Why did only Asian based countries defeat the Mongol invasions?

Jun 2012
7,384
Malaysia
#11
Well, the Mongols first emerged from out of Asia. So, of course, many of the conquests would hv been around their initial place of emergence, in Asia.

But they did conquer at vast distances away from their original homeland. And they reached all the way to the plains of Eastern & Central Europe, and even contemplated conquering Northern Africa.
 
Feb 2011
1,595
#12
What's "proper Europe" then?
The agricultural zones west and north of the Ukraine steppe marked the border at that time, I'd say. As you will know there was no real agreement on the eastern borders of Europe for the longest time. The steppe became only fully integrated into the European sphere with the Slavic settlement and Muscovite control.
 
Jul 2013
393
USA
#13
Not really.

Goryo northern defence army was defeated initially and Goryo's ruler didn't send the most well-trained army in Goryo to fight against Mongols anymore.
As a result of this, whole Korean peninsula was burned by Mongols.

I hardly can say ""successfully"".
"There were three instances where the Koreans defeated Mongols.
The next one was on Fort Cheo-In, year 1232, when 30,000 Mongolic troops under general Salitai invaded. It took just one shot of god from Militia leader Kim Yoon Hu to kill the all mighty mongolic general. The Mongolic army retreated soon after, and a miraculous victory was obtained. Because it was such a victorious day for the Koreans, they build a tower to honor the kill.
Sammak-Sa 3 storey tower
The other one happened in 1236, In fort Jook Ju, by 1000 recruits under militia general Song Moon Ju against the 24000 mongolic forces. The mongols brought cannons all the way from China, and were bombarding the walls. However, during the 15 day combat, the militias were able to defeat the mongols. It was because general Song knew the mongolic strategy from Kweeju battle, a previous korean victory over Jurchens, who also employed similar tactics in comparison with the Mongols. Also, Song had rooted many Poles on the walls, creating a psycological blow to the mongols (they thought more men were defending the place than their numbers). Finally, the fort was also triple walled, and so cannons were less effective in bringing the wall down.
The other one was by Kim Yoon Hu again, 1253, versus the mongols under Yagul. The mongols had raveged through 2 other forts, and layed siege for 70 days in Choong Ju, a fort. As moral and supply were running out, he called out : "If we dare to fight and win, I shall pummel all class levels and sacrifice all titles!" and encouraged the caste classes who were left on the fort fighting (the mayor and the rich ones had fled the town before the siege). The battle is remembered more as a struggle for humanitarian rights more than a battle to defeat the mongols. The Mongols, after exhaustion, retreated. This fort was never conquered by the mongols throughout the history of Korea."
 
Feb 2011
6,454
#14

The Mongols' pursuit of Béla IV continued from Zagreb through Pannonia to Dalmatia. While in pursuit, the Mongols under the leadership of Kadan (Qadan) suffered a major defeat at Klis Fortress in Croatia in March 1242.[26
I'm not sure Kliss fortress is supposed to count considering the Mongols were on the verge of winning, and retreated only when they found out that King Bela was not within the fortress. Their objective wasn't to take the fortress but to get King Bela. If we count victories such as these, then one cay say that the Mongols lost a shipload of battles all over the place.

A lot of Mongol defeats were just raiding parties that skipped a town/fortress and went on to the next town/fortress when the place failed to capitulate within a set period of time.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2013
1,445
Mundo Nuevo
#15
The agricultural zones west and north of the Ukraine steppe marked the border at that time, I'd say. As you will know there was no real agreement on the eastern borders of Europe for the longest time. The steppe became only fully integrated into the European sphere with the Slavic settlement and Muscovite control.
The Crimean peninsula was long an integral part of Europe. The Greeks settled there and established colonies. The Romans established their rule over Crimea, the Germanic Goths ruled Crimea, and then the Byzantines ruled Crimea.

Crimea was the site where the Byzantines converted the Prince of Kiev, the ruler of all the Eastern Slavs to Orthodox Christianity.

Venice and Genoa both had colonies in Crimea and ruled the coastal areas and the city of Caffa (Feodosia). The black plague was spread by Mongol armies to Europe through Caffa.

The Genghisid Crimea Khanate used the Crimean peninsula and neighboring steppe areas in Ukraine as a base to launch massive, repeated raids for centuries against neighboring European states like Poland-Lithuania and captured millions of slaves for sale.

Yet Poland Lithuania could not destroy the Crimean Khanate. Europe was on the defense against the Ottomans and Crimeans most of the time, and except for the loss of Hungary, the Ottoman's possessions in the Balkans did not start to unravel until the 19th century.

The Crimean Khanate was not conquered and annexed until 1783 by Russia, a state which was always many times larger and more populous than Crimea yet it took centuries of slave raiding before they could put an end to the Khanate.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
2,351
#16
I'm not sure Kliss fortress is supposed to count considering the Mongols were on the verge of winning, and retreated only when they found out that King Bela was not within the fortress. Their objective wasn't to take the fortress but to get King Bela. If we count victories such as these, then one cay say that the Mongols lost a shipload of battles all over the place.

A lot of Mongol defeats were just raiding parties that skipped a town/fortress and went on to the next town/fortress when the place failed to capitulate within a set period of time.
I've not read that they were on the verge of winning. In any event, the Mongols invested and failed to take literally dozens of towns, cities, castles, and fortified positions, including Kliss, Olomuoc, Byrnostergum, Tyrnava, Bratislava, Orava, Filakova,Spis, Lietava, Cplit, Zadar, etc. (let me by blunt that I do not know them all, I just keep researching it and keep finding new places that held out).

One has to wonder:

A) How many of these sieges can a force loose before it becomes significant, especially given that according to even The Secret History of the Mongols, the battles of Mohi and Legnica were dearly bought with Mongols lives?

B) If they could not take these fortified positions in lightly fortified eastern Europe, how could they possibly have expected to win in Central Europe which is much more heavily fortified, and has no steppe?

C) It indeed it is true, why did they spend a year in Russia when ostensibly they left to settle the issue of succession?

D) Why were they never so successful in subsequent invasions?

If indeed "C" is true, then it is time to entirely re-write this thing. The Mongols were indeed repulsed because they weren't winning the sieges and knew that they had no hope of going any further than they did.
 
Feb 2011
6,454
#17
I've not read that they were on the verge of winning.
"However, the Tatars believed that the king [of Hungary] was in the fortress of Klis, and so they began to attack the fort from all sides, launching arrows and hurling spears. However, the place was naturally well fortified, and they could cause only limited harm. So then they dismounted from their horses and began to creep up hand over hand to higher ground. But the defenders of the fort hurled huge stones at them and managed to kill a number of them. This setback, however, only made them more ferocious, and they came right up to the great walls and fought hand to hand. They looted the houses and took away no little plunder. But when they learnt that the king was not there, they abandoned their attack on the fortress, and ascending their mounts rode off in the direction of Trogir. All the same, no small number of them turned towards Split." - History of the Bishops of Split

The fighting was thus already within the walls, and it certainly sounds like the Mongols were winning or else I doubt they would have been looting and taking away "no little plunder". At any rate the vast majority of Mongol defeats I've read were something like this, so I'm not sure if it's justified to call this a Mongol "defeat" when taking the place wasn't even the Mongol's primary objective in the first place. If the siege put the Mongol campaign to a halt and forced the Mongols to regroup/recuperate, rather than simply making the Mongol vanguard bypass the fortress and continue the raiding spree somewhere else, THEN I would call it a victory. There's a difference between "can't" and simply lacking the will to do so. Yet more serious defeats seem to happen much more often after the Mongol Empire fractured apart. Also note that some legends such as the siege of Olomuoc may be more legend than fact.

A) How many of these sieges can a force loose before it becomes significant, especially given that according to even The Secret History of the Mongols, the battles of Mohi and Legnica were dearly bought with Mongols lives?
That's the first time I heard that the battle of Mohi and Legnica was even recorded in the secret history of the Mongols. I think the book stopped writing before the battles even happened.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,405
#18
There isn't any early Mongol source which mentioned details of the European campaign. Neither the secret history of the Mongols or the Sheng Wu Qingzheng Lu include any details regarding the Russian campaign, in fact there was only one sentence mentioning Subutei's campaign west in the former source. The entire western campaigns of Chinggis Khan was considered a peripheral matter and the book was mainly about the unification of Mongolia. The later source had more details in regard to the Chinese campaign, but the same lack of even mentioning of the western campaigns.
 
Mar 2012
2,351
#19
"However, the Tatars believed that the king [of Hungary] was in the fortress of Klis, and so they began to attack the fort from all sides, launching arrows and hurling spears. However, the place was naturally well fortified, and they could cause only limited harm. So then they dismounted from their horses and began to creep up hand over hand to higher ground. But the defenders of the fort hurled huge stones at them and managed to kill a number of them. This setback, however, only made them more ferocious, and they came right up to the great walls and fought hand to hand. They looted the houses and took away no little plunder. But when they learnt that the king was not there, they abandoned their attack on the fortress, and ascending their mounts rode off in the direction of Trogir. All the same, no small number of them turned towards Split." - History of the Bishops of Split

The fighting was thus already within the walls, and it certainly sounds like the Mongols were winning or else I doubt they would have been looting and taking away "no little plunder". At any rate the vast majority of Mongol defeats I've read were something like this, so I'm not sure if it's justified to call this a Mongol "defeat" when taking the place wasn't even the Mongol's primary objective in the first place. If the siege put the Mongol campaign to a halt and forced the Mongols to regroup/recuperate, rather than simply making the Mongol vanguard bypass the fortress and continue the raiding spree somewhere else, THEN I would call it a victory. There's a difference between "can't" and simply lacking the will to do so. Yet more serious defeats seem to happen much more often after the Mongol Empire fractured apart. Also note that some legends such as the siege of Olomuoc may be more legend than fact.

That's the first time I heard that the battle of Mohi and Legnica was even recorded in the secret history of the Mongols. I think the book stopped writing before the battles even happened.
No, that clearly said that they brought the fight TO the walls, not inside. I think we both know that there is no way that they actually got inside the walls and just left. The houses mentioned could very well be the surrounding community.

I have heard a number of people claim that Olomuoc is legend, and found a book on line that ultimately sourced it to the Persian historian mentioned. Besides this, I see no reason for it to be a legend except that it does not fit the popular narrative. All of my questions still stand:

A) How many of these sieges can a force loose before it becomes significant, especially given that according to even The Secret History of the Mongols, the battles of Mohi and Legnica were dearly bought with Mongols lives?

B) If they could not take these fortified positions in lightly fortified eastern Europe, how could they possibly have expected to win in Central Europe which is much more heavily fortified, and has no steppe?

C) It indeed it is true, why did they spend a year in Russia when ostensibly they left to settle the issue of succession?

D) Why were they never so successful in subsequent invasions?

You can continue to believe the narrative of the invincible Mongols that only left because of Ogedei's death, but based on the points above, I no longer believe it. I think they lost a good number of their troops in the won battles and lost sieges, thought better of it, and found a good excuse to leave. The ultimate proof is that they did not immediately return to Mongolia.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,454
#20
No, that clearly said that they brought the fight TO the walls, not inside. I think we both know that there is no way that they actually got inside the walls and just left. The houses mentioned could very well be the surrounding community.
That is one way to interpret it. I interpreted it differently because the acts of looting was mentioned after the wall fighting.

I have heard a number of people claim that Olomuoc is legend, and found a book on line that ultimately sourced it to the Persian historian mentioned. Besides this, I see no reason for it to be a legend except that it does not fit the popular narrative. All of my questions still stand:
The Mongols swept through Moravia in less than a month, long enough, however, for a legend to grow that they were repulsed by Yaroslav of Steinberg from the citadel of Olmutz, where 'Peta' (Baidar) was killed. The story is probably basedon the events of a quite different campaign in 1253, and Baidar in any case lived to be present at Kuyuk's inauguration in 1246. Juvaini, I, 244. The Czech historian Vadar Novotny has set the record straight in a study published at Prague in 1928, but as I am ignorant of Czech, I can only refer to Vernadsky's note in The Mongols and Russia, 56. -History of the Mongol Conquests

A) How many of these sieges can a force loose before it becomes significant, especially given that according to even The Secret History of the Mongols, the battles of Mohi and Legnica were dearly bought with Mongols lives?
If it's just a raiding party? Then they can lose a lot of times, because that's what nomadic tribes had been doing since time immemorial for thousands of years, and if it's so costly then I must wonder how they still have plenty of descendants here alive and kicking.

B) If they could not take these fortified positions in lightly fortified eastern Europe, how could they possibly have expected to win in Central Europe which is much more heavily fortified, and has no steppe?
Most of the castles in both Eastern and Central Europe during the eve of Mongol invasion were just mottes and baileys. And if the Mongols ever do reach Central Europe, then they would be taking it with an army of Europeans. Mongols always use local forces after the initial spearhead campaign, the process was already beginning to happen in Europe. They don't have the manpower to gain such a vast empire by Mongol population alone. They wouldn't even be able to hold the empire with Mongol population alone if their enemies simply handed the land over to them.

C) It indeed it is true, why did they spend a year in Russia when ostensibly they left to settle the issue of succession?
Because they didn't. Ogodei died in December 11, 1241. News reached Mongol headquarters in Europe in February 1242. Batu withdrew in the late spring of 1242.

D) Why were they never so successful in subsequent invasions?
Golden Horde < Unified Mongol Empire

You can continue to believe the narrative of the invincible Mongols

that only left because of Ogedei's death, but based on the points above, I no longer believe it. I think they lost a good number of their troops in the won battles and lost sieges, thought better of it, and found a good excuse to leave
I didn't say they were invincible, they lost plenty of times all over the place, with many humiliating defeats to boot. They just won more than they lost on average. It's their ability to recruit local forces that allowed them to gain the upperhand despite losses.
Whether they can conquer all of Europe if Mongke and Ogedei didn't die, I don't know. If I had that power of prediction I would be making a killing with the stock market. All I can say with reasonable safety is that Hungary, Poland, and Russia was either gone or as good as gone. How much further they can push west depends on how much the locals are willing to join the evil they don't know to fight against the evil they do know.

The ultimate proof is that they did not immediately return to Mongolia.
They kinda did. Explained above.
 
Last edited: