Could the Mongols have conquered Europe?

[screwtype]

I came across this link on the com, featuring a series of posts by a guy called Lord of Hosts at heavengames who took a detailed look at the Mongols' chances of conquering Europe. Quality stuff and well worth the read IMO.

I'd always pretty much assumed that Europe had no tactical answer to the tide of horse archers and was probably only saved by the death of the Khan, but LoH puts a very strong case that the Mongols would not have stood a chance in European conditions.

Thought I'd repost it here because of its potential relevance to M2TW. With thanks to HaakonV at the com for providing the original link.

Could the Mongols have conquered Europe?

[Subedei]

Oh, this is interesting, eventhough i'd still bet on the Mongols....Kalka, Liegnitz...they always managed to cope with new conditions and didn't tend to underestimate the enemy in those years....

O.k., the Mamluks managed too defeat an weakened army. Still....

[lancelot]

I have read sources before that stated the only reason the mongols turned back (and hence didnt conquer europe) was because when the Khan dies it was tradition for them to return home to choose his succesor...

And as such, a freak death, saved europe...

Something I read a long time ago now...I think I remembered the basics correctly.

[screwtype]

I have read sources before that stated the only reason the mongols turned back (and hence didnt conquer europe) was because when the Khan dies it was tradition for them to return home to choose his succesor...

And as such, a freak death, saved europe...

Something I read a long time ago now...I think I remembered the basics correctly.

Did you read the link? Doesn't sound like you bothered.

[TB666]

I think they could have done it yes but it would have collapsed pretty quick anyway.
There is no way they could maintain control over such a large area but that's another topic.

[Orda Khan]

This is a question that was asked and debated some time ago in the Monastry. All the points put forward, as in that link, have been made before but there are counters to them all.
At the point where Ogodei died, the gateway to europe was well and truly open for a new Mongol objective. Let us look at some reasons other than Ogodei's death that prevented this.
The only reason that Batu withdrew to Sarai was not because of pasture, it was a strategic move made out of necessity. During the Russian campaign there was a growing friction amongst the Mongol princes (10 of whom were present) and this friction, fuelled by jealousy erupted into a huge argument at a victory banquet. This may not sound like much but one of the princes in question was Guyuk, who went on to succeed his father. Could Batu afford to push into hostile territory with an enemy to his rear? Batu did NOT return to Qaraqorum with the other princes, instead he sent his brother as his representative. His decision was a sound one, in 1248 Guyuk summoned him to meet him in the Ili valley to swear allegiance and reconcile their differences. The truth proved to be quite the opposite. Sorkaktani, wife of Tolui (Chingis Khan's youngest son) and mother of Mangku had sent warning that Guyuk planned to arrest Batu and have him executed. Batu set out with an army to meet him but Guyuk died before the meeting (and inevitable civil war). Batu was by now probably the strongest figure in the ruling house but declined the position of Khan in favour of Mangku, who also received the backing of most of the Mongol Noyans. An assassination plot was foiled and there followed a series of purges. The Chagadai and Ogodei houses would not be allowed a claim to the throne and princes and noyans loyal to these houses were cruelly executed, Buri (who as a young prince had been so contemptuous towards Batu) was sent to Batu for his execution. Under Mangku (1251-1259) there was reform, a new push into China and plans for a return to europe. Batu, however died in 1255 and when his Ulus eventually passed to his brother Berke, internicine strife began to resurface. We all know the rest, Hulegu executes the Caliph of Baghdad, Berke (a Moslem convert) is appalled and allies with the Mamluks, Ariq Buka and Qubilai civil war over the throne, Qaidu (of Ogodei descent) is a constant problem.
You see there was no chance of a european campaign materialising because there was no unity amongst the Mongols after 1241.

The lack of pasture has been put forward as a huge contributary factor but is one that I do not accept. The Huns raided far into France and also into northern Italy, they adapted (in their brief time) their tactics and it must be remembered they were never numerous. The Mongols on the other hand had far greater numbers and had they returned to europe would have swelled their ranks even more. I doubt they would have sold their prisoners as slaves as they had done earlier with the Qipchaqs, these would have been pressed into service. Lack of pasture in Song China did not prevent their armies, they adapted as they would have done in europe. Their successes in Poland (with a small diversionary force) and Hungary were such that I am in no doubt that the rest of europe would have fallen to them. As to how long this would take is another matter but all the countries would have needed a strong alliance in order to pose any real threat and even then I doubt the campaign would have lasted more than 20 years. Subedei suggested 18 years, who am I to question him? Was he unaware of what he would face? Again I doubt that very much.

The european question and the likes of Ain Jalut are mentioned regularly but people fail to research the Mongol situation, which was anything but a united one. Had it been, european history would have been very different

.........Orda

[L'Impresario]

Comments on conjectures about conjectures are always a favourite pastime heh
Without saying anything more, I'll only mention that, although mostly portayed negatively by westerners (quite understandable i guess), I believe the Mongols could have found "allies" of sorts within Europe, internal rivalries can always be exploited by an outside force as people are, more or less, doomed to commit past mistakes.
Direct conquest isn't very effective in many occasions.
Afterall, if you 're having your hands full, better the devil you don't know:


BTW, I might be mistaken, but isn't this thread galloping towards the Monastery in full speed, arrows poised to pierce the resident monks' frail bodies? - Although I guess the previous threads have already covered to a satisfying degree the whole issue. Not that a definite answer should be the expected outcome of such discussions;)

[Avicenna]

I think they could have done it yes but it would have collapsed pretty quick anyway.
There is no way they could maintain control over such a large area but that's another topic.

Don't think they did try to maintain control. Everything went on as before, but people occasionally payed the Mongol Conquerors tribute. This kept the Mongolians with their hands free to fight and have enough wealth to sustain their army.

[screwtype]

Oh, this is interesting, eventhough i'd still bet on the Mongols....Kalka, Liegnitz...they always managed to cope with new conditions and didn't tend to underestimate the enemy in those years....

O.k., the Mamluks managed too defeat an weakened army. Still....

I think he made some very strong points. It's well known that siege warfare in that era was not very effective, and Europe had far more castles and strongholds - and better ones - than any other part of the world. Also, the point about the decentralized nature of decision making in Europe - that there was essentially no "head" to cut off because the power was so broadly distributed amongst barons, nobles etc. The Mongols would basically have been at it forever.

But it always seemed to me that the Mongols' weakness was the need to feed its horses, I've thought up to now the best way to combat them would have been to adopt a scorched earth policy but LoH makes the very telling point that there simply wasn't nearly enough pastureland in Europe to feed all those horses anyway - which is probably why the Mongols decided to turn back in the first place.

[Dark_Magician]

I'd always pretty much assumed that Europe had no tactical answer to the tide of horse archers and was probably only saved by the death of the Khan, but LoH puts a very strong case that the Mongols would not have stood a chance in European conditions.

I find it quite simple that the mongols reached natural limits, their domain became so large that it was not possible to control it and the resources were depleting so it was not possible to expand. Because of large territory mongols were in process of splitting to separate households and any one of them would have to consider the safety of its brother-facing rear.

[screwtype]

I find it quite simple that the mongols reached natural limits, their domain became so large that it was not possible to control it and the resources were depleting so it was not possible to expand. Because of large territory mongols were in process of splitting to separate households and any one of them would have to consider the safety of its brother-facing rear.

Yes, I agree. They had already reached the natural limits of expansion (arguably exceeded them) and lacked the political development to enable them to hold onto their gains.

However, they did in their short time manage to do an incredible amount of damage to other cultures, particularly the Muslim and Russian. Which is why I can't understand why they'd be heroes to anybody. IMO a lot of the problems of the modern world can arguably be traced back to the destruction wrought by the Mongol hordes.

[Orda Khan]

Which is why I can't understand why they'd be heroes to anybody.

Perhaps because people like myself do not judge them by the standards of todays 'so called' enlightened morals but rather by their military achievements. To condemn the Mongols without first gaining any insight into their culture and beliefs at the time is like reading the end of a book and writing a critique about its content. There are understandable (if we remain impartial and unbiased) reasons for the large scale killings in both China and the Moslem countries. After Khwarazm fell, there was every likelihood that a resurgeance under Jelal ad Din who was a very able commander, could have proved very costly to the new Mongol empire. Their armies, already logistically stretched (and outnumbered) entered into a phase of consolidation and made thoroughly sure that there would be no backlash. Xi Xia paid the ultimate price for treachery and indifferent arrogance. Harsh treatment this may be but in the 13th Century, who with the ability would allow vassals to treat them with contempt? If the Crusaders were able, do you not think they would have eradicated Islam? Because they were nomads, the Mongols and other nomads before them have been labelled, as if they were lesser beings simply because they chose a pastoral existance. They did not build marvellous cities and impressive Cathedrals or Mosques. What good would these be to them and their way of life? Conquered nations enjoyed considerable securities under Mongol administration, the freedom to worship whatever faith being but one of them. People were not despised simply because of their faith as was generally the case in the civilised cities of europe and the middle east.

IMO a lot of the problems of the modern world can arguably be traced back to the destruction wrought by the Mongol hordes.

An argument commonly used to explain why Russia lagged behind during the renaissance period. This may or may not be the case, personally I feel there are plenty of other Russian based considerations for this fact. The irrigation systems of Persia suffered irreparable damage and the area is a shadow of the fertile place it once was. Was this entirely thanks to the destruction caused by the Mongols? A certain Timur, a Turk, arguably wrought greater havoc in this area than the Mongols before him

........Orda