Why the Mongol Invasions of Europe so small?

Jun 2012
That Khwarezmians was not Massagetae but Turk warrior cast.
Nope. Only the top leadership elite, perhaps. I hv met not a few western Uzbek in our place. They certainly do not look like your average Asiatic/Oriental Turk. But more like a bigger scale version of Iranian or Indo-Iranian. Even if some of them speak Uzbek Turk only.
May 2018
Genghis Khan attacked with 200,000 men, an army that he'd taken more than a full year to personally assemble for the invasion. He had between 80 to 100 thousand mounted archers. Mongols on horseback outclassed just about anyone else of the time. Khwarezmians stood zero chance against a determined enemy..
Volga Bulgars,Mamluks(both Egypt and india)and even Keraits defeated them.
About Khwarezmians;they defeated Mongols in Parwan,Rey and İsfahan.
Just with good commanders and equal army size,Mongol horde can easily annhilate by Turks
Feb 2011
Bart Dale said:
I never said anything of them came from Juvaini. Can you show me where I did?

I cited Juvaini to show there was a lot of false claims about the Mongols having smaller forces even in contemporary sources, and to show you can't accept claims, even from contemporary sources, at face value. A claim of 400,000 for the Hungarians is total nonsense and demonstrates a lot of what is claimed about the number of Mongol opponents must be treated skeptically and is not reliable, even for contemporary sources.

It was not clear to me who you were quoting where, and so rather than waste time.puzzling out, I just want to show such statements need to be questioned.
All I did was ask you which of my sources came from Juvaini. You used exaggerations from Juvaini to put into question non-Juvaini sources I used. None of my sources came from Juvaini, YOU are the only one in this thread who actually read one of Juvaini's numbers at face value and used it as a source, even though you admit his numbers were exaggerated in an attempt to discredit my non-Juvaini sourcing.

Juvaini used exaggerated numbers for Mohi, both of us agree on that.

You are the only one who took one of Juvaini's numbers for Mohi at face value, and used it as a source.

I did not use Juvaini as a source, yet you used Juvaini's other exaggerated numbers to put into question my sourcing.

If you do that then you shouldn't use Juvaini as a vital source on Mongol army size, but you did it anyway.

Summary of Sources used so far for Mongol numerical inferiority/superiority in the Battle of Mohi.
Historia Tartarorum (used by Hack): The Hungarians, trusting their number, made fun of all this
History of the Bishops of Split (used by Hack): Yet although there was an enormous number of them, they say that in that battle (Mohi) the forces of the Hungarians were actually greater.
Master Roger's Epistle (used by Hack): [Mongol general says] "We can be confident, comrades; for although there is a great host of this enemy, they have allowed themselves to take poor counsel"
Yuan Shih (used by Hack): After crossing the river, Batu saw that the enemy was many, and wanted to quickly return to camp to plan further. Subotai refused, and said "You go back if you want, if I don't reach Xiu Nei river and Ma Cha city then I will not go back
Juvaini (used by Bart [Bart didn't quote him but the summary is the following]): Hungarians had 400,000 men, Mongols outnumbered by twice with a 10,000 man scouting party.

Contemporary sources "could be wrong", as you say. All contemporary sourcing presented so far agree or imply that the Mongols were outnumbered at Mohi, including Juvaini. When there are contemporary sources from both sides agreeing on the same thing, then it vastly reduces the chance of them being wrong.

You said Juvaini used exaggerated numbers. Yet despite this, you took at face value one of Juvaini's numbers to argue Mongols had the numerical advantage at Mohi. But Juvaini actually said Mongols were outnumbered. This drastically enhances the chance that you're argument is wrong. My argument don't require all of my sources to be correct. If any one of them, two of them, or even three of them is making numbers up, it does not invalidate my conclusion.
Last edited:


Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
That's a good question. Images of the Khwarazmian military are hard to come by. I guess they followed Persian styles of the time? Or maybe they continued Seljuk styles (which were probably Persian too)
Pretty sure Khwarazmians used very mixed army with levies from all over. The core Khwarazmians were mostly Turk fighting styles with some Persian and Ghaznavid remnants but they were relatively few. Many warriors from Persia, Mesopotamia, Indo/Pak and many different Turks fought in the Khwarazmian armies which had not the time to form a unique identity.
Likes: stevapalooza
Apr 2018
Upland, Sweden
If I counted French castles like how you think I would count Chinese centralized fortresses, then I would have counted 113 castles rather than 400 castles. Philip directly controlled a quarter of France (more if we only include France back in the day), and this quarter included 113 castles. Ergo all of 1240 AD France controlled probably less than 400 castles. This is the full picture, this came from counts by French clerks at the time, what more do you want? You can keep saying some country at some single point in time had thousands of operational castles all you want, but until you provide better sources than what I provided, then you have nothing but wishful thinking.

Frederick I (Emperor of Holy Roman Empire) controlled at least 200 castles in Germany, possibly more [Indeed, Arnold of Lubeck claimed that when Otto IV married Philip of Swabia's eldest daughter in 1209, he received with her 350 castles, Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. J.M. Lappenberg]. The most powerful other prince, Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, possessed perhaps 50, and many of these were lost when he fell out with Barbarossa and was deprived of his duchies and most of his fiefs in 1180 [See the map of Henry's castles in Saxony in Jaochim Ehlers, Heinrich der Lwe. Eine Biographie, pg 125]. Furthermore, the emperor's lands and castles were spread over a much wider geographical area than were those of most of the other princes. -The Origins of German Principalities, 1100-1350: Essays by German Historians

Now map of Henry the Lion's possessions, despite owning only 50 castles his territory make a significant part of German territory:

Granted that the quote is only relevant for the state of Germany 50 years prior to Mongol Conquest of Europe, but I'm not seeing what amounts to several hundred castles ballooning to several thousand castles in a period of 50 years. If they managed to build that many castles in such a short amount of time, then those castles would have been of questionable quality.
Why hello there @HackneyedScribe. It seems this thread is the first instance of you claiming I "had NO SOURCE" etc. as you sometimes do. I usually wouldn't do this, but I feel that you have been pushing all sorts of snide nonsense comments against me whenever we're in the same thread, and saying I make things up, in various contexts. Sometimes that has been true in our debates, I admit - we are all human beings, and I get emotional and can take a side as I am sure you do (I was being completely unreasonable in the Hong Kong thread for example). Anyway, most of the time that isn't the case.

So, let me just inform you that the German guy from EBI answered my email. Why is this relevant? Well, here is what you said in post #65, which I also quoted in its entirety - just in case you forgot.

"Granted that the quote is only relevant for the state of Germany 50 years prior to Mongol Conquest of Europe, but I'm not seeing what amounts to several hundred castles ballooning to several thousand castles in a period of 50 years. If they managed to build that many castles in such a short amount of time, then those castles would have been of questionable quality."

Look at the underlined part of your quote. Now, this is what the guy - or perhaps his secretary - from EBI (who studies these things for a living) says here in a screenshot of the email I recieved from EBI a couple of months ago (I didn't care enough to link it at the time, I care now):

Number of Castles in Germany.png

Are you going to keep up this nonsense now? Or are you going to ADMIT that you were wrong, and your vast mountain of "credible" evidence was, we say in Swedish - a luftslott - absolutely baseless, and nothing but fantastic and implausible deductions based on partial source material on your part? You were wrong, Hack, just as I pointed out, just as Larrey pointed out before he got tired.

To quote the lovely Europäisches Burgerinstitut, (who are also gracious enough to say they don't have reliable sources for the rest of Europe - and thus we can presume that they are erring on the side of caution here) just in case you pretend not to see the yellow part they have underlined in the email: It will most probably have been thousands and not just hundreds of castles.

But of course, I am sure all those castles were all made of wood right? I am sure all of them were of poor quality, and that they were built in that short timespan of 50 years Hack, that you ARBITRARILY deduced based on SELECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. Give me a break. Just admit that you were talking nonsense for once and that I got a lot closer to the truth than you did.

Maybe this is a good example of where my historical method turned out to be better than yours, hmm? :)
Last edited:
Likes: Isleifson
Feb 2011
Nordic this was what you said: "Well, Germany alone is reputed to today have around 25 000 castles (!!!) that either stand or once stood. Not all of these existed during the middle ages of course, but I think a solid estimate puts the number above 10 000"

You later claimed your above number to be a "conservative estimate" during the Mongols invasion.

Your source, which you only gave now, say that Germany had thousands of castles at the time, NOT tens of thousands. Were you this snide to yourself when you turned out to be wrong? Did you even admit you were wrong? No? If you aren't treating yourself this way why treat me this way?
Plus you presented the source only now, not back then. If you don't want to be accused of being sourceless, then present the source back then. You were arguing in favor of your number a month before you attained that source. Your last post here was in October 2018 but your source arrived in November 2018, so you didn't have that source when you were debating. Ergo you were sourceless during the time you were debating.
And you should ask him how he attained the number, and why my reasoning is incorrect, otherwise it's a belief built on sand. Knowing the why would make it a much more satisfactory answer. Plus, he didn't say anything about the quality of these castles, are they earthenworks or ringworks or true stone castles with both a curtain wall and a keep? Because given the last of my sentence you quoted from, I admitted there could be thousands of castles if you count the fortifications of lower quality. Your source said nothing on the matter but you are talking as if he did.
Just like how your source said that there the number of castles in Germany during the time of the Mongols invasion was in the thousands, but that does not support your argument that it's over 10,000 as a "conservative estimate". That supports your methodology how? You two didn't even arrive at the same conclusion.
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions