Historical Opponents?

I did a quick search and couldn't find any mention to this, so I'll raise the issue:

Why is there a vacuum for Tibet from 1065 onwards?

III/15 Tibetan covers the centralised expansionist Imperial period (7th-9th c. AD) and then a couple of centuries of the factional, warlord-dominated Era of Fragmentation; 1065 is probably chosen to coincide with the death of Gusiluo, a leader of the Qinghai region who assembled a confederation and allied with the Khitans to resist the Tanguts. But why remove al representation of Tibetan troops from that point onwards? Tibet was no longer a unified independent state, there were no large-scale campaigns outside Tibet, Mongol conquest was relatively bloodless (for Mongol standards), and Tibet was for the most part a peaceful and well-integrated domain of the Yuan, but

1) This leaves out almost two centuries, from the death of Gusiluo to the Mongol dominance, during which there were definitely campaigns against Tibetan lands (such as the 1099 Song campaign against Haidong and Xining), as well as low-intensity but constant warfare between Tibetan warlords themselves in a very fluid situation. The period was also rife with peasant and tribal revolts that took advantage of the lack of a central military power.

2) While Tibetan religious tradition presents a planned 1206 Mongol invasion as having been averted by voluntary submission (which would prove the wisdom of Tibetan Buddhist values), the first attested contact between Mongols and Tibet is in fact shortly before the first Mongol campaign. There were repeated military expeditions: the Mongol-Tangut campaign of 1240, which sacked and destroyed some monasteries; the 1252 Qoridai campaign that reached deep into the Tibetan plateau, after which Möngke Khan partitioned and distributed Tibet amongst Mongol leaders; the pacification expeditions sent around 1255 by both Huelgu (of the Ilkhanate) and Kublai (soon of Yuan China); and further pacification campaigns (especially of tribal areas) until at least 1278. While there was not a full-scale conquest, this was most likely not due to Buddhist wisdom but to the weakness of a fragmented Tibet; there was no large, well-organised military or administration to defeat, and local polities surrendered in several waves; those who didn't were subjugated by force.

3) After Kublai succeeded Möngke as Khagan of the Mongol Empire, the bulk of Tibet passed to his control, with the exception of some areas under Ilkhanate influence in the West. Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism would take a central role under Kublai's rule, with Tibet managed as a separate entity from Chinese provinces but under Yuan control, and with Tibetan Buddhism becoming a sort of state religion for the Yuan empire, with Sakya lamas becoming spiritual advisers to the Khagan. However, Tibet would be involved in internal Mongol disputes; for instance, the Chatagai Khanate financed and supported a large-scale revolt of Kagyu Buddhists against the Yuan in 1285 (which would be finally suppressed in 1290, with monasteries burnt and sect followers massacred).

4) By 1350, with the Yuan empire in rapid decomposition, religious conflict was revived and the Kagyu sect eventually took power from the Yuan-backed Sakya sect; the Kagyu Phagmodrupa dynasty was founded in 1354, and by 1358 they had taken control of most of the central Tibetan plateau, becoming de facto an independent, unified Tibet again. Changchub Gyaltsen, the founder of the dynasty, avoided open military conflict with the Yuan, which had their hands full with the Chinese revolt that would eventually topple them and establish a new dynasty; once the Mongols were expelled, Tibet went on to be an independent state under the Chinese sphere of influence (it's not clear if as a simple tributary or as a quasi-autonomous state with subject to largely nominal suzerainty) until the mid-16th century, when China ended relations with Tibet as part of a restoration of Taoism over Buddhism. There is also no list for Ming-contemporary Tibet, a period which mostly saw civil wars between Tibetan leaders.

So, 1065 makes no sense to me as an end date for the only Tibetan army list. I think there are a couple of possibilities here to address this problem:

a) The easiest fix is to simply extend the list until the completion of the Mongol conquest (1253).

b) Even better would be to create a sublist, maintaining the current list up until the completion of the Mongol conquest (560-1253) but adding lighter, local, more tribal armies for the Era of Fragmentation and possibly the revolts against the Mongols (843-1290).

Thanks for the DBMM notes, stevie. Rgyal-sras is indeed Gusiluo (the later is the sinicised form of the name which appears in Chinese sources).

I think lists could coexist for small, warlord-led states retaining a higher degree of organisation and heavier troops while other entities (such as the lands and communities controlled by monasteries in an almost-feudal fashion, or peasant or religious revolts) would almost surely require a different composition; I don't know whether this could be best done with two coexisting sublists (as I proposed above) or through options in a single post-1065 list; now that I think it through, probably the later.


As for the Ming-contemporary lists, I am not prepared to offer a suggestion. I think the status of Tibet under the Yuan left most internal affairs in the hands of the local nobility and above all the monastic hierarchy, so I'm not sure to what degree they adopted Mongol tactics, but in any case that would be a new list altogether.

I know all work on this file was done a while ago and you may not want to re-visit it,but I found two more Historical opponnents who are not matched by the lists(sorry!lol).

While researching my latest project I found the II/61b Hsien-pi and the II/79b Southern (Jin) armies were in mutual conflict especially between 365-369AD when the Hsien-pi took Jin territory at Luoyang.The Jin counter-attacked but were eventually heavily defeated in battle by the Hsien-pei and their Former Ch'in allies.

The Hsien-pi then failed to meet their agreement and were then defeated by the Former Ch'in just prior to the disasterous Battle of Fei River.

Neither the II/61b or the II/79b lists have each other as enemies.

Cheers Stevie...it must be a nightmare chasing down sone sources.The Hsien-pi and Jin conflict only occured to me when I was chasing up the ethneticity of each Chinese Dynasty or Kingdom of this period...it was the relation of both these states to the Former Ch'in and the locality of Luoyang that made it dawn on me that the Murong were the allies( and later enemies) of the Former Ch'in who assisted them in attacking the Jin (Southern Dynasty) in 365AD.
I am still struggling to find the source for the "Chained" Cavalry in the narative which described their use of chains to resist shock Cavalry...when the only source I have found for their use was against infantry formations and it is most probably a metaphor.lol

If I can help in any way I love chasing up sources of obscure nations...as you can see.lol

Chained cavalry

Just a thought. If I wished to create chained cavalry to resist shock cavalry I would have a line of horses with halters, attach them together by chains.
As horses get pulled about they are likely to break their necks, dead horses chained together would be a good obstacle for enemy cavalry.

If you were clever you would have riders as normal, volunteers or otherwise.

David Constable

Hi Stevie, sorry to raise this but I found another list adjustment. While researching Gokturk activity I came across this one..

The Sassanid Persians ii/69b and ii/69c should have Hun ii/80c as an enemy.My reason is the conflict between the two empires in the 5th and 6th Century resulting in the Sassanid victory.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalite%E2%80%93Persian_Wars