The Mongol Horde - how and why were they so strong

[Myth]

Following the wonderful discsusion of WWII, I'm bringing the topic to a period i find more fascinating and I'm a bit more knowledgeble in. Here is a list of subtopics to bring to mind:

- The Mongol Horde of Temujin (Genghis Khan) was a major event that shook and almost shattered the "civilized" world of Europe, the middle east and Africa. Before they had their way with half of Europe, the Mongols also conquered China which is a most impressive feat on its own.

- How did the Mongol tribes gather so much population to reach a boiling point where they can field 200,000 horsemen? How does one feed so many people and beasts in the Mongolian steppe?

- How did they manage to crush China?

- Why was their style of war so effective and why did it leave their European enemies stumped and bewildered, despite not making use of European style mail and not having the dreaded west European destriers?

- How did they fare in sieges and siege assaults?

- Were central and western Europe spared only because of the trip back to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan?

- Was the Tengri paganism relligion pivotal in Mongol success versus the "civilized" christian kingdoms and tsardoms of Europe?

- How were the Mongols able to crush both the Kievan Rus and the Turks/Arabs/Egyptians?

- How come their composite bows were equal in power and range to the English longbow and why were the Europeans not able to develop a similar weapon that can be used on horseback?

I think I know the answers to most of these questions but I think a discussion (and source stating even) would really help me learn more and be an interesting read for other patrons. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...How did the Mongol tribes gather so much population to reach a boiling point where they can field 200,000 horsemen? How does one feed so many people and beasts in the Mongolian steppe?

As the professionals suggest -- study the logistics.


Mongol society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Mongol_Empire)was heavily dependent upon pastoralism, notably of sheep and horses.

What limited evidence we have about past global climate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period) concerns suggests that the period from roughly 750 CE through 1200 CE was a warm/humid period for the region of Asia including China, Japan, and likely Mongolia (limited records to say the least).

Europe is known to have experienced a substantial population increase throughout this time-frame despite the losses associated with internal strife and an over-reliance on grains as opposed to a mixed farming system. The warm period made it easier to grow more food and the population responded.

Mongolia likely experienced the same climate impact. On the Mongolian steppe however, this impact would have been even more greatly magnified. The carrying capacity of the land for grazing would have been substantially improved and a carrying capacity improvement of 10-20% in a region that might need 10 acres to support a cow/calf unit or its equivalent in sheep/horses would have a vastly higher direct impact that it would in a region where the cow-calf unit required only 1-2 acres prior to a shift in climate. With more food, more animals and animal products for trade, and slightly less harsh physical conditions, it is no wonder the Mongolian population increased dramatically.

And just as things started to revert to the mean in terms of climate, at around 1200, the Mongols would have found themselves with a population that was starting to surpass the carrying capacity of their land, but who were more numerous than ever before, better equipped, and under Temujin, better organized. Hard to see him not following "Alexander's Dream" under those circumstances.

[wudang_clown]

- How were the Mongols able to crush both the Kievan Rus and the Turks/Arabs/Egyptians?
What do you mean by "both"?

I think this is common misconception about the Muslim world of the era: that its rulers formed some kind of natural alliance because they were all Muslims. On the contrary. Islamic world was politically fragmented and each sultan's priority was his own ambition. This is noticeable when you read about Jalal al-Din Mingburnu's decade long struggle against the Mongols: no one wanted to join his cause. And after the Khwarezmian empire fell, there was not a tough guy in the region to oppose them, and apparently there was also no will of collaboration between the Muslims, so they were defeated one by one.


- Were central and western Europe spared only because of the trip back to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan?

I think Europe was spared thanks to its geographical location. And then, the Mongols had more pressing things to attend to (like fighting the Mamlukes), than conquering some petty, backwater European states.

[Kralizec]

Is Orda Khan still around?

I believe that the Mongols' combination of their preferred troop type (horse archers and light cavalry, nuff said) as well as a strictly methodological approach to war won them a lot of battles. Or just as good, led them to avoid battles they know they couldn't win.
And of course their use of foreigners as siege engineers, otherwise the Chinese states could just have stalled them indefinitely with a Fabian strategy. I mention that not to discredit them; it made perfect sense - it would have been dumb not to make use of them.

What always puzzled me was their ability to persevere and think in the long term. That's not meant derogatory. Even if we disregard most of the numbers of the "mongol horde" as being hugely inflated it's remarkable that a relatively primitive people managed to unite and proceed to slowly conquer huge swathes of the "civilized" Eurasian societies over more than a century. Which is even more remarkable if you realize they did this by coopting numerous other tribes which were likewise nomadic but ethnically and culturally different.

I realize that the whole effort disintegrated into numerous khanates eventually, but it's surprising that it took so long.

[Tuuvi]

How come their composite bows were equal in power and range to the English longbow and why were the Europeans not able to develop a similar weapon that can be used on horseback?

The main indicator of how powerful a bow will be is the bow's draw weight. The harder the bow is to pull back, the more energy that is being put into the bow by the arm. The design and materials of the bow affect how much of this energy the bow will store, how efficient the bow will be at imparting that energy to the arrow, and what kind of draw weight can be achieved without breaking the bow.

English longbows and Mongolian composite bows both have designs with high energy storage and efficiency. Longer limbs are under less strain when being drawn and horn/sinew are strong, elastic materials, so both longbows and composite bows can be made with high draw weights.


What always puzzled me was their ability to persevere and think in the long term. That's not meant derogatory. Even if we disregard most of the numbers of the "mongol horde" as being hugely inflated it's remarkable that a relatively primitive people managed to unite and proceed to slowly conquer huge swathes of the "civilized" Eurasian societies over more than a century. Which is even more remarkable if you realize they did this by coopting numerous other tribes which were likewise nomadic but ethnically and culturally different.

I realize that the whole effort disintegrated into numerous khanates eventually, but it's surprising that it took so long.

I think one lesson we can take from history is not to under-estimate the ability of "primitive" people to organize effectively. Lately I've been reading about the Tarascan empire (http://www.davehaskell.com/site.html), which was a rival state to the Aztecs. The Tarascans migrated to Western Mexico only a few centuries before the Spanish conquest, conquered the surrounding chiefdoms, and then formed a government that was more centralized and better organized than the Aztec empire.

When the Tarascan empire was formed it was the first time a state-level society had been developed in that region. The Aztec empire (which was also a state-level society) followed the same patterns of political organization that had existed in Ancient Mexico for a millenia.

[Brandy Blue]

- Was the Tengri paganism relligion pivotal in Mongol success versus the "civilized" christian kingdoms and tsardoms of Europe?



Idon't know much about it but I think that Ghengis Khan did not really care what religion his subjects followed, so long as they were obedient and got on with their job of fighting, paying taxes, or whatever they were supposed to do to support his empire. A Catholic ruler (for example) might not have taken such a flexible view. Is that what you mean?

[Beskar]

I watched a film/quasi-documentary about the beginnings of Genghis Khan which was done by a Russian film company (I believe). edit: Mongol (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416044/)

In the film, there was a heavily reliance on the nature of his relationship with his wife and even the treatment of her children (which were from other fathers) and how he 'adopted' them as his own. It was the combination of love for his wife and principles in the formation of his Dignitas which ended up leading him to great victory over the cause of many hardships in his life.

It reviewed how Tengri was a god of fear, especially during a thunderstorm, Genghis Khan prayed heavily and Tengri delivered for him and he had a strong commitment to the tenets. As such, even when his great rival Khan who was killed by his bodyguard, he sentenced them to execution, saying that one must always respect and not betray their Khan. Choosing to leave your Khan is obviously different than stealing/betraying him.

So from my very limited knowledge based from a film, the screenwriters obviously felt the need to point out the importance of Tengri in the shaping of his life.

[AntiDamascus]

- How did they manage to crush China?


HAHA! My Asian degree is somewhat useful now!

There were several "Mongol" invasions of China throughout its history. Reading about China it almost becomes comical in how repetitive this is. A dynasty would take over and would be pushed south either by new hostiles or a desire for better crops and trade. Dynastic changes like that almost always came from the north. The invaders would come, take over parts of the north, win and then move south to solidify their gains and be more the Han Chinese in the south. Eventually a new northern aggressor would come. This wasn't all dynasty changes, but enough that when learning about it, it almost became a joke for me.

But onto the Mongols. The Mongol invasion actually took a very long time to complete. First the Mongols hit the Xia, who were in western Asia and more what is considered Mongolia now. They they actually worked with the Song of the south (AHA That's a fun reference!) to fight the Jurchen Jin in what is northern China today. When that was done, the Song, being incredibly stupid, attacked the Mongols and lost a long 50 year war with them.

That was a major problem with some of the Chinese dynasties. They would always think themselves way better than those uppity northern tribes and would be sooooo shocked when they rode down south and killed them. And then those groups would become the new southern dynasty and would look down on those northern tribes and the cycle would start anew.

The Mongols did lose their kingdom here eventually and it was when southern Han Chinese rose up to push off a northern aggressor. The Mongols in China were between a rock and a hard place. Other Mongol areas saw them as too Chinese and most Chinese still saw them as not true Han, which they weren't. Eventually the Ming Dynasty overthrew the Mongols and they went back to Mongolia and China went on as usual.

But to answer the question of how the Mongols could take on China. China has historically be taken over all the time. The irony of it all is the invaders or whatever want to be Han Chinese so where other invasions would see a culture change, most tried to emulate it. It's like when people become rich, they want to emulate the rich instead of change what rich is. The Chinese weren't actually that great, it's just one of those funny quirks of history of having a country be so large surrounded by and populated by so many people.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How did they manage to crush China?

Despite the tendency of our local horse archer aficionados to view the Mongols as a sort of medieval blitzkrieg, the conquest of China took decades.

The basic recipe was as old as the hills -- divide and conquer. At the time, China was not all that different in terms of national unity than was Ireland facing the Normans.

In 1200, China (as we define it in terms of modern geography) was a collection six different kingdoms (http://www.historyandcivilization.com/Maps---Tables---Chinese-History.html). The Mongols, more or less, took them one at a time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_China). In fact, two of the Kingdoms conquered were of peoples much like the Mongols (the kin) who had preceded them into China. The Mongols absorbed them (http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=griffis&book=china&story=invaded)from behind. Troops from an already controlled civilization group could be used in subsequent campaigns in the West or against other portions of China.

Ireland after Boru, Scotland under the clans, the Tribes of North America, the Empire of the Aztecs. Since Phillip II first coined it, if not before, the recipe is always the same -- divide and conquer.

[El Barto]

- How did they fare in sieges and siege assaults?
Besides all the rocketry and such from the Chinese, they threw corpses into cities to spread disease -especially the corpses of those who'd died of contagious diseases themselves. Also, they took their time investing fortresses and starving them to death.

[Myth]

I've seen the movie Mongol but it takes a romanticized approach to the whole thing. It's not a historical documentary, not even a war movie. It explores the personal relationships and what makes people... people.

Regarding the Mongols, what I know is that they had a very organized way of waging war. They used a system of flags for instant communication and thus could be very coherent and organized in a seemingly hectic battlefield. Using companies of horse archers to draw out impetious Catholic knights and then rereat and surround them has been reported.

They also had no qualms about shooting the horse from under the charging rider. A less believable (but still plausible) story is that the silk shirts the Mongol warriors wore underneath their dublets/leather armour were not pierced by the enemy arrows and bolts, but rather went inside the wound cavity along with the tip of the projectile. Thus, extracting arrows (even nasty, flat arrow tip with barbs) was much easier than for those not wearing silk shirts en masse (read - the Europeans).

Tengri paganism was pivotal in that it is a warlike pagan religion (the proto Bulgarians of 600 AD also believed in Tengri so I know a bit about it), meaning it does not impose a moral code or any sort of restrictons on the society practicing it. One major drawback to Tengri paganism was that the Khan was directly favoured by Tengri. If he would get wounded in battle, that would mean that Tengri has withdrawn his favour frm that Khan and he is to be replaced. You can see how this can complicate matters.

The composite bows the Mongols used were IMO one of their biggest advantages. A contemporary European archer could not match the draw weight of such a bow unless he used a heavy crossbow or an English type warbow. So the mounted archers of the Mongols actually outranged most enemy archers. Siege warfare was not their bread and butter though. They were strongest in the field and they knew it.

The interesting thing is that they were mostly driven by the need of green pastures for their huge animal husbandry needs. When a scouting party of 10,000 warriors explored the lands of modern day Russia, they vieweed them very suitable for conquest primarily because of the lush green plains present there. The local Rus counts organized and barely, by the skin of their teeth, defeated that paltry scouting force. Come next spring, the main Horde came, numbering around 200,000 if we are to beleive these accounts, and Feudal Russia fell. The Mongols loved it so much (not just the land, but the people too) that they called it "The Golden Horde".

Going further west they met the Hungarian knights and some efforts by volinteer noble knights and Holy Orders such as the Teutonic Knights. They made it as far as the border of the Holy Roman Empire. Eruope was, as always, divided and waring in amonghst itself, so the Mongols never met with an organized Christian resistance resembling something like the First Crusade, though there was some.

From Wikipedia:

The advance into Europe continued with Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary. When the western flank of the Mongols plundered Polish cities, a European alliance between the Poles, the Moravians, and the Christian military orders of the Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights and the Templars assembled sufficient forces to halt, although briefly, the Mongol advance at Legnica. The Hungarian army, their Croatian allies and the Templar Knights were beaten by Mongols at the banks of Sajo River on April 11, 1241. After their victories over European Knights at Legnica and Muhi, Mongol armies quickly advanced across Bohemia, Serbia, Babenberg Austria and into the Holy Roman Empire.

Before Batu's forces could continue into Vienna and northern Albania, news of Ögedei's death in December 1241 brought a halt to the invasion. As was customary in Mongol military tradition, all princes of Genghis's line had to attend the kurultai to elect a successor. Batu and his western Mongol army withdrew from Central Europe the next year.

After this, the Hungarians had a few years, in which they built close to 500 castles and fortified settlements with which to slow down and repel the invaders, after learning that field battles would simply not work.

In regards to the Mamlukes, they never really faced the full might of the southern Mongol armies, let alone the undivided attention of the Horde. Their most famous victory is over peacekeeping troops, who weer left to secure Egypt as the main body of the army marched back to Mongolia for yet another Great Khan election.

Had the system of succession been more flexible and secure, Europe would have been hard pressed and probably forced to unite to survive.

[wudang_clown]

In regards to the Mamlukes, they never really faced the full might of the southern Mongol armies, let alone the undivided attention of the Horde. Their most famous victory is over peacekeeping troops, who weer left to secure Egypt as the main body of the army marched back to Mongolia for yet another Great Khan election.

What makes it the most famous? It was neither the only one nor the greatest of the Mamluk victories over the Mongols. Besides, Europe also didn't faced full scale invasion.

[El Barto]

Regarding the Mongols, what I know is that they had a very organized way of waging war. They used a system of flags for instant communication and thus could be very coherent and organized in a seemingly hectic battlefield. Using companies of horse archers to draw out impetious Catholic knights and then rereat and surround them has been reported.
The yam/örtöö system also proved fundamental, a messsenger could do two to three hundred kilometres a day with it. The Mongol armies had several horses per soldier and could also move very fast. I think that people believed there were so many of them because they were everywhere.

[Empire*Of*Media]

just add---------Mongols didnt crushed TURKS!! indeed TURKS are descendants of Mongols and they proud of it!!
now turks are mixture of Mongols, Tartars, Oghuris &.......
before mongols invasions to world the word TURKS did not exist!! but after them Turks - Tartars - Krgyzes - Kazakhs - Crimean &..... rised and they continued the way of slaughter and rape of chenghiz and placed themselves forcibley in Asia Minor - Iran - Kurdistan & Armenia (so called Turkey & Azerbaijan now) &........

[Conradus]

I'm glad to hear the Seljuk Turks didn't defeat the Byzantines at Manzikert since they didn't exist yet.

[Myth]

What makes it the most famous? It was neither the only one nor the greatest of the Mamluk victories over the Mongols. Besides, Europe also didn't faced full scale invasion.

Which one would you call their greatest victory?

[druzhina]

Besides all the rocketry and such from the Chinese, they threw corpses into cities to spread disease -especially the corpses of those who'd died of contagious diseases themselves. Also, they took their time investing fortresses and starving them to death.

One tactic used during the conquest of Persia was to force the captives from a previous city to assault the next city - to fill surrounding ditches with their bodies and to exhaust the defenders missile supply.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://warfare2.netai.net/index.htm)

[lars573]

Which one would you call their greatest victory?
Ain Jalut. Which happened before the garrison force in Syria was defeated by Baybars. It was the first time a Mongol invasion force was turned back in open battle. Yes is wasn't a full Mongol army. But both sides had even numbers (20,000 each). And in past battles Mongol forces would prevail with those kind of odds.

[wudang_clown]

Ain Jalut. Which happened before the garrison force in Syria was defeated by Baybars. It was the first time a Mongol invasion force was turned back in open battle. Yes is wasn't a full Mongol army. But both sides had even numbers (20,000 each). And in past battles Mongol forces would prevail with those kind of odds.

I don't think it was an invasion force. And it certainly wasn't the first time the Mongols had been defeated during their invasion, because Khwarezmians managed to do that at least twice before.

I think battle of Marj al-Saffar was more significant. Whole fame of Ain Jalut seems to be based on the assumption that it was first time ever when the Mongols suffered a serious defeat.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Why was their style of war so effective and why did it leave their European enemies stumped and bewildered, despite not making use of European style mail and not having the dreaded west European destriers?

Discipline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization).

Horse archers had been encountered before and European forces had encountered more mobile, largely horsed opponents on a number of occasions during the preceding century. Of themselves, those represented difficulties but not insurmountable threats. The key to the Mongol success was not just their use of those qualities, but their combination of those qualities with discipline to create a true weapons system. Nobody else in the world had an army with that degree of discipline (http://www.coldsiberia.org/monmight.htm) at that moment of history.

They could feign retreats without actually losing control of their troops; they could travel divided and still coordinate efforts for the same combat; they could operate in detail with far less risk of defeat in detail because of their coordination and message system; they could conceptualize and execute strategic movements -- few if any of the European nations could operate beyond a purely tactical level and none of them had the across the board discipline level of the Mongol "hordes." Absent compelling terrain advantages, the European forces were outclassed.

[Pannonian]

But onto the Mongols. The Mongol invasion actually took a very long time to complete. First the Mongols hit the Xia, who were in western Asia and more what is considered Mongolia now. They they actually worked with the Song of the south (AHA That's a fun reference!) to fight the Jurchen Jin in what is northern China today. When that was done, the Song, being incredibly stupid, attacked the Mongols and lost a long 50 year war with them.

Could you expand on the story of the Song attacking the Mongols? I knew of the alliance between the Mongols and the Song against the Jin, but I didn't know about the Song attack.

[El Barto]

The Jin (at the times Liao's vassals) and the Song had allied against Liao, but the Jin afterwards turned on the Song and took a alrge part of their territory, this is why the Song are called, from then on, 'the Southern Song'. Eventually the Jin were defeated by the Mongols and the Song took advantage of this to retake some of the cities to the north… which would've been part of the Mongols' conquests.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

- How did they fare in sieges and siege assaults?

Unsurprisingly, for a nomadic people with no building tradition to speak of, this was the least well developed of the military arts for the Mongols. They were not skilled engineers, made mistakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_China)and had assaults backfire on them. They handled it the way the USA handled the Space Program -- wallop somebody else and make their engineers work for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization). The Mongols favored acquiring Chinese and Persian engineers for their siege work. Interestingly, they would usually transport the engineers and let them build from local materials rather than disassemble siege engines and move them in the baggage train as was European practice -- as usual, the Mongols favored mobility. In addition, the Mongols were brutal in a way that would have gladdened the hearts of Himmler's boys. If a town resisted past more than a token defense, then after they finally conquered it, the Mongols killed all but a few witnesses, who were left to flee with word of the massacre. One does not have to test one's siege skills much if the fortified city quits rather than endure siege and massacre. Alternatively, they would use town A's inhabitants as human shields when assaulting town B, even forcing the Town A folk to do the breaching work...and the Mongols were unstinting with their captive's lives.

In short: Steal the knowledge you need and take it with you, and use terror to minimize the need in the first place. Ugly, but effective.

[Kadagar_AV]

* First of all, FREE RELIGION. Religion was back then a very "real" thing. By allowing people to keep their religion, they didn't have to constantly come back to the same areas to kill rebelions.

* GREAT TACTICIANS, they used the same sign language and (often) methods they did to herd animals to herd the enemy around on the battlefield. Feigned retreats hasn't just "been reported", it was their standard practice.

* AWESOME LOGISTICS, a mongol soldier lived off of the land, basically they could take 10.000 men and just ride off from any and all camps for prolonged periods of time. Compare that to moving a force of 10.000 knights/archers/yadda yadda... This was of course combined with...

* FANTASTIC SCOUTING, the mongols fought when and where it suited them.

* OPEN TO NEW IDEAS, if some culture they overtook was great at something, they included their knowledge into their empire at once. As mentioned, they had no effin clue how to siege, but they accepted it and let mercs do it for them.

* COMMUNICATION, they were just great at it, on or off the battlefield. They invented the post system.

* KILLER CULTURE, let's face it... The average mongol was a borne and bred cavalryman. This ties in with their...

* PRACTICAL WHAT WORKS WORKS VIEW ON CONQUEST, they by no means killed for fun. But if city A, B, C, D, E, F aso resisted them, they would take the population from city A, herd them to city B, and see how long city B would resist when city A's inhabitants were used as human shields. If they did resist, citizens from city A and B would be herded to city C... After a while the erst of the alphabet get the message.

* INDIVIDUAL GENIUS, Genghis Khan was kind of Einsteinian...

[Myth]

His grandson and great grandson did pretty well too! If that whole "let's ride back to Karakorum in freaking Asia to elect the obvious choice for a new Great Khan" wasn't in place, I'm not sure even the HRE+Teutonic Order+France+England would have been able to stop them.

Perhaps the heavy forested terrain would have been an issue however.

[El Barto]

It would, as well as all those mountains in Europe.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Were central and western Europe spared only because of the trip back to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan?
This has always been the central “what if” question regarding medieval combat.

On side argues that the Mongols were better disciplined, better strategists, usually better tacticians, far more mobile, and flexible enough to adopt new variations when encountering obstacles. This, according to the “Mongols are da bomb” view, means that the Mongols would have been slowed by European terrain conditions, but would have been able to adapt and overcome. This view has the Mongols (with a khan election in the field), taking all of Continental Europe over the course of a few years. Scandinavia and The UK would have fared better as the Mongols never did very well with blue-water operations.

The other side argues that the mountains and forests of Europe would have neutered Mongol mobility and the heavier armors of the Europeans soldiery could have matched the Mongols absent the Mongols' superior mobility. This view takes the position that the Mongols could have raided and ravaged a lot of Europe, but not conquered very much of it West of the Vistula.

Of these two positions, I tend to favor the latter result, but not quite for the reasons mentioned. Cavalry was a key military arm throughout Western Europe – albeit not with the ubiquity the Mongols practiced – and we have a rich history that shows cavalry were vital to European medieval warfare. This suggests that the Mongols could easily have used their horses to good effect in Western Europe. Moreover, the Mongols would fight on foot when necessary and/or employ mercenaries or vassal forces to take this role for them. Terrain, of itself, could not have saved Europe.

What would have saved Europe was the very thing that prevented Europe from forming a cohesive power that could face the Mongols in open field battle – feudalism. England alone had more than 9000 manors, most with their small semi-fortified manor house. Motte and Bailey castles and fortresses, along with stone keeps, fully fortified manor houses and even some of the earlier concentric castles, littered the European landscape. Each one designed to be a huge force multiplier to the defense, and most with their own sources of potable water and stockpiles of food and missiles. The Mongols could have bested any of these defenses of course, but there were thousands upon thousands of them – usually on the high ground and usually dominating what little road transportation network existed. The attrition affect would have been mind numbing – and for the Mongols, ultimately Pyrrhic.

Europe’s feudal system with its web of petty alliances – and rivalries – left most of the nobility with a need to be able to defend themselves. Petty fortifications were legion and the crossbow, the spear, and the sword and board were all excellent components of a castle defense not to mention all of the other refinements many sported. Feudalism was far from perfect and Europe had to discard it, ultimately, to create the great Nation states that (with luck, gunpowder, and nobody issuing “destroy all of out boats and technology” orders) dominated the globe a by the 16th century. Yet the very “divided and at-odds with itself” character of feudalism that engendered so many castles and manors and keeps would have created a “not worth winning” scenario for the great Mongol army. They’d have stripped it bare, and even periodically rode in to cull the locals and protect their Western border perhaps, but as a whole project Europe would have been too much gristle and bone chips to make a good “meal” for the Mongolian “barbecue.”

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus, your theory fall if those petty obstacles you mention didn't dare to fight.

Why on earth would any and every little obstacle sacrifice their own lives? The idea of community wasn't strong nation wide, and most people just wanted to be left alone.

The small obstacles let them be left alone in the small petty feuds under the feudal system, but against the Golden Horde? Seriously?

And it's not like the Mongols weren't know for being... Persuasive... No?

[El Barto]

Not feuds, fiefs.

[Ethelred Unread]

I think after it had become known that if you resisted the Mongols there were dire consequences, but if you surrendered and paid tribute you'd be relatively OK then I'd think you'd see a lot if people exchanging one ruler for another.

Whilst the Mongols are Ace argument is a bit extreme, let's not forget they conquered China which had larger armies, cities and a more cohesive society than anything in Europe at the time.

As for terrain, if the Gobi desert didn't stop them then how would forests?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Buzghush]

Turco-Mongol people always had potential to conquer world but they always stayed on steppes. Until the Huns. They reached to Europe and found many states such as Khazars, Bulgarian Khaganate, Avars etc.

But Genghis was different than any other Steppe Leaders. Afaik, he used Chinese prisoners to conquer China's huge cities. So, Genghis didn't lose his own soldiers. Also, Chinese siege weapons and tactics helped a lot in Europe. Afair, Kiev resisted Mongols for just 2 weeks. That's impressive, IMHO.

[El Barto]

I think after it had become known that if you resisted the Mongols there were dire consequences, but if you surrendered and paid tribute you'd be relatively OK then I'd think you'd see a lot if people exchanging one ruler for another.

Whilst the Mongols are Ace argument is a bit extreme, let's not forget they conquered China which had larger armies, cities and a more cohesive society than anything in Europe at the time.
At some point they would have overextended, and infighting would have happened sooner or later.


As for terrain, if the Gobi desert didn't stop them then how would forests?
Well, you can't ride at a full gallop through a forest, you can't even see (so how would they coordinate?), and what are you going to shoot yoru arrows at? How can you mount a cavalry charge in there? Forests are very good for guerrilla warfare, ambushes… just like Hannibal, who was invincible in the field in his age, Fabian tactics would've worked against an army so far away from home.

Turco-Mongol people always had potential to conquer world but they always stayed on steppes. Until the Huns. They reached to Europe and found many states such as Khazars, Bulgarian Khaganate, Avars etc.
Were the huns really Turco-Mongols?

[Buzghush]

Were the huns really Turco-Mongols?

Yes, they were.

Hunnic Language was a branch of Lir-Turkic.

[El Barto]

What samples are there that have remained of their language? I thought it was still unclear whether their language was Turkic, or Mongolian, or something else.

[Buzghush]

Actually, there are many sources for that here is one of them;


"It is assumed that the Huns also were speakers of an l- and r- type Turkic language and that their migration was responsible for the appearance of this language in the West." Johanson, Lars; Éva Agnes Csató (ed.). 1998. The Turkic languages. Routledge; Pritsak, Omeljan. 1982 "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan." Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 6, pp. 428–476

Attila, Dengizik, Muncuk etc. all of them Turkic names. Even modern Turkish speaker can easily understand these names and meanings.

[Myth]

Not too sure about that. Turko-Altaic perhaps? It is assumed through lore that the first Bulgarian Khans (not Volga Bulgaria, but the one founded in 681 by Asparukh) were descendants of Attila. Their clan was called Dulo, and Attila was named as the founder of the clan.

Regarding the attrition due to the castle system - sure, there would have been hard nuts to crack. But I don't think the Mongol generals would be that stupid. A better way to go about it is to bait the western forces out. Like, say, by threatening Rome. How much time would it take for there to be a counter-crusade if the threat of Tengri pagans sacking Rome and the Vatican loomed on the horizon?

I think that if faced wtih a common enemy, the nobility of Europe would unite. Especially since it would be the mandate of Heaven as the enemy is heathen. Remember, being promised that you are doing the Lord's work is a very big deal in those times. Enough to get you to go liberating Jerusalem all the way from England.

However, I'm not sure how such massive forces would be coordinated. Europe has fared well but with strong leaders. Charles Martel for example. Who would have been the leaders of such a mega coalition of catholic forces? The ERE would also have to play, and they would have never let their armies be commanded by someone else.

A bunch of poorly coordinated mid-sized armies would not have been as effective a s a single blob of knights, cataphracts, archers and infantry. But since this isn't a computer game, I can almost guarantee that we would see countless examples of both good and bad generalship (everyone wishing to show their valour and win glory and all that) but ultimately, on a strategic level, these armies would be enveloped and routed as they can't hope to act as cohesively as the Mognols.

Now, if the Mongols separated different spears of attack and got pinned between a sturdy castle and an incoming army, then maybe it could work. But again, this requires them to make the mistake of overextending. So far I can't see examples of such mistakes having being made.

[Buzghush]

Not too sure about that. Turko-Altaic perhaps? It is assumed through lore that the first Bulgarian Khans (not Volga Bulgaria, but the one founded in 681 by Asparukh) were descendants of Attila. Their clan was called Dulo, and Attila was named as the founder of the clan.

You also should know that Bulgar Khaganate was also Turkic too.
Bulgar Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar_language) was also a branch of Lir-Turkic.
Bulgars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not too sure about that. Turko-Altaic perhaps? It is assumed through lore that the first Bulgarian Khans (not Volga Bulgaria, but the one founded in 681 by Asparukh) were descendants of Attila. Their clan was called Dulo, and Attila was named as the founder of the clan.

Regarding the attrition due to the castle system - sure, there would have been hard nuts to crack. But I don't think the Mongol generals would be that stupid. A better way to go about it is to bait the western forces out. Like, say, by threatening Rome. How much time would it take for there to be a counter-crusade if the threat of Tengri pagans sacking Rome and the Vatican loomed on the horizon?

I think that if faced wtih a common enemy, the nobility of Europe would unite. Especially since it would be the mandate of Heaven as the enemy is heathen. Remember, being promised that you are doing the Lord's work is a very big deal in those times. Enough to get you to go liberating Jerusalem all the way from England.

However, I'm not sure how such massive forces would be coordinated. Europe has fared well but with strong leaders. Charles Martel for example. Who would have been the leaders of such a mega coalition of catholic forces? The ERE would also have to play, and they would have never let their armies be commanded by someone else.

A bunch of poorly coordinated mid-sized armies would not have been as effective a s a single blob of knights, cataphracts, archers and infantry. But since this isn't a computer game, I can almost guarantee that we would see countless examples of both good and bad generalship (everyone wishing to show their valour and win glory and all that) but ultimately, on a strategic level, these armies would be enveloped and routed as they can't hope to act as cohesively as the Mognols.

Now, if the Mongols separated different spears of attack and got pinned between a sturdy castle and an incoming army, then maybe it could work. But again, this requires them to make the mistake of overextending. So far I can't see examples of such mistakes having being made.

I agree that the Euro's, tactically, would have been beaten. The only weapon systems they possessed that were superior to those employed by the Mongols were heavy-armor cavalry and the English Longbow. Unfortunately, the terrain needed for a heavy cavalry charge was precisely the best terrain for Mongols to outmaneuver the slower, but heavily armored Euro cavalry. The English Longbow, moreover, was in its infancy -- largely in the hands of the Welsh -- and hadn't become a dominant weapon system in England yet (though it would shortly after the time-frame we are discussing).

My argument above suggests that there were so many fortified points with so many persons who had a vested interest in maintaining their control and not submitting to Mongol rule (which was NOT true with the more Eastern cities), that the Mongols would have become worn down during an endless string of victories. Seeing this happening, and not being dumb, I think they would have simply raided at will while consolidating East of the Vistula.

Neither in pitched battle nor in siege warfare could the Euros have bested the Mongols -- only made it not worth the bother.

[Myth]

1. There is no concrete evidence that the proto Bulgarians were turcic. It's a theory, and a very disputed one over here. Wikipedia, in this case, Is a biased and unreliable source. I personally am a fan of the Aryan/Iranian origins theory. And to note - modern day Bulgarian's DNA is the oldest in Europe. It's essentially >80% old Thracian DNA. So the proto Bulgarians gave the idea of strong centralized rule and cavalry warfare, but the actual people who lived in these lands did not disappear magically. They are mostly Thracians with the occasional Slav tribe mixed in.

Regarding the longbow (aka. warbow) - unfortunately it's not superior to the Mongol composite bows in range and draw weight. In fact, they are about evenly matched. Difference is that the composite bow can be fired from the back of a horse. The armours around the year 1200 were mostly mail and perhaps partial plate. European cavalry would still be very potent on the field, but they need a way to pin the Mongols down.

If the Europeans had known they were coming, the would have used their other major advantage - their superior construction and engineering skills, to create many more holdfasts and castles. Like the Hungarians did when the Mongols went back to elect a new great Khan.

[Buzghush]

You're confusing Bulgars with Bulgarians. Bulgars were Turkic people, they spoke a Turkic Language. They were part of Turkic Khaganate (aka Göktürks). After they settled modern day Bulgaria, they assimilated by local people. Modern Bulgarians mix of Native Balkan people, Slavs and Turkic Elite.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Regarding the longbow (aka. warbow) - unfortunately it's not superior to the Mongol composite bows in range and draw weight. In fact, they are about evenly matched. Difference is that the composite bow can be fired from the back of a horse. The armours around the year 1200 were mostly mail and perhaps partial plate. European cavalry would still be very potent on the field, but they need a way to pin the Mongols down.

If the Europeans had known they were coming, the would have used their other major advantage - their superior construction and engineering skills, to create many more holdfasts and castles. Like the Hungarians did when the Mongols went back to elect a new great Khan.

That's why I used the word "system." Weapon on weapon, the Composite Bows used by the Mongols were a wash in terms of hitting power with the English Longbow. The Mongol bows worked wonderfully from horseback, whereas an English Longbow, though usable from horseback, was more cumbersome and could not be deployed to full power. Mongol bows were a bit more sensitive to wet weather. Weapon on weapon you cannot assume either was better than the other, so you have to round up in favor of mobility. As a "system" however, I was also referring to the whole English concept of yeomanry and the armies that they were (admittedly 20+ years after the time period of the Mongol invasion) able to generate using that concept. It let the English fight well beyond their weight. I do not believe that the English system had matured by the time of the invasion (c. 1242 BCE) so it would NOT have been available as a bulwark against the Mongols.

We agree completely as to the cavalry issue. The Euros had more/higher percentage of heavily armored cavalry, but they would have had little chance of forcing an engagement at advantage against the Mongols. The Mongols were too good at scouting and too mobile. If the Euros could find themselves slightly uphill of the Mongols, in open terrain that was surrounded by rough terrain through which the Mongols could not exfiltrate, then maybe the grand charge of the knights might have broken the Mongols. As you rightly suggest, the chance of this combination of terrain occurring at a point in time and place where the Euros were concentrated and a Mongol commander ignorant enough to get into position for them is a rather unlikely combination of circumstances...bordering on mathematical impossibility.

[The Lurker Below]

The Mongol Horde is easily stopped. Dunno what all this forest talk is about. All you need to do is make sure there are only one or two bridges across the river on your battlefield.

[Buzghush]

The Mongol Horde is easily stopped. Dunno what all this forest talk is about. All you need to do is make sure there are only one or two bridges across the river on your battlefield.

You talking about in-game Mongols? if yes, this is history topic. But, if you're talking about real-life, Europeans tried to stop Mongols in Battle of Mohi. (was a river battle) but they couldn't. Mongols killed tens of thousands of europeans in that battle and lost very few men.

[El Barto]

For some reason, you're taking it for granted that the Europeans didn't learn from their mistakes.

[Myth]

For some reason, you're taking it for granted that the Europeans didn't learn from their mistakes.

They didn't. Feudal Russia got dominated yet right next door, Hungary was still wide-eyed surprised that the Mongols came to rape their goats and slaughter their womenfolk.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They didn't. Feudal Russia got dominated yet right next door, Hungary was still wide-eyed surprised that the Mongols came to rape their goats and slaughter their womenfolk.

This is a very human tendency to begin with. Stuff happens to "others" it won't happen to me. Same reason people get into cars without using the safety restraints.

Feudalism -- which could almost be thought of as geographic particularism because there was such a focus on one's own district -- did not lend itself to coordinated efforts that spanned larger regions. Western Europe was better integrated in terms of communication than was the East....but only moderately so.

[Kagemusha]

I am not taking any stand either way, but just to point out few things.

When we talk about European vs Mongol armies, we tend to focus on the generalization, that medieval European armies had high concentration of Heavy cavalry while Mongols lot of light horse archers. It should be noted that each Tumen also had a heavy cavalry component. Also basically every mongol warrior could use his lethal composite bow, compared to even English only part of army was longbow men. So even if dismounted the missile projecting capacity of a Mongol army was devastating.

Another thing about dampness and composite bows is a solution springing from very wet Island called: Japan. Japanese lacquered their bow shafts, Spear shafts, even their armour against dampness and as technology lacquering was well known in Asia and im quite sure it was not unknown to Mongols either. After all they took Siberia and the weather conditions of Europe are like in Beach resort compared to that.

[Fisherking]

Those European armies were not all Knights in shining armor either.

They would have been, in largest part, infantry and some supporting bowmen.

Most would have been lightly armored at best.

Even those you refer to as knights, in the 1200s would not be equipped with heavy plate armor but mostly chain with a few plates in the most vital areas. Most horses would have been unprotected.

More a classic case of showing up with a knife at a gunfight.

[Kagemusha]

Those European armies were not all Knights in shining armor either.

They would have been, in largest part, infantry and some supporting bowmen.

Most would have been lightly armored at best.

Even those you refer to as knights, in the 1200s would not be equipped with heavy plate armor but mostly chain with a few plates in the most vital areas. Most horses would have been unprotected.

More a classic case of showing up with a knife at a gunfight.

I completely agree. Normal European army of the era would have been pretty feudal in structure. Spear point of heavy cavalry combined with levy troops and some mercenaries at times. Compared to highly organized Mongol army the odds would have been dim, but of course it is all speculation. Though with the Mongols there would have been most likely large amount of vassal troops of varied quality.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not to mention that all the European in-fighting might have lead to nations selling out their neighbours...

The idea that Europe would unify is theoretical, at best.

[El Barto]

Yet the crusades happened.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yet the crusades happened.

Not all of Europe went though...

[Fisherking]

Not to mention that all the European in-fighting might have lead to nations selling out their neighbours...

The idea that Europe would unify is theoretical, at best.

I liked “ Why the West Rules, for Now” on the topic of how development works.

[Myth]

I think that if it had come to it, the vast wealth and military force of Constantinople and the Eastern Romans would have been the main pivot around the defense of Europe. Remember that the ERE was far more rich and generally better developed than most of Western Europe. For that matter, I can't recall if we have recorded battles between ERE forces and Mongol forces.

[Fisherking]

What stopped the Mongols was guns and more organized kingdoms.

The brought guns to Europe but in the end, it worked against them.

I think it was the ERE and China on the other end that put an end to the Steppes Highway. That took a lot of time and a new approach along with logistics.

All of Europe was not conquered because the shared the technologies enough that none had a clear overwhelming advantage.

[Kagemusha]

Concerning the steppe highway. My take it was centralization of Russia that made end of the "endless wave". We have to remember that China was essentially ruled by originally Nomadic people right to the end of Empire, last group being the Manchus.

About ERE in 13th century. They had their hands full with Seljuk Turks and fighting a prolonged loosing battle, while Western Europeans only contributed negatively by sacking Constantinopol during 4th Crusade at the start of the century. I cant share the view that they could have provided the bulwark of European defense when they were becoming helpless to defend even themselves in long run.

[Fisherking]

Right! It was Russia and as you say the ERE was broke and had their hands full.

Lucky for Europe the Mongols left after a short time and didn't make it back.

[Kagemusha]

Yes. It was more then huge luck for Europe that Ögedei Khan died suddenly and all the Tumen turned around and went back home. I think that is definitely one of those great historical flukes that changed the course of history dramatically.:yes:

[El Barto]

The same level of organisation and traditions that enabled the Mongols to keep cohesion across such a huge empire worked against them? Maybe.

But it surely wasn't the Greeks who would've stopped the Mongols. They had lost at Manzikerta and Myriocephalon and didn't even own Constantinople by then. It was the unification of Russia and the counterattack that eventually led to their conquest of Siberia that did it. The tide was inverted.

[Myth]

A video I had found a while back when searching for Tengri chants:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez5-Nt3vtQg

And an image from Google Maps, a random location in the Mongolian steppes (found it just now):

https://imageshack.com/a/img577/8735/hm09.png