Mongols versus Western Europe post-1241
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24638
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 02:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Mongols versus Western Europe post-1241
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Subject: Mongols versus Western Europe post-1241
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 22:04
|
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? ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Replies:
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 06:20
|
The Mongols would come across a few problems with a European campaign. At the time, there were fields of trees in Western Europe. Horses, especially horse archers, do not maneuver well in dense foliage. The Mongols' strength was in its horse archers, without them the Mongols would be at a disadvantage. Arrows might often miss their target, leaving their front ranks open for European knights. Attila the Hun learned this in his campaign against the Roman Empire in the mid fourth century A.D. There also might have been revolts across the Empire. Before departing for Europe in 1240, the Mongols sent toumans to keep their Empire in strict order. Three touman, or 30,000 Mongol soldiers were stationed in conquered western Russian territory alone. The Mongols would also come across issues with the Egyptian Muslims. The Muslims routed the Mongols at Ain Jalut in 1260, at Albistan in 1277 and at Homs in 1281. The Egyptians saved Europe by defeating the Mongols at these battles. So, the answer is in history the Mongols could not conquer Western Europe. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 06:48
|
Stefan the Great defeated the Mongols at Lipnic and since then they never returned to Europe. There were also several Russian figures that defeated the Mongols.
So to say Egypt saved europe from the Mongols? I think Egypt saved itself from the Mongols would be more accurate.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 07:03
|
Mongols absolutely could conquer Europe without much problem. European kingdoms were dwarfes compare to the Chinese states and Kwarezmian empire destoyed by Mongols. European armies were a joke against Mongolian force. What caused Mongols' retreat was the death of the great khan and the urgent necessity of Batu's presence in Karakorum. The same thing happened in Ain Jalut. The most of the Mongol army had to withdraw due to internal issues. Arabs having superior numbers defeated just a small part of Mongolian army.
What stopped Mongolian advance were just internal problems in their empire and simple fact that they had already so much posessions that it was very hard to control just because of large distances. Additional lands would just give them unnecessary burden. Besides, frankly speaking poor lands of Europe were much less attractive than the rich Middle East and China.
------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 07:04
Poland had more forests than countries in Western Europe. It didn't help though.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 07:05
You confuse the 15th century with the 13th. Stefan the Great never fought Mongols. He fought Tatars, much weaker remnants of the great Mongolian empire. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:12
|
How am I confusing the 13th and 15 centuries? I said nothing of a date at all.
Stefan fought Ahmed Khan of the Golden Horde. Those were Mongols. Tatar is just a western name for Mongol.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tartar - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tartar
And what did the Mongolians due? Conquor an internally fractured Chinese Empire and managed to avalanche smaller steppe kingdoms. After they got their new Khan they could have gone west to conquor the rest of europe but they didn't. The terrain did not suit their tactic. Some nations (Like Stefan's) managed to beat steppe archers at their own game. So I don't really think the Mongols could have brought anything new to the battle field.
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:15
|
"Mongols absolutely could conquer Europe without much problem. European kingdoms were dwarfes compare to the Chinese states and Kwarezmian empire destoyed by Mongols."
You have to keep in mind that the lands the Mongols took over were A LOT less populated per square mile then europe. Most of their empire was steppe.
"European armies were a joke against Mongolian force."
Kind of general speaking and really largly untested. |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:42
Carpathian Wolf, this is discussion about 13th c. Poland also was defeating the Tartars many times in 15-17th c., but it lost in 1241.
Russia eventually (after centuries) defeated Mongols/Tartars, but it lost in 13th c.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 11:13
|
Hello Sarmat At Ain Jalut, The mongols had two tumens, some 6 thousand Armenians+Georgians and about 10 thousand Auybids from Homs. The highest estimate of the Mamelukes was 60k and the lowest, and earliest by the way, was 40 thousand, so hardly outnumbered I would say. There were two or three other tumens in the rest of Syria and were all defeated by the Spring of 1261. hulegu had the power to mass an army, he was in Maraghah after all, and "distroy" the mamelukes but he failed to do so especially when we know that Baibars reached Diyarbakir (Hasan Kayfa) the heart of mongol controlled lands when he was in Iran yet for some unknown reason he decided not to go to war. For the rest of the mongol-Mameluke wars, the armies were even with mongols having the upper hand due to Auybid, Armenia and western European support. As for why did the mongols not go into europe, well as ataman said, europe was a jungle and when you look at it carefully, you will find that all the battles were fought in steppe like areas not forests, and eventually, with millions between them and the rest of europe and europe beeing so densly populated, I really doubt if they were to go beyond where they reached because europeans were not bad in guerilla wars (remeber Arminius and Teutburg Forest). Al-Jassas |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 22:34
| Um okay? I don't know what you mean. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 00:24
These numbers are simply false.
First of all, again the main Mongol force was away and involved in the civil war with other parts of the former Mongolian empire which lasted from 1259 until 1301. Hulagu simply couldn't afford another expedition to Syria because he needed his forces for other, more important, in the view of the Mongols, purposes. All the bulk of Mongolian forces was moved back to Central Asia.
Mamluks defeated a very small detachment of Mongolian governor of Syria Kit-Buga numbers range from 10 to 20 thousands, most likely only 10 thousands
Also Mongols many of whom were Nestorian Christians were disgustinly bertrayed by Crusaders who instead of supporting their Christian "brothers" refused to supply Kit-buga army, but sold enough provision to Mameluks. Mameluk army BTW consisted mainly of Kypchaks, another steppanse who hated Mongols nevertheless.
The battle of Ain Jalut is very often exagerrated as a battle of macro-scale which saved the whole Muslim world from Mongol menace, but in fact it was a small scale battle where a small Mongolian force was routed by much more superior in numbers Egyptian Kypchaks.
What saved the Muslim world was the death Monke-khan in 1259, then the subsequent death of Hulagu in 1265 and the endless Mongolian civil war which lasted until 1301. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 00:41
Really?
I suggest you to check the density of population of the agricultural areas Southern Song state in the 13th century, before claiming something like this. Have you heard about the man called Marco Polo?
He was shocked with what he saw in China (in terms of population, industrial and cultural and technological development). Europe of that time was much less populated than the Middle East, not even to mention China. Also the density of population in Southern Song far exceeded any "comparable" numbers in Europe. Mongols, conquered all these.
You need just to compare the powers of Kwarezmian empire, Jin Dynasty, Song Dynasty, Abbasid Chalifate etc. with the military capabilities of Europe at that time to understand that this is true. What happened is just that Mongols defeated European armies several times and then withdraw back to Asia due to their internal problems. The terrified Europe was saved due to the death of Mongolian great khan. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 01:13
|
"Really?"
Really. Most of the Mongol Empire was steppe. The chinese empire was broken into two and in internal strife. They fell in chunks to the Mongols.
"You need just to compare the powers of Kwarezmian empire, Jin Dynasty, Song Dynasty, Abbasid Chalifate etc. with the military capabilities of Europe at that time to understand that this is true. What happened is just that Mongols defeated European armies several times and then withdraw back to Asia due to their internal problems. The terrified Europe was saved due to the death of Mongolian great khan."
Kwarezmian Empire was just another Steppe kingdom that got avalanched over by the Mongols. The two chinese kingdoms you mentioned I already explained. And the caliphate was largly tested only against heavy crusader knights in smaller numbers in open desert or against the Byzantine Empire during its internal struggles.
Mongols are a strong military kingdom, to me the horse archer warrior is my favorite. Even today I look at Mongols with a bit of awe and respect. But I really think they were over rated. Stefan beat them at Lipnic, regardless of their internal issues they did not work out the same as other kingdoms. Even so Stefan was out numbered and had what behind him? The Moldovan principality? Not a very large power base. No where near equal to just the Golden Horde section of the Mongolian domain. Stefan also had to fight against the Turks, Hungarians and Poles. And against all of his enemies he won 36 of 38 battles.
Mongols are far from invincible.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 02:18
|
Your not really paying attention to timelines are you Carpathian? In fact the Song held the Mongols for quite a while. The germans couldn't put more than 10,000 men onto the field and the only troops which the Emperor could be assured of their loyalty was the Luceran Imperial Muslim Army who were drawn from a total population of 10,000. (Fredrick II was excommunicated and in battle with the pope when the mongols attacked) What really saved Europe from the mongols was not forests, and certainly not population but poverty. The battles in Germany were not a challenge to the Mongols - shooting foot knights from horseback. Especially after fighting the Hungarians, who were skilled horsemen with yurts filled with treasure, Germany had nothing to offer. Truth is, the mongols were bored. No loot, no challenge, no reason to be in germany. Personally though I think Fredrick II should have struck a deal with the mongols and unleashed them on the rebellious Italian city states. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 02:51
"Chinese empire" wasn't broken. Jin Dynasty (which was a Jurchen state BTW) and Song Dynasty were different states at this time. Each of this large states' military capabilities far exceeded European ones.
But anyway even in your "logic." Europe at that time was not broken in chunks, was it?
Very strange statement. Have you heard about such ancient, large, stone cities as Samarkand, Bokhara, Iskhafan etc. May be in your opinion those were just steppe yurt camps or what?
Those cities population and wealth and defences far exceeded any of European cities.
They were all taken by Mongols who used superior Chinese siege technologies.
You explained nothing, except that you revealed the lack of understanding of what "Chinese kingdoms" really were at this time.
Complete nonsense. Stefan never fought Mongols. He was born a couple of centuries after the Mongolian empire had vanished from the world's map. Nothing even to comment here.
About the Mongol military, some researches suggest that its organization and mobility was complitely matched only by the time of WWII. These kinds of assesments may be very disputable. But they say something. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bernard Woolley
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 03:22
|
It's possible that the opposite was what actually happened. There is some evidence that the Mongols were in regular contact with the Venetians. Although this is fairly speculative, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that the Venetians might have welcomed or even encouraged a heavier Mongol presence in Europe - traders benefitted more than anyone else from Mongol expansion. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 03:33
|
Venetians certainly had contact with the Mongols, they were buying Qipchak slaves from them before selling them to Egypt.
The city states and the Papacy had the most to gain from a mongol invasion of Europe, so the idea that they were trying to encourage it is quite possible. They were bitter enemies of the HRE at the time, so powerful "pagans" wiping the excommuncate's empire off the map would certainly have served their purposes. Not only that, but given the decietfulness of the Venetians, Milanese and Pope Innocent III (who took power shortly after the Mongols depature from Europe) it is entirely believable that they would do that.
Innocent III pioneered the selling of salvations to raise funds to fight against Fredrick II and the HRE. ------------- |
Posted By: Bernard Woolley
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 03:47
| You wouldn't happen to know where one could find good sources on the Venetian reationship with the Mongols, would you? And, for that matter, I'd be interested in finding information about Middle Eastern groups that had ambivalent relations with the Mongols. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 06:32
|
Not specifically. Most of what I know comes from Soldiers of Fortune by Sir John Glub, and Fredrick II of Hohenstaufen by Georgina Masson. They focus on the Mamluke Dynasty and Fredrick II but naturally they describe many of the states around them (especially their enemies) to a much lessor extent too. ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 08:52
The levy of troops from Holy Roman Empire alone would far exceed 10000.
Wrong, you are talking about Kingdom of Sicily, which wasn't part of HRE, though the Frederic II was de facto ruler of both. In case of Mongol attack on HRE we would see many armies consisting between 10000 - 20000 men raised by various Dukes, just like the one Polish Duke Henry of Silesia raised for the battle of Legnica.
Foot knights??? You couldn't become a knight if you hadn't warhorse.
Hungarian military by 13th century was very similar to western European. The only horse archers in their army were Cumans, who fled from Ukrainian steppes to Hungary driven by Mongols. I wonder why you claim Hungary to being richer than Germany at that time? In conclusion the Mongols will have early successes but lose the long campaign, just like every other steppe army that made it to Europe. |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 11:58
|
The Mongols might not have conquered western Europe for whatever reason, but if the below article from Wikipedia is correct, they certainly left a ''very nice gift'' for Europe, which conquered all of Europe on its own and achieved what the Mongols themselves had done very well in the regions they conquered. Mass killings and depopulation in unprecedented levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death ''The plague disease, caused by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yersinia_pestis - Yersinia pestis , is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzootic - enzootic (commonly present) in populations of ground http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodents - rodents in central Asia, but it is not entirely clear where the 14th century pandemic started. The most popular theory places the first cases in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppe - steppes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia - Central Asia , although some speculate that it originated around northern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India , and others, such as the historian Michael W. Dols, argue that the historical evidence concerning epidemics in the Mediterranean and specifically the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian - Plague of Justinian point to a probability that the Black Death originated in Africa and spread to central Asia, where it then became entrenched among the rodent population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death#cite_note-21 - [22] Nevertheless, from central Asia it was carried east and west along the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road - Silk Road , by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol - Mongol armies and traders making use of the opportunities of free passage within the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire - Mongol Empire offered by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Mongolica - Pax Mongolica . It was reportedly first introduced to Europe at the trading city of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feodosiya - Caffa in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea - Crimea in 1347. After a protracted siege, during which the Mongol army under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janibeg - Janibeg was suffering the disease, they catapulted the infected corpses over the city walls to infect the inhabitants. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Genoa - Genoese traders fled, bringing the plague by ship into Sicily and the south of Europe, whence it spread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death#cite_note-22 - [23] '' |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 18:27
|
Hello sarmat
would you please provide me with the sources for your claims because I have a lot of sources that support my claim including from the Mongol side. The mongols had between three and four tumens in all of Syria by the time Hulegu left and as much as 16 thousand allies some christian the others muslims, the number of the allies come from Islamic sources because those allies were ransomed for money later when they were captured. Rashid AL-Din, the principle mongol historian gives these claims some credibility and said Hulegu never had more than 100-120 thousand men which meant he only left a quarter to a fifth of his army not a very small force because he also directed Kitubga Noyan (a term meaning the leader of ten thousand, a tumen and Arab sources mention two other noyans during the Ain Jalut campaing) to complete the conquest, a task that even Hulegu himself knows it can't be done by 10 thousand men. Now Rashid Al-din did not elaborate on the losses but mentions a letter from Hulegu to the great Khan Kublai which was full of greif about the losses, after the letter, the Ilkhanids were officially established.
As for the "civil wars", well, there were only two major battles between the mongols one agaisnt Berke khans successors (1266) and another in 1273 against the chagatais. After that, he finally lead a campaing against Baibars in Elbistan (1277) where his troops were crushed. To revenge his loss, he gathered the largest mongol army till that time against the mamelukes who were a bloody 4 year civil war, they were crushed in Homs so much so, they only campained against an enemy period let alone another campaign against the Mamelukes after reimforcements came from the homeland some 5 years after.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 18:41
|
"
"Chinese empire" wasn't broken. Jin Dynasty (which was a Jurchen state BTW) and Song Dynasty were different states at this time. Each of this large states' military capabilities far exceeded European ones.
But anyway even in your "logic." Europe at that time was not broken in chunks, was it?"
China wasn't unified. That was my point. An unified state collapses on itself especially if it is a heavy one.
"
Very strange statement. Have you heard about such ancient, large, stone cities as Samarkand, Bokhara, Iskhafan etc. May be in your opinion those were just steppe yurt camps or what?
Those cities population and wealth and defences far exceeded any of European cities.
They were all taken by Mongols who used superior Chinese siege technologies."
I didn't say they weren't advanced but it's simply a question of numbers and direction. Steppes aren't very good defendable positions. More like mobility platforms. "
Complete nonsense. Stefan never fought Mongols. He was born a couple of centuries after the Mongolian empire had vanished from the world's map. Nothing even to comment here. "
He fought Ahmed Khan of the Golden Horde. If you don't want to believe that fact that is your problem not mine. Even if the Golden Horde was the only section he fought it was still larger then Moldova princiaplity and they used the same tactics. Stefan beat their tactics (and numbers). The Mongols and their desendents had been a danger in the area even until the 18th century. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 21:29
I will with pleasure provide my sources. Kirakos of Gandzak - 20 thousands for the army of Kit-Buga at the time of Ain-Jalut and Hayton of Corycus-10 thousands for the army of Kit-Buga at the time of Ain-Jalut. Kirakos of Gandzak is a major source for the history of the Mongolian empire and both of them produced primary sources for the study of Mongolian campaign in the Middle East
The point is simple. Hulagu withdraw all its main force quite a time before the battle of Ain-Jalut and Mongols never came back in such a power.
In fact, Mongols were attacked by Qutuz first. Mameluks retook the initiative, when it became obvious that the Mongols couldn't pose a serious threat any more.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 21:52
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that you can't compare the mightly Mongol empire of the 13th century which conquered most of the Eurasian continent with the small weak Khanate which even wasn't a remnant of the Mongolian empire itself but just a fragmented remnant of the other remnant of Mongolian empire i.e. Golden Horde.
Gorden Horde itself BTW complitely disentegrated by 1445 (battle of Lipnic was in 1470) and had been numerous times beaten by Russians, Lithuanians, Poles etc. before the battle of Lipnic happened.
Mongol empire military power far exceeded that of the Golden Horde, not even to mention of the Great Horde with which Stefan fought. Comparison of the Great Horde with the Mongol Empire has the same validity as the comparison of a cat with a tiger.
"Yes, I "defeated" the small cat, for sure I wouldn't have any problems with the tiger either, he uses the same tactics after all"-this is basically what you say. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 22:08
|
Hello sarmat
But notice here they didn't mention the allies, I never said that mongols themselves were more than 20 thousand at ain Jalut, I said they were exactly that number, the rest of the army, 16 thousand were allies which mean they were not outnumbered 5 to 1 as many historians believe, but by approximately by 3 to 2 and keep in mind from the 26 mameluke princes of 1000, only 16 fought (25 thousand mamelukes because the sultan guard were 8 thousand men and some troops went without their princes) and the rest were militias mostly tribals who were none the less excellent soldiers. Also these guys didn't mention other mongol troops in Syria that were dispersed which according to Arab and Persia sources about two other tumens led by two noyans one was defeated (6 thousand of the 10 thousand were actually mercilessly massacred the rest went to Armenia and then to Azerbaijan) in a known battle near Aleppo in Feburary of 61 and the other gathered the rest of the mongols and left for Iraq where the governor was about to intervene but summer came. All in all there were some 4 tumens or approximately 40 thousand mongols in Syria not 10 thousand.
Another thing, it seems you never heard about the mongol attack on Gaza several monts prior to Ain Jalut. The mongols attack Gaza and took it then left it because of summer to the Galile. Then in that summer Kitubga sent warning to the mamelukes in a well known incident where the messengers were beheaded and their heads were hung from Bab Zuwailah so he did in fact go to war and he got killed in the process. Go to Rashid Al-Din, Abulfida, Ibn Khilikan, Al-Juwaini and many other who were also contemporaries. as for mongols never campaining against the mamelukes again, well what about Elbistan (1277), what about Homs (1281), what about Ain Al-Khazandar (1296), the Gazan campaign of 1299-1300, Marj As-Safr the greatest battle of them all in 1304? All these were major campaigns against the mongol and by the mongols against the Egyptians.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 22:23
|
Well. The numbers are the total numbers of the forces that fought at Ain-Jalut from the Mongol part according to these sources.
Also, I think that the the later battles of Hulaguids and Mameluks are already a different story. By the end of the 13th century, Mongols have already largely lost their momentum. They would be never able to conduct such succesful miltary operations as the campaing of 1260.
But what we are discussing here in my opinion is the peak of Mongol military power in the West i.e. the time spam of 1240-1260. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 23:44
|
Heh okay Sarmat. The point is that Stefan with smaller numbers defeated Mongols who used the same tactic previously. The state of their empire is irrelevant because of the size of the Golden Horde itself was bigger then Moldova.
Defeating a cat is still something even if it isn't a tiger when you are a mouse by comparisant. ;)
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 01:06
|
Found something interesting for you from the rhymed chronicle of Filip Mousket, in 1242.
It says: "the world was filled with joy when the king from the land of Vlahs defeated the Mongols.
This was against Batu's army as it was returning from Hungary apperantly going through the south to devastate the territory again, but the "king of Vlahs" defeated them.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 06:30
Then why didn't they muster them despite the frequent wars the HRE was involved in at that time?
Fredrick II was ruler of both, and rallied troops from both. So when it comes to raising troops to fight they can be treated as one.
North east germany compared to Hungary in the 13th centuary? I would've though it was fairly obvious that Hungary was richer. If the mongols had invaded Austria instead they may have formed a different opinion on the quality of loot.
Which is what happened in real life of course. ------------- |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 00:29
The Mongols began to focus on Egypt at this time. If the Mongols were victorious in Muslim Egypt, then they would have ravaged Western Europe soon thereafter. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 02:07
|
I don't think Mongols would conquer Western Europe that easy.
- It was said by many that Mongols retreated because Ogodei died. May be so. But Ogodei was no young man. He was over 50. If he was to live longer, it could not be much longer. And if Western Europe was to be conquered it would be certainly a tougher nut to crack than Hungary or Poland. Therefore if Ogodei's death triggers the end of their western adventure, they wouldn't be able to conquer Europe entirely. They just don't have the time to organize the campaigns and to fight the necessary battles.
- Hungary and Poland were significantly less fortified and arguably less populated than important parts of Western Europe in the 13th century. We know that Mongols successes in their European campaigns were impressive but not flawless and complete: they had casualties, there were some indecissive skirmishes the historians still argue about their significance, there were fortifications which were not overrun (some were conquered by tricks like feign retreats, some weren't conquered at all).
- Resources and logistics. Based on what I know of Mongols in Europe, I don't see the Mongol campaign able to achieve this goal. Their centers of power in Central Asia were way too remote and no center of power they established in Europe seems strong enough to support such a lengthy and costly adventure.
- Another key aspect in their success in Poland and Hungary is the element of surprise which would be drastically diminished after 1242 if they were to persist in their pressure on the West.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 02:22
No way.
First of all, Mongols withdraw from Syria because of the death the great Khan and Arabs defeated only a small detachment of Mongols forces, which were unlikely to conquer Egypt anyway and were just defending against superior attacking Mameluks.
Secondly, by the time of Ain-Jalut the Mongol empire started to desintegrate. Attack on Syria was conducted by Hulagu khan who was an adherent of the traditional Mongolian faith, but whose wife was a Nestorian Christian as well as many his generals incuding Kit-Buga defeated at Ain-Jalut. Hulaguids had their main domain in Iran.
By contrast, the forces which conducted the attack on Europe were the armies of Batu-khan with the center of their state in modern southern Russia and the influence of Nestorians there was not particularly strong. Also in 1241 the Mongolian empire was more unified and Mongols could reassign the armies between different strategic theaters without the problem.
However, at the time when Hulagu took Bagdad and killed the khalif, the Golden Horde was already ruled by Berke, who was a devoted Muslim, he despised Hulagu and simple started to hate him after the murder of the khalif.
So, when Mongke died (in fact he was killed in China, so the real savoirs of the Muslim world should be Chinese but not Mameluks
 ) the Mongolian empire de-facto desintegrated; the Golden Horde started a large devastating war with Hulagu in Caucasus, both states concentrated all the military forces there.So, I mean that:
1. By that time, Europe was exclusively Godlen Horde sphere of interest, not interested for Hulagu and other Mongolian successor states. The Golden Horde couldn't rely on the reinforcements from the former Mongolian empire if they decided to make another expedition in the Western Europe.
2. In any case, Hulaguids and Golden Horde were engaged into the devastating war between each other and at that time neither Europe, nor Mameluks were of substantial interest for them. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bernard Woolley
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 04:54
| The Mongols couldn't have conquered Europe (or Egypt, for that matter) any more than the Americans could have conquered Vietnam. Some places are just too far away and too far removed from a nation's vital interests to be worth the investment required to take them over. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 02:06
|
You can't really compare US war in Vietnam and the Mongols' campaigns.
Mongols conquered kingdoms which were much stronger and prosperious than Egypt and Europe of that time.
At the same time in theory the US had all the means to conquer Vietnam including nuclear and chemical weapons and simply superior numbers of population. If the US really wanted, it could simply raise to the ground the whole Vietnam with all its population. But there were too many constraints, the most important of which was the US public opinion.
As for the Mongols in the 13th century they didn't bother with such things at all, they simply decimated their enemies to the last man without any mercy. There were NO any constraints for the Mongolian freedom to use their military might at this time.
So, if the Mongolian empire would be really willing to concentrate on Europe or the Mameluk state the latter would be eventually crashed. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bernard Woolley
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 02:43
|
I think the two situations are comparable. In both cases, the superpower had the capacity to annihilate their opponents if they applied their full force to the conflict in question. In both cases, however, the conflict in question was relatively unimportant compared to other, more vital, interests.
I disagree that the Americans were constrained by public opinion, because American public opinion only tends to turn negative after it becomes obvious that a military adventure is failing. By the late '60s, the American people rightly percieved that trying to maintain an unnatural status-quo in South Vietnam (which is the only way I can think of to describe the goal of the campaign) was not worth the human and material resources being expended. The Mongols were in a similar position with regards to their westernmost campaigns - it would have been nice to succeed, but they weren't about to let these missions take precedence over other commitments. If Batu Khan had told his men, "forget the khuriltai, we haven't subdued Albania yet!", I have no doubt his army (essentially, public opinion) would have left him to attack Albania alone.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 04:35
|
Well. Our discussion is only theoretic. And my point is that in theory European kingdoms didn't have a chance against the determined Mongol onslaught.
Again, you can't compare US military operations in Vietnam and Mongol campaings. While the US was prohibited to invade the Nothern Vietnam and tried to minimize civilian casualties whenever it was possible, Monlgos never had such constraints at all. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: white knight
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 09:52
The Mongols could be defeated in Chalons like the Western Europeans did with the Huns, which was almost the same tactics of the Mongols... maybe!!!
|
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 20:35
|
The only thing that could save the English from them at that time would have been the sea,
Militarily, the mongols had faced much greater challenges in asia than they would have had to face in western europe.
It is to be remembered thats at that time we were by no means the first world.
And many european nations of the time were very fragile and poor, without the means to defend themselfs.
Add to this the remarkable experience of the mongol soldiers, given time they would have done it.
I dare say that afterwards europe would have been a better place to live. ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 20:48
|
Complitely agree. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 20:59
|
Thats never happened to me before lol
------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 21:13
|
Hello to you all
I thought the thread died when last I posted but it seems I missed alot.
First, about your theory sarmat that mongols had no intention of ever expanding to egypt, then why the messengers in the first place? All historians of the period agree that kitubga send messengers demanding surrender of the Mamlukes and under the full support of Hulegu himself. Those messengers were hanged on the gate of Zuwailah and an army was massed to attack them. Kitubga attacked Mamluk lands in Palestine before even a formal declaration of war.
Second, mongols never withdrew from Syria, they were defeated and kicked out. They had at least three tumens and we know the names of at least two guys who had the rank noyan one was Kitubga and another I forgot his name with a third unidentified man. Of course not to mention the 6 thousand Georgians and 10 thousand Armenians who were with the mongols in Syria and the Ayubid princes of Aleppo and Hims (if I am not mistaken) who joined the mongols with their armies and fought to death. It took Hulegu with at least 100k men and allies two years to complete the conquest of Syria with huge loss of life and the loss of at least 1 tumen in battle with Bedouins. Syria was a rich country and much more suitable for horse based mongol armies than Iraq. Now how after so much loss he would just abandon his conquests just like that? He tried and failed at least once in his lifetime to revenge what happened which contradicts your argument.
Finally, the Sons of Hulegu lead at least 6 devastating campaigns against the Mamlukes and gathered for them more troops than they did against the golden horde, that makes the mamlukes irrelevent especially that Maragha, the Ilkhanid capital, was just under 300 Km away from the nearest Mamluk outpost while it was nearly double that distance just from the frontier with the golden horde?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 22:14
|
Al-Jassas, I think I gave a very detailed explanation of why Halagu withdraw back. The power over the whole Mongol empire was at stake. Secondly, I just said that the main army withrdraw not the the evey Mongol soldier withdraw from Syria.
20-30 thousands was left behind. This however, was not the army with which Mongols could conquer Egypt at this time. It's true that Mongols were victorius with such force against greater odds in the past, but Mameluks were not as easy as that.
However, if the main army of Hulagu attacked Egypt would be crashed without much diffuculty. What was defeated at Ain-Jalut was just a small detachment compare to the whole might of Hulagu army. Hulagu himself was hundred miles away with his main forces at that time. Nevertheles at that time victory even over a small Mongolian force was regarded as a huge success. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 22:55
|
Well, I still beg to differ. I think Hulegu really wanted to conquere Egypt and revenge Ain Jalut. according to the mongol historian Ataul Mulk, the defeat was extremly painfull so much so that Hulegu asked for reinforcements from Qublai.
Now this doesn't mean that the wars with the golden horde didn't have an effect, they did but it was a temporary one, just enough for Baibars to consolidate power and reorganise his empire. Al-Maqrizi in his history mentions detailed letters between him and Berke about cooperation against Hulegu and mention that the action did help delay the mongol revenge but he maintains that such help wasn't as dicisive as you portray.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 23:02
|
As you know, Hulegu actually died shortly after the battle of Ain-Jalut and Hulaguids would never be as strong as during the Syrian campaign again. Of course the battle had a very bad effect on Hulagu's prestige although it was of a relatively insignificant scale. But the whole point is that the Mameluks didn't face the whole Mongol force at Ain-Jalut they didn't fight Hulagu himself with the main army but just a small garrison force. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 07:36
|
BTW, here what Britannica says about Ain-Jalut and it complitely supports my analysis:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46548/Battle-of-Ayn-Jalut#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Battle%20of%20%CA%BFAyn%20J%C4%81l%C5%ABt%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46548/Battle-of-Ayn-Jalut#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Battle%20of%20%CA%BFAyn%20J%C4%81l%C5%ABt%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
Kitbuga and his Mongol army, a small detachment of about 10,000 men, were lured into a trap at ʿAyn Jālūt (“Spring of Goliath”), near http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46548/Battle-of-Ayn-Jalut# - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/56750/Baybars-I - Baybars . The Mongols were destroyed, and Kitbuga was captured and killed. The Mamlūk victory was followed up by Muslim Syria, which then drove out its Mongol garrisons. Hülegü was unable to take reprisals, as he was preoccupied with an internal struggle for power within the Mongol empire, forcing him and much of his army to return to inner Asia. The Mongol empire was thus contained in Iran and Mesopotamia, leaving Egypt secure in Muslim Mamlūk hands. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 11:37
|
By saying Baibars was the commander of the mamlukes at Ain Jalut, the encyclopedia has discredited itself. All contemporary accounts say It was Qutz, who was by the way the sultan, who commanded the army and non say the mongols were less than 20 thousand other than allies.
None the less you have your opinion and I have mine and it seems both of us look at the same battle from different perspectives that is why we can't agree.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 20:42
|
It's true, we definitely can have our own view of the things.
But I have to say that Beibars indeed was the actual Mameluk commander in battle. Qutuz was "the commander in chief" of course; but the actual tactical command was administered by Beibars. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 21:24
|
Well, Baibars was a political opportunist and I am not going to be much surprised if his role in the battle was inflated. he wasn't even second in command, Qalawoon Al-Alfi was second I think. he was commander of the wing that ambushed the mongols and chased them and then ambushed them again near Tiberias a couple of days after the main battle. Both men were long sworn enemies but unlike Baibars, Qutz was a very religious man and a forgiving one as well. Against advice he used Baibars but Baibars killed him afterwards. Baibars always went to populous methods to gain the hearts of the mob, like sever anti christian measures including distroying most of the monasteries and churches of Cairo, and the mob loved him for that and other things as well. The plan for the attack wasn't the brainchild of either of them by the way. It was a staff officer and an Auybid prince who devised the plan.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 21:42
|
Well, Beibars' personality is worth a separate thread I suppose. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|