Medieval Europe Stopping Mongols Speculation
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32054
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 17:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Medieval Europe Stopping Mongols Speculation
Posted By: AlphaS520
Subject: Medieval Europe Stopping Mongols Speculation
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2012 at 13:51
Who do you think in Europe, are able to stand up against the Mongols?
What if Subutai never did died, nor did the Khan, and the Khan ordered Subutai to conquer all of Europe?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2012 at 03:06
Judging by their performance against the Hungarians, nothing much could stop them, the French and Germans would have used identical tactics, charging heavy cavalry.
However England would have been safe,, the glue on Mongol bows was water soluble so they couldn't fight in the rain.
-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2012 at 06:17
I think they wouldnt be able to occupy europe. They had problems occupying forts and castles. In Hungary they oouldnt invade the western part of the country, and they coudnt take most fortified cities. Also they had supply problems on the occupied territories from 1241.
The main reason why they havent been stopped in 1241 is that Hungarian nobles didnt take the treat enough seriously.
In 1285 when the mongols arrived back they met a more ready hungarian army wich beated them back from Pest to Transylvania, where with the help of the Szeklers massacred the rest of the mongol army. They havent attacked Hungary for 400 hundred years after this defeat.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2012 at 09:31
Originally posted by Toltec
However England would have been safe,, the glue on Mongol bows was water soluble so they couldn't fight in the rain. |
Good theory, but it doesn't exactly rain everyday now does it. Assuming they did attacked in spring, in a rainy day, and in the process in hunting for logistics, they realized that their bows doesn't work. Sabutai would either retreat, or stay and improvise.
Now the 200,000, well, it should be around 50,000 to 100,000, as England is an island, they need a navy. And at that time, England wasn't the king of the seas, yet. Mongols are said to be also very skilled with lances and scimitars.
They could come back and attack in summer or autumn, like they purposely attacked Russian in winter, so the frozen ice enables the cavalries to transverse faster.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2012 at 09:40
Originally posted by benzin
I think they wouldnt be able to occupy europe. They had problems occupying forts and castles. In Hungary they oouldnt invade the western part of the country, and they coudnt take most fortified cities. Also they had supply problems on the occupied territories from 1241.
The main reason why they havent been stopped in 1241 is that Hungarian nobles didnt take the treat enough seriously.
In 1285 when the mongols arrived back they met a more ready hungarian army wich beated them back from Pest to Transylvania, where with the help of the Szeklers massacred the rest of the mongol army. They havent attacked Hungary for 400 hundred years after this defeat.
|
But what if, Mongols ignored Song China, and decided to concentrate their full attention on Europe? By the time the Mongols came back, they were starting to become unorganized, this is the biggest factor. With Sabutai, however, 2 years before the invasion of Hungary, have scouted most of the area.
An organized Mongol army have proven more to be experts at siege warfare, especially an army commanded by Sabutai. In siege warfare in Song China is a bit more complex then in Europe, the actually create nets to catch stones from the Mongol trebuchet, forcing a different approach, while facing fire lances, fire arrows, and the first mortar, created and used in Song China.
Imagine if all the hundreds of thousands of Mongols and mercenaries were to ignore China, but to completely concentrate on Europe, it would be interesting to see. A organized Mongol army is capable in taking every fortresses and castles, and they even spread diseases by launching in dead infested corpse.
The Mongols actually haven't taken Europe as seriously, as they have poured most of their forces and resources into Song China, imagine if they did?
|
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2012 at 11:53
The Mongols would excel in open battle but they'd have a difficult time trying to capture castles. They'd eat knights for breakfast but meet their match in the English archer who's longbow outranged their horse-bows
-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2012 at 12:05
Originally posted by Nick1986
The Mongols would excel in open battle but they'd have a difficult time trying to capture castles. They'd eat knights for breakfast but meet their match in the English archer who's longbow outranged their horse-bows
|
A organized Mongol army have never failed in capturing castles, as they have proven so many time, especially an army commanded by Sabutai. They usually pillage the country side, but leave a lot alive, so that the alive peasants retreat to the castle, meaning that now the castle is much more packed, and the supplies would now be even scares. They could starve the castle out, or sometimes, they launch dead infested corpse into the castle, and spread diseases.
They adapted from China, a barrel that explodes or immediately burst into fire (filled with gunpowder), this is used on trebuchet to be launched into castles. Simple siege equipment such as ladders or siege towers, these are operated by captured prisoners, so the Mongols can suffer less casualties.
The Longbow doesn't outrage the Mongol Composite Bow.
According to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range_and_penetration
"The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with estimates
from 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds). Modern longbows have a useful range
up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#cite_note-Strickland-18-22 - [23]
A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would
reach 400 yds. It is also well known that no practice range was allowed
to be less than 220 yds by order of Henry VIII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#cite_note-23 - [24] "
Now with the Mongol bow, it shows that it out ranges a Longbow by around 200M - 300M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_bow
"An inscription on a stone stele was found near Nerchinsk in Siberia:
"While Chinggis (Genghis) Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian
dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezm - Khwarezm ), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yes%C3%BCngge&action=edit&redlink=1 - Yesüngge (the son of Chinggis Khan's brother) shot a target at 335 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ald_%28unit%29 - alds (536 m)."
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 03:40
Alpha : They probably ran out of fire equipment on their european campaign, they didnt occupy around 160 forts and castles only in Hungary.
Its possible that they would have been able to run trough europe and burn everything, but the question is if they would be able to hold their power, and create an empire in europe I truly dont think. They would have to split to various directions, against so many enemies in europe, and I dont think that the european folks joines the mongolian army just like it happened in central asia.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 03:53
Ran out of fire equipment? How exactly do you think that works?
I think you, among the others, have a misconception in the views of the Mongols. The Mongols don't run through Europe and burn everything, they have really advanced siege warfare, the most advanced in fact (not arguably). They started of by accumulating the siege engines and gunpowder of China, then decided afterwards to use the counter-weight trebuchet or other designs throughout their campaigns, this wasn't used in Europe, as they were dealing with Song China, they were trying to figure out how exactly are they going to defeat them, and it's quite ironic in a siege warfare to use trebuchets if Song China is going to catch your stones with nets.
My questions isn't exactly if they are able to maintain their empire now is it, why would you change the question, and... "but the questions is"...
"and I don't think that the European folks joins the Mongolian army just like it happened..."
They actually did, the Mongols recruited mercenaries in Europe, or around the middle-east, to modify their army. They established a decent amount of vassals, the vassals all agreed to the terms (which included military support), states that disagree are completely destroyed.
|
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 05:35
Originally posted by Nick1986
The Mongols would excel in open battle but they'd have a difficult time trying to capture castles. They'd eat knights for breakfast but meet their match in the English archer who's longbow outranged their horse-bows
|
The Mongol Invasion of Europe predates the English longbow period. England used a poor man's version of French tactics back then. It was the age of the Welsh longbow however and I wouldn't rate the Mongols chances when riding through valleys being rained on by longbow fire from the mountain tops with no way to fight back.
-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /
|
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 05:41
Originally posted by AlphaS520
Originally posted by Toltec
However England would have been safe,, the glue on Mongol bows was water soluble so they couldn't fight in the rain. |
Good theory, but it doesn't exactly rain everyday now does it. Assuming they did attacked in spring, in a rainy day, and in the process in hunting for logistics, they realized that their bows doesn't work. Sabutai would either retreat, or stay and improvise.Now the 200,000, well, it should be around 50,000 to 100,000, as England is an island, they need a navy. And at that time, England wasn't the king of the seas, yet. Mongols are said to be also very skilled with lances and scimitars. They could come back and attack in summer or autumn, like they purposely attacked Russian in winter, so the frozen ice enables the cavalries to transverse faster. |
It was actually a joke, but many joke have vein of truth in them. The Mongols unlike all other tribal people did campaign in the winter, which could be explained by winter having no rain. Similarly the Mongol Empire noticeably bypassed the parts of Asia with rainy and humid climates. Maybe experiences in the rainy and humid parts of China taught them this lesson.
As for the UK the Autumn and summer are the rainy times of year, along with spring and winter that is.
-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 12:43
Alpha : Europe would unite against the Mongols if they had reach the german or venetian lands. The pope would constantly calls for crusades in each christian country. If the mongols dont do it fast I think they dont have a chance, they would be less and less in numbers, until they occupy the last city in portugal, and in scotland there wouldnt be much mongol left on earth. wouldnt be much european either..
Whatever you say the mongols had problems occupiing forts on mountenous terrain in europe, and there is quite a lot of it in the 13th century, so it certainly wouldnt be an easy campaign for them.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 13:02
Europe uniting against the Mongols? You know, at the height of the Mongol Invasion, Europe doesn't really care about uniting, examples are England and France.
It's actually proven in historical records that the crusade called by the Pope of all the countries that belong to Christendom, can actually be viewed as a joke. Not only a few failed, well, most countries failed to actually start out their on serious crusade, but the furthest, isn't exactly much...
A simple quote from Wikipedia to show you what I remembered about the crusades.
"Richard was far more concerned with his more extensive French lands.
After all his preparations he had an army of 4,000 men-at-arms, 4,000
foot-soldiers and a fleet of 100 ships."
Would you explain the reason for such a tiny army?
France actually did helped a bit, and sent their Templar Knights (not much) to help, they didn't stand a chance, they got slaughtered, as they were deceit and killed.
Hmm... Why use Scotland as an example? If Mongol successfully occupy England, do you seriously think Scotland will respond, the history of Scotland and England in that time is a bit more hostile then some of the rest, hence, the Normans.
And why would you use Portugal as your example? Do you seriously think they would help the rest of Europe? You theory doesn't seem to work, as Europe isn't as united as you think, and the crusades, they weren't taken seriously.
You can't compare the Mongol horde against a organized Mongol army.
A organized Mongol army never have any problems when capturing forts, a bit more problem in Song China, however. Who says mountainous terrain would make it more difficult for them? Although their mounted archers would be less efficient, Sabutai would surely be full of joy, for the fact that he can choose the highest mountains to command his army, and can set a lot of prepared ambushes due to the fact that he can hide his troops.
A organized Mongol army don't just come and kill, they plan. Perhaps the image of the Mongols in your head are more of the Golden Horder type.
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 14:07
I think you live in a dream world of undefeatable mongol terminators.
Noone is undefeatable, history proves.
Its not the same situation if they attack your country then going to Jerusalem or whatever, thousand miles away to attack a city you dont belong to, so much more would join a crusade.
To be honest many historician doubts nowadays that the mongols turned back because of the death of Ögedei.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 15:11
Originally posted by benzin
I think you live in a dream world of undefeatable mongol terminators.
Noone is undefeatable, history proves.
Its not the same situation if they attack your country then going to Jerusalem or whatever, thousand miles away to attack a city you dont belong to, so much more would join a crusade.
To be honest many historician doubts nowadays that the mongols turned back because of the death of Ögedei.
|
You're starting to get personal here.
I would appreciate if you try to counter my arguments instead.
The thing you need to understand is, an organized Mongol army (I'll make certain words bold to make it more clear) have never (in historical records, a organized Mongol army commanded under a suitable Khan or general was never defeated anywhere in Europe) been defeated in Europe, especially an army commanded by Sabutai, which is what started my thread.
The whole point of the crusade is that there are duties that all Christendom must carry out, to safe guard their "rightful" place and to maintain their religious status. The whole point, is not to unite and defend against an unknown force who just happened to appeared in the East and thundered throughout Europe.
I assume, that hopefully, you would know that at first, the Mongols were under the impression that the Pope was the leader of Europe, however, pretty soon they realized how Europe dislike the idea of cooperating together, and that it was similar to the Warring States in China. When the Mongols first annihilated the middle-east, the Pope claimed that it was "God's wrath". until their own was attacked.
Most historians never doubt that the Mongols retreated because the Khan died, in fact, I would want you to know that the Mongols didn't just retreated in Europe, but also in other locations.
Not only is that, but the fraction of the army used in Europe in comparison to their entire conquest, was one of the smallest, and with most success. They have also defeated combined forces of the European army. Europe was poor and there was no point in attacking, when clearly in China, they are much more wealthier.
The idea of "barbaric" Mongols is to hide European humiliation. Europe could be considered Barbaric by the Mongols. You should also know that in Marco Polo's opinion, he viewed the Mongols as the top civilization, hardly barbaric.
Your description of the Mongols are obviously the unorganized barbaric type, such as the Golden Horde.
I would prefer if you debate after you study the history of the Mongols more precisely.
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 17:27
I try to explain last time.
"Who do you think in Europe, are able to stand up against the Mongols?"
Surely no European force would be able to do that alone.
What if Subutai never did died, nor did the Khan, and the Khan ordered Subutai to conquer all of Europe?
As I said if they want to conquer ALL Europe they have to defeat endless numbers of huge armies of several european nations/city states.
Even they no matter how good they are will suffer constant losses with each battle. Just look on a map of the 13th century europe how many forces they would have to fight against, and they are not that far from each other. Thats why I mentioned Portugal and Scotland as the end's of europe, if the mongols had to battle for every single fort of europe at the end they have no army left.
And the defeated nations as much the main forces goes far from them will start rebelling, like many tribe did. The empire will grow too large and its going to be impossible to control every piece of it, its going to collapse, like always did in history. Thats what gonna happen in my opinion.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2012 at 17:55
Yes, they will need to defeat a lot of armies, however, it is not endless (I thought this would be a bit obvious), and most armies they fight against will not be huge.
Now, let's us see.
After a few feeble attempts from Hungary or Russia etc To defend against the Mongols, no organized army exist to take up the task anymore, until the organized army of Mongols left. In so many conquest of the Mongols, they have never seen "endless" armies, as they fight one, they annihilate one, they never see it again. Unless of course, it's just stubborn unorganized resistance that doesn't stand a chance, as if the original army does. One army, led by say a Khan or general, is able to defeat so many, and you come to the conclusion that fighting "endless" amount of armies (a bit ridiculous) would be of concern?
The army of Europe is hardly huge, they consists of tens of thousands, when the Mongols were fighting the Song Chinese, the combined army would surpass a million easily. It's the fact that the Mongols didn't gave much attention to Europe, and the army size seen in Europe wasn't as big as it was in Song China.
You see, your idea of constant loses are flawed, why?
It's because the constant loses are very mild, and I mean very mild. With the opposition, once they've routed, the Mongols chased and chased until all is dead (leaving a few to stack up in the opposition's castle), in Europe, the Mongols completely devastated Hungary.
You see, the thing is, Portugal or Scotland would never be eager to help out their neighbors, this gives time for the Mongol army to cover any losses, assuming it's severe (very unlikely).
It's a very simple concept, a bit like Guerrilla warfare, but direct.
If there are 10 against 1, and the 10 decides to fight together, outcome is obvious.
If 1 fights the 10 one by one, and 1 is stronger then 1/10, then all 10 would be dead.
This is the most simple... form I can think of for you.
Unfortunately for the Europeans, they are hardly going to fight together and combine their main armies, maybe a tiny fraction, such as the few hundred Templar Knights, but never main armies combined together, unless of course, they have strong relations, but still proven to fail.
What separates the Mongol from the others, is the fact that all rebels are killed. Records of ghost cities with fat all over the ground and dead corpses everywhere, such as in Russia, is the fact that if you do not join, all will die.
A lot of states joined the Mongols, as the psychological fear the Mongol have built is simply too much, this is seen in history. They are vassals of the Mongols, Mongols contain a lot of vassals, that did not rebel due to fear. Cities such as London or Rome, Venice or Paris, will probably be like Baghdad, completely sacked, with no live population, as Mongols do not want any further resistance.
Because the Mongols focused their attention on Song China, they managed to maintain China for a decent amount of time.
If they focused their attention on Europe, not only will Europe fall in a respectable amount of time (myth says Mongol army travels 100 miles per day, back in the days, this is a very good accomplishment, truth or false, they've proven to be able to transverse very quickly and effectively), all the major cities would have the fate of Baghdad (major cities in China or Russia also share the same fate), so many people would be dead, only feeble resistance would be left.
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 05:56
The mongolian army wich we are talking about here was 9 tumen, around 90,000 men.
The complete force of Subutai were 140-150,000 men.
Kadan's force was 30,000 men from this overall 140-150k.
This was the mongol's european army, and this army is unable to conquer a whole continent with all its nations and forts/castles.
thats all.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 06:02
|
I would prefer if you give separate ideas why the Mongols wouldn't be able to conquer all of Europe, a tiny continent, then just stating it, when many historians would disagree with you.
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 10:57
The mongols suffered huge casualties in many of their battles, against Moravia for example, but in some Polish and Hungarian battles they lost many thousand of people too. When they splitted up, they became defeatable. The main force lost sometime as well, even against the Volga Bulgarians.
As I mentioned they didnt invade or couldnt capture 160 fortified cities/castles only in Hungary.
They didnt capture West Hungary wich is more montainous than the eastern part (they had the time for that but they didnt do it)
Also it was part of their tactics to capture the ruler of certain country. In case of Hungary, they chased Bela IV. for a year but couldnt capture him. They didnt move on until they capture him, they were standing here for a year.
I cant tell you exactly how much time it would take to conquer a country completely, but we can make a wild guess, because in the case of Hungary, it took more than a year, and they conquered only the half of it.
So in the case of whole europe I guess a 10 years time is quite possible.
Their tactics in europe would be very well known in this period of time, western europe has time to set up and leave other conflicts until this treat wich I truly think would overwrite all other among these nations.
I think they would end just like the Huns did. The situation is comparable, Europe was almost defenceless against the Hunnic army, but at the end they had to turn back, they lost too many men in their hundreds of battles.
Bela the IV. denied to pay tax to the mongols after they left Hungary. He dared to do it because he seriously thought the mongols are defeatable only by Hungary itself. He knew exactly what kind of tactical mistakes his army made in the Muhi battle, and when he restabilized his power he gained contrel over huge forces were not available to him in 1241 (nobles, cuman force). (His army were the same size in the Muhi battle as the mongols)
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 11:44
Originally posted by benzin
The mongols suffered huge casualties in many of their battles, against Moravia for example, but in some Polish and Hungarian battles they lost many thousand of people too. When they splitted up, they became defeatable. The main force lost sometime as well, even against the Volga Bulgarians.
As I mentioned they didnt invade or couldnt capture 160 fortified cities/castles only in Hungary.
They didnt capture West Hungary wich is more montainous than the eastern part (they had the time for that but they didnt do it)
Also it was part of their tactics to capture the ruler of certain country. In case of Hungary, they chased Bela IV. for a year but couldnt capture him. They didnt move on until they capture him, they were standing here for a year.
I cant tell you exactly how much time it would take to conquer a country completely, but we can make a wild guess, because in the case of Hungary, it took more than a year, and they conquered only the half of it.
So in the case of whole europe I guess a 10 years time is quite possible.
Their tactics in europe would be very well known in this period of time, western europe has time to set up and leave other conflicts until this treat wich I truly think would overwrite all other among these nations.
I think they would end just like the Huns did. The situation is comparable, Europe was almost defenceless against the Hunnic army, but at the end they had to turn back, they lost too many men in their hundreds of battles.
Bela the IV. denied to pay tax to the mongols after they left Hungary. He dared to do it because he seriously thought the mongols are defeatable only by Hungary itself. He knew exactly what kind of tactical mistakes his army made in the Muhi battle, and when he restabilized his power he gained contrel over huge forces were not available to him in 1241 (nobles, cuman force). (His army were the same size in the Muhi battle as the mongols) |
I'm sorry, but it's really starting to seem as if you are insulting the Mongol conquest of Europe and Subotai's achievements, and their tactical and strategic skills.
After defeating and annihilating the Russians with minimum casualties (casualties unknown, as it is so little), Subotai divided his army when invading Hungary, with 20,000 on the flanks to keep Poland distracted. 2 years before the invasion of Europe, he have sent numerous spies to Poland and Hungary, some sources even as far into Austria. In the battle of Legnica, the casualties of the Polish army (which consisted of several others in aid) was heavy, while the casualties of the Mongols was also unknown, this is the most important thing you must understand. In most of Subotai's battle in Europe, the casualties was unknown due to the fact that there was simply... so little.
The reason for the extreme minimum casualties, is due to the fact that the Polish army failed for every tactical moves of the Mongols. In one battle, the Mongols have defeated the combined forces of Poland, German and the Czechs, with aid from the Pope and several nobilities. It is inaccurate to claim that the Mongols lost casualties up to thousands. They managed to cause confusion in the enemy army, they manage to separate the enemy army, they manage to route the separated enemy army easily, they successfully execute deception and blocked the enemy views with smoke screens, they surrounded certain parts of the separated enemy in seconds. If you study the battle, the combined defending forces of Poland did not know what was going on, they just got annihilated, myth of huge Mongol armies are false, as Mongols always know how to make the enemy seem like they appear from everywhere. I should also note that the Mongols defeated the army of Hungary and Poland within two days, the Hungarians pitch battles follow the same fate as the Polish pitch battles.
The Mongols never captures the west because Ogedei Khan is dead. There are sources which suggests that Subotai have planned the invasion of the Holy Roman Empire.
They didn't attempt to conquer Hungary, as you may know, however, they did devastated Hungary. The strategic plan devised by Subotai, was originally to invade, not to conquer, especially when there's much more opportunity to achieve in Song China, and the fact that European countries are poor.
After the Mongol retreat, I can assure you that mainland Europe did not care as much. When Austria begged for help, due to several Mongols raids, and the fact that they realized the deadly situation they are in. After the Mongol retreat, the main power of Europe, the Papacy and the Empire, acted as though nothing have happened, and Europe continued their conflicts with each other, similar to the Warring States in China.
The Huns were not like the Mongols, the Mongols were much more professional. And by the time Mongols invaded Europe, Europe was actually in poverty, hence, the dark ages.
I don't understand where you get the sources that Hungary have ever defeated Mongols army, except from repelling pretty raids. The Khan have died. You must know that Bale the IV have failed in every military resistance against the Mongols, the fact that the Mongols are leaving gave him confidence.
Afterwards, the Mongols realized how Europe was just another poor collections of country, that is why they concentrated their full attention on Song China.
Conquering the whole of Europe would require more then 10 years or 20 years, but being repelled? Huh, Subotai was never defeated in Europe, if he continued, all would have fall.
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 11:50
|
I have only one question, are you mongolian ? :)
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 11:51
|
Born in Hong Kong, currently living in England, educated in England.
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 11:55
According to your profile you are 15 years old wich is quite believable.
Sorry for hurting your feelings about the mongols :)
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 11:57
Why? Most historians obviously understands that the Mongol have the ability to destroy all of Europe, such as they did to Russia, Eastern Europe, Middle-East, Whole of China etc All combined bigger then the entire Europe, a lot.
If you're trying the "immature" approach or any form of trolling, then so be it.
|
Posted By: benzin
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 12:36
No, I really appreciate that you are so passionate about history. You know quite a lot about history comsidering your age, but still there is lot to learn, not only about history but about how people act in different situations. If you are getting older trust me you will understand what Im talking about.Until that its totally pointless to argue, this is your "belief" noone will convince you about the opposite no matter what would he say.
|
Posted By: AlphaS520
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2012 at 14:00
What a joke you are.
Your theories that the Mongols are unable to maintain their army due to loses throughout their campaigns is completely flawed. And just because I'm 15, you immediately come to the conclusion that you are more intelligent or so such.
You must be male, usually wanting to maintain their ego, what a joke.
I prefer when you back up your statement, please continue your debate, as all your theories, not only is flawed in perception of my view, but also by a considerable amount of other historians.
Now, if you're such an adult, and you act like... a superior to me, please correct your grammar or spellings, especially when English is my second language, such as "comsidering" in your sentence.
Get real, continue the debate, otherwise, you have no arguments against the fact that Europe will be unable to fight of a organized and persistent Mongol army. Do you know that there are certain stereotypes in Asia that Europeans and native US are slow and have a lower intelligence, this must be what they meant.
The animalistic assumption of superiority from you, because you might be older. Please, continue your debate, and support your statement, otherwise, it is you that still have a lot to learn, not me.
|
Posted By: swordman
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 01:15
Alpha you are extremely ignorant of both history and basic military logistics. Firstly as has been pointed out to you numerous times the Mongols lost multiple battles in Hungary, and could not penetrate past the eastern half of that country. When they returned they could not make hardly any progress, and thus were repulsed. Get over it.
Secondly, if we are to entertain your ridiculous question, which really is the following: "If we take the Mongolian Horde (or organized army as you like to keep putting it) at its peak strength, and take all of the men in China and move them to Europe, while simultaneously taking all of the scientific and military advances gained from attacking China, and using that information against Europe, could the Mongols have conquered Europe? The answer to that is *possibly*.
Before we get to why the answer is only *possibly* let's address why your question is extraordinarily stupid, and why you should think more before trolling for the Mongols. Number one, the Mongols picked up enormous amounts of military expertise from fighting the chinese. Their siege tech, some of their metallurgy, and a variety of other key pieces of military technology were acquired directly from the Chinese. Now, you are doing your best to claim that the Mongols can take fortified cities (by the way, they were not very good at this) and yet you are keeping them out of their China campaign. You can't have it both ways. Either they get siege tech from China (which they only beat due to infighting and buying off the chinese, they did not beat them militarily) and thus do not have that manpower to divert to Europe, or they get siege tech and lack the manpower. Choose one. Two you clearly do not understand how payment towards soldiers currently works, and certainly how it has worked historically. If you think that the Mongols could have attracted anywhere near the number of troops to attack Europe as they were able to acquire to attack rich China, you are out of your mind. In other words, they could NEVER have had their "full" strength focusing on Europe, since they could never have generated the wealth to pay an equal number of troops.
Now moving onto logistics, which you have absolutely zero grasp of, but is the singularly most important aspect of war to anyone that has a clue (hint: not you). Mongolian armies relied upon vast amounts of grassland to feed their horses. Each soldier would have 3-4 mounts with him on a campaign, and these mounts would be rotated through in order to keep them all well enough rested. Europe is primarily mountains and forests. Please explain how the Mongols would have fed their horses. Seriously, give it a try. They had nothing even remotely resembling the Roman supply lines. Although if they did they would have moved monumentally slower than they did, and would have been very vulnerable to counterattacks.
*Also a note here your idea that the Mongolian army moved 100 miles per day is ridiculous. Saying something that stupid is the equivalent of saying that Mongolian army was financed by leprechauns sharing their gold from the other side of the rainbow.*
To continue on with European topography, let us ask what other features are prevalent throughout Europe? Oh right, mountains. Now alpha, do you know how well horses do over mountains? Do you know how well horse armies do over mountains? Even if they could make it through, despite the lack of food to feed the beasts, can you say ambush city?
So, to summarize, you pose a ridiculous question whereby you take the mongols at peak military technology and peak military size, and ask if they could conquer Europe at an arbitrary timepoint when Europe was fairly weak. And the answer is only maybe. If you were more realistic and asked about a timepoint 100 years into the future we could take your question and provide a conclusion answer. NO CHANCE IN HELL. The Mongols would've been smoked. Once plate armor on the mounted knight became more common, in conjunction with advances like the Longbow, and improvements in European siege tech, the Mongols would have been smashed to bits.
Now to enlighten you with a tiny bit more history. This battle did take place a few hundred years later. All remnants of the Mongols came into contact with Europeans, and just to let you know what happened, they got smoked. You sound like a big time hater of caucasoids, and a big time lover of mongoloids. But looking back over history you should realize one extremely undeniable reality. When it comes to waging war and conquering, the people of caucasoid descent are far and away better than all others.
|
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 01:56
Good points but using stupid was inconsiderate.
-------------
|
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 02:18
|
My associate is correct...tone down your rudeness and inconsiderate elluciation or your position will be gone...which is to say.... using my speech and my vernacular...because trust me I am more then an intellectual match for your ego...your ass will be gone. Period. You have been informally warned. Play again with me or another's whose interest is as keen but perhaps not as well as informed as yours and I will personally see it. Bet.
-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 02:53
Originally posted by swordman
Alpha you are extremely ignorant of both history and basic military logistics.
So, to summarize, you pose a ridiculous question whereby you take the mongols at peak military technology and peak military size, and ask if they could conquer Europe at an arbitrary timepoint when Europe was fairly weak.
Now to enlighten you with a tiny bit more history.
|
swordman, please refrain yourself from derrogatory remarks like the first one, and of hauthy ones like the second and third one. We are here to talk about history with mutual respect and understanding, not to insult each other.
I fully concur with CV as to the warning part.
-------------
|
Posted By: swordman
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 13:16
|
I apologize for the charged language. It was unnecessary and uncalled for. I suppose that I got worked up while reading his responses and writing my own, and let an emotional reaction get the best of me. Apologies to all.
|
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 13:24
Thats the spirit mate. You really made a nice argument mate. People take you more seriously if you're polite to them. Anyway I can see this from your viewpoint and your conclusion is close to my own.
-------------
|
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 13:27
Anyway the Mongols supply lines are too stretches to effectively campaign in central and western europe.
-------------
|
Posted By: swordman
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 22:59
Wanted to add that I just reread my post and it was plain nasty. I wanted to make a point, not be nasty, and wanted to offer apologies again.
The Mongol supply lines is an interesting point. Near as I can tell from all of the history I have studied, the Mongols (as we generally imagine them) did not have "supply lines" in the traditional sense of a civilization from antiquity (like the Romans). Due to each soldier keeping multiple mounts the Mongols would drink horse milk, eat horse meat, occasionally (at least allegedly) drink horse blood, and otherwise would live off of the land. While this does not require the traditional wagon train as we imagine it, it implies an absolute dependence upon extremely large areas of grassland for the grazing of their horses. Without ample grassland their entire logistics system is dead in the water. This is one reason why I question some of the tales of Mongolian numbers in some of their larger engagements. The amount of grassland required to feed 4 horses * 40,000 soldiers is absolutely enormous. I suspect (but have no proof) that the tremendous Mongolian success has led to somewhat of an inflation of their numbers both to soothe the ego of the conquered, as well as the difficulty actually estimating troop numbers from their rapid movement tactics. Pre WWII Hitler would take a single panzer division and drive it around a city multiple times during a parade to make it appear that he had many more tanks that he actually did, I would not be at all surprised if the same phenomenon occurred with attempting to estimate Mongolian numbers. It would be fitting, since the panzer division was essentially a modern mechanized system of Mongolian warfare.
As to the susceptibility of Europe, many many issues are important. Absolutely the lack of large supportive grasslands would severely hamper the traditional mongolian tactics, but there are many other factors at play as well. European metallurgy was extraordinary by the high middle ages/renaissance period. At that point European armor was nearly indestructible. But, from a weapons point of view, I have had an interesting experience recently that is somewhat relevant.
I have used both compound and recurve bows since I was fairly young, and have been hunting for years. I recently however picked up my first crossbow (recurve, not compound). Despite years of exposure to traditional vertical bows I can already shoot the crossbow better and more accurately over a longer range. Zero learning curve whatsoever. All hunting here is done in the woods, no grasslands. Both vertical bows and crossbows work very well, the only minor limitation of the crossbow is that its width can get in the way in certain situations.
So to sum all of this up more succinctly. Crossbows allow me to fire an arrow with more power than a vertical bow does, despite years of work with the former (experts can shoot slightly better with a vertical bow, but very few can). Additionally crossbows can be fired fairly rapidly without any fatigue whatsoever. Pulling a 70# compound bow will wear you out fairly quickly, a recurve bow is considerably worse than this. Also from hunting in the woods I can tell you with plenty of confidence that horseback archery would be extraordinarily difficult, and not at all effective.
Bottom line, with the large presence of crossbows, and knowledge to make said crossbows, I don't think any foreign force (Mongols or otherwise) would stand a chance in the heavily forested sections of Europe against a group of natives playing guerilla warfare / ambush games. I have always been familiar with the idea that a crossbow was easier to use than a vertical bow, but I never had any idea it was this much easier. The Mongols suffered heavy losses to xbows in Poland, I think that the crossbow would have played an enormous factor in the downfall of any european invasion.
I am looking into purchasing or attempting to make a historically accurate crossbow from the late middle ages now that my curiosity has been piqued. I am also beginning to look into the military history of the crossbow from roughly the fall of Rome until the heavy usage of gunpowder in the sixteenth century. With the frequent use of peasants in European armies I would be shocked if the crossbow did not play a larger role in battle than I had heretofore thought.
|
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 23:41
A very good post! Your points are very well made and well thought out. Sheer lack of fodder for horses would stop this scenario.
-------------
|
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 02:13
Wanted to add that I just reread my post and it was plain nasty. I wanted to make a point, not be nasty, and wanted to offer apologies again.
The Mongol supply lines is an interesting point. Near as I can tell from all of the history I have studied, the Mongols (as we generally imagine them) did not have "supply lines" in the traditional sense of a civilization from antiquity (like the Romans). Due to each soldier keeping multiple mounts the Mongols would drink horse milk, eat horse meat, occasionally (at least allegedly) drink horse blood, and otherwise would live off of the land. While this does not require the traditional wagon train as we imagine it, it implies an absolute dependence upon extremely large areas of grassland for the grazing of their horses. Without ample grassland their entire logistics system is dead in the water. This is one reason why I question some of the tales of Mongolian numbers in some of their larger engagements. The amount of grassland required to feed 4 horses * 40,000 soldiers is absolutely enormous. I suspect (but have no proof) that the tremendous Mongolian success has led to somewhat of an inflation of their numbers both to soothe the ego of the conquered, as well as the difficulty actually estimating troop numbers from their rapid movement tactics. Pre WWII Hitler would take a single panzer division and drive it around a city multiple times during a parade to make it appear that he had many more tanks that he actually did, I would not be at all surprised if the same phenomenon occurred with attempting to estimate Mongolian numbers. It would be fitting, since the panzer division was essentially a modern mechanized system of Mongolian warfare.
As to the susceptibility of Europe, many many issues are important. Absolutely the lack of large supportive grasslands would severely hamper the traditional mongolian tactics, but there are many other factors at play as well. European metallurgy was extraordinary by the high middle ages/renaissance period. At that point European armor was nearly indestructible. But, from a weapons point of view, I have had an interesting experience recently that is somewhat relevant.
I have used both compound and recurve bows since I was fairly young, and have been hunting for years. I recently however picked up my first crossbow (recurve, not compound). Despite years of exposure to traditional vertical bows I can already shoot the crossbow better and more accurately over a longer range. Zero learning curve whatsoever. All hunting here is done in the woods, no grasslands. Both vertical bows and crossbows work very well, the only minor limitation of the crossbow is that its width can get in the way in certain situations.
So to sum all of this up more succinctly. Crossbows allow me to fire an arrow with more power than a vertical bow does, despite years of work with the former (experts can shoot slightly better with a vertical bow, but very few can). Additionally crossbows can be fired fairly rapidly without any fatigue whatsoever. Pulling a 70# compound bow will wear you out fairly quickly, a recurve bow is considerably worse than this. Also from hunting in the woods I can tell you with plenty of confidence that horseback archery would be extraordinarily difficult, and not at all effective.
Bottom line, with the large presence of crossbows, and knowledge to make said crossbows, I don't think any foreign force (Mongols or otherwise) would stand a chance in the heavily forested sections of Europe against a group of natives playing guerilla warfare / ambush games. I have always been familiar with the idea that a crossbow was easier to use than a vertical bow, but I never had any idea it was this much easier. The Mongols suffered heavy losses to xbows in Poland, I think that the crossbow would have played an enormous factor in the downfall of any european invasion.
I am looking into purchasing or attempting to make a historically accurate crossbow from the late middle ages now that my curiosity has been piqued. I am also beginning to look into the military history of the crossbow from roughly the fall of Rome until the heavy usage of gunpowder in the sixteenth century. With the frequent use of peasants in European armies I would be shocked if the crossbow did not play a larger role in battle than I had heretofore thought.
[/QUOTE]
You did it... it is appreciated. Carry on. As for exuberence you demonstrate it and knowledge. And for that we/I appreciate your contributions and willingness to share them. CV
-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 12:54
I would have to go with the Germanic tribes. Fighting on their own territory, closely confining, heavily wooded terrain, they probably would have negated much of the Mongol tactical advantages, just as the used those same skills to defeat the Romans.
I'm not sure how the Mongols would have fared in the cold, damp climate of Europe. They were hardy specimens, but...
Since neither side was likely to be inclined to give any quarter, it would have been bloody beyond belief.
|
Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2012 at 06:45
|
The Golden Horde (Batu's kingdom) saw no need to advance another European attack because the kingdoms he devastated earlier were not advanced. Unlike the Mongols in China and Persia, where the nomadic elite had to entrench themselves and set up court in the vast lands they conquered. This was not the case in Europe (no offense intended). They basically came, saw, ravished and left. They were content to set up their own steppe capitals and collected taxes from the subject Slavic people instead. Had Batu and Subodei advanced further (with or after the khan's funeral), they would have faced the same situation as Attila's Huns did earlier in France, Germany and Italy. They would have rode, ravished, plundered and recede back to the steppes because there wasn't much to hold on to.
|
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2012 at 10:37
They couldn't have held it. At sagar river Subotri was crushed by a European barbarian tribe.
-------------
|
|