Monguls conquered Europe


Historum Emeritas
Jun 2006
Jacksonville, FL
This scenario is in the first What If book.

The reason why Europe was spared was because of the death of the Great Khan (genghis son). Batu Kahn withdraw his forces to participate in figuring out the next khan. This title went to his causin Kublai Khan. Batu never went back to Europe.

If he never got the message of his father's death and Europe did get conquered and sacked, what would have happened?


Historum Emeritas
Aug 2006
I think Western Europe, the HRE, France, England, would have been too much for the Mongols to try to take. They did well in sparsely populated regions, the open country of Russia, Iran, even Hungary, but in very heavily settled and fortified Germany, the story would have been much different. Some manner of Crusade would have been called to stop them, troops from England, longbowmen, France, knights, and Spain, more knights, would have gone to the war front for sure.
Aug 2006
They armies of Europe would have been crushed, the Mongols tactics where just to odd for them to cope with, look at what they did to the poles. As for cities, the Mongols took no prisoners in sieges, they laid waste to most of modern day Iraq Iran and turkey, which was very heavily populated, until they killed every one. I do however think that they would not have held Europe for long, it’s just to much space for to few men to hold.
Dec 2007
Ontario, Canada
Mongols vs Western Europe

After the crushing victories of Liegnitz and Mohi in 1241, some books describe the rest of Europe as "open" to the Mongol hordes. The Mongols instead returned home because of the death of the Great Khan and a new successor had to be named.

Could the Mongols have conquered Western Europe as easily as some sources make it seem or would the Western European powers have been able to repel them?


Ad Honorem
Apr 2008
Re: Mongols vs Western Europe

If Ogadai hadn't died.

There wasn't a lot in Europe to stop the Mongols, bar geography. The Germans would have had the best chance. Dense forestation. Tightly packed fortified towns and castles, within support range of one another. It was something the Mongols had not encountered before. Isolated castles yes, but not mutually supporting networks. Also horse archers don't fight well in a forest and Mongols bows also fell to pieces in the rain.

The English would be obvious winners vs the Mongols. Foot archers have longer range, shoot more accurately and make difficult targets unlike horse archers. If the 1280's had worked, the Mongols would have faced Longshanks. But in 1241 the English hadn't developed these tactics yet and were using French style charging heavy cavalry under the impotent Henry III so no threat to the Mongols.

The French as Crecy proved would have mirrored the Hungarian and Teutonic order failures.

The Spanish however were the best set to face the Mongols in open battle. Spanish mounted javelin men vs Mongol horse archers. My money would be on the Spanish, unlike eastern horse archers Spanish were able to fight hand to hand like heavy cavalry. They catch Mongol calvary and win a hand to hand fight with them. Also Spain is a horrible country to invade in terms of supply and terrain (arid mountainous). The Mongols may have been able to plunder towns for food, but what would their horses have eaten?
Last edited:


Historum Emeritas
Jul 2006
Re: Mongols vs Western Europe

It would be interesting if Genghis had lived a bit longer. If he conquered all of Europe the next target could be the Ottoman Empire or India (key strategic locations rich in resources).
Longshanks recognised the power of the Mongols. During the Crusades he proposed an alliance with Genghis to retake the Holy Land. The Khan died before the treaty was signed but if the alliace had become a reality the crusades could have had a very different outcome.