What chance the mongol has to conquer europe ?

all the civilization across the world fall to the mongols what make europe unique?who they evade the fate of china ,corea persians ,and india to and extent?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Song_dynasty
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

What made Europe unique was location and luck. Western Europe simply happened to be the farthest place away from the Mongols that they wanted to attack. By the time they reached it, their leader died from totally unrelated reasons. You can argue that maybe Western Europe could have fought the Mongols off, but I really doubt it, and it doesn't matter in any case.

doen't geography make it hard too? Alps, forests... those aren't really good landscapes for horseriders

Location, nothing else, Europe led a shitton of Crusades with meagre success on Muslims, the Mongols just steamrolled through them, they also fucked up Hungary and Poland, and their methods of warefare were not that different from the rest of Europe.
so, again, location, and nothing else.

They tried conquering Europe but were met with defeat in Hungary, since the landscape and geography changed from vast flat grassland (perfect for a cavalry-heavy army to manoeuvre and also graze their horses, of which most Mongol warriors had three) to more mountainous, forested regions. The Mongols were only as good as the landscapes they fought on, and both Hungary and Egypt brought an end to that.

Despite what breathless History Channel pop-documentaries and Mongol fanboys would have you believe, probably not.

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.

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.

Why didn't the Roman Empire Conquer China?

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

The Mongols could easily have bypassed the alps, and even if they couldn't, most of Europe would still be up for grabs. The only difficulties they could have realistically had were sieging castles and maybe reaching Britain.

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.

quora cited

...

China and Iran is also full of mountains but the Mongols still conquered them. It's a myth that the Mongol armies could only be effective on the steppes and could never take a fortress. Sure, Western armies have better chances in mountainous or forested terrain (case in point: in 1285 they got completely btfo trying to invade Transylvania) but Mongols did have their share of victories outside the steppes and at sieges. By the time they got to Europe they could field specialists from all over Eurasia, not just steppe horsemen.

>india
India wasn't conquered by the Mongols. I think it was the only territory to decisively defeat the Mongols by military might.

>chinese siege tactics inferior to western siege tactics.
what? the chinese had gunpowder tht europeans didnt have

Your explanation is just too shallow...
why they did not succeed? because of the terrain which Europeans were used to fight was more close quarters, the Arabs had a cavalry better fit to their terrain.

This, irregular forests being the key word, their vast armies could not organize themselves and those kind of terrains, they could not maintain distance, once an cavalry archer lose the advantage of distance then an spearman will always win

Not really, an Mongolian horde would be totally chaotic in an European forest against an organised army

they were incapable os use in any practical way that way they lose only somethisng as imprecise as fireworks

Didn´t Mongolians crossed the wall of China with western siege weapons?

Nice meymey.
The great wall didn't cover the direction the Mongols took into China. They were all facing westwards.

The Ming rectified that by uniting the Great Wall into a single one and covered Northern China as well.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Song_dynasty
rudimentary but not entertainment
what? the wall didnt exist yet and they went west after taking china. they used chinese siege weapons amd experts to invade the west. this is literally how gunpowder spread outside of china

and they were 12000 castle in germany alone and they force were only about 50000 when they retreat home only 20000 survived so yeaa imposible for such a small number so far of home to conquer anything betond the plain of hungary were the fortificated europe begin,it was a pipedream and if they steyed a little longer any mongol would have survived

why didn't Alexander conquer the Mediterranean?

Sorry, not the wall but sieges in China used western siege technology nonetheless

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang

They used counterweight trebuchet which appeared firstly in catholic nations

"The later counterweight trebuchet, also known as the counterpoise trebuchet, uses a counterweight to swing the arm. It appeared in both Christian and Muslim lands around the Mediterranean in the 12th century, and made its way back to China via Mongol conquests in the 13th century."

*blocks your expansion*
no need to thank us and polaks :)

>The Mongols could easily have bypassed the alps
Mountains are a literal wall that form natural choke points, that's not very suited to cavalry

>The only difficulties were fortifications built to protect people from just this type of attack
well no fucking shit

I swear to god, how many times will Poland save Europe? Against Turks, Soviets, and Mongols. Any I'm missing?

Refugees also

this is what happen when you fortified your kindom is westen european style defence mongols were exterminated and holy kek they think that such small force could win against HRE

hmm, i guess they brought counter weight trebuchets to china and gunpowder to europe. however, according to wikipedia, the song dynasty had invented their own trebuchet

>leszek the BLACK
so...
you
be
sayin...

The Mongol eventually conquered half of Europe during WW2, so it's not a hypothetical question.

we are the master race thats all

To the writefag who thinks he is clever:
Go back to third grade and reddit.
The mongols didn't conquer western Europe because it was sheer dumb luck. Ogedai died, the other Mongol Princes wanted to go home and the next time the Mongols showed up only Hungary was able to beat them back because they were not retarded.
The West was not superior to the east until after the Age of Exploration. The Mongols would have smashed European castles and fortifications if Subutai had his way with ease.

>only Hungary was able to beat them back
Coincidentally only Hungary got invaded. Turns out trying to take sturdy stone castles is not as easy as conquering Chink mud fortresses.

Kiev had the greatest fortresses in Europe at that time.

Kinda doubt it, most Russian cities had wooden fortifications.

The theory the death of Ögödei was the root cause of the termination of the European campaign is very old. It was first presented 1245 by Giovanni Carpini. But it appears the true root cause were demoralization due to unexpected casualties and setbacks and logistical difficulties. Why else the Mongols would have spent over half a year at Pannonian plains after hearing the news of the death of Ögödei? nothing only that they were incapable of making any shor rading damage to afortified europe ,what a joke the mongols are they were happy that they force of 50000 being shorted to 20000 and retreat home like the cowards dogs they were

>chink mud fortresses
what?

Their techniques were built out of stone and metal. Standing over 80 feet tall.

12000 like this in HRE alone with a force of 50000 and 100000 max,how can anyone thinks is posible is beyond retard

>source: your ass
>feet
Burger spotted

didn't stop gustavus

Read all that
Thanks

only two class of people exist european and non european

America conquered you guys too

Mongols were usually outnumberered in most of their battles and they would regularly invade with armies ranging in the tens of thousands.
Ogedai>>>G*Stav

The Poles have been secretly turks this entire time, yes

...

>The Eurpe cocksucker still defends his 'YUROP STRONK' theory.

Come on, I think Europe got stronger precisely because my ancestors (I'm hungarian) decided to prepare themselves against another onslaught but not even distinguished historians think, that if Ogedei hdan not died, that Europe would have beaten Subutai.
The Trek back basically was a Grand tour of "Just so you guys know, We'll be back" message to potentially unruly subjects and take as much loot as possible.
Look at the facts:
Once the Mongols left, the crown of hungary was devastated. The castles held out but the crops had been burned. The cumans were still on the shit list everyone and while the hungarian kings had them as soldiers, their entire people were outcasts.
Bela decided to sacrifice all the wealth he had left and build more stone fortifications, reform the army, copy many more advanced small arms tactics of mongols and above all: get more crossbows.
Hungary did beat back the Mongols in round 2 because the people and their leaders learned their lesson. Poland didn't. They needed Hungarians to bail them out and the next to useless Emperors of the Reich only sent angry letters when the Hungarians didn't do their job fast enough.
Even then, after round 2 was over, Hungarian lands were in the shitter again.
So fuck off and kys.
Read a book nigger.

Mongols were never very good at siege warfare, and the competence they did have was in dealing with Eastern-style walled cities. Meanwhile Europeans had a hardon for building fortifications on any strategically or tactically good looking spot, and then building even more. The Mongols wrecked Poland and Hungary's shit the first time they fought because the Europeans hadn't heavily fortified their regions yet and knew nothing about Mongol tactics. The next time however both had built as many forts as the Mongols had men and the steppeniggers ended clueless about what to do. Add a few more generations, and you get a European force that knew all of the Mongols tricks and strategies, and a Mongol force that had lost what little innovative genius it had with Genghis, his generals, and his immediate descendants.

He actually planned to. After getting back to Babylon he wanted to conquer the Arabs, then swing through North Africa and cross into Italy.

>copy many more advanced small arms tactics of mongols and above all: get more crossbows.
Literally what? He invested almost entirely in heavy knights by handing out land grants to anyone willing to move in. He created a land-based aristocracy in half a decade and that same cadre of heavy cavalry was what btfo'd the Mongols when they returned and finally fought a pitched battle.

>Implying Subotai would be able to take the Reich

>Hundreds of castles
>Thousands of fortifications
>Enormous populations
>Densely-packed population cores
>United under the cause of MONGOLS BEGONE
>Enormous pool of heavy cavalry
>Every single fortification is a brick set on a hill or the crest of a mountain
>Half of them can see the next one from its perch
>Implying this isn't a recipe for disaster

It would have been Subotai's Thermopylae. There's just no way to squeeze an army of that size into the Reich without everything coming down around your ears. I can see several battles being fought with decisive victory and then the realization that, no the cities do not spread out, no the fortifications do not get more open and less like just sieging a series of walls separated by five feet full of angry Germans, and no the Pope is not going to call upon the entire collection of Christians to forgive you.

I can see Subotai just leaving and saying "It's not worth the men it would take."

Nice fucking try. Kiev Rus' didn't have any stone fortifications. The cities of Rus' were big and populous, but barely fortified.
Not really. Poland had shitload castles on the western border (guess why), but plains on East were not suitable for typical Western European "carpeted castles"

Why is this painting depicting Teutonic Order fighting Mongols? They did everything they could to ignore invasion.

Thank you, based Poland

Also, Mongols made the many powers in the region (Teutons, Poland, Lithuania, Muscovy, etc) join up together to battle them. It didn't really work well, but it must have been such a sigh!

>hungary, egypt
>mountainous or forested

That was a good read, man. Thanks for that.
Before reading it I was in the camp that only the death of Ögedei saved Europe, but it's clear some kind of good-mounted answer would come from at least HRE and France if Poland and Hungary fell

Yep. Alaudin beat the Mongols in the field repeatedly. But don't interrupt the memes about Mongol invincibility

also , they are the best toilet cleaners and provide the cheapest sluts

>(I'm hungarian)
boi, 50 % of you niggers died at the hands of the mongols. Stop lecturing others and admit that your women were the penis fodder for the mongols and they left becasue their hungarishit vaginas were too mauled to be enjoyable.

Hungary lost, Japan, India, Egypt and Viet's did not