Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 14th, 2011, 06:10 PM   #71
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterbabies View Post
PS

I know that Bela was pulverized, as were two sizeable Polish armies, and several others besides. The two battles that really counted, Europeans lost badly. Still I think it is the Secret History that records that Batu was furious with Subetai after Mohi for completing the encirclement so late that Mongol causualties were devastating.

I wouldn't question that the Europeans and pretty much everyone else got their asses handed to them when they challenged the Mongols in an open plane. That's what makes the Mongol evacuation so inexplicable, and unsolved, but people just dismiss it with trite non-working explanations. The real answer has to be more complicated than the ones being offered here or anywhere else, except from Celtic guy, who for some reason was banned.
You should better post the source that may allow you to so categorically reject the presence of Batu there; in any case, the presence of both Batu and especially Subutai is well attested.

The "evacuation" may be "inexplicable" only for those that for any reason insist in the unjustified rejection of the well attested historical explanation

BTW, I can't help but note that you are not particularly worried about the rehabilitation of the historical prestige of let say the Polish or the Russians; just about the kingdom of Bela IV...

Just out of curiosity, are in any way your teachers or you related with let say Croatia or Hungary?
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 14th, 2011, 06:21 PM   #72
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 79

Can you find any evidence that Batu was at the kuritai or that he was even in Mongolia ever again? Just give me a single source, a single tidbit.

The origin of the myth that they left because of Ogedei's death comes from a single source. John of Plano Carpini who said that's what the Mongols told him when he asked them why they left. He also said the Mongols lie constantly to foreigners.

He also said that foreign captives in Karakorum were barely given enough food to survive and that they were frequently missing fingers and toes from frostbite. Sounds like a real worker's paradise of enlightened rule. No religious bigotry either, they'd kill any priest.
Waterbabies is offline  
Old September 14th, 2011, 07:08 PM   #73
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterbabies View Post
Can you find any evidence that Batu was at the kuritai or that he was even in Mongolia ever again? Just give me a single source, a single tidbit.

The origin of the myth that they left because of Ogedei's death comes from a single source. John of Plano Carpini who said that's what the Mongols told him when he asked them why they left. He also said the Mongols lie constantly to foreigners.

He also said that foreign captives in Karakorum were barely given enough food to survive and that they were frequently missing fingers and toes from frostbite. Sounds like a real worker's paradise of enlightened rule. No religious bigotry either, they'd kill any priest.
You are already well aware of the evidence.
There's no reason to reject Carpini's version (of course aside let say of some apologetic revisionism from the defeated parties) which is AFAIK accepted at face value by the majoritarian consensus of relevant scholars on this topic (certainly that was the case of H. Lamb too).

The available primary sources are preciously scarce here, even for the standards of Medieval history; one can't simply Olympically reject the essentially single relevanrt source on this issue just because it is not comfprtable for anyone's agenda.
You simply lack any additional opposite evidence to refute Carpini; certainly not the irrelevant report of Bela's desperate escape by Rashid quoted by you above.

Besides, there's no question that Subutai was in the kurultai too, as he was redeployed by Güyuk Khan to the Chinese conquest.

And of course, even if the standard consensus explanation were rejected with no justification here, that is still years light from piously pretending that it was the mere panic for the utterly humilliated Hungarian warriors what made the Mongols retreat.
That would be a fallacious false dilemma, as there are plenty of additional far more likely alternative explanations (ostensibly unrequired here, simply because the consensus explanation stands).

That said, all my argumentation stands too.
The Mongols had systematically crushed any eastern neighnor of the Europeans who might had once defeated them.
Even more, the Hungarias and his powerful allies (nomad warriors and Templars) had been pulverized too (as usual).

Preteding that the sudden fear for the hidden Bela or his humiliated exiled warriors may have provoked panic enough among the absolutely undefeated Mongols to run without even any attempt of fighting is simply hillarious.

And frankly, the deceptively biased presentation of your evidence here (like pretending that Bela was saved by the strength of his insular castle and not the sea itself) is not helping you case at all.
sylla1 is offline  
Old September 14th, 2011, 07:14 PM   #74
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 79

Well that's true afterall. I checked. Batu was at the kuritai...

Damn, I guess the old wisdom is the best after all.


But I'll say one thing about a failure of the Mongol strategy. If they were going to invest all those men, horses, money, siegeworks in dismantling Hungary like they did, they should have at least left some daraguchis in Hungary to take censuses and collect tax and keep an eye on the people.

Hungary is steppe so they could have left a reserve there and held on to a source of massive amounts of tribute and also have a base, like Attila, for further raids. That was massively stupid of them to just pull everything out after all the work they'd done in Central Europe.

Long live Hungary, the country that was thoroughly conquered but never paid tribute to the Mongols. Hungary must be one of a kind in history.
Waterbabies is offline  
Old September 15th, 2011, 10:00 AM   #75

GalataTurk's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Thrace/Türkiye
Posts: 1,894

If Mongols have captured Western Europe,the discovery of America would be 200 years earlier.
GalataTurk is offline  
Old September 15th, 2011, 10:54 AM   #76
Academician
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
You must be kidding; period.

The Mongols eventually conquered even the then selvatic Anam; they were constantly "reinventing" their tactics.

Click the image to open in full size.
Mongol campaign in Đại Việt & Champa (modern Vietnam), circa 1285.


And amazing as it may sound, the Eurasian (nowadays mostly Russian, i.e. Siberian) Taiga was timely conquered by the Mongols from the very beginning, in spite of being far more heavily forested than any area of Western Europe have ever been in historical times.
Click the image to open in full size.

Not to mention the evident fact that horse nomadic warriors had been raiding Europe for centuries, even previous to Attila.

Besides, it's easy to verify that the Mongol Empire eventually comprised all kind of bioma:
Click the image to open in full size.

In conclusion, there's no reason to believe that ecology would have represented any major problem for the armies of Subutai & Batu; the western Europeans were simply incredibly lucky for the timely death of Ogedei Khan.

Yes, but those heavy wooded areas where VERY sparse with population, and Western Europe now vs 1200's it totally different . present western Europe has been through 800 Years of Farmland expansion.

Ogedei Khan's death had nothing to do with safety of Western Europe, the golden horde was the Mongol's, They might not have had the numbers of a undivided nation, still none the less they fought on, eventuality after failing tuniing on each other.
they tried and they failed. Western Europe with France, Germany, England with it's dense woods and small paths, much more populated and many many large Stone castles, and VERY experienced troops (knights, archers etc) would not have been the pushover of the sparse population Siberia or the pesent armies and open area of south Asia.

The Mongol tactics of fake retreat to lure knights away from protection of archers to get ambushed was already known after Hungry and Poland.

Out in the open a Mongol horse archer would rule as they can ride hard, aim to the side and shoot, not having to worry so much about where he is driving his horse as it is open area.
The Heavy armored horse and knight would be a slow easy target for the mongol Horse Archer, no question who has the advantage.

The polish vs Mongols was still a Mongol Army vs Polish pesent army, with the Pols maybe having 2 Teutonic knighs in 30,000 people to fight.
This would not work in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany), let alone France

That strategy would not work in the woods. or narrow paths, no room for all out speed and maneuvering. And the well Armored heavy knights in closer combat would prevail.
in the thick woods and narrow paths the light armor of the mongols would not do well vs the vast number of Templar knights. and those knights of the days who knew nothing but fighting, that is all they did, close combat fighting. No contest at all.

I respect the mongols and they ruled the battlefield out in the open area no doubt, no one could beat them there.
but to think they was outright unbeatable anywhere is insane. with good enough men, the right tactics and the right terrain, they lost sometimes.. They totally got their arses handed to them in the THICK woods of Vietnam by a much less trained force than West Europe.

The Mongols didn't take Western Europe because they couldn't, not because of some excuse.
scottyd2506 is offline  
Old September 15th, 2011, 12:26 PM   #77
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyd2506 View Post
Yes, but those heavy wooded areas where VERY sparse with population, and Western Europe now vs 1200's it totally different . present western Europe has been through 800 Years of Farmland expansion.

Ogedei Khan's death had nothing to do with safety of Western Europe, the golden horde was the Mongol's, They might not have had the numbers of a undivided nation, still none the less they fought on, eventuality after failing tuniing on each other.
they tried and they failed. Western Europe with France, Germany, England with it's dense woods and small paths, much more populated and many many large Stone castles, and VERY experienced troops (knights, archers etc) would not have been the pushover of the sparse population Siberia or the pesent armies and open area of south Asia.

The Mongol tactics of fake retreat to lure knights away from protection of archers to get ambushed was already known after Hungry and Poland.

Out in the open a Mongol horse archer would rule as they can ride hard, aim to the side and shoot, not having to worry so much about where he is driving his horse as it is open area.
The Heavy armored horse and knight would be a slow easy target for the mongol Horse Archer, no question who has the advantage.

The polish vs Mongols was still a Mongol Army vs Polish pesent army, with the Pols maybe having 2 Teutonic knighs in 30,000 people to fight.
This would not work in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany), let alone France

That strategy would not work in the woods. or narrow paths, no room for all out speed and maneuvering. And the well Armored heavy knights in closer combat would prevail.
in the thick woods and narrow paths the light armor of the mongols would not do well vs the vast number of Templar knights. and those knights of the days who knew nothing but fighting, that is all they did, close combat fighting. No contest at all.

I respect the mongols and they ruled the battlefield out in the open area no doubt, no one could beat them there.
but to think they was outright unbeatable anywhere is insane. with good enough men, the right tactics and the right terrain, they lost sometimes.. They totally got their arses handed to them in the THICK woods of Vietnam by a much less trained force than West Europe.

The Mongols didn't take Western Europe because they couldn't, not because of some excuse.
Yup, I already know this kind of naive wishful apologetic thinking:
Quote:
- once upon a time:
- there were neither real men nor real weapons in all Eurasia aside from the western Europeans;
- once the poor absolutely undefeated Mongols saw some real stuff, they pissed their panties;
- their panic was so great that they killed their own emperor in the other side of Eurasia just to have a good excuse for retreating;
- they all lived forever happy...
If anyone may pretend to even remotely seriously believe such wishful apologetic chauvinistic fantasy after all the literally tons of hard evidence presented all along this and related threads... well. its their fantasy...
Pretending to argue against such kind of fantasy would naturally be just a waste of time.

A nice tautology:
The Western Europeans of the time were simply utterly incredibly lucky;
Period.
sylla1 is offline  
Old September 15th, 2011, 12:31 PM   #78
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 79

The problem with sylla's arguments is he dismisses serious arguments based on the sources as trite.

If the Mongols had to evacuate their conquests because of Ogedei's death, and they had "conquered" Poland and Hungary, why did the Mongols continue to occupy Russia, but evacuate Hungary? Apparently, Batu gave Hungary as an appenage to Orda, his brother. So why did they evacuate Hungary, which was step, if they weren't afraid of a) continued resistance from the *cough* castles that were still occupied by their enemies, or b) a crusade coming from Central Europe and France.

Simply put, why did they keep Kiev (conquered 1240) but evacuate Hungary (conquered 1241) when Hungary is steppe, and Kiev is forest zone, and both were conquered during a campaign that had to be aborted by Ogedei's death????
Waterbabies is offline  
Old September 15th, 2011, 01:04 PM   #79
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterbabies View Post
The problem with sylla's arguments is he dismisses serious arguments based on the sources as trite.

If the Mongols had to evacuate their conquests because of Ogedei's death, and they had "conquered" Poland and Hungary, why did the Mongols continue to occupy Russia, but evacuate Hungary? Apparently, Batu gave Hungary as an appenage to Orda, his brother. So why did they evacuate Hungary, which was step, if they weren't afraid of a) continued resistance from the *cough* castles that were still occupied by their enemies, or b) a crusade coming from Central Europe and France.

Simply put, why did they keep Kiev (conquered 1240) but evacuate Hungary (conquered 1241) when Hungary is steppe, and Kiev is forest zone, and both were conquered during a campaign that had to be aborted by Ogedei's death????
Simply put, the problem with WB's argumentation is that just the proud & love for Hungary is talking; period.
I can perfectly sympathize with that.

Even in speculative alternative threads like this one, there may be a time for some serious argumentation...
... such time has been exhausted here loooong ago (if it ever existed).

With respect, I would prefer not to be addressed on this topic any more; there's simply no use.
Let just agree that we absolutely disagree.
Thanks in advance.
sylla1 is offline  
Old September 15th, 2011, 01:08 PM   #80
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 79

If I have a Hungarian bone in my body (which I don't) I don't see how that would explain why the Mongols evacuated Hungary in 1242.

Oh well, you Mongols are blinded by your nationalism too. I won't address you on this topic anymore, but I might still address the topic. Just ignore it.

Can someone else please explain why the Mongols held onto Kiev and Russia, but evacuated Hungary which they had supposedly conquered only a year or less later, after minting coins there?
Waterbabies is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
conquered, europe, mongols, western



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Genghis Khan and his Mongols, rude barbarians or genius warriors? Herc1993 Medieval and Byzantine History 314 November 30th, 2009 06:10 PM
What factors led to both Western Europe and Eastern Europe to move away from their respective Cold W Milad History Help 4 April 9th, 2009 05:39 PM
Monguls conquered Europe Commander Speculative History 7 July 8th, 2008 12:16 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.