Would the Mongols have conquered western Europe?

Zarin · Oct 18, 2012

Waterbabies said:
Yet, since it was Europe, we just have to be quiet and accept asinine arguments that Europe was so backward, defective, worthless (all value judgement words, by the way, that Zarin and others love to use when referring to medieval Europe), that it just wasn't even in the Mongols' interests to conquer it. Which, by the way, completely goes against the Mongols' own recorded statements (the letters still exist in their original forms in many cases) which CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY stated that the entire world belonged to the Mongols and that all states, including those in Europe, which had not submitted would eventually be brought to heel.

If you can find any posts in which I have used these highlighted words, I'll be most happy to own up to them. However, these are your words and the implications are yours... never mine. Europe was not backward, defective or worthless. Neither was China, the Tartars, the Merkits, the warriors of Quarazem or any of the many other peoples, who happened to encounter the Mongols. They simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time in history and the subsequent events that flowed from the Mongol conquests demonstrate how virulent "a force of nature" the Mongols actually were. And this "fate" which befell many peoples in Asia also fell on the peoples of Eastern Europe as well. And there is no reason to doubt that the same would have occurred to Western Europe, if the Mongols had continued on with their conquest of Europe.

DreamWeaver · Oct 19, 2012

Dreamhunter said:
In that case, the Mongols would still have won. Because their swordfighting style was faster, defter and more agile.

Again as with weaponry would have made minimal to no difference in the outcome of a battle.

Temujin · Oct 19, 2012

DreamWeaver said:
Again as with weaponry would have made minimal to no difference in the outcome of a battle.

If you are suggesting that only numbers win battles, which is obviously not true, then the Mongols would have won anyway. The abilities of Mongols in battle is not minimal in its superiority over the European soldiers. Again, Mongol soldiers were full-time soldiers, their culture revolved around war. In contrast, professional European armies were extremely rare. Most were composed out of peasants, better at wielding the hoe than the spear, and nobles who were well-equipped but by no means trained soldiers.
Skill is a major factor in war. Think about Thermoplyae. There may have been other Greeks, but the Spartans were truly superior in their fighting, and that's how they could hold out so long. And no, the Spartans did not shoot the Persians with composite bows while riding on horseback, the Spartans did their battle with the shield and the spear: this is hand-to-hand fighting.

DreamWeaver · Oct 19, 2012

Temujin said:
If you are suggesting that only numbers win battles, which is obviously not true, then the Mongols would have won anyway. The abilities of Mongols in battle is not minimal in its superiority over the European soldiers. Again, Mongol soldiers were full-time soldiers, their culture revolved around war. In contrast, professional European armies were extremely rare. Most were composed out of peasants, better at wielding the hoe than the spear, and nobles who were well-equipped but by no means trained soldiers.
Skill is a major factor in war. Think about Thermoplyae. There may have been other Greeks, but the Spartans were truly superior in their fighting, and that's how they could hold out so long. And no, the Spartans did not shoot the Persians with composite bows while riding on horseback, the Spartans did their battle with the shield and the spear: this is hand-to-hand fighting.

Im not suggesting anything of the sort.

Only that the comparative difference in levels of technology and equipment between opposing forces was of such small margin as to be of no great consequence in determining the outcomes of battle. All much of a muchness as it were. One might praise a "faster defter and more agile" sword fighting style, but ultimately such a thing makes little difference since ones swords and armour are of a comparable level. You might be more agile, but you are still using the same sword and he is still wearing the same armour. It appears as a common trope that people place great emphasis on such things as equipment when really they should not.

This if of course not to be confused with overall army cohesion, experienced troops and tactics. Which is what I believe you are getting at.

Zarin · Oct 19, 2012

Temujin said:
If you are suggesting that only numbers win battles, which is obviously not true, then the Mongols would have won anyway. The abilities of Mongols in battle is not minimal in its superiority over the European soldiers. Again, Mongol soldiers were full-time soldiers, their culture revolved around war. In contrast, professional European armies were extremely rare. Most were composed out of peasants, better at wielding the hoe than the spear, and nobles who were well-equipped but by no means trained soldiers.
Skill is a major factor in war. Think about Thermoplyae. There may have been other Greeks, but the Spartans were truly superior in their fighting, and that's how they could hold out so long. And no, the Spartans did not shoot the Persians with composite bows while riding on horseback, the Spartans did their battle with the shield and the spear: this is hand-to-hand fighting.

You make excellent points. Discipline and training have always been an important factor in warfare. And this is usually far superior in people, who have been continuously engaged in the activities of warfare (especially as a lifestyle). A people, such as the Mongols, lived and trained for war every day of their lives. Their swordmanship made them excellent hand to hand fighters as well. Such constant warriors are usually more successful, than those who engage it as a "hobby" or only intermittently. The only exception to this is guerrilla style warfare. Yet even this "exception" requires incredible creativity and the ability to make do with whatever resources are readily available. The Spartans and the Mongols were both "warrior" peoples. However, the Spartans never embraced the concept of world conquest. The Mongols made it a religion.
The Mongols existed well over a millennium later than the Spartans and under an entirely different set of environmental conditions. These "conditions" made the Mongols the force of nature they were to become. The single cause of Mongol decline was their embracing of "civilized" lifestyles and their move into cities.

Dreamhunter · Oct 20, 2012

Mangekyou said:
They did possess some form of heavy cavalry for this exact purpose though, when the enemy army was weakened.

Slay the bulk of them from distance first. When what remains can't seriously threaten you anymore, you can finish off the job anyway you want. And everyone loves a spectacular grand looking coup de grace, don't they?

Temujin said:
Genghis Khan loved heavy cavalry. It was Subutai who made the Mongols so famous for their light cavalry. We must consider that Genghis Khan never personally encountered a typical European army. His conquests were confined to East and Central Asia.

I can just imagine it. You're a warrior tired to numbness, your legs can barely hold up your weight anymore. Your mind is anywhere but inside your head, and you're wondering when and how it's going to end for you. That's if you still have enough energy to even wonder. And then ... them big men clad in invincible armour and armed to the teeth, on their big horses also clad in invincible armour, suddenly appear seemingly from nowhere.

The remainder of your exhausted army then just collapses in dismay.

Temujin · Oct 20, 2012

DreamWeaver said:
Only that the comparative difference in levels of technology and equipment between opposing forces was of such small margin as to be of no great consequence in determining the outcomes of battle. All much of a muchness as it were. One might praise a "faster defter and more agile" sword fighting style, but ultimately such a thing makes little difference since ones swords and armour are of a comparable level. You might be more agile, but you are still using the same sword and he is still wearing the same armour. It appears as a common trope that people place great emphasis on such things as equipment when really they should not.

Ultimately, a battle is decided by the actions of single combatants. You might have an army of 10,000 fight an army of 100 and yet the 100 could still win if the 10,000 did not lift their swords to strike their enemies down, or pull back their bows to shoot the enemies. You may flank an enemy army but if your soldiers did not raise their shields to ward off blows and the enemies do, your chances are very low indeed.
This is the same with Mongols and Europeans. Mongols were simply better at fighting both at long and close range, this would eventually take its toll on the Western Europeans.

Zarin · Oct 20, 2012

Dreamhunter said:
I can just imagine it. You're a warrior tired to numbness, your legs can barely hold up your weight anymore. Your mind is anywhere but inside your head, and you're wondering when and how it's going to end for you. That's if you still have enough energy to even wonder. And then ... them big men clad in invincible armour and armed to the teeth, on their big horses also clad in invincible armour, suddenly appear seemingly from nowhere.

The remainder of your exhausted army then just collapses in dismay.

The problem with this scenario is: Where were these "big men in invincible armor and armed to the teeth on their big horses" when the Mongols were conquering everything from Russia to Vienna in Europe? A conquest of over 2/3rds the continent of Europe. Were they just waiting for the right opportunity? Not!

Dreamhunter · Oct 20, 2012

That was just a general well executed coup-de-grace scenario of heavy cavalry in any army. It could have applied to any corps of heavy cavalry, be it in a Mongol, European, Turkic or Persian army.

I believe it was a favourite of the Norman army with their formidable destrier cavalry. The Persians used it well against General Crassus and Emperor Valerian too, I reckon.

Zarin · Oct 20, 2012

Dreamhunter said:
That was just a general well executed coup-de-grace scenario of heavy cavalry in any army. It could have applied to any corps of heavy cavalry, be it in a Mongol, European, Turkic or Persian army.

I believe it was a favourite of the Norman army with their formidable destrier cavalry. The Persians used it well against General Crassus and Emperor Valerian too, I reckon.

Again, no one has offered up this "coup de grace" scenario in the 2/3rds of Europe already conquered by the Mongols. Where was this magical and mystical invincible force and why was it not?

Dreamhunter · Oct 20, 2012

The coup de grace, if appropriate or necessary, would have been delivered by the winning army. In the Europe of that time, it would have been the Mongol army.

Zarin · Oct 20, 2012

Dreamhunter said:
The coup de grace, if appropriate or necessary, would have been delivered by the winning army. In the Europe of that time, it would have been the Mongol army.

I totally agree. Fortunately, for Europe, the Mongols never got the opportunity to deliver it. I suspect it would most likely have been somewhere in France. Or possibly the fall of Constantinople would have completed the Mongol conquest of Europe?

deke · Oct 20, 2012

There was even a white supremacist who wrote that the Mongols would have won had the great khan (mongke khan) not have died. I think his name was Arthur Kemp and he wrote a white supremacist version of pseudohistory called "March of the Titans: a history of the White Race" in which he made the claim.

This is what Winston Churchill had to say about it in "A History of the English Speaking Peoples"

But Asia too was marching against the West. At one moment it had seemed as if all Europe would succumb to a terrible menace looming up from the East. Heathen Mongol hordes from the heart of Asia, formidable horsemen armed with bows, had rapidly swept over Russia, Poland, Hungary, and in 1241 inflicted simultaneous crushing defeats upon the Germans near Breslau and upon European chivalry near Budapest. Germany and Austria at least lay at their mercy. Providentially in this year the Great Khan died in Mongolia; the Mongol leaders hastened back the thousands of miles to Karakorum, their capital, to elect his successor, and Western Europe escaped

if white supremacists and winston churchill say the mongols would have beaten europe, then the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor.

Iolo · Oct 20, 2012

If they'd attacked our country we'd have destroyed them by ambush in narrow valleys, as we destroyed all the other bullies. The bandier they come the quicker they fall!

Zarin · Oct 20, 2012

deke said:
There was even a white supremacist who wrote that the Mongols would have won had the great khan (mongke khan) not have died. I think his name was Arthur Kemp and he wrote a white supremacist version of pseudohistory called "March of the Titans: a history of the White Race" in which he made the claim.

This is what Winston Churchill had to say about it in "A History of the English Speaking Peoples"

if white supremacists and winston churchill say the mongols would have beaten europe, then the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor.

Winston Churchill wasn't the last word on military expertise, but he certainly did have some grasp on world history. I'm not sure how to take the opinion of a white supremacist, but his critical thinking obviously wasn't entirely blurred. Moreover, it is considered by most historians that the Mongols would have very likely conquered all of Europe if it hadn't been for the intervention of a funeral. What the religious would call an "Act of God."

Zarin · Oct 20, 2012

Iolo said:
If they'd attacked our country we'd have destroyed them by ambush in narrow valleys, as we destroyed all the other bullies. The bandier they come the quicker they fall!

Strangely, England and Japan, both island nations destined to become powerful World forces, were both saved from huge invasion fleets by bad weather. One nation by "God" the other by a "Goddess." Is that a coincidence or is something else at work here?

Iolo · Oct 20, 2012

Zarin said:
Strangely, England and Japan, both island nations destined to become powerful World forces, were both saved from huge invasion fleets by bad weather. One nation by "God" the other by a Goddess."

#

England, despite the opinion of some of its more ignorant peasants, is not an island.

Zarin · Oct 20, 2012

Iolo said:
#

England, despite the opinion of some of its more ignorant peaants, is not an island.

The British Isles to be more specific. "England" was the target of the Spanish Armada, not the British Isles. And England is on an island. Picky picky. But I guess someone had to do it. And FYI, peasants is not peaants. Or did you mean piss ants? Picky picky.

Iolo · Oct 20, 2012

Zarin said:
The British Isles to be more specific. "England" was the target of the Spanish Armada, not the British Isles. And England is on an island. Picky picky. But I guess someone had to do it. And FYI, peasants is not peaants. Or did you mean piss ants? Picky picky.

Many places are on islands. They are parts of islands, doubtless. I mean I am dyslexic, ok?

DreamWeaver · Oct 20, 2012

Temujin said:
Ultimately, a battle is decided by the actions of single combatants. You might have an army of 10,000 fight an army of 100 and yet the 100 could still win if the 10,000 did not lift their swords to strike their enemies down, or pull back their bows to shoot the enemies. You may flank an enemy army but if your soldiers did not raise their shields to ward off blows and the enemies do, your chances are very low indeed.
This is the same with Mongols and Europeans. Mongols were simply better at fighting both at long and close range, this would eventually take its toll on the Western Europeans.

Yes, but if you base analysis purely of the vast possibility of the potential actions of hundreds or thousands of individuals then any generalisation referring to any larger group of them becomes utterly pointless. Especially hypothetical ones.

There is nothing based off the relative equipments and technological levels of Europeans and Mongols, nor nothing in their general physiognomy that suggests a battle winning advantage over the other. They are far to close to call on such things as to render them negligible.

As for strategy, tactics, generalship, army cohesion, morale, experience those are all other matters entirely that may be debated.

Search

Search

Would the Mongols have conquered western Europe?

Zarin

DreamWeaver

Temujin

DreamWeaver

Zarin

Dreamhunter

Temujin

Zarin

Dreamhunter

Zarin

Dreamhunter

Zarin

deke

Iolo

Zarin

Zarin

Iolo

Zarin

Iolo

DreamWeaver

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions