Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
SaikhaNBayar
Janissary
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Could the Mongols defeat all the armies and conquer all europe? Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 02:05 |
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?
|
The 800th Anniversary of the Great Mongolian State. 2006
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 02:53 |
We've had another threads on this recently. Look in the military section.
Also, the Mongol campaign in Europe was a border skirmish. They had no intention to conquer Europe.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 02:59 |
Even if they would have gone farther, for instance into Poland and
Hungary, they would have eventually been defeated. There is always
someone that is better than you in some context.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 08:20 |
Originally posted by SaikhaNBayar
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? |
No...
The Mongol conquests stopped just past the edges of reasonable
grassland for Nomadic Pastoralists to live in. The only exception
was in China and this was more apparent than real as Khubilai had
turned the Yuan into a North Chinese state.
nb. The yasaq didn't require "...all offspring of the house of Chinggis
Khan, wherever they might be, must return to Mongolia...".
(leastways it's not one of the collected verbal rulings we know of).
The practice of representatives of the ruling clan getting together to
elect a leader predates Temuljin. There was considerable tension
amongst the main contenders and as a result troops were pulled back to
safe areas within reach of the gathering.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Jhangora
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1070
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 08:37 |
I have no idea.
|
Jai Badri Vishal
|
|
Alkiviades
Baron
Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 08:51 |
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).
|
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 12:22 |
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.
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
Nagyfejedelem
Baron
Joined: 19-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 431
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 13:27 |
It's a difficult question. Mongols could win against every European army. But after the attack of Russia, Poland and Hungary, they suffered big losses. It was the main reason why they retreated to the Volga. They were bad at sturming castles and had logistical problems. Crossing on a river was also difficult for them, in Hungary they were staying in front of the Danube during eight months -- until winter, when they could cross on that. And if they attacked Western parts of Europe, conquered nations would revolted. I say: NO.
|
|
Degredado
Consul
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 13:33 |
Originally posted by tadamson
The only exception was in China and this was more apparent than real as Khubilai had turned the Yuan into a North Chinese state. |
Not only that, but China was both very close, and very worth the effort.
|
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 13:48 |
Originally posted by Nagyfejedelem
It's a difficult question. Mongols could win against every European army. |
Possibly. But, to paraphrase: "I do not say the Mongols will not come. I only say they will not come by sea."
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 15:29 |
No.
1. They hadn't the military resources, infantry mainly, for take the
great european fortress. And Europe had 70 millions persons, with
greats cities with walls and uncontable castles in the country.
2. A european army of heavy cavalry+heavy infantry+crossbow is very
very hard, i am not sure that the mongols could defeat their, if the
europeans had a good general, of course.
3. The forests. By this time Europe was not the forest land of X
century, but had very greats forests still; a mongol army crossing
Germany in the middle of the trees could be crushed.
bye
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 15:41 |
It isn't the strength of Europe, it was the weakness of the Mongols.
Europe was in fact very weak at that time against an organized foe like
the Mongols. But the Mongols neither had the time nor the energy to mount
another full scale invasion. The Mongols had already conquered a large
chunk of territory, which they had not consolidated yet.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 16:09 |
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???
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 17:12 |
Originally posted by Temujin
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??? |
1. Where are the infantry that the mongols used in China and Persia?
where was it in Europe? Since XI century the europeans built more and
more fortress, stone fortress like this
This is the castle of Molina de Aragon, in Spain, don't reformed since XIII century (!); this is impossible for a cavalry army.
Sacra di San Michele, Piemonte, one of the scarce survivor fortified
monasteries of the XIII century without new reforms (very few)
But, the majority of this castles was reformed or destroyed, there are
few today of the XI-XIV centuries. Don't forget the walls of the great
cities as Milan, Paris, or Cologne, and the mongols had very few siege machines in their campaign of 1240.
2. Germany was preparing when mongols retreated, kings? Luis IX was a
good king, he was defeated by the arabs (o, cavalry and... infantry
again) but he was revered by his men, this is very important; Fernando III, great castillian conqueror; the
italian cities was very hard too. The main question is, the european
warrior system was thought for repel quickly to the enemies, an
uncentralized system, if the enemy was powerful retreat to the castles
and hope to the greats own armies. Crossbow? the crossbows that
decimated to the turks in Arsuf; man, the Song chinese hadn't cavalry. You
must not forget that europeans had heavy cavalry, heavy infantry and
crossbows, a good general can get greats success with their.
Are you comparing the polish army of Liegnitz with the french? Please... The hungarian army wasn't exactly "western"
3. Of course, Temujin live in the medieval central Europe, very good;
can you understand that the forest have decreased since that time? And a natural forest from Europe can be very very closed.
Again, the mongols used chinese infantry against Song China.
The mongols need a infantry army, but by 1240 they hadn't in Europe. Conquer the Balkans or anithing, only raids.
Edited by Ikki
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 02:54 |
Originally posted by Temujin
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??? |
It was a general experience in the Mongol campaign in Hungary that they was not able to capture castles made of stone or cities with stone walls. This is why the Hungarian king Bla made a new "stone fortification program" after the invasion.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 04:00 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
It isn't the strength of Europe, it was the weakness of the Mongols.
Europe was in fact very weak at that time against an organized foe like
the Mongols. But the Mongols neither had the time nor the energy to mount
another full scale invasion. The Mongols had already conquered a large
chunk of territory, which they had not consolidated yet.
|
The 13th century is probably one of the weakest of Europe, yet the
Hohenstauffen were still powerful in Germany and Italy, England and
France had quasi-permanent armies, Iberian kingdoms were defeating the
Almohads and Hungary was a very solid state.
Weakness was concentrated in Eastern Europe. So I can hardly imagine
the Mongols defeating the HRE (only starting to decay then).
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 04:08 |
Originally posted by Nagyfejedelem
It's a difficult question. Mongols could win
against every European army. But after the attack of Russia,
Poland and Hungary, they suffered big losses. It was the main
reason why they retreated to the Volga. They were bad at sturming
castles and had logistical problems. Crossing on a river was also
difficult for them, in Hungary they were staying in front of
the Danube during eight months -- until winter, when they could
cross on that. And if they attacked Western parts of Europe, conquered
nations would revolted. I say: NO. |
Wikipedia contradicts your assumptions:
Unlike other mobile fighters such as the Huns or the Vikings, the Mongols were very comfortable in the art of the 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 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 Sajo in spring flood conditions with thirty thousand cavalry during one night during the battle of Mohi (April, 1241), defeating the Hungarian king Bela IV. Similarly, in the attack against the Khwarezmshah, a flotilla of barges were used to prevent escape on the river.
I still think they wouldn't (they were actually defeated by a
Russo-Hungaro-Polish alliance) but not because they couldn't fight in
almost any condition. But because European miltary was very strong
already, whatever the political divisions.
Maybe if Mongols would have become Christians they could have played in
the European diplomatic game after settling down, like Hungarians did.
But being of other religions and percieved as a dreadful foreign
menace, they could only rely in their military abilities and that
wasn't enough.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 08:30 |
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by Nagyfejedelem
It's a difficult question. Mongols could win
against every European army. But after the attack of Russia,
Poland and Hungary, they suffered big losses. It was the main
reason why they retreated to the Volga. They were bad at sturming
castles and had logistical problems. Crossing on a river was also
difficult for them, in Hungary they were staying in front of
the Danube during eight months -- until winter, when they could
cross on that. And if they attacked Western parts of Europe, conquered
nations would revolted. I say: NO. |
Wikipedia contradicts your assumptions:
Unlike other mobile fighters such as the Huns or the Vikings, the Mongols were very comfortable in the art of the 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 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 Sajo in spring flood conditions with thirty thousand cavalry during one night during the battle of Mohi (April, 1241), defeating the Hungarian king Bela IV. Similarly, in the attack against the Khwarezmshah, a flotilla of barges were used to prevent escape on the river.
I still think they wouldn't (they were actually defeated by a
Russo-Hungaro-Polish alliance) but not because they couldn't fight in
almost any condition. But because European miltary was very strong
already, whatever the political divisions.
Maybe if Mongols would have become Christians they could have played in
the European diplomatic game after settling down, like Hungarians did.
But being of other religions and percieved as a dreadful foreign
menace, they could only rely in their military abilities and that
wasn't enough.
|
Wikipedia - agghhh.... (unmoderated always includes errors...)
Basically correct but.. the trebuchet were provided by Persian
experts, Chinese experts provided giant crossbows. All Mongol
columns included integral artillery (mostly light stone throwers) and
houshold troops (the kessik of each kahn/Prince) included engineers,
heavy art, bridging equip etc. In the Khwarizami campaign it was
Khwarizami armoured boats that were stopped by a Uighir allied force
building a fortified pontoon bridge (complete with bolt shooters).
Also, which battle are you thinking of where Mongol forces were "defeated by a
Russo-Hungaro-Polish alliance" ?
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 09:21 |
re European fortifications:
Samarkand, city walls 10m high, 5m thick, 10.5km circumferance.
Citadel Walls 20m high. Garrison 60,000. Taken by Mongol
forces in 1221 after a three week seige that inclyuded bitter street
fighting and the suberbs destroyed by fires from incendiary artillery
missiles and naptha grenades used by both sides.
This was a fortified city on a par with Consantinope.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 09:36 |
Originally posted by tadamson
Wikipedia - agghhh.... (unmoderated always includes errors...)
Basically correct but.. |
Hey, you, Mr. Perfectionist Wikipedia-basher, know that "..." has ALWAYS three dots, not two or 17.
Anyhow is it basically correct? I'm quite surprised...
(...) the trebuchet were provided by Persian
experts, Chinese experts provided giant crossbows. |
If you would have read the full article, you would know that it states
that Mongols integrated other nations' forces and knowledge in they
army.
Also, which battle are you thinking of where Mongol forces were "defeated by a
Russo-Hungaro-Polish alliance" ?
|
Don't know. I thought I read that somewhere but now I can't find it.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|