If the Mongols had the desire, could they have invaded and subjugated all of Europe?
>>414647
If you mean mongols that were /cg/ or /tg/ level bloodlusted then, yes, sure.
If you mean Mongols that aren't retarded and actually have their own economic welfare in mind, no. There are far greener pastures and far easier to rape women for the mongols to prey on without having to lug around a bunch of Chinese and Persian artillerymen to destroy each and every one of Europe's hundreds of stone castles.
A mongol SCOUTING PARTY devastated eastern europe
Fuck do you think?
It'd be a bigger stomp than China
Probably, but not easily. It took them half a century to fully subjugate China, and I imagine Europe would have been no less difficult. But the Mongols were by far the most advanced military force in their day, combining steppe tactics, just about every piece of siege technology that existed in Asia, and unmatched discipline and leadership. They could easily wipe out any European army; the Poles and Hungarians were completely crushed by them. Sieges would have been more difficult, but with their technological capabilities there's no reason to think they couldn't overcome European defenses as they did in China and the Middle East. Hell, they even managed to capture the supposedly impenetrable fortress of Alamut.
Plus, the Mongols always had a great ability to exploit tensions between their enemies, and Europe was absolutely filled with tension. The idea that Europeans would all get together to kick them out is a fantasy; when the Mongols were slaughtering the Hungarians, the Austrians rather then offering any help actually took advantage of the Hungarian's weakness by stealing a few of their provinces and straight-up mugging their king. Plus that this was the same century that the West sacked Constantinople. The Mongols probably could have easily used European tensions against each other just as they did with Chinese dynasties and the Muslims.
Another idea, that the Mongols would have been stopped by Europe's forests, makes no sense. The Mongols had no problems with the semi-tropical climate of southern China.
Still, Europe probably had some the best fortifications in the world, and the decentralized nature of European states would have made them hard to capture. That would have been the hardest thing for them to overcome. They might have also had trouble with Europe's seas; naval power was the one thing the Mongols lacked.
They could only have taken Europe so long as they were as committed to it as they were with China, and used every resource they had.
>>414689
>They might have also had trouble with Europe's seas; naval power was the one thing the Mongols lacked.
tbf the Mediterranean isn't exactly an ocean, and the Mongols developed a strong brown-water navy to fight China. The problem was when they thought brown-water navy ships would be enough to cross the sea of Japan.
>>414691
The Mongols were unlucky with Japan because of weather. The distance between Japan and Korea is really tiny, so there wasn't much point trying some huge naval attack, especially considering that Japan, despite being an island, wasn't a naval power. Plus, the Mongols were mostly defeaten on land in both Japan and Java. I think the real problem with the Mongols and overseas warfare had more to do with logistics than a lack of naval strength. This would have been a problem in Europe, with the way it's carved up by seas and channels.
>>414647
no because the terrain was not suited to their cavalry
>>414728
That didn't stop the Huns or Magyars, and besides the Mongols crushed the Southern Song dynasty despite its mountainous terrain and forested semi-tropical climate. They conquered the Caucasian kingdoms with just an expeditionary force.
Europe's terrain and climate certainly would have been a problem, but nowhere near an insurmountable one. Probably the most difficult thing about it would be logistics; the Mongols needed a huge supply of horses which Europe couldn't have supported. Even the plains of Hungary weren't big enough for them, which is why they left (not because the Khan died). If a constant supply of horses from the steppe was maintained they could overcome this, but it would still make things difficult.
>>414647
you could use this line for almost any of the great empires
>>414655
20000 cavalry is not a scouting party, it is relatively small but still a significant commitment of resources while they were fighting wars elsewhere in the empire.
They could devastate Eastern Europe but they could not protect it for years as would be necessary to make a profit out of holding land, bear in mind one of their objectives was to destroy the alliance with Ruthenia for this same purpose.
>>414772
>They could devastate Eastern Europe but they could not protect it for years as would be necessary to make a profit out of holding land
At that stage of their conquest their profit tends to come from raping and sacking it.
>>414754
> Probably the most difficult thing about it would be logistics; the Mongols needed a huge supply of horses which Europe couldn't have supported. Even the plains of Hungary weren't big enough for them, which is why they left (not because the Khan died)
Is there any citation for this? I've heard this a lot but it honestly feels a little hard to believe. The Huns, another equestrian tribe, didn't seem to have these problems, and Mongol horses are much hardier than European warhorses, it seems kind of difficult to believe that Europe's vegetation was incapable of sustaining them when the frozen tundras of Russia were no problem for them.
>>414786
>http://deremilitari.org/2014/07/the-mongols-in-the-west/
>There is evidence that each warrior had at least three or four horses, but Marco Polo spoke of about eighteen mounts for each man! Taking into consideration the losses suffered by the Mongols we may count with, say 100,000 men occupying Hungary who would then need, on a conservative estimate at least some 400,000 horses. It has been suggested that about 42,000 square kilometers (10,378,425 acres) can or could be used as grazing land. Estimates of grazing or carrying capacity of ranges vary widely but on the assumption that at that time about 25 acres were needed to support one horse for one year, the carrying capacity of the Hungarian range must be set at 415,136 animal units. On the completely unrealistic condition that no other animals were using these pastures, and counting five horses per Mongol horseman, the Hungarian range could provide for the mounts of 83,027 warriors, clearly far below the strength of the Mongol army. The Mongol high command found itself in a position similar to that of a commander of a modern armored division running short of fuel. Further advance to the west, into Transdanubia, would have made matters worse. It was the habit of the Mongols to stop fighting in the spring and let their horses go free to water and graze, and to multiply, so that they would be ready for war in the autumn. This is the reason why in the spring of 1242 the Mongols withdrew from devastated, overgrazed Hungary to the abundant pastures of the steppe, where they could replenish and strengthen their herds, on which their military power rested.
Russia was different because it borders on the steppe, from which there came a constant supply of horses. As for the Huns, they probably just didn't have as many horses as the Mongols did. The Mongols had four horses for each man. I doubt the Huns did, and I assume they didn't have as large a force as well. I don't really know anything about the Huns though.
>>414795
Are the estimates for grazing capacity based upon European horses or Mongol horses? Because Mongol horses are squat little fucks compared to huge European warhorses. Either way, thanks for the source. I'll see if I can find anything on the individual methodology.
>>414754
The Mongols had ruled Northern China (ex-Jin dynasty territory) for decades, including the highly agriculturally productive region around Beijing which dwarfs the Russian tributary states they had subjugated, they had far more resources with which to invade the Song dynasty.
>huge supply of horses
Moving compact units of cavalry wasn't much of a problem for the Mongols, their advantage was being able to draw resources from across the steppes and focus them against more static sedentary agrarian civilizations.
>>414805
I don't really know any more of the details, and I'm sure the author is using a fair amount of educated guesswork with his figure. Still though, even if his figures are a bit off I think they make it clear that logistics would be a problem. Not a problem that couldn't be overcome though; if they could take China, I doubt they couldn't take Europe (or at least mainland Europe).
>>414806
That's all true, but I don't think it really changes my point; if the Mongols could keep a supply of horses coming into Europe from the steppe, they probably could have taken it. Whether or not they could do that is hard to say though. I imagine they could, but that's really just a guess.
>>414655
Eastern Europe at that time was wood walls not stone. They proved a major obstacle to later mongols even with persian/chinese siege equipment.
In a united effort they could but it would be a long campaign for all involved and need a Genghis type character who could direct multiple fronts, ensure the loyalty of everyone, deal with a long supply chain.
>>414773
Pillage would never be as profitable again. It was like an apocalypse to the Poles and Hungarians and they would have adapted, everyone would remember the cities that were slaughtered after surrendering, the nobles would send their silver to castles in the west, merchants would be prepared to evacuate their goods from risky regions if they heard news of the Tatars going on the rampage again.
The Mongols in fact complained about the lack of loot in the secret history of the Mongols.
>>414754
they really just left becuase the khan died
they crossed the frozen danube and was in process of raping the other part of the country
then they left
i mean, they were fine during the winter
>>414859
You're probably right. Regardless of whether or not the Mongols could conquer Europe, they lacked the incentive. To conquer Europe the Mongols would have needed to devote everything to it just as they did in China, with a long drawn-out campaign making use of every advantage they had. There was no way they would actually do that though.
As far as the Mongols were concerned, everything going on in Europe and the Middle East was a sideshow compared to their real goal of conquering China. China had a kind of unique symbolic significance to them, basically being the center of the world in their view, and the traditional enemy of their people for all of history. The conquest of Europe was really more of a personal project of Batu Khan's than an especially important goal of the Mongol empire as a whole.
Maybe if the Mongols had remained unified they could have devoted more attention to Europe (and the rest of the world) after they were done conquering China, but in reality they were already falling apart by that point.
>>414835
Supply lines were not the reason they could not invade Europe, though they may have made campaigns in Arabia and the Levant more difficult. Hay was widespread at this time, a million heads of cattle need a lot of grazing land but 40000 horses do not. Water however can't be transported easily.
At the battle of Ain Jalut the Mamluks had the advantage of supply by sea while the Mongols could only travel through the bottleneck between the Syrian desert and Mediterranean which contributed to the Mamluk victory. Had Hulagu not needed to go east for political reasons it might have turned out differently, this is probably one of the bigger "what ifs" than the "what if they invaded europe".
The invasion of the Song dynasty took place over decades with great difficulty involving sieges and battles on rivers where they did not have an overwhelming advantage, they would have experienced similar challenges in Europe.
>>414888
See >>414795
>According to John of Plano Carpini the death of Ogedei prompted the Mongols’ withdrawal from Hungary. Valuable though the Friar’s account may be, it does contain many mistakes, of which this explanation is a prime example. Unfortunately, the mistake has been perpetuated by generations of historians (including the present writer), who, for a long time, never pondered on the inherent weakness of this theory. Ogedei died on December 11, 1241, and it had been argued that when the news reached him, Batu, who might have had personal, imperial ambitions, decided either to return to Mongolia or, at least, to move closer to it. The fact is that Batu showed no signs of any desire to travel to Mongolia, but after the evacuation of Hungary remained on the South Russian steppe, still very far from the center of power. Whether Batu ever harbored ambitions to become the Great Khan is a moot question, but his behavior certainly did not reveal anything of the sort. Available evidence suggests that he was content to be the de facto ruler of the western part of the Mongol empire, and that he showed great loyalty to Ogedei’s successor, Guyuk. The reason for the Mongol withdrawal from Hungary must be sought elsewhere; it was caused by logistical imperatives.
>>414897
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only saying that supplying horses from the steppe into Europe might have been difficult. It was 400,000 horses, not 40,000, and that was just the force invading Hungary. An even larger number would be needed for all of Europe.
Again though, I don't think any of this would have actually stopped the Mongols if they were as devoted to Europe as they were to China. Based on their other conquests, I'm sure they would have completely crushed it. But that devotion just didn't exist, fortunately for us.
>>414897
>this is probably one of the bigger "what ifs" than the "what if they invaded europe".
Yeah, I wonder if the Mongols would have pushed further into Africa had they managed to take Egypt. Maybe they would have crossed the Sahara and conquered the Sahel. They would have had a pretty good incentive (the place was filled with gold), there wouldn't have been that much resistance, and the warfare in the region was cavalry-based, so it wouldn't be unthinkable. Holding onto land across the Sahara might have been impossible though.
>>414889
Yes, also this was all taking place over generations. The agrarian civilizations were taken by surprise but they eventually adapted to the changes in warfare.
>>414900
I dont see the jump from not wanting to be Khaan to it must be logistical imperative because the Hungarian plain couldn't support his army.
>>414917
It is a possibility, I don't think we can predict whether they would have succeeded or not though.
>>414926
>the warfare in the region was cavalry-based
yep, the Mamluks quickly adapted to the Mongol style of warfare, the Mongols only had a narrow window of opportunity to take them by surprise before they became serious adversaries in the region
>>414979
Did gunpowder play much of a role in stopping the Mongols? I know the Mamluks had it, but I'm not sure how much they used it or what effect it had.
Seeing as it was mostly used for siege warfare, I'm guessing it wasn't that useful against Mongol cavalry though.
>>414952
Ah sorry i was misunderstanding your post. I was getting the original question mixed in with your post chain.
I still think they probably could in the hypothetical invasion (a well planned, long term invasion of europe) but i can definitely see how logistics would be a major factor in Batu returning to the russian steppe.
Ill check out the book too. Thanks.
They were just using Atilla's tactics of Divide and Conquer (because let's be real, euros squabble with their neighbors over the slightest bullshit) that worked pretty well until Attila died. Likewise, subutai quit because Ogedai died.
They were on track and easily would have reached the Atlantic.
>>414691
>the Mongols developed a strong brown-water navy to fight China
The same brown water navy that got cvcked when the Vietnamese put a few sticks at the bottom of a river.
To be fair that was a brilliant tactic, but most European navies would be able to defeat them with ease.
>>414795
this is dogshit
firstly
in the 9th century magyars came into this basin, nomads with about the populace of 200k
was plenty enough
so enough we could ravage whole of yurop for a century
the mongols were already done with our army, they had no military reason to stop
our king was hiding in a castle on an island without an army
>drawing correlations with modern warfare
for what purpose?
>>414996
the Mongols made use of gunpowder a lot, I don't think anyone surpassed them significantly
>>415023
>because let's be real, euros squabble with their neighbors over the slightest bullshit
Everyone does that really. The Song even made the ridiculous mistake of allying with the Mongols against the Jin (though to be fair, the Jin probably seemed like more of a threat to them at the time). Plus there was all the stupid bickering between the Khwarezmians and Abbasids, though I forget the details.
>>414795
>On the completely unrealistic condition that no other animals were using these pastures, and counting five horses per Mongol horseman, the Hungarian range could provide for the mounts of 83,027 warriors, clearly far below the strength of the Mongol army.
Why is this unrealistic? The mongols could have very easily slaughtered the peasant's cattle to provide grazing for their horses. Hay may also have been available which could be brought in from their vassal states further east.
>>415026
I really doubt the Magyars needed four or five horses for each man, and 200,000 sounds a bit high to me, though I don't really know.
>drawing correlations with modern warfare
Where was that done?
Anyway, I don't know much about Hungary, so my guess doesn't mean much, but I'm going to stick with the source I have unless I see a convincing argument against it.
>>415057
anon its the exact same type of nomadic culture and warfare
different roots but works the same
needed bazillion horses for those "adventures"
comparing was done in your greentext, armored division running low on fuel, you try this at an exam and you are sent back home
>>415043
not to mention we used horses aswell and was an agrarian country mainly, with feudalism
food and hay is essential and it was right there for the taking
>>415129
>anon its the exact same type of nomadic culture and warfare
That doesn't mean they had the same amount of horses.
>comparing was done in your greentext, armored division running low on fuel, you try this at an exam and you are sent back home
That was an analogy. You weren't supposed to take it as a literal comparison.
>>415043
That's a fair point, I'll give you that.
>>415057
The Magyars and the Bulgars that invaded E. Europe had the similar military system based on the 10,000 (the famous Altaic "Tumen" system) being the most basic unit.
Blowing yet another bullshit popular history gem which states that the mongols invented the "Tumen," system.
>>414728
pictured: excellent chinese cavalry terrain
>>414647
probably a 'meme' question but:
where did the mongols get the manpower to do what they achieved (taking on china, persia, arabia, eastern europe and parts of india) when they were a nomadic tribal for the most part decentralized civilization?
also: what was the motivation for the mongols to do this? As nomads it seems out of character - ei herdsmen going apeshit on the entire world, what did they have to gain from all this?
>>415168
That's Southern China actually.
I.e. the place Asia that Mongols bled trying to conquer didn't conquer only until half a century passed by and utilizing Chinese warfare methods.
>>415172
>where did the mongols get the manpower to do what they achieved (taking on china, persia, arabia, eastern europe and parts of india) when they were a nomadic tribal for the most part decentralized civilization?
Baby steppes (kek)
-Unite nation
-Unite nearby tribalnigger steppe nomads
-Conquer breakaway Chinese kingdom of Tangut Xi-Xia.
-Conquer easier of the two halves of warring China: the Jurchen Jin Dynasty.
-Northern China nigga
Proceed from there.
>what was the motivation for the mongols to do this? As nomads it seems out of character - ei herdsmen going apeshit on the entire world, what did they have to gain from all this?
It WAS very in character of the nomads. "Come let us build a large empire and profit from the spoils of it."
Turkics built lots of Empires and settled down. Mongols did likewise. Except Mongs got BTFO eventually back to the Steppes while Turkics got integrated in the Middle East.
>>415168
>the entire of china consists of quartzite sandstone pillars
they didn't take southern china until Kubilai and they used the resources of northern china to do so, not just their horsemen from the steppes
The Mongols got BTFO a lot more than you hear about. They weren't *that* impressive
>>415159
it does god damnit
its the exact same thing
you are not supposed to compare apples with oranges, its a bad analogy, it doesnt sit well
>>415172
They didn't need enormous amounts of manpower because they weren't fighting on every front at once, it would be ridiculous to send a mostly infantry army to march through the steppes.
So the Mongols could focus all their attentions on the Jin. Then focus everything on the Khwarazmian empire, then Georgia and Armenia, then the Kievan Rus and so forth.
>>414647
no desu, they were already at the extreme end of their logistical capability during the Siege of Baghdad.
>>415264
That reminds me
What was the population of Mongolia back then?
>>414647
Yes. IF they had competent unified leadership, which they did not.
>but muh stone castles
>muh dense forests
>muh not suitable terrain for stepppe ponies
They conquered all of fucking China, whose geography is much more diverse and hostile to Mongol warfare. Chinese fortifications were much more advanced than WEuropean castles and forts of the time too.
It definitely would have taken them a few generations, but they absolutely would have done it. Mostly using subjugated Euros who knew how to take said fortifications. Kind of like how Subutai raped Rus and Hungary with the help of Georgians and Armenians.
And if you think all of Christendom would unite after the Mongols razed the first Austrian/German city, you really don't know shit about history. Some would have resisted them, sure, but a lot would capitulate immediately.
>>414647
If Kublai and his successors had really enforced unity of the Khanates, conquered Arabia and absorbed the Caliphate (taking control of the entire Middle East/North Africa), and developed a navy, yes.
>>414655
>A mongol SCOUTING PARTY devastated eastern europe
Cool meme history, John Green. In reality the Mongols sustained heavy casualites whenever they fought in europe. It wouldve only gotten worse if they advanced further
How were the Mamluks able to beat back the Mongols so successfully unlike every other group?
>>416011
Louis IX was ready to crusade the fuck out of the mongols after hearing of Legnica. Fredrick II was in direct threat from the mongols. The church didn't like being attacked either. There, you have the most important parts of mainand europe ready to oppose them. You forget the crusades so very conveniently.
>>416195
Ah yes...France...
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
>>416011
>Chinese fortifications were much more advanced than WEuropean castles and forts of the time too.
Except that the Mongols needed Middle Eastern/European siege engineers.
Even in Hungary they didn't capture a single castle while they did start producing their owns coins.
I'd say the biggest problem they face would be logistical though, their army derived it's speed from having each warrior with a couple of horses for transport and food. If those run out they would move their army at the same pace of European armies.
>>416212
Did you read the article? Hatred only dissipated after the invasion ended and the mongols began communicating with the pope, plus having a common enemy
>>416221
>Even in Hungary they didn't capture a single castle while they did start producing their owns coins.
Hungary here. They sort of...did...destroy a lot of Castles.
So much so that we have King Bela IV, whose famous act is pretty much "clean up after the Mongols thrashed the Kingdom."
Pic related, a famous castle near my place, Sirok Castle. The first castle was destroyed by the Mongs. This one is a 1300's rebuild. Surrenedered without a fight to the Ottomans in the 1500's
>>414647
Maybe not all, but probably a good portion of it.
It all depends on when they strike and how hard.
>>414647
Yes.
And then we would have a race of hybrid viking mongols who would dominate everyone.
Good thing god didn't let that happen.
>>416011
>Chinese fortifications were much more advanced than WEuropean castles and forts of the time too.
Sure thing Ching Chong.
>>415024
I don't think one defeat by unorthodox tactics indicates that they were inferior to European navies. Even the British navy was defeated once by the Qing in the second Opium War, that doesn't mean that the Brits weren't absolutely superior over the Chinese at that point in virtually every regard.
>>416275
>Eurobenis build castle walls in the 1100's.
>Is nullified by gunpowder.
>Chingchongs build rammed earth stone dressed walls in the 1100's.
>Withstands even modern artillery in WWII
They were pretty advanced actually.
>>416171
They used very similar cavalry-based tactics. They basically beat the Mongols at their own game.
>>414647
Britain and Ireland would have probably been fine or had long enough to prepare that they'd have given one motherfucker of a fight
>>416293
No they were the work of a large population of peasants, something no European ruler could mobilize in those days.
>>416293
>implying most European castles don't feature earthworks capable of withstanding artillery too
>implying most castles weren't just left to decay after they were no longer useful or deliberately blow up from the inside
>>416335
>implying most European castles don't feature earthworks capable of withstanding artillery too
Usually added during the 1400's-1500's.
But Chinese walls were already gunpowderproof even before the Mongols, the rammed earth design was quite serviceable for a long time.
Also we were talking of how advanced Chinese engineering was at that point?
>>415023
Forgetting Chalons, are we?
>>416327
>No they were the work of a large population of peasants , something no European ruler could mobilize in those days.
What is corvee?
>>416394
I think what he meant was no European ruler could mobilize the same number of peasants as the Chinese could.
Yes, both societies had Corvee.
>>416265
They're called Finns
Winter war
>>416354
>But Chinese walls were already gunpowderproof even before the Mongols, the rammed earth design was quite serviceable for a long time.
GJ being gunpowder proof 500 years before necessary. Maybe they should have made their walls mongol proof like europe did.
>>416418
>A hard to break wall is unnecessary.
Nice logic man.
It was pretty mongol proof. Except the Mongols used Chinese siege tactics, remember.
>Like Europe did
Ah yes, like the untested castles of Europe did.
>>416394
Not 200.000 people building a city wall over the course of two decades.
>>414647
No.
Here's 150 pages of no.
http://theses.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/11023/232/2/ucalgary_2012_pow_lindsey.pdf
>>418998
>those citations
My dick is hard.
I thoroughly look forward to reading this, thank you
>>416011
>Chinese fortifications were much more advanced than WEuropean castles and forts of the time too.
No, they were full on inferior, across the board, in terms of planning, construction methods, and location.
What they were was larger.
>>416247
One stone castle fell, the rest were wood.
Learn your shit, stupid magyar.
>>416293
Song china fell, literally, because the mongols imported arabs with "western" trebuchets, which outranged Chinese engines, and which could wreck their walls.
>>416425
The mongols invaded europe three fucking times.
They constantly failed to hard stone castles.
They had the desire, we were lucky the Khan died.
>>419012
I'll tl;dr it for you:
>franks are stubborn assholes who WILL NOT negotiate with "pagan trickster" mongols when under siege
>they're also the best in the world at sieges, on either side of a wall
>They would burn all their wealth before letting mongols have it
>chink defenses were often poorly sited, with only a single wall
>mongols needed chinese SOLDIERS to take them regardless, they usually suffered horrible losses
>they flat out lost a khan when the song started building European style forts-Purpose built, sited on hills or other defensive ground
>arabs with counterweight trebuchets completely wrecked the song
>the Mongols left during the first invasion because it wasn't worth the blood ot loot people who burned all their shit anyway
>subsequent invaisons failed
>mongol attacks on castles went poorly
>the rest of europe made Hungary and Poland look naked
>the europeans quickly realized they couldn't win in the field, so turned to crossbows and good walls
>an invasion would have fared extremely badly had it pushed into German territory
Fin.
>>419024
>Song china fell, literally, because the mongols imported arabs with "western" trebuchets, which outranged Chinese engines, and which could wreck their walls.
You're referring to counterweight trebuchets which were invented by the Persians or some shit.
>>419085
Which europeans merrily took home and adopted as a direct result of the crusades.
The comments about them being the best aren't from europeans, my opinion, or the authors, but by arabs living under mongol rule (and arabs had an incredibly dismissive view of europeans) and by a Georgian commander who watched a company of mercenaries save a city from the mongols by their ready creation of effective siege engines.
>>419041
That's a very one-sided reading of the paper. When he discusses his conclusions, he states clearly that any capitulation by Hungary (which he argued was quiet possible) and the counterweight trebuchet would have allowed the Mongols to overwhelm Europe in that it would erode the solidarity of christendom and also provided means by which the Mongols COULD have overcome European fortifications. If anything the paper qualifies that it would have been an incredibly difficult task but hardly an impossible one had the Mongols reacted quickly and been so economically ignorant and vindictively inclined as to do so.
If anything, his contribution of to OP's question is not a "No," but a qualification such that it neither seems completely impossible for the Mongols to overwhelm European fortifications, nor as easy as people who bring up the fall of the Southern Song argue it would be.
>>419152
I read it as essentially requiring the mongols to be autistic as shit about conquering EVERYTHING even if they'd lose more than they'd gain.
>>419165
>I read it as essentially requiring the mongols to be autistic as shit about conquering EVERYTHING even if they'd lose more than they'd gain.
But the writer discusses how Europe isn't nearly as barren as people argue it is: that its linens and cloths were prized by the mongols and that it had a great number of artisans and goods to offer, and that the Hungarian king already qualified that in the most despearte circumstances he was ready to turn his back on christendom to submit to the mongols. So I think it gives more reason for the Mongols to have the desire and the possibility of defeating europe, even if it's much more difficult than what Mongolia's fanclub on /his/ would argue.
Poland BTFO the mongols, 3rd time lucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mongol_invasion_of_Poland
>>419174
The author also qualifies that the mongols were extremely unhappy with the penchant of Hungarians for burning siad wealth rather then let the mongols have it.
They could have taken Europe, but wouldn't have, out of simple lack of profitability.
>>419208
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mongol_invasion_of_Poland
>comparing a raid of the Golden Horde to the full power of a unified Mongol Empire.
No.
Pre industrial empires were limited by the speed of the horse. though some got to cheat by adding in some sailing.
Even if the Mongols could have swept all the way to France. They could not have administrated all the Eurasia.
>>415174
>I.e. the place Asia that Mongols bled trying to conquer didn't conquer only until half a century passed by and utilizing Chinese warfare methods.
The conquest of china was delayed many times, i.a the first time when Genghis Khan recalled all his armies in China and went to war against Khwarezmia, Ogedei just launched invasions everywhere instead of just continuing in china and under Möngke there was the siege of baghdad that required 150 000 men and a years years to get the people for that.
Here is something about Khublai Khan:
>Berke also forged an alliance with the Egyptian Mamluks against Hulagu, and supported Kublai's rival claimant, Ariqboke. Kublai dispatched an army under Abaqa to attack the Golden Horde, while Ariqboke sent Nogai to invade the Ilkhanate; both sides suffered disastrous defeats
>Kublai Khan also reinforced Hulagu with 30,000 young Mongols in order to stabilize the political crises in western khanates.
In reality Kublai Khan conquered the Song in 19 years, China could also be conquered faster if the previous khans didn't start invasions everywhere.
>>414647
>e Mongols had the desire, could they have invaded and subjugated all of Europe?
No, the Mongols initial victories over the eastern Europeans was borne of of ignorance from the people they met. By the time the Mongols would have reached into Europe they would be not able to trick the Western Europeans, or have the Steppes to use as a trap.
Also the Venetians gave the mongols maps of Europe, they would've known they could not conquer heavily forested or marshy territories.
The territories of the Venetians for instance are very boggy, the Venetians chose that area to stifle the advances of Huns.
Also the Huns did not attack central and southern Italy due to the terrain.
The mongols were defeated against the Georgian alliance, but the Mongols bribed half of the Georgian force to abandon the coalition.
>>419024
>Song china fell, literally, because the mongols imported arabs with "western" trebuchets, which outranged Chinese engines, and which could wreck their walls.
Nice popular history. How's that stupid netflix show going?
>Withstand Modern Artillery.
>But not counterweight trebuchets.
Furthermore, you refer to only *one* siege: that of Xiangyang, which had one of the older styles of urban fortification (i.e. No city walls, but the City is defended by fortified passes). It didn't have the rammed earth stone fortifications of the likes of Kaifeng, or Pingyao.
Not to mention the Mongols utilized a lot of Chinese tactics in conquering those walls. Which entailed going OVER said walls not through them. And that Southern China was pretty much done in by Chinese style warfare with heavy infantry usage.
>>419304
>Also the Huns did not attack central and southern Italy due to the terrain.
>Muh Europe is impossible to conquer for a horse based army!!!
Oh yeah? 1 word - Magyars.
>899 – The Hungarian troops attack the Italian Kingdom, and defeat, at 24 September, in the Battle of Brenta the army of Berengar I of Italy, burning Modena, and attacking Venice. Berengar accepts to pay them tribute.
>906 – Two Hungarian armies devastate, one after the other the Duchy of Saxony. The Magyars were asked to come by the Slavic tribe of Dalamancians, threatened by the Saxon attacks.
>July 4-6 – An East Francian army led by Luitpold, Margrave of Bavaria, which entered the Hungarian territory in order to expel the Hungarians from the Carpathian Basin, is annihilated by the Hungarian army in the Battle of Pressburg.
>June 12 – The Hungarians crush the army of the German king Louis the Child in the first Battle of Augsburg, led by Count Gozbert of Alemannia. The commander and Managolt, count of Alemannia are killed in the battle.
>>419351
The difference being Europe as the Magyars invaded it, was a pretty backwards place thanks to the recently concluded dark ages.
>>419358
In was still in the middle ages.
Still the
> too-many-forests-in-europe-for cavalry
myth is disproven !
>>419304
>Also the Venetians gave the mongols maps of Europe, they would've known they could not conquer heavily forested or marshy territories.
Thats a myth, read about the magyars.
Why didn't the golden horde keep trying though after the succession was settled?
>>419351
Raids are not an invasion.
Any defeats were in the Hungarian plain.
The Italians were not a unified kingdom.
Modena and Venice are in Northern Italy and access to them is easy from the east.
The Franks had the best cavalry in Europe.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechfeld_%28955%29
The Franks devastated the Magyars while the Magyars had double their number.
>>419365
Yyyeah, but the major fortifications present in the 1200's weren't present during Early medieval Europe.
Furthermore forests do fuck up Nomadic Forces. This is why most Nomad invasions stop in Eastern Europe/Southern China.
There's a reason why native western european cavalry were pretty simplistic one trick pony units that only had CHARGE :DDD as their repertoire.
>>419373
>>419346
>>419386
>899 – The Hungarian troops attack the Italian Kingdom, and defeat, at 24 September, in the Battle of Brenta the army of Berengar I of Italy, burning Modena, and attacking Venice. Berengar accepts to pay them tribute.
Berengar was the King of Italy
>910
>King Louis the Child asks for peace and starts to pay a tribute.
>912 – Hungarians attack Franconia and Thuringia, in order to force the new East Francian king, Conrad I of Germany to pay them tribute.
Again a king.
>With Hungarian help, Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria reoccupies his realm from the forces of Conrad I of Germany. After this he becomes a faithful ally of the Hungarians, paying them tribute, as well as his neighbour, Burchard II, Duke of Swabia.
Yes paying tributes means defeat.
>>414723
The Japanese utterly stomped the Mongols after they managed to get to Japanese shores on their home islands. They were bested fairly.
>>419405
>They were bested fairly.
It was still easymode. Mongs weren't able to utilize their traditional advantages.
If you look at the scrolls you had mongs dismounted most of the time as they tried to make beachheads. And the Mongol sucked as an infantryman.
>>419403
It was not an invasion, they were skirmish class battles.
The question was could the Mongols invade and make Europe a part of its Empire/Khangate.
It would not be a walkover in the West, the Magyar raids were not a full blown invasion.
Also by the time the Mongols were spreading, military power had grown stronger in Europe.
The mongols were not invincible, they were defeated by the Georgians until the Georgian allies betrayed them.
They would've pressed in too far, and got fucked by massed archers and siege warfare they couldn't contend with.
So no.
>>416103
>. In reality the Mongols sustained heavy casualites whenever they fought in europe
Credible citation needed.
>Cool meme history
While Subodai was leading the mongols into europe many other places were being conquered at the same time by other generals. So yes, it was not their full power.
> In winter 1241 the Mongol force invaded the Indus valley and besieged Lahore. However, on December 30, 1241, the Mongols under Munggetu butchered the town before withdrawing from the Delhi Sultanate.[3] At the same time the Great Khan Ögedei died (1241).
>From 1235 on, the Mongol general Kuoduan Hequ started to attack the region of Sichuan through the Chengdu plain
>After the death of Mingburnu in 1231, the Mongols' hands were finally free and the prominent Mongol commander Chormaqan led, in 1236, a large army against Georgia and its vassal Armenian princedoms
>In 1240, the Mongol Prince Köten (Godan), Ögedei's son and Güyük's younger brother, "delegated the command of the Tibetan invasion to the Tangut general, Doorda Darqan (Dor-ta)". The expedition was "the first instance of military conflict between the
two nations".The attack consisted of 30,000 men
>In 1238, Goryeo relented, and sued for peace. The Mongols withdrew, in exchange for Goryeo's agreement to send the Royal Family as hostages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_and_conquests
>>414647
Dan Carlin does a good podcast on this. Basically, the Mongols shit on everything during a reconnaissance mission, and when they actually committed they crapped on even more people, but they kept getting called back by a khan dying. They would've absolutely devastated Europe.
I put my trust in the devastation caused by the Freikorpmen in the dark forests of germany.
>>419386
you are one deluded dumb motherfucker reading only what suits your agenda
>>419581
And the Dan Carlin meme machine has arrived
>reconnaissance mission
>>419581
>They would've absolutely devastated Europe.
Their victories over the Russians was based upon using the steppe to lead the Russians 100's of miles into the wilderness. This would not happen in Europe.
They defeated other Steppe people in China, and also in Kwarezm.
The only non steppe empire they fought with was the Song Empire.
>>419607
THE MAGYARS WERE DEFEATED BY THE VENETIANS AFTER INVADING ITALY.
> The Magyars were routed in the first great Venetian military victory since the defeat of Pepin of Italy almost a century prior.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Tribuno
What I said originally was ACCURATE
>>419632
>The only non steppe empire they fought with was the Song Empire.
And Abbasid, but they were not fighters, just a bunch of pretend warriors hiding behind steppe people.
>>419639
no it is not, underaged shitter
>take one battle out of a hundred years era
>I WUZ ROIGHT GUISE
terrible
>MUH FRANKS
>MUH RAIDS
read a fucking book you absolute spastic and try not to skip the parts you dont like
>>419644
The Abbasids were almost a non-entity by this point. Their realm is carved out by Turkics Princelings.
I can bet than 30% of this thread's participants are Finns.
>>419652
Mind your language, this is not /b/.
>>419574
Lad, it wasn't a scouting party anyway. Scouts are weak, they don't have that military training.
Their cavalry archers were from 13th century were better than the polish hussars from 17th century.
>>419652
They were defeated in the swamps and marshes just like I said, the Venetians surely told the Mongols about their victory over the Magyars.
Face it, the Magyars and Huns didn't fight in Italy.
>take one battle out of a hundred years era
There's a bunch of incidents were they got wrecked.
See
>>419393
>>419663
927 – Hungarian troops, called by King Hugh of Italy, to help margrave Peter against Pope John X to regain his power in Rome, which they succeed. During and after these events, they plunder Tuscany and Apulia, taking many prisoners, and occupying the cities of Oria and Taranto.
and another bunch when they wrecked your digó ass gypsy
>>419661
fuck off chav
>>414647
The Mongols curbstomped two of the most powerful and developed regions in the world at the time, Persia and China, and their descendants would also go on to curbstomp India. They anally raped Eastern Europe so hard the entire region was permanently changed.
What the fuck do you think would have happened?
>>419690
>927 – Hungarian troops, called by King Hugh of Italy
Okay, that is not Magyars, they were Mercenaries.
> and another bunch when they wrecked your digó ass gypsy
I'm from Ireland.
>>419618
20.000 forces sent to scout and bring information, what do you call it then?
>>414647
No.
Terrain not conducive to ponies, fortified castles, not as massive and zergy as most people think.
>>419738
You think China didn't have fortifications and is nothing but wide open plain?
>>419695
They would have gotten their shit kicked in as soon as they faced an army of Frankish knights instead of some scrawny effeminate decadent oriental cowards?
>>419751
>Frankish knights
Just imagine English Longbow men in the centre with 30,000 Frankish knights on either flank.
>>419738
Except that the Mongols actually excelled at siege warfare...
>>419807
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance
Why would they fight, when they were allies.
>>419809
Armchair generals in here think you can just hole up in your castle forever and win. The mongols could starve you out all while making the peasants hate you for not doing anything about it.
>>419751
>heavy cavalry getting constantly peppered with arrows by faster cavalry archers
It'd be devastating for European armies.
>>419767
lots of dead chavs since muh ebin longbow is still inferior to composite ones :^)
>>419870
....longbows and other types of footbows outranged composite ones. I dunno if you're trawling or not.
>>419870
<citation needed >
>>419944
Sauce?
Also you do realize that composite is simply a means of constructing a bow? The foot composite bow is not similar to the short compact one used by mounted nomads.
>>419944
> implying that Mary Rose bows weren't 100 - 180 lbs
> implying draw weight is the sole deciding factor in how good a bow is
>>414647
>If the Mongols had the desire...
Define their desire.
>...could they have invaded and subjugated all of Europe?
Without access to Middle Eastern and East Asian artillery and siege weaponry? Highly doubtful.
Barring Eastern Europe, when you invade the rest of the continent, the Mongols would not have a steppe advantage, be too far from home, having to struggle with a leadership replacement after the loss of one of their leaders requiring a return to Mongolia, etc...
If you assume a scenario where said leader didn't perish, then you enter into alternative history, in which case I would also change events that took place to counter this.
Friedrick Barbarossa does not drown during the crusades, instead returning home to the HRE to form a crusade against the Tatars from the East, and where he draws them into German forests/marshes to be picked off by a combined force including scores English long-bowmen, French/German knights, and hundreds of thousands of crusaders from across Europe.
Protip to Mongolboos: the forces of Genghis Khan and his descendants managed to lose against the Egyptians/Arabs in Palestine when their own ambush tactics were used against them, same goes for Vietnam, except in terrain that was unfamiliar.
Even the magical steppe niggers had their limits.
>>420008
and the crusaders lost to towelheads
who is what boo now
deus veult retard
>>419955
>chinese bows
top kek
>short compact by mounted nomads
ebin
>>420021
>and the crusaders lost to towelheads
So did the Mongols, that was my point, your reading comprehension a shit.
Was the mongolboos feelings hurt?
I don't even care that much about the crusades, just pointing out the facts. No need to be salty about it.
>>420029
so how are you so sure crusaders would do any better? is your western mind incapable of accepting the fact your supeliol westeln cultule and militaly wasnt all that supeliol?
>feelings
go back to whatever social media shithole you crawled out of and stay away from historical discussions
>>420053
>so how are you so sure crusaders would do any better?
In other words, you didn't bother properly reading the response, and the rest of your reply is projection.
I'm not going to hold your hand, try again.
>is your western mind incapable of accepting...
wew lad
>go back to whatever social media shithole you crawled out of and stay away from historical discussions
Pot. Kettle.
>>420063
>Friedrick Barbarossa does not drown during the crusades, instead returning home to the HRE to form a crusade against the Tatars from the East, and where he draws them into German forests/marshes to be picked off by a combined force including scores English long-bowmen, French/German knights, and hundreds of thousands of crusaders from across Europe.
there it is shitlord
you said your scenario fantasy here
and i cant read right
get the fuck out and blow your bullshit out of your ass, BLOWN THE FUCK OUT RETARD
BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
>mfw arguing with some inbred
fuck me im better than this
>>420094
>using shitlord
>telling me to go to a feelings driven social website
toppest lel
Blew yourself the fuck out, more accurately.
You also skimmed over the part where I stated it was ALTERNATIVE HISTORY, which is what mongolboo retards like yourself love to go on about when they go on about a campaign into Europe that never materialized, because it would require changing the events, hence my response to begin with.
>fuck me im better than this
Nah, you have more ego than substance, and have a penchant for fiction instead of history, go be a child and play video games somewhere else while the grown ups do the discussing.
>>420104
campaign into the rest of Europe*
>>420094
>>414647
Maybe, but probably not
>>420104
there is no alternative history
thats what childs do, or american popular history shows
thats not history
yet you call ppl mongolboos who simply state, yes mongols were successfull (no detailed fairytale anywhere in the thread like yours) and probably kept going if.. but theres no ifs in history
keep it up mr alternative history
lel
>penchant for fiction instead of history
>literally speaks about fiction in his own post beforehand
sweet, keep posting
>>420139
>there is no alternative history
Do you even know what 'alternative history' is? The questions asked at the beginning of this thread are very much going into that category, because by definition it deviates from the history that actually happened, as opposed to how you or OP imagines it could have happened.
Time to stop posting.
>anybody who disagrees with me watches American pop history shows
Its beyond obvious at this point you failed to grasp the points I made, and you're only digging yourself a deeper hole.
>yet you call ppl mongolboos who simply state, yes mongols were successfull (no detailed fairytale anywhere in the thread like yours) and probably kept going if.. but theres no ifs in history
Have you even read OPs post? It very much includes a 'what if' scenario, retard.
My alternative history was in response to that which was posted, how are you so stupid that you cannot grasp this?
Shitty trolling attempt, you must genuinely be this dense.
>>420149
>as opposed to how you or OP imagines it could have happened.
like how you or OP imagines it could have happened.*
Minor mistake being corrected.
>>420149
OP is a line sentence question
you have a detailed made up fairytale
>damage control
if you studied history which you never did and older than 20 youd know why am i making fun of you, but obviously you never set foot in such institution or read anything about mongols that isnt popular meme history based on fucking nothing
you made no points, you vomited your wild fantasy here while masturbating to crusaders and made wildly inaccurate assumptions about the subject (mongol military)
>>420162
>OP is a line sentence question
>therefore its not alternative history
hurr derp
>time to project hard and continue to deflect the points made
>I'll state you made no points, when I'm a mongolboo who cannot read
Not my problem. Learn to read, then you might be able to detect a point and respond properly.
By the way, wasn't it beneath you to respond, and yet you still do? kek
Your salt levels are off the charts.
>Playing M2:TW
>Mongols invade
>Conquer Egypt and most of the Middle-East
>Can't advance any further
>Playing as Spain I shred their navy with ease and capture Cairo in the process
100% irrefutable proof the Mongols are shit.
>>420094
>and hundreds of thousands of crusaders from across Europe.
And then the mongols gather up all their armies from all over asia and their russian vassals.
100 000 crusaders vs Millions of mongol auxilliaries.
Battle of Ice x100000.
How should they? They would get buttfucked.
Mongols only invaded so much territory because they got horsearchers and so on.
What do you want with horses in a forest? Can you jump with a horse over a castle wall?
>>420533
contrary to their popular portrayal as just horse archers, the mongols were rather adept at siege warfare too
>>420533
over 1000 siege engineers from all over the world right here.
>>420176
man, mongols are so disappointing in MTW2
>>420586
They do way more than any other AI controled faction desu
Maybe except the Timurids sometimes.
>>416362
Nope.
A won battle does not equal a won war.
>>420732
Furthermore, mortars >>>>> castle walls. In conjunction with starving you out in your castles.
>>420586
Meanwhile, in Crusader Kings 2, they arrive in two waves each with hundreds of thousands of horse archer troops [strongest in the game, probably] at a time where a wildly succesful in-game ruler is lucky if it breaks a hundred thousand
>Franco-Mongol Alliance
>tfw it never really came to be
That would be so badass though. I think since there were some Christian Mongols in their army, they may have won the respect of the Christian world too. Would be funny as hell to see
>"My Pope, Jerusalem has been recaptured by the forces of Christiandom!"
>"God bless. Who did it? The English? French? Germans?"
>"No my Pope, the Mongols"
>>420612
dunno, they just stay neutral for the whole game and do nothing in my playthroughs, maybe my game is bugged
>>420784
Which is awful t.b.h. It's completely unrealistic and it forces you to condition all your playthrough from the start if you want to play in that area.
>>420008
>Without access to Middle Eastern and East Asian artillery and siege weaponry?
They had all those.
>>420804
It's surely some bug, in all my games both mongols and timurids conquer a lot more than they did in real history. I've seen the Timurids before the walls of Viena (though that time it wasn't me playing).
>>420801
>I think since there were some Christian Mongols in their army, they may have won the respect of the Christian world too. Would be funny as hell to see
Nestorian Christians.
Also the funny you mentioned that, Mongols were partly one of the reasons why Christianity did not become popular in East/Central Asia. Mongols rep ruined a lot of foreign things for China for instance that Christianity got shit-smeared as a bad foreign influence.
>In China, the last references to East Syrian and Latin Christians date from the 1350s, and it is likely that all foreign Christians were expelled from China soon after the revolution of 1368, which replaced the Mongol Yuan dynasty with the xenophobic Ming dynasty.
>>420806
Actually, I don't know if that is QUITE true with the newest expansions, they seem to have added Mongolia proper to the map so the mongol horde events are now supposed to happen "organically". I don't know if there is still a "mongol horde appears from off-map" event chain in case you manage to conquer and pacify the area.
I agree though, it's a death sentence otherwise.
>>420818
Yeah, true, but it's been a long time since I last played the game. I was talking about hordes before Horse Lords existed. Not only mongols but even Timurids and to some degree Selyucids were a pain in the ass, making every playthrough in the middle east more or less the same while you got more variety of odds in Europe and even North Africa.
>>414647
As soon as they set foot in Central Europe, they would have gotten the allegiance of a bunch of Italian principalities and probably a few HRE duchies as well.
With their knowledge of European warfare, I don't doubt they probably could have gotten pretty far into Western Europe. Its basically what the Huns did a few centuries before. Say what you will, but Mongol warfare was adaptable in the extreme, which is why it was so successful, not just because they were a bunch of horse archers.
Plus with the Crusades going on and chivalry being huge and everything, Christendom would have absolutely come together to fight in open battle against them. And would have lost, leading other dukes/princes/counts etc to switch to the Mongol side.
