Would the Mongols have conquered western Europe?

scottyd2506 · Jul 25, 2012

Dreamhunter said:
Exactly. Not on a wide open plain anyway. The Mongols would just run rings around them while showering them with arrows from a distance, and intermittently charge at them and then retreat. That's their time honoured specialty.

That was how Genghis' army routed and annihilated the Chinese army.

When the European knights with their heavy mail are tired and worn down, the Mongols go in for the kill. When you really think about it, they seem to fight like predators attacking prey.

Back then, there was no wide open area in Western Europe for the Mongol horseman to run circles around. No two ways about it, the Mongols would be FORCED to fight a close melee style combat. And they would lose, History shows the Mongols are horrible at close combat vs other troops.
big Fields and open area was very rare in Western Europe back in the days. thick woods was the norm, roads back then where paths narrow and small, 10 to 15 ft wide or 3-5 meters wide, not enough room for horse archers to run circles around trained knights or squires to live and tell about it.

a Machine gunner and a sniper?? put them both in a field or a thick wooded area, and one has a huge huge advantage over the other. There is no uber super troop that is best in all worlds and places like the people here who worship Asian military history of the day.

Waterbabies · Jul 25, 2012

Interesting.....

Because in reality, they did conquer Russia.

In reality, they did invade but not hold Eastern Europe,

and in reality, they did not touch Western Europe with a ten foot pole.

So why did they evacuate, Sylla, if they could have done it so easily?

Use primary source evidence to support your reasoning, or else this is just a big conjecture and blanket statement circlejyrk.

Dreamhunter · Jul 25, 2012

Waterbabies said:
There is no record that says they used gunpowder weapons of any kind in Europe. If you find it, show it to me, and I'll drink toilet water.

I really admire your daring.

Point is, once you've mastered the art of making black powder, it's just a logical progression to the next step: experimenting with crude gunpowder weapons.

You could just shove some black powder into a small section of bamboo, compress it slightly, place a stone or metal on top of that, then light up the powder. You now have a gun!

Kids even today are still doing that - in places where bamboo grows - during religious or ethnic celebrations, sometimes with disastrous unintended results, losing a finger or even a limb, sometimes even getting blinded.

The first gun was just a modified crossbow anyway, wasn't it?

sylla1 · Jul 25, 2012

Waterbabies said:
Interesting.....

Because in reality, they did conquer Russia.

In reality, they did invade but not hold Eastern Europe,

and in reality, they did not touch Western Europe with a ten foot pole.

So why did they evacuate, Sylla, if they could have done it so easily?

Use primary source evidence to support your reasoning, or else this is just a big conjecture and blanket statement circlejyrk.

Actually, we have already been here ad nauseam.

This is alternative history, so of course by definitiojn it is a conjecture.

Just for any objective reader, The March of the Barbarians of Harold Lamb would still be an excellent source for this educated conjecture; primary sources are extensively detailed there on the well-attested reason for the return of Subutai, Batu & co. to the Kurultai at Karakorum after the death of Ogadai Khan.

We already know the pride of some people wouldn't allow them accept the historical facts; that's fine.

Anyway, such people will never find any hard evidence on Subutai, Batu & co. pissing their panties and running like hell from their terror for the terrible German, French & Italian knights, as some people so desperately would like to believe.

Guess you don't need a link on the wiki-article of Mr Nevsky or the population of Medieval China, right?

Now, can you share with us your primary sources on your wishful thinking, please?

Dreamhunter · Jul 25, 2012

Ha ha.

sylla1 said:
Just for any objective reader, The March of the Barbarians of Harold Lamb would still be an excellent source for this educated conjecture; primary sources are extensively detailed there on the well-attested reason for the return of Subutai, Batu & co. to the Kurultai at Karakorum after the death of Ogadai Khan.

Yeahh. The death of All-Go-Die Khan was what did it all. Saved Western Europe from total vanquishment.

sylla1 said:
Anyway, such people will never find any hard evidence on Subutai, Batu & co. pissing their panties and running like hell from their terror for the terrible German, French & Italian knights, as some people so desperately would like to believe.

Them fierce, fearsome, fearless, ferocious, formidable lumbering knights in their massively heavy mail armour. Oh dear. I'd pray frenziedly to the sky god Tengri, then flee for my life like the Altay typhoon.

Waterbabies · Jul 25, 2012

So how did European armies stay in the Holy Land for 200 years. I guess they just "weren't worth it" to the Muslims in the area either.

I'll give you a clue. It wasn't the knights..........

As for the primary sources, I'll quote one.

Rashid al-Din writes in a section which is based on a a Mongol version. We can be absolutely certain of that because the spelling he uses for names of ethnic groups, places, and personal names is all Mongol. So in those sections, they know Rashid is probably using the lost Altan Debter.

In that section he says that when the Mongols pulled out of Hungarian territory into modern-day Romania on their way to the mouth of the Danube: "At that time, they did not know that the Khan was dead."

Also, in any non-European primary source, there is no record at all, ever, that Batu ever returned to Mongolia. The overwhelming evidence is that he didn't, and Rashid al-Din and Juvaini record that he specificially went out of his way to avoid the khuriltai to elect a new khan.

What does this mean for us?

It means the Mongols did not know Ogedei was dead when they pulled out of Europe. The only sources that said that were European. John of Plano Carpini, and the Tatar Relation of C. de Bridia, which was a copy of Carpini's report.

So that's a problem, when we are talking about conventional wisdom... What is it based on? A: very little.

sylla1 · Jul 25, 2012

Waterbabies said:
So how did European armies stay in the Holy Land for 200 years. I guess they just "weren't worth it" to the Muslims in the area either.

I'll give you a clue. It wasn't the knights..........

As for the primary sources, I'll quote one.

Rashid al-Din writes in a section which is based on a a Mongol version. We can be absolutely certain of that because the spelling he uses for names of ethnic groups, places, and personal names is all Mongol. So in those sections, they know Rashid is probably using the lost Altan Debter.

In that section he says that when the Mongols pulled out of Hungarian territory into modern-day Romania on their way to the mouth of the Danube: "At that time, they did not know that the Khan was dead."

Also, in any non-European primary source, there is no record at all, ever, that Batu ever returned to Mongolia. The overwhelming evidence is that he didn't, and Rashid al-Din and Juvaini record that he specificially went out of his way to avoid the khuriltai to elect a new khan.

What does this mean for us?

It means the Mongols did not know Ogedei was dead when they pulled out of Europe. The only sources that said that were European. John of Plano Carpini, and the Tatar Relation of C. de Bridia, which was a copy of Carpini's report.

So that's a problem, when we are talking about conventional wisdom... What is it based on? A: very little.

It means that you would enthusiastically accept any far fetched third hand interpretation that may even remotely suggest that Subutai & Batu really pissed their panties; admittedly, you are hardly the only one.

Anyway, care to be a bit more specific on your sources?
Could you give the proper reference and quote the exact texts of Rashid al-Din Hamadani and Juwayni that give you such categorical conviction?
Any open-source link would be wonderful, but it may be asking too much...

Waterbabies · Jul 25, 2012

There is no open source, but I can give you the exact name of the translation.

It's J.A. Boyle "The Successors of Genghis Khan"

It's a translation of Rashid al Din's history from the period after Genghis Khan's death.

It's page 71.

Just to remind you:
Rashid al Din worked for a khan.
He was pro-Mongol
He did not like Europe. In fact, there is evidence he intentionally avoided mentioning it where possible.
He would not have been aware of any European interpretations of what happened in 1241-1242.
He was Muslim

He writes, using Mongol spellings which indicate when he is using a direct Mongol account of events, that when they were leaving Europe, they did not know the great khan was dead.

Moreover, I might add that a few other sources say some surprising things on the matter. But if you are really totally closed to any other interpretation of what happened, then it's not really worth my time digging up the page numbers. Look at the Rashid passage first.

sylla1 · Jul 25, 2012

Waterbabies said:
There is no open source, but I can give you the exact name of the translation.

It's J.A. Boyle "The Successors of Genghis Khan"

It's a translation of Rashid al Din's history from the period after Genghis Khan's death.

It's page 71.

Just to remind you:
Rashid al Din worked for a khan.
He was pro-Mongol
He did not like Europe. In fact, there is evidence he intentionally avoided mentioning it where possible.
He would not have been aware of any European interpretations of what happened in 1241-1242.
He was Muslim

He writes, using Mongol spellings which indicate when he is using a direct Mongol account of events, that when they were leaving Europe, they did not know the great khan was dead.

Moreover, I might add that a few other sources say some surprising things on the matter. But if you are really totally closed to any other interpretation of what happened, then it's not really worth my time digging up the page numbers. Look at the Rashid passage first.

Maybe if you may post verbatim the English translation passage from your actual source, some of us may judge by ourselves.

"Page 61"?
Of which volume, version & translation?
In fact, exactly of which work of Rashid are we talking here?

pugsville · Jul 25, 2012

European feudal armies would as useless in wood as the mongols perhaps more so. They relied on Knights and mass spear men both of which require nice open flat terrain to be effective. Any battle would have been fought in pretty much open country, both side would want it. You wood see rivers or woods used to anchor flanks but not as the fighting front. Mongol armies are much more mobile, and generally would scout better, they would most likely tactically control the choice of battle site.

Their better organization and discipline would mean they would start big favourites in an open battle. While with large European manpower would be unable to field truly large armies due to their pretty poor organization and logistics (and politically they were not going to all serve under some designated leader). So Mongols would likely have some sort of parity in any given battle and most likely win.

But the strategic logistical problems of maintaining a large Mongol army in western Europe are quite difficult. They need pasture, Mongol horses just do not run on grain, they would have to rotate troops/mounts back to a large pasture area.

Reducing the many castles and walled cities would be time consuming, the Mongols were very Good at siege warfare but western European feudal warfare was just dominated by it. Knights are suburb at being siege assault or defense troops.

IF the Mongols got significant European allies they might have got somewhere, but otherwise no. The fractious Independence of western nobles which was often only bending to their liege King when forced to, it's hard to see them accepting Mongol rule.

Mangekyou · Jul 25, 2012

pugsville said:
But the strategic logistical problems of maintaining a large Mongol army in western Europe are quite difficult. They need pasture, Mongol horses just do not run on grain, they would have to rotate troops/mounts back to a large pasture area.

The Hungarian steppes would have perhaps lent them the pastures to feed their horses and maintain their conquest forward.

Reducing the many castles and walled cities would be time consuming, the Mongols were very Good at siege warfare but western European feudal warfare was just dominated by it. Knights are suburb at being siege assault or defense troops.

This is true, and this would be the main problem. If the knights could keep them in a war of attrition between field armies and fortifications, they could wear the Mongols down. However, Mongols bypassed fortresses at times and left them to rot on the vine, much like the Americans did in the "island hopping" campaigns of WWII.

They also used meat shields, workers, and experts from other conquered nations. My thread on one such siege, is a good example:

http://www.historum.com/asian-history/44483-mongol-siege-xiangyang-fan-ch-eng.html

Also, we have added aspect of that the HRE was not one united entity, but rather a mish mash of subordinate states. Its very possible that other europeans could open their gates to the Mongols, espeially if the Mongols demonstrate how ruthless they are to cities who would not surrender, like they did, in previous campaigns.

sylla1 · Jul 25, 2012

The aforementioned ecological objections are a bit naive; there was essentially no biome in Europe that had no equivalent in Asian territories already conquered by the Mongols, and almost all continental Europe had been razed by nomad horsemen at one time or the other since Classical times.

DreamWeaver · Jul 25, 2012

razed, stayed, conquered?

pugsville · Jul 25, 2012

I would contest that nomad horseman conquered almost any of Western Europe. Spain, France, Germany, England, Italy. No conquest by Nomad horseman that I'm aware of. (I'm saying the Goths were not nomad horseman, and the Huns didnt conquer any of them).

The Experience in Hungary is that generally the fortified places held out.

Hungarian Steppes? I'd go with Plains and they would be a limit to how long and how many.

I dont think that western Nobles would be keen to subject to the Mongols, I dont think they would get any lasting co-operation. But that is hard to Judge.

Mangekyou · Jul 25, 2012

pugsville said:
I would contest that nomad horseman conquered almost any of Western Europe. Spain, France, Germany, England, Italy. No conquest by Nomad horseman that I'm aware of. (I'm saying the Goths were not nomad horseman, and the Huns didnt conquer any of them).

I think he was referring to the Huns, although they didn't conquer but rather raised. They did not posess the siege equipment or the expertise that the Huns were privy too though.

Lets not also forget the Avars and the Alans.

The Experience in Hungary is that generally the fortified places held out.

In the 1280's (I think it was this decade) the Mongols were now divided into khanates and I personally think they lost a lot of their prowess by this time. Some of the castles held out under Subotai's invasion but we must remember that it wasn't a full scale Mongolian army with the intention of conquest.

Hungarian Steppes? I'd go with Plains and they would be a limit to how long and how many.

The Plains are attached to the Eurasian steppe and occupies over 50% of Hungary. I think thats a great start to pasteurise horses.

I dont think that western Nobles would be keen to subject to the Mongols, I dont think they would get any lasting co-operation. But that is hard to Judge.

If their estates or lives were threatened, you would be surprised.

DreamWeaver · Jul 25, 2012

The Plains are attached to the Eurasian steppe and occupies over 50% of Hungary. I think thats a great start to pasteurise horses.

Finite amount of pasturage there though. A matter of number of horses that can be raised there and those needed for a suitable conquest.

Mangekyou · Jul 25, 2012

DreamWeaver said:
Finite amount of pasturage there though. A matter of number of horses that can be raised there and those needed for a suitable conquest.

I agree. What I meant though, was that its a start. They can reduce their supply line and travel time (not like this was a major problem for the Mongols)

There are other plains too. The Serbian and Slovakian Plain, the plains in Ukraine, the Pannonian and Carpathian basin and the Vienna basin (although im not sure of the vialbility of this last one).

scottyd2506 · Jul 25, 2012

pugsville said:
European feudal armies would as useless in wood as the mongols perhaps more so.

Your opinion does not reflect facts. almost all of West Europe was thick woods. they grew up fighting this kind of war. does the word vietnam still make you grit your teeth?.

pugsville said:
. Any battle would have been fought in pretty much open country, both side would want it.

You just don't get it do you, Europe like the one you see one google map is not that same as it was 800-900 years ago. Through this time may woods have been taken down to grow vast fields to feed a vast population that is still growing.

There was pretty much no fields to fight in.
This all looks good in the movies you watch. To have all those men fighting out in the open for camera to see. History is not Hollywood bud.

pugsville said:
. Mongol armies are much more mobile, and generally would scout better, they would most likely tactically control the choice of battle site.
.

yep them ol dumb hilly billy Europeans, they never had scouts, or horses to be mobile. and they had never heard of tactics. They never survived, because they was a world dominating fighting force, it was just PURE luck that they was not exterminated. yep! That's it.

Dreamhunter · Jul 25, 2012

pugsville said:
But the strategic logistical problems of maintaining a large Mongol army in western Europe are quite difficult. They need pasture, Mongol horses just do not run on grain, they would have to rotate troops/mounts back to a large pasture area.

You sure? Why not? Just ask any good old Mongol horse worth his salt, and he'll tell ya grain is much tastier than grass, anytime. It'll make him sprint faster too. The only reason, he'd ruefully say to you, that he doesn't get it too often is because his master ain't too good at growin it.

Indeed, in our place, race horses are given special rations of chickpeas to give them added stamina and power. Incidentally, these are called kacang kuda in Malay, which when translated into English means 'horse peas'.

pugsville said:
IF the Mongols got significant European allies they might have got somewhere, but otherwise no. The fractious Independence of western nobles which was often only bending to their liege King when forced to, it's hard to see them accepting Mongol rule.

Not if they don't have much choice. Just like when you said, 'bending to their liege king when forced to'.

Them 'fractious nobles' would be competing with and jostling against one another for attention and favour. They would even offer their daughters as brides to the local Mongol chieftains. That's just the way it works.

sylla1 · Jul 25, 2012

You can't be serious; the Huns definitively conquered, and an immense territory for that matter.

In any case that point is irrelevant for the OP.

The relevant point is that this and myriad additional counterarguments make any of the aforementioned ecological objections absolute nonsense.

The cavalry of Subutai & Batu would have had no problem to ride all around Europe (maybe islands aside) to crush as many knights as they would have liked to...
... exactly the same as in any other of their campaigns against equivalent or even more powerful contenders; period.

Search

Search

Would the Mongols have conquered western Europe?

scottyd2506

Waterbabies

Dreamhunter

sylla1

Dreamhunter

Waterbabies

sylla1

Waterbabies

sylla1

pugsville

Mangekyou

sylla1

DreamWeaver

pugsville

Mangekyou

DreamWeaver

Mangekyou

scottyd2506

Dreamhunter

sylla1

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions