Comments on: Ass-kicking is stochastic

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:25:09 +0000

I’m basically kidding, Roman. Counterfactual history is a pleasant game. The idea of a pagan/Hussite east European empire is just fun.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:16:22 +0000

John: you’re way too optimistic. Russia is unconquerable by definition.
chet: it wasn’t enough. Poland, before the Counter-reformation started, had a relatively tolerant religious environment. This meant that the popular resentment against Catholicism was relatively small. The masses would have to be pushed toward Protestantism by the authority. However, the authority (King) did not have the incentive to do it.

By: chet snicker

chet snicker — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:28:59 +0000

I think that Reformation had little chances in Poland because the secular power had little incentive to support it
in the early 1600s protestantism was prevalent among polish aristocrats. seem the reformation by macculloch.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:27:13 +0000

Russia would have existed as a rump state of Poland. And in Poland the Hussite battlewagons, given the chance, would have changed a few minds. Unfortunately Jogaila chose to become Catholic and oppose Hus, thus preventing the formation of a pagan-Protestant empire which would have changed world history.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:16:46 +0000

“You see, if the Lithuanians had remained pagan Poland would still have an empire reaching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and Russia would scarcely exist.”
I disagree. The Commonwealth of Two Nations realms in the east were simply former Lithuanian conquests. It were the Lithuanian aristocrats who pushed for the drive east (this and the fact that the west became to crowded).
Russia would exist regardless of what Poland would do, there is simply so much space in the east.
“You guys should have supported Jan Hus too, in which case the Reformation would have happened decades earlier in E. Europe.”
Maybe. Poland had its own Reformation movement (the Polish brethren) later on.
I think that Reformation had little chances in Poland because the secular power had little incentive to support it: Polish Catholic church didn’t try to wrestle power from the hand of the King, at least not until the XVIIth century. On the contrary, the priests acted as loyal servants of the monarchy. Hence, Polish kings didn’t have to use the Reformation movement as a weapon against the Catholic Church.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:47:37 +0000

You see, if the Lithuanians had remained pagan Poland would still have an empire reaching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and Russia would scarcely exist. You guys should have supported Jan Hus too, in which case the Reformation would have happened decades earlier in E. Europe.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:05:08 +0000

PS. Poles often managed to do OK in battle also *before* the Lithuanians took over. Even with such mean bastards like the Germans (battle of Cedynia, battle of Psie Pole or battle of Płowce, 1331). Not to mention the conquest of Kiev in the XIst century.
Let it be said, before 1939, Poland often kicked ass.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:59:22 +0000

Well then I couldn’t say that “the Lithuanians took over” then. A more apt description would be “the Lithuanian elites became Polish”.
You must remember that in the beginning of his rule, Jagiełło was married to Jadwiga, who was not you average shy and non-interfering royal spouse. Think of her as some Medieval Princess Di, only with a strict sense of morals Jadwiga must have counterbalanced the influence of Lithuania in Cracow.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:39:40 +0000

Yes, I meant Jogaila.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:58:01 +0000

“The Poles did OK once the Lithuanians took over.”
What do you mean? In 1241 Lithuania was a pagan country and there was no Polish-Lithuanian alliance. Or do you mean the times of Władysław Jagiełło? That began in the end of the XIVth century, much later than the battle of Legnica.

By: John

John — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:08:24 +0000

The Poles did OK once the Lithuanians took over.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:56:09 +0000

Interestingly, in Polish historiography the battle of Legnica is considered to be a Mongol victory (the Polish knights ran away from the battlefield and the Polish commander was slain during the battle). It is also considered by some to be one of the first events in European warfare were chemical weapons have been used (for psychological effect).

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:16:35 +0000

Leignitz is the name I’ve heard. My information was not terribly accurate. I was as vague as I could be for that reason (I didn’t want to look stuff up), but I should have been even vaguer.
In terms of my argument, what makes a difference is that a fairly important European force failed to defeat a smallish Mongol force. there’s no reason to believe that any western force would have done well against the Mongols; it’s not a purely conjectural argument because there were a few face-to-face matchups.
What I just saw says that the Mongols actually won, but retreated immediately for internal Mongol reasons, and never returned again, so the battle has come to be thought of as a Western victory.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:05:25 +0000

“A rather small Mongol army totally destroyed a Western Army in Hungary, and then much later (the last Mongol incursion to the West) another smallish Mongol army was stalemated or defeated by another mostly-German army in what is now western Poland (I think. They also repeatedly defeated Russian armies).”
What battle are you referring to? I know about the battle of Legnica in 1241, but then it was Mongols vs mostly Polish army, in what was then Poland (Silesia), after that — for a long time — Germany, and now is Poland again (in the XIIIth century, what was considered Germany was further to the West then, say, in the XIXth century).

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:03:37 +0000

The disunity of E Europe was greater than that of W Europe, but W Europe probably was also incapable of a coordinated defense.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:01:40 +0000

The Mongols fought Western armies at least twice. A rather small Mongol army totally destroyed a Western Army in Hungary, and then much later (the last Mongol incursion to the West) another smallish Mongol army was stalemated or defeated by another mostly-German army in what is now western Poland (I think. They also repeatedly defeated Russian armies). It’s been reasonably concluded based on this evidence that a full-scale Mongol attack probably couldn’t have been successfully resisted.
One difficulty I don’t think has been mentioined is that the further the Mongols went, the more people they had to leave behind to occupt conquered territory, and the longer communication lines to the center were.

By: Roman Werpachowski

Roman Werpachowski — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:09:03 +0000

“the monarchies of hungary and poland were certainly battle hardened and tested.”
In the second half of the XIIth century and throughout XIIIth century there was no “Polish monarchy”. Poland was divided into duchies then.

By: chet snicker

chet snicker — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:30:10 +0000

You conclude that from your current vantage point. I do not think that Subetai and his generals were in any position to make the same assessment that you have. you do not think? irrelevant. i haven't seen great evidence that you have dug into the scholarship on this topic, so what value does your opinion have? you don't even bother to engage the standard reason offered above: the mongol generals turned back to intervene in a dynastic succession, and the one general who did favor invasion of europe was recalled. europeans couldn't even keep outremer, i doubt that the mongol army which conquered most of eurasia in one generation would have had great difficulties with european fortifications. the monarchies of hungary and poland were certainly battle hardened and tested. i see no evidence that the german principalities or france would offer any greater threat.

By: dougjnn

dougjnn — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:54:47 +0000

Richard Sharpe–
I concerned though. Might I be discussing with someone who’se less than the REAL Mr. S?
Could this be a Sybil?

By: dougjnn

dougjnn — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:47:17 +0000

Well, let me correct myself.
It wasn’t PROVEN that the Mongol could have easily and simply conqured Western Europe.
What the historical record DOES dhow is that it wasn’t the European military resistance, or European terrain, that kept them from pressing on.
It was other, Mongol political, things.
However, I see little other than Mongol internal political reasons to think they couldn’t have.