Why the Mongol Invasions of Europe so small?

Apr 2018
Upland, Sweden
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.
Weak, transparently dishonest, and frankly pathetic. I can admit when I made a mistake, why can't you?

There is no point in us having further discussions.


Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
Where did you admit your 10,000 number was wrong? Your source said that there were most probably thousands of castles in Germany during the Mongols invasion, it did not say that there were "over 10,000 castles in Germany as a conservative estimate" as you claim. True or not? Your source also made no mention on the quality of these castles, true or not? You only got your source on November 2018 yet your last post before you stopped debating was on October 2018, hence my criticism in October that you were making sourceless arguments were valid, true or not?

So just how am I dishonest? Quote where I lied, or admit you are resorting to personal attacks meant to inflame, rather than hard info. Also don't dish out inflammatory accusations if you can't even handle constructive criticism. So before accusing me of being snide, did I say anything as offensive to you as what just said to me, and quote where I said that.
Last edited:
May 2018
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):

View attachment 20027

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? :)
I didnt read ****,by the way jews good cuck your country.
Now all swedens are low T
  • Like
Reactions: NordicDemosthenes
Mar 2019
The most well-believed reason is that the chief ruler of the Mongols died, and he returned as required by the Mongol law to elect his successor.

Another potential guess is when temperatures dropped and rainfall increased, the local climate shifted to a wetter and colder environment. That, in turn, caused flooding of the formerly dry grasslands and created a marshy terrain. Those conditions would have been less than ideal for the nomadic Mongol cavalry and their encampments, reducing their mobility and pastureland, curtailing their invasion into Europe west of the Hungarian plain, and hastening their retreat.

While it is also plausible that the Mongol invasion had stopped because of a series of costly and frustrating sieges, where they gained little loot and ran into stiff resistance. Where they lost a large number of people. And the rebellion in Cumans and Caucasus did not help them.

In short no one besides the dead Mongols know for sure the reason for withdrawal. At that time the people did not have indestructible means of record keeping like we do now for example historia.network.

However, I think a better question would be why they haven't returned. A simple answer - Europe at that time was a backward country compared to China or Persia. Little riches and very filthy.