer Europe.

In much the same way the Mongols or Arabs could, sure. In that if they rolled sixes as a people for a couple centuries on end they might just be recognized as extremely nominal overlords from one end of Europe to the other...

But the changes would start far enough back that you'd never end up with a Nahuatl branch of Uto-Aztecan in the first place... Wink.

(20-10-2013 08:34 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Better yet, the Inuits range from Siberia to Greenland. Some sort of ethnolinguistic union of them could divide and conquer Europe (or at least a lot of it).

Inuit is already plural (one inuk, many inuit, but a lot of the dialects/languages also have a dual plural...) Thumbsup

But that's also... pretty unlikely. Even today there probably aren't a hundred thousand inuit and yupit people alive. Can't imagine there'd ever be sufficient population (let alone resources or motive...) for them to do anything together, no matter how you try to twist around historical likelihoods. Every single facet of their cultures is wildly unsuited to outside expansion.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
20-10-2013, 09:23 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 09:01 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 08:34 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Still, Some Proto-Nahuatl peoples could conquer Europe.

In much the same way the Mongols or Arabs could, sure. In that if they rolled sixes as a people for a couple centuries on end they might just be recognized as extremely nominal overlords from one end of Europe to the other...

But the changes would start far enough back that you'd never end up with a Nahuatl branch of Uto-Aztecan in the first place... Wink.

(20-10-2013 08:34 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Better yet, the Inuits range from Siberia to Greenland. Some sort of ethnolinguistic union of them could divide and conquer Europe (or at least a lot of it).

Inuit is already plural (one inuk, many inuit, but a lot of the dialects/languages also have a dual plural...) Thumbsup

But that's also... pretty unlikely. Even today there probably aren't a hundred thousand inuit and yupit people alive. Can't imagine there'd ever be sufficient population (let alone resources or motive...) for them to do anything together, no matter how you try to twist around historical likelihoods. Every single facet of their cultures is wildly unsuited to outside expansion.

Thanks for your politeness in your posting my friend!
The Mongols conquered for no (clear) reason other than the thrill of conquest and the spoils of war, so motive can be discounted especially back then. As for resources, my King Arthur stories say that post-Roman Europe was filled with leftover weapons and forts. Maybe some leverage there? I just can't stop thinking about the Aztecs sacrificing the nobles of England to Quetzalcoatl (I admit it used spellcheck for that word) on a pyramid next to the Thames.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 09:23 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 09:01 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In much the same way the Mongols or Arabs could, sure. In that if they rolled sixes as a people for a couple centuries on end they might just be recognized as extremely nominal overlords from one end of Europe to the other...

But the changes would start far enough back that you'd never end up with a Nahuatl branch of Uto-Aztecan in the first place... Wink.


Inuit is already plural (one inuk, many inuit, but a lot of the dialects/languages also have a dual plural...) Thumbsup

But that's also... pretty unlikely. Even today there probably aren't a hundred thousand inuit and yupit people alive. Can't imagine there'd ever be sufficient population (let alone resources or motive...) for them to do anything together, no matter how you try to twist around historical likelihoods. Every single facet of their cultures is wildly unsuited to outside expansion.

Thanks for your politeness in your posting my friend!
The Mongols conquered for no (clear) reason other than the thrill of conquest and the spoils of war, so motive can be discounted especially back then. As for resources, my King Arthur stories say that post-Roman Europe was filled with leftover weapons and forts. Maybe some leverage there? I just can't stop thinking about the Aztecs sacrificing the nobles of England to Quetzalcoatl (I admit it used spellcheck for that word) on a pyramid next to the Thames.

Actually you hit on the one group that had a plausible chance of conquering Europe. The Mongols were just barely held back.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
Yeah, what caused them to stop at the HRE? They could've handed the Kaiser his ass after Baghdad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 09:38 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 09:33 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Yeah, what caused them to stop at the HRE? They could've handed the Kaiser his ass after Baghdad.

Combination of factors. Death of leaders, the sheer scope of the area they had already conquered, bribes paid by the rest of Europe to appease the horde.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 09:47 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 09:23 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  The Mongols conquered for no (clear) reason other than the thrill of conquest and the spoils of war, so motive can be discounted especially back then. As for resources, my King Arthur stories say that post-Roman Europe was filled with leftover weapons and forts. Maybe some leverage there? I just can't stop thinking about the Aztecs sacrificing the nobles of England to Quetzalcoatl (I admit it used spellcheck for that word) on a pyramid next to the Thames.

My comic books say otherwise. Your King Arthur stories ?
No wonder you consider the NT "historical".
What have YOU been smoking, is the question.
The thrill of conquest, spoils of war ARE motives.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 09:23 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  The Mongols conquered for no (clear) reason other than the thrill of conquest and the spoils of war, so motive can be discounted especially back then.

Spoils of war are a hell of a good motive. That's why the Mongols invaded China instead of Yakutia! It's not like they just flipped a coin whether to go north or south...

But to go back to old-school crime novel methodology, you need motive, yes, but also means and opportunity. The Mongols (as they existed in real history) had neither. The sheer size of their conquests meant any sort of centralisation was impossible; the ad hoc succession rules meant any sort of lasting polity was never going to happen. And there was certainly no way they were going to find the logistics to move any farther west than they did.

(20-10-2013 09:23 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  As for resources, my King Arthur stories say that post-Roman Europe was filled with leftover weapons and forts. Maybe some leverage there?

... sort of. But you can account for late Roman-era infrastructure in one of two ways: either it was re-used (and is probably still inhabited), or it was abandoned and became useless (unmaintained weapons don't tend to last very long in falling-apart ruins - plenty of better uses the locals can put good metal to, if it doesn't just rust away!).

(20-10-2013 09:23 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  I just can't stop thinking about the Aztecs sacrificing the nobles of England to Quetzalcoatl (I admit it used spellcheck for that word) on a pyramid next to the Thames.

Yeah, but Quetzalcoatl was pretty undemanding, so far as Aztec gods went.

Sure, it made for a kind-of interesting Crusader Kings expansion, but it's really, really not likely. Not impossible, because if one is insistent enough then nothing is impossible, but... not likely.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
I highly recommend Charles Mann's 1491. He deals with the biological holocaust at length.

One thing I learned from it was that the diseases spread along internal N-A trade routes and decimated Indian populations long before they ever saw a European.

[Image: Atheismreality_zps62a2c96a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 10:29 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 09:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 09:33 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Yeah, what caused them to stop at the HRE? They could've handed the Kaiser his ass after Baghdad.

Combination of factors. Death of leaders, the sheer scope of the area they had already conquered, bribes paid by the rest of Europe to appease the horde.

I'd say they could have raided a bit further, sure. The line of control in Rus is pretty much where the steppes stop and the forests begin; the Golden Horde could raid past that each year, but they never permanently occupied places like Novgorod. And after the first couple generations it wasn't a matter of raiding the one border but dealing with border raids and skirmishes and full on wars in all directions for them and the other successor states. Hungary and Romania make a great base of operations for them, if that works out. But marching a cavalry army through Bohemian winters is... not happening.

That's not to say they couldn't just grind through by building up local allies, as in China or Persia or Mesopotamia. But of course then the question is how 'Mongolian' they remain - a hypothetical "Mongol" Roman Emperor is a mirror image his Yuan counterparts. Who went very native very quickly, and even then not enough not to be overthrown almost immediately. And they failed in their attempts to project power much beyond their borders: Java was a disaster, they smashed up Dai Viet and Champa a little but went home with precious little to show for it, and they gave Japan a good scare before getting their shoddily built and/or hastily commandeered ships wrecked. Not that we can really say what would have happened in Japan if they'd gotten past the beachheads; it's a long way from Fukuoka to Kyoto.

Anyway. Past Poland and Hungary the situation would be much the same, I think. It's possible to wrangle a Mongol central Europe, if you lean on the scales. Just give Ogedai and Subutai a few more years on the scene. But it really is a matter of "if everything went right", because they'd still lack the logistics to march right to Portugal.

Which doesn't alter the fundamental instability and lack of coherence to the Mongol conquests. It's simply not possible to centralise something so vast when it takes years to get across it. And so the fragmentation will happen with a few more successor states as players on the fringes... But then, the farther from Mongolia, the more ephemeral those tended to be.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
20-10-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Is this plausible?
(20-10-2013 10:27 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  I highly recommend Charles Mann's 1491. He deals with the biological holocaust at length.

One thing I learned from it was that the diseases spread along internal N-A trade routes and decimated Indian populations long before they ever saw a European.

Very true. It's a quite interesting read. The peoples of the Mississippi and Amazon no longer existed to be contacted, for a couple examples, by the time Europeans showed up (~100 years later).

I'm not sure I like the word 'holocaust' there, though; that implies agency, which was certainly not a factor in the initial biological exchanges!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: