As you know, Subeedei and Batu khans troops already defeated Polish as well as Hungarian army in battle at Sajo River , when they stopped by the news of Ogedei (was Great khan in Khara-Khorum, son and successor of Chingis Khaan) khans death.

quote:
The yasaq explicitly provided that after the death of the ruler all offspring of the house of Chinggis Khan, wherever they might be, must return to Mongolia to take part in the election of the new khan. From the outskirts of Vienna and Venice, the tumen countermarched, never to reappear
Quote

Do u think if they continued their expansion into european land, destroy all the armies and conquer all Europe?

If they continued their conquest they would destroy any army but if you take a look at Mongol history they didn't  hold their lands for a long time therfore I think they would lost Europe quickly.

Not only that, but China was both very close, and very worth the effort.

Possibly. But, to paraphrase: "I do not say the Mongols will not come. I only say they will not come by sea."

what the hell you ever talk about?

1. what "great european fortresses"???? do you seriously think any 13th century european fortress can be compared anywhere near the massive city wall of Xinyang or the well situated castle fortress of Alamut?

2. what big european forces? Fredericks army was occupied in Italy with the Pope and as most european forces was rpedominantely composed of kngihts, just liek the armies of Poland and Hungary, and what crossbowmen? CHina had thousands odf them and certainly more disciplined.

3. what great european forrests? i live in the center of europe and know how these forrests look like, do you think they can be even compared to the vegetation in southern china???

Unlike other mobile fighters such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns" title="Huns - Huns or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings" title="Vikings - Vikings , the Mongols were very comfortable in the art of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege" title="Siege" style="font-weight: bold; - siege . They were very careful to recruit artisans from the cities they plundered, and along with a group of experienced Chinese engineers, they were expert in building the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet" title="Trebuchet - trebuchet and other siege machines. These were mostly built on the spot using nearby trees.

Another advantage of the Mongols was their ability to traverse large distances even in debilitatingly cold winters; in particular, frozen rivers led them like highways to large urban conurbations on their banks. In addition to siege engineering, the Mongols were also adept at river-work, crossing the river http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sajo&action=edit" class="new" title="Sajo" style="font-weight: bold; - Sajo in spring flood conditions with thirty thousand cavalry during one night during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi" title="Battle of Mohi - battle of Mohi (April, 1241), defeating the Hungarian king http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bela_IV" title="Bela IV - Bela IV . Similarly, in the attack against the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_II_of_Khwarezm" title="Muhammad II of Khwarezm - Khwarezmshah , a flotilla of barges were used to prevent escape on the river.

Hungary was one of the strongest states(probably the strongest) in Europe when they were almost annahilated by the Mongols. They suffered a great population loss because of the invasion, something that still affects the population of Hungary even today.

The Mongols would have probably went through Europe and reached France pretty soon if Odegei hadn't died. This is not to say that they would capture every single fort in Europe but the major ones i believe they would use captured soldiers as human shields for their siege engines(like they did in China). High altitude countries such as Switzerland and some parts of Austria might have been spared but the rest such as France and Germany would have been counquered.

And if they hadn't succeeded in conquering it... the same would happen in Europe as in Hungary.. a population loss of major proportions.

Mind that in the 13th century, Europe looked a lot different from what it is today. During that century, large forests still covered huge areas of Central- and Western Europe

Eh no - Hungary was at that time in fact a weak, loosely integrated and sparesly populated region in the outskirts of the western catholic world - the population of ca 2 million was only a third of that of England's, and nothing compared to France's perhaps more than 20 million inhabitants...

As for the probability of the Mongols conquering all of Europe - I'd say no. Of course they would in theory have been able to crush all the armies of Christendom; if they could conquer mighty China - what chance would Europe have had? But that's also the problem - the mongols were preoccupied elsewhere and wouldn't have been interested in massing their total strength upon Europe when the conquest of China was looming... 

Eh no - Hungary was at that time in fact a weak, loosely integrated and sparesly populated region in the outskirts of the western catholic world - the population of ca 2 million was only a third of that of England's, and nothing compared to France's perhaps more than 20 million inhabitants...

Originally posted by Kalevipoeg If they had gotten their mitts on Europe, Scandinavia, especially Norway would be the last haven of Western culture as i don't see steppe riders riding on mountains. Am i wrong?

Only if you don't include the VERY last westerly stronghold of medieval Europe, Iceland

Hungary in 1241:

Royal power:

Yes Andrew II. signed the Golden Bull, but it was hardly kept. (By the way Louis the Great affirmed this Law again and he was definitively not a weak king.) When the mongols arrived the king was in the middle of a military reform and an anti-aristocracy estate policy. The royal power was still stong compared to other medieval states, but he lacked the "national unity". It was a wrong moment.

The army:

The different element of the Hungarian army had different fighting value. Ratio of the elite heavy cavalry was low, and the bulk of the army consisted hybrid horsemen. I do not say this hybrid horsemen was low quality, but they lacked the proper equipment to fight with the mongols. So In close combat they were worse than the knights and their horse archery skills was lower than the mongols. They also lacked the discipline of the steppe horse archers. They acted well against European enemies, but they were much less effective against the mongols.

Numbers of the Hungarian army: it is generally estimated 30 000, with a full 80 000 manpower.

Only one year after the mongol invasion the kingdom was strong enough to wage successfull wars against Austria and to fight the rising power of Bohemia. (In 1269 an abassador of Naples described the Hungarian royal house as incredibly powerful.) Even in the state of declining royal power the kingdom was strong enough to defeat king Ottokar at Marchfeld (with the help of Emperor Rudolph).

All in all in the time of the Mongol invasion Hungary was a significant power in her region, but It was definitively not the strongest state in Europe.

I was thinking to add another choice

4. They could have gone farther but not completey

Japan in 1274 and 1281, amphibious assault on Champa in 1283. Most of the troops in these failed operations were howewer infantry auxiliaries rather than mongol horsemen 

I knew about Japan, didn't know about Champa (Indo-China). I also gather now that an invasion of Java in 1293 was also a 'fiasco'.

I suppose I really meant "Did the Mongols ever successfully cross the sea?"

"I believe they could beat whatever Europe could throw at them at the given time, if they could devote the amount of effort (and troops and support etc.) needed. But I don't think Europe had much to offer to the Mongols: it was relatively poor, hard to capture and hold and had no great pastures to sustain a pony-based army (although by that time the Mongol armies were not any more purely horse armies, but anyway). "

I agree 100%. Except that I have to say the Mongols probably wouldn't take England even if they tried. Although Mongol ships at this time were better than English ships due to multiple masts and watertight compartments(I'm not sure if English ships at this time had the rudder, but the Mongolians did), these advantages only add to the time needed to build the ships. The one thing Mongols lacked was time. Their empire lasted pretty short. By the time they finished building the navy, their empire would be long gone.

A seal from the town of Ipswich in the year 1200 shows a ship with a stern rudder. It's generally assumed that stern rudders (as opposed to steering boards) came into general use in northern European waters in the late 12th century.

It's too much to go into here, but it's interesting to speculate what might have happened with a serious clash in the Channel or North Sea at the time, in particular if you assume it involved pitting galleys against cogs. The only major engagement I can think of in that respect, a few decades later, is the battle of Sluys which was of course an overwhelming victory for the English against the French - though arguably because of really bad tactical decisions by the French leaders.

Either way though cavalry in sea battles are simply a hindrance, and no kind of advantage. But if the Mongols were to take advantage of their cavalry once landed, they would have to take their horses with them, and that might well of itself have lost them the battle.

Imagine a high-sided cog with fore and stern castles loaded with longbowmen firing down into shallow-draft great galleys loaded with horses - terrified horses at that.

It might make Agincourt look like a picnic, let alone Sluys.

Even if the Mongols did have difficulty, they had the most flexible doctrine of any army arguably in all of history.  They went from never seeing walled cities to obliterating them in China, given the Mongol learning curve I doubt there is any strategem the Europeans could have thrown at the Mongols the Mongols would have been unable to surmout and continue their conquest of Europe if they so decided. 

I don't know from where Wikipedia has got the figures, I've read ca 20 million for France (including english possessions) and 5-6 million in England (including Wales) at the end of the 13th century/beginning of 14th century. I guess the population 50 years earllier wouldn't have been that much smaller

Then I doubt that France was the 2nd largest country in the world in the mid 1200's. What about the sultanate of Dehli ? Mamluk empire?

J.L.Bolton in The Medieval English Economy 1150-1500 has a comprehense chapter on the difficulty of estimating the English population in the Middle Ages. He concludes the answer is somewhere in the following ranges:

1066: 1,100,000 to 2,250,000

late 13th century (pre-plague): 3,700,000 to 7,000,000

14th century (post-plague): 2,235,000 to 3,000,000.

Quite a range.

Nagyfejedelem:

"in Hungary not the population was little, the territory of the country was big."

I think it is the same. The population density was low compared to Western kingdoms. This is why Hungary was always a destination of immigrants.

Mangudai, Padishah:

Well then the Wikipedia failed again. (On an other article I have found a different data similar to your sources.  It would be interesting to see the manpower-population ratio of these countries.

The Mongol invasion drastically changed these numbers. Hungary lost 20%-50% (depends the source) of her population and the eastern half of the kingdom which was the richer part before the Mongols became the poorer. And it is the poorer still today.

There is something else to consider...the Koreans resisted the Mongols for about 30 years. The Koryo Dyansty was under the control of the Choi family who would not allow Korea to relent.

http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C06/E0602.htm - http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C06/E0602.htm

The Mongols could not even take a walled city, Kusong. I'd quote directly but I think the copy right forbids me from quoting them directly.

"On the other side, an European people, the Russians, defeated the Mongols, confining them to today's Mongolia."

Actually, its the Mongols that conquered Russia, and as a result much of medival Russian armor have a distinct "Asian" flavor. Then everybody revolted and overthrew them.

btw, by that time Mongols weren't horse oriented. They used the conquered people to invade what they're going to conquer, pretty much each and every time. Oh wait, the other half of the world they conquered was just one big steppe right?

Personally, Mongols can get to the doorstep of Spain at best. Their empire was pretty short, so the conquest is a race against time, which is less than 50 years. You also need time to build a navy for England.

1. At Catalaunum Huns were only a minority in Attila's army. The bulk of his army were german infantrymen, just like in the army of his opponents.

2. Hungarians did not try to conquer Europe. They were mercenaries allied with Western princes, raiders. They also obligated western rulers to pay tax.

The mongols would have conquered Europe if that had been their intention. I don't understand why people (especially us westerners) love to deny that.

The mongols pawned every single army the met. They lost a few battles, but in the end they where the victorious ones. Why would europe, who was splintered and devided (and so on) stand a chance against an army that in a short time controlled large parts of the european-asian continent?

They had chinese weapons and siege technology, superior numbers in cavalry and a force containing soldiers from different warrior cultures. On top of that was/is the mongolian horse very different from other horse breeds. The monglian horse can live under much harsher conditions than other horse. They need less food and are both sturdy against heat and chill. On top of that they mongols used a cycle-system to ceep their horses fresh. The exhausted ones where send back home to the steppe while new ones where caravanned in a steady stream to the wanted campaign area. Remember; their empire was ruled on horseback.

This topic has been discussed thousand times and in the end every discussion proves that the mongols would have overtaken Europe if they wanted to. It would not have been easy, but in the end there is nothing that the europeans at that time of history could have done to crush the mongols.

But, as all sources show is the fact that they (the mongols) where not interessted by Europe at that time. They had their hands full with the rest of the "known world". It was just a minor fraction of the mongol hordes that charged eastern europe, and still they won nearly every battle even though they had the numeral odds against them.

But when it comes to question if the mongols would have sustained their power in Europe after conqured it, I would have to say no. I think that the mongols would have been banished quite fast, even though their marks on the european culture would have been considerable (just look at the rest of the world where the mongols went).

Here is another history-forum where this topic has been discussed. Fascinating reading for the ones of you that are interested.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110109&pp=20 - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110109&pp =20

Their tactics was by all means adequate. People like to compare the mongol tactics with the huns etc. That is wrong, because the mongols did not fight as other horsebound warrior cultures. The mongol implemented foreign and chinese strategics and tactics, including their siege technology (including gunpowder) and so on. And the chinese where far superior to the europeans in most/manny aspects under this time of history. To deny that is pure eurocentric blubber.

And when you say that the mongols never conqured Europe I say both Yes and No. They won over the europeans in the battles, but they never kept and ruled over eastern europe because the mongol hordes dropped everything just to ride back home soon after the Great Khan died. Inner politics between the different hordes where prestigious stuff, all of them wanted to be the next big one. To claim the power.

In what concerns me, this discussion about Mongols being able to conquer Europe is mostly political. I never saw any “what if” scenario about Mongols being able to conquer Australian Aborigines or Aztecs. It is always about Europe.

Well that is because we europeans are thought and learned to asume that we allways have been the most powerful and dominating culture and people in the history of man-kind, no matter what time period we are looking at. That is why the Mongol vs. European-speculation is so interesting, because the europeans would not have stand a chance if the mongol hordes had launched a serious atempt to conquer europe. And yes, you are right that it is some what political. The Mongol vs. European-scenario really show us clearly that Europe was not allmighty under various periods in history.

And the reason that people never compare the mongols against the aboriginals or the aztecs is that these people never met. The mongols met the europeans, exactly as they met the japanese. Both oft these peoples where incredibly lucky not to be conquered. The japanese can thank the weather gods (Kamikaze = Devine wind) and us europeans can thank the death of the khan and the mongols inner conflicts.

And since, like I said before, it ended up being the Europeans conquering the Mongols and the entire world...

No, the europeans have never conquered the mongols (except if you see russians as europeans). The mongols was a short-lived phenomenon. An unique kind of empire with no equal seen before in history, but never the less a fairly short lived phenomenom.

And the reason us europeans (and americans) predominiance over the world the last centuries, is due interaction with other cultures. Many of the greatest "early" inventions and such are of non-european origin. That must be remembered.

...this talk about Mongols being able to conquer Europe is just wishful thinking from persons not very happy with Europe’s predominance.

I think its rather wishful thinking to believe that europeans allways have been the most important and special culture/people of the world.

"Other nomadic peoples before the Monglos and with a similar form of conducting warfare also attempted to conquer Europe, but always failed."

Lilleman

the mongols did not fight as other horsebound warrior cultures. The mongol implemented foreign and chinese strategics and tactics, including their siege technology (including gunpowder) and so on.

The heart of the Mongol army was its light cavalry. The Huns also used siege warfare.

And the chinese where far superior to the europeans in most/manny aspects under this time of history

Bad logic here. If the Chinese were that "superior" (whatever that means), then how do you explain that they were conquered by an "inferior" people?

That is why the Mongol vs. European-speculation is so interesting, because the europeans would not have stand a chance if the mongol hordes had launched a serious atempt to conquer europe.

Glad to know that Europeans are not the best in the world when it comes to conquering and killing others.

No, the europeans have never conquered the mongols (except if you see russians as europeans).

Yes, I do see Russians as Europeans.

I think its rather wishful thinking to believe that europeans allways have been the most important and special culture/people of the world.

Don't be naive. If you think that non- Europeans are humbler, then read more carefully some of the posts of members from Turkey, India, China, and so on, and see how they attempt to portray their culture and history as the best in the world. Actually, in my opinion, Western societies are those where self-criticism is stronger , so strong that it has even become sort of a taboo to criticise other societies for fear of being called Eurocentric.

Maju

The fragmentation among Europeans is a relative argument since they were all Christians and would unite against external foes. Don't forget about the Crusades.

Also, don't forget that the Mongols were not invincible. The Mamluks defeated them in Syria by taking advantage of geography and technological diferences. For example, they burned grassaland to prevent the Mongol horses from grazing. Unlike the Mongols, Mamluk horses (and also European) had horseshoes, which meant that Mongol horses' hooves were injured in the rocky terrain of Syria (also common in parts of Europe) to the extent they were unable to fight effectively.

Finally, you are also forgetting that Christianism is an apocalyptical religion, where prior to the second coming of Christ and the end of the world there is an attack of the Antichrist. You can easily imagine the Church crying that the Mongols were the Antichrist. And you can also easily imagine in the ensuing frenzy what would be 50 million religious persons thinking the end of the world was coming and all trying to kill a Mongol for the glory of Christ?

To sum up, there were many factors working against a successful Mongol invasion of Europe. Also, many people forget that the Golden Horde still remained in Eastern Europe for a long time and yet it never seriously attempted to conquer the entire continent.

Raider

Sorry, but I didn't understand you very well. Could you please be more specific?

Yes, the Huns used siege warfare, but not in the massive way the mongols used it. Siege warfare was a big part of the mongol conquests.

The mongols them self depended mostly on highly mobile horseback archers, backed up/buffed with heavy cavalry. But except them they had troops of "non-mongol" origin to do much of their fighting. This is what made them strong, they were fast learners and very versatile. If footsoldiers was needed they would rally some to their aid. Also the mongol hordes differed in equipment, there actually excisted quite heavily armoured cavalry and such. Visit the http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=13 - Steppe Nomads and Central Asia -forum for pictures and information.

"And the chinese where far superior to the europeans in most/manny aspects under this time of history"

Bad logic here. If the Chinese were that "superior" (whatever that means), then how do you explain that they were conquered by an "inferior" people?

Not bad logic at all. Who ever said the mongols where "inferior"? (inferior/superior, silly words, I agree). The dynasty at that time did not have the strongest military. They had also been weakened by multiple conflicts etc. And when I say superior I mostly talk about inventions, thoughts & ideas, society and so on. Military-vise I think that the Song-dynasty was quite weak for chinese standards. But still they fought and in the end they were conquered.

The mongol strategics and tactics was ahead of its time. Their doctrine and way to implement conquered peoples into their armies was/is unique.

Glad to know that Europeans are not the best in the world when it comes to conquering and killing others.

Well, is that such a big surprize? We're all humans. Humans are close to embrace megalomania and genocide all the way when given the chance under the "right" (wrong) conditions... Most of us are assholes.

Don't be naive. If you think that non- Europeans are humbler, then read more carefully some of the posts of members from Turkey, India, China, and so on, and see how they attempt to portray their culture and history as the best in the world. Actually, in my opinion, Western societies are those where self-criticism is stronger , so strong that it has even become sort of a taboo to criticise other societies for fear of being called Eurocentric.

I'm fully aware that most nations and people of the world tend to portray their own history as glorious, heroic, epic and "superior" as possible. You're absolutely right about this.

When it comes to european and westernized societies way to portray history I almost agree. There are a lot of eurocentric historians out there that easily could be compared to the most biased Chinese or Turkic historians. If not even worse. But the frequency of more self-critisizing and humble historians is probably bigger here in Europe and in other places of the westernized world.

Possibly not. Hungary and Poland fought alone, and they were Catholic Christians too.

France and England were waging a bloody war and I assume that the Mongols would have played with that, Germany didn't count anymore with powerful Emperors, though one can speculate that a Mongol threat could have pushed a new powerful figure to reorganize the Empire - just speculation. Apart of those only the small Iberian countries, also involved at times in the Hundred Years' War, are left. So, with Poland and Hungary defeated as they were almost, the weakening HRE would have been the only defense line, as I can't imagine the western powers to come together but rather to invite the Mongols to arbitrate in France.

I am just holding that the possibility is reasonable and worth of consideration.

Or fleeing like chickens to church to pray while hell broke loose around... who knows? Peasants were for the most part still military powerless then, apart of the Welsh (and later English) longbowmen and for the Iberian Almogavars, the rest of the armies relied mostly in knights, who were limited and, as aristocrats, could also deal with the enemy, if they thought it was good for their particular interests.

Maju

France and England were waging a bloody war and I assume that the Mongols would have played with that, Germany didn't count anymore with powerful Emperors, though one can speculate that a Mongol threat could have pushed a new powerful figure to reorganize the Empire - just speculation. Apart of those only the small Iberian countries, also involved at times in the Hundred Years' War, are left.

The Hundred Years War started in 1337 and not in the 13th century. The Holy Roman Empire was being ruled by one of its strongest emperors ever: Frederick II the stupor mundi. The small Iberian kingdoms had united shortly before, in 1212, and destroyed a massive Muslim army in the battle of Navas de Tolosa.

"Vade retro Satan!" is not any factor in my rationalist understanding of history. Try something else.

How about this: explain your positivist mind that in medieval societies religion was more important than instrumental rationalism.

Anyway, this has been a very intense and interesting discussion, but I am not planning to continue it further, since I think all has been said. On a more superficial level, this debate is speculative since there are so many variables that any outcome is possible, which means that at the end of the day each member sticks to his/her own opinion. On a deeper level, this debate is mostly political and concerns the relationships between Western and non-Western societies in our contemporary world.

Anyway, this has been a very intense and interesting discussion, but I am not planning to continue it further, since I think all has been said. On a more superficial level, this debate is speculative since there are so many variables that any outcome is possible, which means that at the end of the day each member sticks to his/her own opinion.

I respect that.

On a deeper level, this debate is mostly political and concerns the relationships between Western and non-Western societies in our contemporary world.

Well, that is your opinion.

I find it sad that you claim this thread to be a load of politically biased bollocks... just because it does not agree with the way you see the world. Not right to reduce a topic this way.

According to Wikipedia the tension already existed:

The Anglo-Normans ruled both Normandy and England for over 150 years. However, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1216" title="1216" style="font-style: italic; - 1216 , the Anglo-Normans lost their possessions to France, leaving a situation in which most of the English nobles in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_century" title="14th century" style="font-style: italic; - 14th century were recent descendants of the Anglo-Normans, who still spoke a version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language" title="French language" style="font-style: italic; - French , and could remember a time when their grandparents had ruled Normandy. The nobles had never fully given up the dream of one day reconquering their homeland in Normandy; it was a very rich land, and England stood to become very wealthy by retaking it. The war was both a " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism" title="Nationalism" style="font-style: italic; - national " desire to re-take a former kingdom, and personal desires on the part of the nobility to gain wealth and increased prestige.

But you are right in the technical fact, I missed the century.

Right again: it was his last decade and after him was the chaos (the interregnum). But it is also true that it was also the last decade of Subotai. We would have to consider the possibility that, after Ogodei's death the Mongols would have managed to stay united.

I wouldn't compare the Almoravids with the Mongols.

Religion was like TV today, nothing less but not much more either. And the Mongols were tolerant in that aspect.

Well, as Mangudai stated, it was no minor campaign, but they had to return for the power struggle after Ogedei's death.

My belief is that, if Mongols had gone more after Hungary, the Christian world would obligatorily get united against Mongols, but I believe, the result would be similar to what happened in Anatolia. Europe would be divided into several principalities and these principalities would be Mongol puppets. Plus, there would be one more major emigration wave to the West just like in the time of the Huns. But after a several decades, Mongol influence would decline and what was left could have been the destruction, but there would be major changes in the locations of the tribes and their powers, and that would even affect today's Europe map.

Berke, the Golden Horde Khan, son of Batu, had given a sensational quote about all this:

" If we, the Mongols were able to stand united, we would have invaded the whole world."(Quote is taken from Jean Paul Roux's book about the history of Mongols)

Imperator Invictus

Thanks for your support. I am glad to find someone in this Forum with an eye to the political uses of the past.

Maju

Religion was like TV today, nothing less but not much more either.

I almost fell to the floor, when I red this; glad that I was sitting on a chair. Maju, please put your positivism on a closet and start paying more attention to what is inside peole's minds. European societies until the 18th century (and still many non-European societies these days, such as the Islamic) had as their ultimate referent religion. They believed that there were sacred powers that influenced their lives. In contemporary Western societies this doesn't make much sense and you are acting based on that prejudice.

OK I'll post my thoughts on this.

The reason I posted about Korea was to make a point. Korea is a mountainous terrain and the Mongols didn’t completely subdue it for 30 years.

Europe has mountains and forests that the Mongols would have to get around. I believe Poland is mostly plains so the Mongols would be find on the battlefield, but when they got into Germany things may hva been different. The Holy Roman Emperor would have been able to rally all the armies of his vassals since it would be a time of emergency.

Of course, it isn’t impossible that the Mongols would win. They actually managed to go on a killing spree in Bulgaria.

But there is somehow this myth that the Mongols were impossible to defeat. The Song dynasty managed to hold out as well largely due to terrain as did the Koreans…

http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000241.html - http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000241.html

Maju

TV is not an end in itself, but just a means to an end.

But there is somehow this myth that the Mongols were impossible to defeat. The Song dynasty managed to hold out as well largely due to terrain as did the Koreans…

I totally agree with you. I don't think that the mongols were impossible to defeat. No army is impossible to defeat.

But I strongly believe that the mongols would have conquered Europe  (exactly as they "crushed" Song China) if they had wanted to. I'm not saying that it would have been easy (due the terrain and the possible threat of europeans rally and unite them self under the banner of christianity). It took the mongols 40 years (right?) to conquer China. but they did it in the end.

I don't think that the abscense of horse shoes would be the fall of a hypotetical mongolian invasion of medieval Europe. As seen before the mongols would sooner or later implent the horse shoe-technology. That is one of the greatest strengths of the mongols: they did not fear to copy/borrow technology from the ones they conquered, and they didnt  care what kind of etnicity/herritage their troops had. That is in a way ironic that such a blood thirsty devouring killing machine was as "open-minded" and "liberal" as they were.

For me is the question how long it would take for the mongols to conquer Europe and why would they do it more interesting. Would it have been worth it to start a full fledged campaign against Europe that could have kept on for 10 to 50 years? Which countries would have been the best vasalls to the mongols. How long would it take untill the mongols power over Europe would decline. Which countries would have rebelled. Would the mongols have tried to attack Great Brittain and Scandinavia as well, or even Iceland??? Could they have succeed with those naval attacks.

The Romans used to march up into Scotland and do periodical Celtic Kulls such as Mons Grapius where 30,000 were slaughtered in a one sided battle with saw Roman casualties in the low hundreds.  I find it funny when Scottish chauvinists,  aside from not knowing that there were no Scots in Caledonia at that time, say, "AYE! they were all powerful an' tha', bu' they couldnae conquer the Sco''s!!"

Why is it ridiculous? The Mongols would have trampled over Europe as easily as they did everywhere else.  Liegnitz showed they could beat Europeans.

what about the Koreans?

If you think the Mongols could have conquered Europe I'd like to hear specifically how and why. Eastern Europe, yes, western Europe no. The Koreans could have held out against the Mongols for longer if they wanted btw...

The Mongols where as Barbarians... now you will think that Im mad to say these words but:

When hulagu Conquered the city of Knowledge for Perseiens,assyrians,chaldees, egypts etc. He destroyd 100 years´ of knowledge from the sumers to the time Baghdad was conquered.

He burned down all books of science and technology.

If he and his army of Barbarians wouldnt destroy any of it and used the advanced technology than they would become stronger and better + we would ,TODAY, be further in our Science and Technology.

So I think they (the Monguls)would have conquered Europe BUT! They would not survive the weahther and the Circumstances in Europe.

An Iraqi have diffuculties to be aggested to the cold weather in the advanced Western... As a Westrner has to in the East.

The Mongols burning the libraries of Baghdad, unforgivable...

Imho the Mongols could definately have conquered Germany, France and possibly even Italy but they didn't feel like it because they knew it wouldn't be profitable.

Their empires collapsed fast enough as it is.

The Mongols where as Barbarians... now you will think that Im mad to say these words but:

When hulagu Conquered the city of Knowledge for Perseiens,assyrians,chaldees, egypts etc. He destroyd 100 years´ of knowledge from the sumers to the time Baghdad was conquered.

He burned down all books of science and technology.

If he and his army of Barbarians wouldnt destroy any of it and used the advanced technology than they would become stronger and better + we would ,TODAY, be further in our Science and Technology.

What?

First of all the Mongols had great respect for knowledge of all sorts: arts, technology and science. And second: the mongols "allways"/often saved the lifes of the enemy's scientists, artists and so on under their campaigns. The city of Karakorum (spelled it right?) was built by people from many different cultures. The painted portraits of the different khans are painted mostly by non-mongols. The list can go on...

And when you say that the mongols threw persians (and all other people as well?) hundreds of years back  technlogy-wise, well then I have to say that sounds very debatble.

In fact the mongols spread technology and science over the world. They them self may not have been the greatest thinkers, but they spread the technology and ideas from the peoples they conquered. One such thing is gunpowder.

So I think they (the Monguls)would have conquered Europe BUT! They would not survive the weahther and the Circumstances in Europe.

An Iraqi have diffuculties to be aggested to the cold weather in the advanced Western... As a Westrner has to in the East.

Ehm... If you look at all the different climate types that the mongols fought in I find it hard too believe that the climate of Europe would be any problem. The mongols had campaign in the desert, the steppe, tropical rugged terrain, mountain areas, damp vegitation... Also they occupied Russia for a pretty long time, and Russia is cold.

So I don't understand why the weather would be a problem?

Lilleman

KOREA KOREA KOREA.

Everybody is ignoring this example. Korea is mountainous and resisted for 30 years and even then it was a political decision to give up.

Europe had allot of castles to go through, allot of forests which is a death trap for cavalry.

Russia is cold but flat. And the Russian princes managed to hold out in the North. The Mongols made peace with them because they knew it wasn’t worth going farther north.

But I don't think that castles would be that impossible to breach. The mongols had all the knowledge and equipment needed when it came to siege warfare. And they would not had to conquer every castle, just the important ones. There is no point in trying to breachthe most remote castles in the mountains of europe. The forests would be a bigger problem I think.

But looking at their way to deal with things, I belive that they would conquer the "easier" parts of Europe first and then use european infantry vasall-warriors under the rule of mongols. And they would most likely send for more infantry from abroad if that was needed. Still the forests would have been a great obstacle in this "what if?"-scenario.

As I said before: It would not be easy but they (the mongols) would pull it through in the end.