Could Europe have defeated an all-out Mongol invasion?
Say by Kublai Khan? Would Crusaders and knights and all that even stand a chance?
History is usually written in an incredibly Eurocentric manner so I'm curious if Europe was even that powerful in the 13th century or if it was second rate compared to east Asia (was already second rate to the Islamic world since it was beaten in the Crusades).
>>1380354
Well, the late 13th century invasions of Hungary and Poland failed pretty hard. I'm pretty sure that was only the Nogai horde, but it was still a major Mongolian effort.
So, probably. Not to mention that Mongolian unity had cracked pretty hard by the time of Kublai Khan, and without it, they aren't nearly as tough.
>>1380354
European armies stood no chance against the Mongols
>>1380354
Europe will fall
But Britain will survive
Let's spice it up a bit.
Mongols get 50 x Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 with MG-34.
Euros get 100 x Ordnance QF 2-pounders.
Who wins now??
Nope. It was very far from their core lands, and once they encountered far more castles and terrain and climate that was less suited for their type of warfare, they would lose their advantages.
>>1380540
You are now imagining several horse archers posted up in the cabin of that APC.
>>1380552
>once they encountered far more castles and terrain and climate that was less suited for their type of warfare, they would lose their advantages.
And now is when you learn that the Mongols were world leaders in siege warfare at the time.
Also why would the extremely mild European climate trouble people who are used to far worse in both extremes?
>>1380565
Not him, but they had enormous trouble with extensive stone fortifications in the 1285 invasion of Hungary.
It stands to very good reason that they'd have trouble advancing in Europe.
>>1380572
Obviously anyone would have trouble with well-built fortifications but it's kind of silly to suggest that mongols don't have experience with fortifications or that they would wilt under European climate, which is what I'm responding to.
>>1380565
>Mongols were world leaders in siege warfare at the time.
I think you mean chinks that the Mongols captured/hired.
>>1380596
Actually Kubla Khan bought european siege engines to reduce chinese fortifications
>>1380587
Yes, but it's equally silly to suggest that they'd blow away European fortifications without any trouble, because historically, they had a good deal of trouble with them after that first rush in the 1240s.
>>1380728
Yeah but they'd have trouble with fortifications because fortifications are hard, not because of the lolstepnomads with 100% horse archer army maymay.
If the Ogedeid line held strong the mongols would have been focused in the west and also more prone to converting to christianity. That would be the only thing that could save the europeans because militarily mongols would have ridden harder and stronger than Attila who easily breached France and Italy and by all reckoning he was just a horde with not much notable skill
>>1380728
Well, and I could be wrong here, didn't the Mongols signal a death knell for traditional walled cities throughout Asia? My impression has always been that they were extremely skilled at siege warfare, because they didn't play by the traditional rules. I would think that they would have become just as skilled at wasting European castles as they were at Persian forts given a little time to strategize.
>>1380562
No I'm not.
>>1380562
>>1380797
Fuck, now I am. Fuck you.
>>1380789
>Comparing 13th century Europe to 5th century Europe
>>1380802
>>1380868
not like europe was any better at fighting
>>1380354
What was the Third Mongol invasion of Poland, Mongol invasion of Thrace, and the Second Mongol invasion of Hungary?
They won 1 out of 3 of those.
>Could Europe have defeated an all-out Mongol invasion?
Could the mongols of the era moved more then 30,000 men into Europe? Without risking rebellion or weakness to the Mamluks? During that era they were fighting and losing large scale wars to the Egyptian Mamluks. Even with that last time the Mongols had a great victory over a European army was in 1265. Europeans wised up after that.
>>1380907
The best mongol forces were arrayed against the Song dynasty, and efeoffed there. The second sons and nobodies went west. Anyone who was important stayed near the center of power. Why conquer a few barbarian states when you already have the crown jewel of civilization?
>>1380354
Nobody in the world could resist them in total war. They were the ultimate conquerors.
>>1380885
Are you fucking joking? Fighting was about all Europe was good at in the 13th century. The entire continent was covered in giant stone forts designed to hold out for years against siege with all of the food from the surrounding area stored inside. The entire feudal system was founded on the idea of near constant warfare.
Talking about the Mongols in particular, they only really won their initial engagements with the Hungarians. After the first invasion, the Hungarians retook their land and built a fuckton of pic related, which the Mongols had a lot of trouble assaulting. You also have to remember that Hungary was the periphery of the West. Things that were typical of Western warfare, like crossbows and heavy cavalry, were less common in Hungary than in Western or Central Europe. However, those that were present, mostly due to the Knights Templars and Hospitallers, were very effective against the Mongols.
>>1380970
>Fighting was about all Europe was good at in the 13th century.
>>1380789
Why would Mongol convert to a shitty hippy religion?
>>1381035
Because it's best to have the divine favor of the strongest gods.
Did you not know that there was a bit of a civil war regarding Ghengis Khan's grandchildren and their preference for Islam or Christianity?
>>1380354
Castles trump horse archers. The Mongols would've been grounded to a halt.
>>1381051
>hiding behind castles
how much of a coward do you have to be?
>>1381074
>hiding behind castles
>how much of a coward do you have to be?
>>1381074
>hiding behind armour
how much of a coward do you have to be?
There are too many people who cant even understand the difference between a Turk and a Mongol on this thread.
>>1381148
One says qölmörlarizmarim the other says gürnöralam. Literally who cares?
>>1381051
Mongols wrecked castles all the time you Game of Thrones watching americunt
A full-force campaign would definitely body Western Europe.
>>1380659
DON'T BELIEVE WHITE LIES.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang#The_design_of_the_trebuchets_deployed_at_Xiangyang
>>1381051
>Castles trump horse archers.
This is the assumption that led to the Persians getting owned by Genghis Khan.
>it's this thread again
Well, let's look at history. They tried to invade once. They withdrew for an unknown reason, presumed ogedai death. They were not able to conquer Hungary or Poland. They tried again later, they successfully raided Poland, but did not conquer anything. They tried Hungary but failed miserably. And now a third time, they failed.
What could this possibly mean?
>>1380921
>the crown jewel of civilization
>this is what chinks actually believe
>>1381399
It was in that era
>>1381051
They had siege weapons they got from the Chinese.
>>1381424
Baghdad and Persia were you sneaky chink.
>>1380354
If a Franco-Mongol alliance had ever happened they would have utterly raped all of Eurasia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
>>1381028
Yeah 13th century Europe is basically about 3 things
1. Fighting
2. Gothic fucking cathedrals
3. Christian fucking theology
Everything that happened in 13th century Europe is basically one of these three things, or a mixture of those three things.
A bit off topic but is it conceivable that any soldiers in the Mongol armies fought in campaigns both in Europe and the far east?
It'd be pretty fascinating if in a time period when most people never traveled more than a few miles from their places of birth someone could have fought in both Korea and Hungary.
>>1381564
And then people say the dark ages are a meme.
>>1381574
Seeing how the generals did (like Subotai) I don't see why there wouldn't be any soldiers who fought on both fronts.
>>1380354
hell no
>why?
fortresses and damp european weather ruining their bows
>>1381028
Except the, you know, major intellectual reneissance with translations of Aristotle and the founding of philosophical systems that would form the beginnings of scientific early moderns. But I'm sure it's not a big deal.
>>1381729
>Fortresses
As if the Mongols weren't the very best in the world at siege tech.
If they could fuck up the Chinese and Persians in the 13th century, they could definitely fuck up whitey.
>>1381774
>As if the Mongols weren't the very best in the world at siege tech.
They weren't. The Persians (and Europeans) were
>If they could fuck up the Chinese and Persians in the 13th century, they could definitely fuck up whitey.
Hilarious, but untrue and entirely unfounded.
>>1381785
>They weren't. The Persians (and Europeans) were
After the 1220s, Persia was a part of the Mongol Empire.
>>1381774
persia and china weren't exactly known for their strength in siege warfare though.
>>1381785
European forts were influenced by Arab forts that the Crusaders saw, and the Mongols had victories against the Arabs. Europe was not super far ahead of everyone else in its designs of fortifications.
>>1381789
Yes, that doesn't make them not Persians. Same reason India was a part of the British Empire but still called India
>>1381830
Again, silly conjectures. They took inspiration and learned knowledge, they didn't just blindly copy. And European castles are well known for being far more advanced than anything else in the world.
>>1381774
Their subject people were, they themselves were not. Those skills did not really cross the cultural lines. Now image just how damn far it would be from Persia to say Hungary. That is how far the siege engineers would have to travel, and they unlike their overlords were not "born in the saddle". Also this may come as a shock but the Mongols in the middle east felt that European siege engineers were a good deal more skilled then the Persians. They tried very damn hard to get crusader volunteers with that skill set to help them in their wars against the mamluks. They noted a few times that the castles made by the Crusaders, Syrians, and Egyptians were far better designed then the Persian counter parts.
So if they got said Persian siege engineers over to Hungary they still may have a time of it.
>>1381904
Foreign (especially Persian/Chinese) soldiers/generals/engineers were pivotal to their conquests.
Heck, there were allegedly European knights at the battle of Ain Jalut.
My understanding was that Mongols biggest struggle would be attrition? The Europeans could survive for ages with stored grains and hoarded food while the Mongolians had less capable /reliable sources of food during their seige.
If the European countries could stall them long enough would they have had difficulty sustaining a large army during winter for example?
>>1381542
They had been sacked by the Mongols and reduced to nothing...
>>1380363
>hungarian invasion failed
Fag it literally pushed hungarians on the verge of exctintion and destroyed the country, it was the reason why the Aus-hun monarvhy was so different in ethnicities because after the mongol invasion hungary had to import a bunch of people so the population doesnt die out
>>1380354
The small Asian penis myth was obviously invented by butthurt white men who were tired of being cuckolded by superiorly endowed Asian men. Now the reason that Asian men are superiorly endowed is because something known as the BAC gene, which stands for Big Asian cock. The BAC gene originates in the original Mongoloids, the Mongols. The Mongols were known as the greatest horse riders in all of history. This is because their BACs were so big, they even made horse dicks look miniscule in comparison. When the horses realized how huge the Mongols' BACs were, the horses developed a profound sense of respect and loyalty to their Mongol riders because with dicks that huge, it was clear the Mongols were true alpha males and born leaders. The BACs of the Mongols were what won them the love and adoration from all the women in the countries they visited. As soon as the women in Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Turkey, Persia, and the Abbasid Caliphate heard rumors of the Mongols' BACs, they were eager to try one for themselves, and when the rumors proved to be true, their told their friends who in turn told their friends. Eventually, the Mongols yellowed the entire gene pool of all these countries because as the women in countries that fell victim to Mongol conquest can tell you, "Once you go Asian, that's all you'll be cravin'." The jealous male counterparts of these women quickly realized that their women could no longer be satisfied by their miniscule manhoods once they experienced a BAC. So they realized their genetic heritages were at stake, and they had to curtail the extraordinary sexual prowess of BACs.
>>1380354
>>1382375
The Mongol Empire, which was built by sexual conquest, was finally stopped in Europe when cuckolded yet creative white men came up the concept of "White Man's Bullshit." White men in power control what information becomes public knowledge, and if they hid the truth of the BAC from their women, they would never be sexually colonized by a BAC and could still be satisfied with miniscule white manhoods. Now, I know what you're saying. There a lot of white guys with big dicks. You see many well hung white guys in porn. But here's something you might not have noticed. If you look very closely at a white guy with a big dick, you can see that his dick is actually slighly more yellow than the rest of his body. I want to call these guys 1 Percenters because they are 1% Asian and all that Asian went to their dick. Hence, they are white men with Asian cocks. All of these 1 percenters are decented from a Mongolian man who knocked up a European woman. The Mongols knocked up many Nordic and Slavic women, so it is not uncommon to see 1 percenters who look very white and have blond hair and blue eyes yet have a big yellow dick. So eventually the progress of the Mongol Empire was stopped in Europe when white men were able to keep the truth about BACs hidden from their women by lying to them and saying their tiny white dicks were bigger than the Mongols'.
>>1380354
>>1382377
But because pure 100% white men still possess miniscule manhoods, these "White Man's Bullshit" techniques are still very much in use today by white men. Not only do they obsess over Asian dicks and constantly tell small dick jokes about Asian men and their go-to insult for Asian men is always about their dicks, obviously because they fear the unmatched power of BACs, they even try to associate any small white penis with Asian men. The most typical white man these days is probably The Amazing Atheist. He's very white looking, has blond hair, and basically looks like a pig except a million times uglier. Like all other white neckbeard racists, he likes to use small dick jokes to put down Asians except his miniscule manclit was exposed with that degenerate banana video which can only be described the most horrific sight in all of human history. I couldn't bear to see it, but from all reports, his 1 milimeter long manclit appears to be as pink as a pig's skin, which confirms his 100% whiteness. Yet, now down to his resort and still wanting to insult Asians due to the typical white neckbeard's undying loyalty to maintaining white privilege by tearing down minorities, he uses "White Man's Bullshit" to say something like he's 1% Asian and all that Asian is his dick. Obviously, this is a twisted, agenda-driven inversion of the truth. He has to cover for all other the 100% pure white neckbeards with miniscule manhoods to keep the charade going. He actually has a big dick for a pure white neckbeard because most of theirs are innies and are actually negative in measurement. Literal manginas in other words.
>>1380354
>>1382378
Despite being virtually dickless, the ingenuity of white men is impressive. By manipulating data and self-reporting sources, they were able to create an illusion that white dicks are not miniscule compared to BACs. By using measurements of erect 1 percenters to represent white males and flaccid BACs (and of course Asian men grow the most from erection because they originate from the coldest climate so BACs are forced to shrink when flaccid to avoid frostbite which in turns makes BACs much harder because of the increased amount of blood needed to maintain an erection which makes for even greater stimulation for their female partners), white males were able to successfully create deep-seated subliminal connotations against BACs to protect themselves from another Asian horde conquering their women all based on self-serving white male propaganda.
As someone who is half Asian and half white, I am well aware of what truly determines whether or not you have a large manhood. If your manhood is yellow, it is always large because it means you are Asian from the waist down. If your manhood is pink and effeminate, it is always tiny because it means you are white from the waist down.
All I can say is thank God I'm Asian from the waist down. Though I can only imagine how much bigger my cock would be if I didn't have all his white blood weighing my manhood down. I could have been the next Genghis Khan and impregnated entire continents.
>>1382350
He doesn't really seem to know much history, go easy on him.
>>1380354
No, european armies would have failed. Mongols even beaten china, who was politically, economically, military stronger than all of europe together. But on the other side, they wouldn't have found anything good in europe at that time, but slaves and blonde hair. Europe was a undeveloped shithole back than, and the rich provinces were in the east (Byzanz) and around Alexandria
>>1380354
From my understanding the mongols would have trouble because Europe was littered with castles it is one thing to take down the big castles but to siege hundreds maybe a thousand would take a lot of time. So the mongols could very easily raid the Europeans but actually conqueroring would be much more difficult
>>1380354
Yes. It took the mongols forever to conquer southern china, and they incurred ridiculously heavy casualties doing so. Europe is farther and would have offered more resistance if they managed to get past Poland/Hungary (which they tried and failed multiple times at you idiots).
>>1380354
Yes.
If the Mongols could have invaded Europe all the way to the Atlantic they would have.
>>1382785
>Europe was the Africa of the Old World, an irrelevant backwater on the peripheral of the civilized lands.
Evidence? I have a feeling this is butthurt prc.
>>1381785
>>1381802
>Europe
>good at siege warfare
>this is what retards actually believe
You cucks don't even know that the Chinese basically invented siege warfare. The Chinese were light years ahead of Europe when it came to siege technology. In fact it took the Mongols over 70 years to finally conquer China and that's with most of their resources and best troops devoted to the task.
>>1382797
>You cucks don't even know that the Chinese basically invented siege warfare. The Chinese were light years ahead of Europe when it came to siege technology. In fact it took the Mongols over 70 years to finally conquer China and that's with most of their resources and best troops devoted to the task.
Don't forget siege engines from the Islamic world, which they considered to be far, far superior to what the local Chinese had or were capable of constructing!
mongols tried and failed multiple times, butthurt prc
People who are saying that the Mongols would've reckted Europe don't know what they are talking about
They actually ATTEMPTED to attack Hungary and Poland on two occasions. The first time is the famous one, where it was a massive success and then da Khan died back in Mongolia and they had to retreat - 'europe waz saved!11 by chance' etc etc
the second time occurred after the king's of eastern Europe had to prepare - which mainly too the form of westernizing their armies, and in additional fortifications.
the MONGols got BTFO
the fact is that there was nothing in asia that resembled the european castle, and the mongols got totally BTFO'd when they ran against it. your attempts to signal by parroting consensus liberal 'da west sucked historically' views are largely ignorant.
>>1381391
The "invasion" of Europe was really just a minor thing without the entire backing of the khanate and it had immense success. If Mongols were to properly invade europe they would have brought upwards of 200k+ warriors (350k hit song dynasty and 200k hit the middle east while only 70k or probably less hit europe). We europeans should consider ourselves fortunate the east aryans chose to direct their armies against China and the Middle east.
>>1382898
Contemporary chroniclers do bring up an around 200,000 figure for the second Hungarian invasion.
But they still weren't really trying, right?
This thread like many threads on /his/ is just terrible
At least it's history related, but so much bullshit, why do people even bother posting and shitting up threads when they know nothing about the topic?
>>1382951
The second invasion was weaker due to lacking the original high Genghis quality of commanders and organization as well as more turkic filler. Also I doubt that 200k number, it says 30k-200k, the mongols had split into seperate khanates by that time and would no longer send tumens to help each other conquer due to rivalries and family hatreds.
>>1382973
Why are you here?
>>1381564
You're forgetting universities.
>>1381564
13th century europe is economically and culturally booming
>itt: chinaboo autists chimp out
lol
>mongol cucks are so pathetic they can't even conquer Poland and Hungary when they're divided and fracture a minute after they finish their 'conquests' against the chinese (who are even more pathetic than the muslims)
>>1382802
>Taking Mongol opinions on siege technology seriously
Just because those steppe niggers didn't know how to properly use Chinese siege weapons, and relied entirely on foreign siege engineers to do the work for them, doesn't mean that the Chinese didn't have the best siege tech for most of the history.
No, they would have hit the same problem that hit the Muslims when they tried.
Those hit and run tactics don't work when you run out of places to run.
>>1383839
Compared to what? Australia?
13th century Europe was a backwater, despite what you /pol/tards and cucks think
>>1380354
No.
The Mongolians would dramatically so outmatch the military capabilities of any European army, this is undisputed. However, the Mongols would have to be experts at siege warfare. Now your typical mongol dickrider would say that they are, since they conquered China, and yes indeed they employed siege warfare to great effect against the Chinese and several Muslim civilizations. But people underestimate just how much better they would need to be to effectively dominate Europe. Mongol raids in Europe were devastating, but there is a reason they never conquered beyond Russia, and its simply because they couldnt.
After the first Mongolian invasion of Hungary King Bela put forth several reforms, and built a fuckton more castles since fortified castles in Hungary were able to repulse the mongolians consistently and easily. So by the time the second Mongolian invasion rolled around, it was a total disaster by mongol standards. Yeah they ravaged the countryside like any group of retards who catch a village off guard could do, but when it came to capturing cities they were totally ineffective.
But sure, lets go with the mongol dickriders and assume that somehow the Mongols find a way to break through Hungary. What they would find beyond that is a part of the world that is very rainy, and not very friendly to nomadic horse based armies. Again, the mongol dickrider says that China was very rainy in places, and also would have been more densley populated than western europe. This is true, but the Chinese did not have a collection of castles, all of which would have been far far beyond the capabilities of mongolians to destroy. On top of that, the terrain of western europe at the time was heavily HEAVILY forested and the mongols simply would not have the amount of pasture needed.
>>1385548
But ok, lets give the Mongols another freebee and assume they ravage the countryside all the way to France. Now the Mongols are in a situation where due to the lack of pasture at least 70% of the horses are dead, all around them are impenetrable castles, and from any direction armies could come forth from said castles and ambush them in a terrain that puts the mongols at a massive tactical disadvantage. Obviously this would be a disaster for the mongols, and considering the fucking Croatians pulled it off when the Mongols were on their way out of Hungary, im very confident the French and Germanic people could too.
But lets backtrack a bit and give the dickriders another bonus point. Lets say the Mongols somehow found a way to overcome every obstacle and effectively destroy European castles quickly. Surely this would mean the end of Europe right? Wrong. Once again, the sheer number of heavily fortified castles in Europe at this time was fucking staggering. For such a small area compared to the Mongol "empire" it would seem ludicrous to see so many castles just one after another after another, all of which were formidable even if they had very very few defenders.
To recap: Mongols couldnt sustain a campaign in Europe. Mongols, even if they could consistently defeat European castles, could not destroy enough of them in time to remove the risk of ambush. Mongol horses, the literal only reason they succeed in battle, would not survive in a campaign deep into Europe due to lack of pasture. Finally, to add a point i didnt touch on earlier, the Mongols were actually defeated in the field by Europeans a handful of times, so couple that with the fact that they got rekt hard by Japan twice, and constantly got BTFO by Egypt and India, the Mongols just wouldnt want to risk another crushing defeat by overextending themselves.
>>1381227
>qölmörlarizmarim
>>1380363
What the fuck are you talking about? The Polish and Hungarian armies were completely destroyed and Hungary conquered, it was only the death of Ogadei that prompted a withdrawal of Mongolian forces.
>>1385589
He's talking about the 1285 war, not the 1241 one, for like the sixth time in this fucking thread.
Posting an answer from Quora that I quite like:
Yes, anyone who has done even the most cursory reading on the large-scale punitive raid into Europe 1240-41 AD will know that the Mongols caught the eastern Europeans by surprise and dealt them serious defeats in the field at Liegnitz and at Mohi through superior tactics and generalship. But no, this does not mean that this army would have conquered Europe if it had not been recalled (it was too small). Nor does it mean that a much larger force is likely to have done so either. There are a number of clear historical reasons this would have been unlikely:
1. Geography, logistics and historical precedents
Firstly, the Mongols were not the first Eurasian horse nomads to attack Europe, though they were the first who had done so for several centuries. From the Third Century to the Ninth Century western Europe has seen the Sarmatians, the Huns, the Alans, the Avars, the Khazars and the Magyars all emerge from the steppes and invade, usually via the plains of the Hungarian Basin. Some of these peoples made it as far west as what is now France and Italy, but none managed to establish a permanent foothold west of what is now the eastern Balkans.
(1)
>>1385604
This is because of geography and the logistics of horse nomad battle tactics. Beyond the Hungarian Basin, Europe becomes totally unsuited to large horse armies. There simply isn't the pasture to sustain the string of 5-15 remounts needed for a nomad warrior to maintain the kind of lightning campaign that could give them a strategic advantage over the armies of sedentary cultures. Attitla's Huns established a large hegemonic "kingdom" based on the Hungarian plains with its core further east on the Ukrainian steppes, but his "invasions" of the Western Roman Empire were little more than massive plundering raids and shows of strength. They quickly ran out of steam once the Huns got too far from large supplies of fodder for too long.
Later nomad horse armies ran into the same problem. Avar and Magyar raiders inflicted crushing defeats on western European armies, but were never able to follow up with any kind of invasion or occupation. Ottonian German feudal armies learned that the further a Magyar horse army got from its steppe base the more vulnerable it became.
People with a knowledge of the terrain of modern Europe find this difficult to grasp. They see wide open countryside, rolling hills of farmland and can't understand why a Mongol army of the kind that had conquered similar pastoral countryside in China could find Europe so impossible. But Europe in the Thirteenth Century did not look like Europe today. Most of that open countryside was still thickly forested; and not the highly cultivated, open, park-like "forest" of modern Europe, but mainly thick wildwood forest of a kind modern Europeans never see outside of some national parks in eastern Poland. This was not nomad horse-army country.
(2)
>>1385609
Those modern rolling hills of farmland were impassible by horse and those strings of 5-15 remounts would be dead from starvation within a few weeks. Any Mongol army foolish enough to try to force its way through this terrain would soon find itself having to walk back though hostile territory, with most of its horses dead. And there goes the famous Mongol tactical superiority.
2. Western European Strategy and Tactics in the Thirteenth Century
Strategy and tactics develop in a given context. This means that while the Mongols' art of war developed on the steppes and suited that context, the armies of feudal Europe developed in the far more enclosed and constrained terrain of their context. What worked on the plains of Eurasia and could be adapted to China and Russia would not work well at all in western Europe.
And this is not just a matter of the lack of fodder and room for wide strategic manoeuvre discussed above. A combination of factors (terrain, political fragmentation, logistics) meant that war in western Europe from the Third Century onward had led to a lower emphasis on large-scale, set piece battles and the development of a warfare of manoeuvre, skirmish and siege, with field battles usually on a smaller scale and mainly only when one side with a clear advantage caught the other on the hop. Many wars were fought with no open battles at all, though with a lot of harrying, skirmishing, manoeuvre and many sieges.
(3)
>>1385615
This meant that from the Ninth Century onwards, Europe became a land of castles and the art of fortification and the corresponding art of siege warfare were both raised to increasing heights of sophistication. This is why in the two centuries before the Mongol invasion of Europe, Medieval Europeans were able to hold the Crusader Kingdoms in the "Outremer" despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered - masterpieces of the art of fortification like Kerak, Montreal and Krak des Chevaliers were based on centuries of perfecting the art of castle building. In a fortress like those or their equivalents across Europe, a populace could wait until a besieging army simply starved itself into having to withdraw.
Those who note that the Mongols were good at siege warfare underestimate precisely how good they would have to be to conquer western Europe. Yes, Mongolian use of Chinese siege tactics could storm fortresses (though Chinese siege tactics were inferior to those of western Europe in key respects). But in Europe they would have had to mount thousands of such sieges, bogging down their armies for months at a time with every single one. The sheer number of castles in Europe in this time is staggering - in 1241 they numbered in the many tens of thousands. And combined with the terrain and the logistical problems already noted, they would represent an almost endless succession of obstacles that a Mongol army intent on conquest would simply not have the capacity to overcome.
Bypassing them would only work in the short term and doing so consistently would be nothing more than a large-scale raid. Ottonian Germany showed over and over again that it could always defeat the Magyars in the long term by retreating into castles and then harassing the bogged down nomads through the forage-free forests. And while people make a lot of the victories of the Mongols in Hungary in 1240, we hear much less about the disastrous Golden Horde Mongol campaign in 1285.
(4)
>>1385621
Learning from the 1240 campaign, the Hungarians had defended their kingdom with a network of western European-style castles. Unable to take them all, bogged down and constantly attacked, a depleted Mongol army began to retreat and was intercepted and comprehensively defeated at Pest by Ladislaus IV and then finally destroyed on the retreat home. This, rather than the earlier campaign in Hungary, gives us an insight into the reception a Mongol invasion would have received further west.
3. Religion and Politics in Western Christendom
In the sudden and unexpected blitzkrieg of the Mongol incursion of 1240-41, the politically fragmented nature of western Christendom worked in the favour of the invaders. The various rival states of Europe were in no position to mount any kind of short-term co-ordinated response and what response was thrown together - eg by the Teutonic Order in response to the incursion in Poland - was small scale and piecemeal. Some argue that this fragmentation means that western Europe would have been easy pickings for the Mongols, who had readily conquered much larger polities and so would have picked off the divided kingdoms of Europe.
In fact, the fragmentation of Europe was actually to its advantage, at least at first. Larger, more centrally-organised and more cohesive polities had fallen to the Mongols very quickly because of the rapid capture of a central capital, the defeat of a supreme leader or the capitulation of two or three vital centres, they precipitated the collapse of resistance. In Europe, the fall of Hungary and Poland may have caused alarm further west, but it had no greater impact than that. If the Mongols had managed to annex Croatia or even parts of the jigsaw of states that made up the German Empire, this would have had no effect elsewhere. And as the points above make clear, that piecemeal approach would not have been as easy as some armchair generals make out.
(5)
Then there is the fact that western Christendom would not have remained disunited for long. Two hundred years earlier a much less rich, less populated and less militarily sophisticated western Europe had sent a succession of allied armies thousands of kilometres east to capture, against the odds, wide swathes of territories in the Middle East. The religious fervour of the Crusading movement had led to remarkable military feats and victories against the odds by armies from all over Europe, united by a fanatical zeal for (as they saw it) the defence of their faith.
This zeal was still strong in the Thirteenth Century, so the idea that western Christendom would not harness that ideological power in the face of a threat not only to their homes but also to their local holy places - pilgrimage sites, holy shrines, cathedrals and monasteries - in the face of invasion by pagan hordes is unthinkable. And that level of religious fanaticism goes a long way when it's combined with patriotism and the protection of vested interests. The Mongol invasions of Syria and Mamluk Egypt were crushed by a similar combination and, along with the difficulties already noted above, this would be a massive force multiplier for the defenders of western Christendom.
Conclusion
While it is possible to argue any hypothetical either way, the idea that the Mongols would simply roll westward to the sea is rarely based on a detailed analysis of the relevant factors. No other horse nomad invader managed a permanent extension of territory much beyond the Hungarian Basin, and for good reasons. The Mongols were more numerous and more militarily powerful than any of those predecessors, but the obstacles facing any longer term conquest of Europe were so formidable that it is highly unlikely they would ever had done more than inflict some short-term if devastating raids beyond Hungary. Medieval Europe would have been too tough a strategic nut for them to crack.
(6)
>>1385609
>There simply isn't the pasture to sustain the string of 5-15 remounts needed
Yet there is in mountainous Persia? Tibet?
>>1385589
>it was only the deat of Ogadei that prompted the withdrawal
Oh please.
You actually believe that was the ONLY reason they left? The couldnt conquer the castles and they knew damn well they werent capable of raiding beyond Hungary.
Plus they came back 30 years later and got fucking rekt
>>1385644
Obviously.
>>1385666
The idea that Europe, especially the northern plain, is worse for horse nomads than Persia or fucking Tibet is ridiculous.
>>1385733
>The Mongols were totally capable of raiding the norther European plain,
Which encompasses a big chunk of Germany and France.
>The landscape of Europe was far different in the 13th century
It was more forested, which again the Mongols had no problem with.
>>1385742
>Germany
>Plains, not forested as fuck
This is a history board, right?
>>1385777
You think Northern Germany is fucking mountainous?
Even with Chinese siege engineers it still took until Kublai before Southern Song was conquered. And Europe is much further away than China is.
>People thinking Mongols can only fight on flat terrain and they have nothing but horse archers
China is full of mountainous areas and walled cities.
>>1385782
>>1385742
Sure it does NOW
but you really do not get it.
The forests werent think in the way that we think of today
They were fucking impassable by horse. Thick forests with trees scraping against each other and it just went on and on and on because there wasnt anybody who bothered to clear forests back then.
>>1385786
They could fight in most places, but they certainly were better off on flat terrain.
If you genuinely believe though that the mongols were anything to fear without their horse archers, then you dont belong on a history board. The Mongols didnt conquer Europe because they couldnt.
The bullshit about the great khan dying being the only reason they left is total horseshit. Yes it is a factor, but no fucking way would they have stopped if they truly believed they could have destroyed Europe at the time.
Case in point, that is what they believed they could do to the Muslims, and so the Mongol armies there didnt leave to go back to Karakorum when the armies in Europe did.
Also i dont think anyone here is stating that the Mongols would be defeated in pitched battle by the Europeans of the 13th century. Everybody knows the Europeans cant fight for shit in the field against enemies that dont blindly charge, so against the Mongols they would have gotten rekt. The problem for the Mongols is the logistics of it, and there is just no way they could overcome it, no matter how many armies they destroy.
>>1385784
and it was literally just one or two fortified cities that were holding them up.
>>1382939
This might be the most retarded post on this board right now.
>>1380907
>During that era they were fighting and losing large scale wars to the Egyptian Mamluks.
TBF for the Ilkhans though most of their military after the initial invasions/fragmentation of the Empire were Persians and other natives. Traditional Mongol cavalry only made up a fraction of their forces, so it makes sense that they'd get their asses handed to them by people that fought primarily how Mongols fought.
>>1380921
>The second sons and nobodies went west
The first son went west, because the rest of the sons thought he was illegitimate and were afraid of him seizing power.
>>1381035
Maybe you should ask all those that already had, including Kublai/Möngke Khan's mother.
>>1381074
>hiding behind weapons
how much of a coward do you have to be?
>>1383250
They are included with the theology, the universities at that time were simply theological schools.
>>1380354
>Could Europe have defeated an all-out Mongol invasion?
What is the Hunnic invasion ?
>Say by Kublai Khan? Would Crusaders and knights and all that even stand a chance?
The mongol invasion of Middle East was in itself a Nestorian Crusade, and the Crusaders destroyed Bagdad with the mongols, so there is no reason they would fight each others.
>>1382797
>You cucks don't even know that the Chinese basically invented siege warfare.
Just no. All of the oldest city walls in the world were in Mesopotamia and the Levant. The oldest depiction of siege equipment comes from Egypt in the 24th century BC. The oldest city wall outside of that area that I know is located in the Indus river valley region and is dated to about 3500 BC.
It is likely that the Catapult was invented in china before it was invented in Greece, but only by about half a century at most.
> The Chinese were light years ahead of Europe when it came to siege technology.
If we are talking about Western European from the period of the 11th century to the 5th then yes. The 12th century was deeply transformative to Europe, and china is a very big place. If we compare the areas in china that had the very best fortifications in the 13th century, which is along the yangtze then china is a bit ahead. However that was by far the richest and most developed area in china. The middle third of it hosted what had been (mongol raids changed that) the richest per capital population on the planet at the time and had for the last 5 centuries. If you look at Chinese fortifications of the era from outside that area they are not as nearly as good. Large in scope, large in size, rather simple in design elements. Free standing forts did for example did not have center placed detached keeps nor Barbicans. That makes them effective if they have a large garrison, but hard to defend if undermanned. The need for a large garrison also means a need for a lot of food and water.
Lets take a example of something a akin to the above. The walls of Baghdad were when they were made at the start of the Islamic golden age the largest city wall in the world. They were designed to a have garrison of 80 thousand. When the mongols attack the defenders only numbered 50 thousand. That made it very hard to keep the walls. The city fell in 13 days.
