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.

[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.

[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;)

[Mooks]

There is a infinate supply of 'what if' . Like what if Casear didnt get assasinated and went to fight the Parthians? Would he have conquered them or have lost everything like crassus.

Nobody will or ever know...

[The_Doctor]

Somebody would learn to counter their tactics. It is evolution. Though the Mongols would also change their tactics again.

Hussite War Wagons + Longbowmen and Crossbowmen could beat HAs. I know Hussites did not exist then, somebody could have had the same idea.

[Furious Mental]

Crossbows didn't save the Chinese.

[Samurai Waki]

With a situation as stated before, had the mongols invaded Western Europe, how the politics would be played out. Although Chivalry was the reigning mindset of the period, could the mongols depend on the Europeans to be honorable in battle? Or would they use ambush techniques? Also, what would the situation have been, say, had the pope declared an all out crusade against the mongols, every Christian man and woman was to take up arms and prepare to defend the realm. Or would the Europeans willfully bend the knee as to not cause too much destruction?

It has to be remembered, at the period of the mongol invasion, Europe had less people combined than Japan did at the same time. The what-ifs are too many, and I fear, far to late to speculate predictably.

[screwtype]

It has to be remembered, at the period of the mongol invasion, Europe had less people combined than Japan did at the same time. The what-ifs are too many, and I fear, far to late to speculate predictably.

I get the impression from most of the posts so far that few people actually bothered to read LoH's posts, and are just giving their stock responses to the matter.

I really think you guys ought to go and read the posts first before commenting on them.

And I don't know where you get the idea that medieval Europe had "fewer people than Japan at the same time". That sounds preposterous to me. LoH gives the total population of Europe at the time as around 60 million (IIRC) and cites that number as one of the reason a Mongol conquest would have been impossible.

Edit: Here's a link to a population table of Medieval Europe, showing that LoH's estimate would be about right.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html

[L'Impresario]

I 've read that post more than a year or two ago and even at that time it didn't make a convincing case IMO, due to its overeliance on the standard arguments used to explain a possible mongol failure. One of the "opposite camp" wouldn't have to adress each specific point to draw a different conclusion, simply because some things aren't measurable,like (enter classic pro-mongol statements: resilience, adaptability, genious etc).
And I have this gut feeling that when the movie with the fictional invasion of western Europe comes out, it'll be showing the noble crusade of all Europeans, united to repel the pagan invaders, longbowmen next to France's finest chevaliers and all that. Too bad that such ideas started getting old by the 6th or 7th crusade, when Latin states in the Middle East had almost fallen apart. After all, the Pope would have already declared a crusade after Mohi, but, alas, would anyone hear him in time with more pressing domestic issues?

On a sidenote, I believe higher population levels wouldn't have made the "conquest" (what is actually meant with 'Mongols conquering Europe' btw heh) harder, maybe the opposite...an early "Black Death" would have saved all parties involved many efforts and years. But who cared about the general populace in order to get them behind walls heh

[Orda Khan]

I get the impression from most of the posts so far that few people actually bothered to read LoH's posts, and are just giving their stock responses to the matter.

LoH gives the total population of Europe at the time as around 60 million (IIRC) and cites that number as one of the reason a Mongol conquest would have been impossible.

Judging by these two quotes, we should suspect that you agree with him? As I stated above, maybe some research of the Mongols would help him in his spurious claims. What was the population of China? What was the population of Khwarazm? What was the population of Russia? Or better still, what was the combined population of all these areas and more? It had not made an impression upon the Mongols thus far so why would it now? Europe posed no greater difficulty than China, in fact probably far less and a united Mongol empire would have reached the Atlantic within 20 years.
L'Impresario was right, this is a Monastery debate, but it has all been done before

.......Orda

[screwtype]

Judging by these two quotes, we should suspect that you agree with him? As I stated above, maybe some research of the Mongols would help him in his spurious claims. What was the population of China? What was the population of Khwarazm? What was the population of Russia? Or better still, what was the combined population of all these areas and more? It had not made an impression upon the Mongols thus far so why would it now? Europe posed no greater difficulty than China, in fact probably far less and a united Mongol empire would have reached the Atlantic within 20 years.
L'Impresario was right, this is a Monastery debate, but it has all been done before

.......Orda

According to LoH, the population of China at 70 million was roughly the same as that of Europe. But the difference is that China was on the Mongolian border and had much territory which was ideal for horsed armies. Even so it took the Mongols a generation to subdue China. Europe was 4000 miles away, heavily wooded, and with little if any pastureland to support the large numbers of horses the Mongols employed.

Yes, I think LoH's arguments are compelling, and I've certainly seen nothing on this thread yet which would cause me to change my mind.

[Orda Khan]

Yes, I think LoH's arguments are compelling, and I've certainly seen nothing on this thread yet which would cause me to change my mind.

Not even the fact that they defeated China? It took a generation to do so? Hardly surprising really, since at the same time they were operational on all the other fronts. The rest of their conquests took place during the same time and we have to remember the implications of the Mongol empire during that period. In any case southern China was a myriad of waterways and anything but suited to cavalry warfare. Seige warfare not horse archers defeated China.

Europe was 4000 miles away, heavily wooded, and with little if any pastureland to support the large numbers of horses the Mongols employed.

The Mongols were in both Poland and Hungary, they reconnoitered Austria. Hardly 4,000 miles away. Why would they need to have troops from Mongolia? Even if this were the case, we should remember they fought and seiged their way to europe's border in 4 years any reinforcements would cover the distance in less time again

.......Orda

[The_Doctor]

One question:

Why would they invade Europe?
What did Europe do to them?

[Leet Eriksson]

One question:

Why would they invade Europe?
What did Europe do to them?

Here let me fix it, why invade the world at all?

What did the world do to them?

[Orda Khan]

They believed all land 'from sunrise to sunset' had been granted to them

........Orda

[screwtype]

One question:

Why would they invade Europe?

Same reason most invasions in history were/are conducted. In a word, loot.

[Reenk Roink]

"What If" questions are useless...

But fun ...

So, my guess would be:

Maybe (I answer that to all "what if" questions)

The biggest thing is how the Mongols would adapt their tactic to the forests of Europe as they pushed westward. It just wouldn't be as easy to win as on the steppes.

As for Ain Jalut, I recall reading that the Arabic could have been mistranslated to be 20000/120000/200000 troops for the Mongols... I was always interested in this triumph over the Mongols, could someone provide more information...

[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

[Orda Khan]

As for Ain Jalut, I recall reading that the Arabic could have been mistranslated to be 20000/120000/200000 troops for the Mongols... I was always interested in this triumph over the Mongols, could someone provide more information...

There are wide ranging figures, historical accounts notoriously exaggerate numbers. Likewise there are notoriously exaggerated accounts of battles also. Ain Jalut was basically a victory by Sultan Kutuz and all the troops he could muster over a rearguard force of Georgian and Armenian conscripts and a small contingent of Mongols under the leadership of Ked Bukha. Whatever the accounts on numbers, Ked Bukha commanded about a quarter of the number that followed Kutuz. The Mongols attacked and broke the Mamluk left, desperate pleas by Kutuz to stand firm, redeployment of troops and the timely strike by Baybars into the Mongol flank won the day.
Troop numbers are not really important, it was the reversal of fortune and the great boost to morale that this Mongol defeat gave to the Mamluks. As I mentioned above, the political implications and uncertainties in the Mongol empire prevented Hulegu from achieving his aim. He dared not risk his position, which was anything but secure. An example of this.....there were Golden Horde troops among the Mamluk ranks!
For an astonishing insight of the Mongol empire I would really recommend reading ...Qaidu and the Rise of the Independant Mongol State in Central Asia .. by Michal Biran. The facts unearthed in this study make for some surprising reading

.........Orda

[acesman]

I do not know if the Mongols could have subjugated Europe, but there were several factors working against them. Tactically at the time, nobody had beaten them in open battle. The only major battle I know of between the European powers (28,000 men) and the Mongols (less than 20,000 men) resulted in a crushing defeat of the European powers. Two other points.

But the difference is that China was on the Mongolian border and had much territory which was ideal for horsed armies.

The western 2/3 of China is rugged country, much of it still today sparsely populated. Not good country to fight in at all. Still, most of the population was/is on the costal area. Perhaps it was Russia that was intended.

Europe was 4000 miles away, heavily wooded, and with little if any pastureland to support the large numbers of horses the Mongols employed.

I can only scratch my head, since Europe at that time was a very agrarian economy, with a polulation of about 60 million, and if grassland/pasture did not exist to sustain ponies used to subsisting on steppe grass, Europe could not have supported half that number of people.

As a subset of this, the Mongols were always strategically, and often tactically, outnumbered by their enemies. The Europeans of 1150-1300 could not conceive of an enemy capable of moving from the shores of the Baltic sea to the Carpathian mountains in weeks rather than months. It was believed, at the time (~1241), that the Mongol forces in Europe alone exceeded 500,000, when the population of Mongolia at the time was less than half that. The Mongol "Horde" was a creation of their enemies imagination, and one that the Mongols did not discourage.

The main problems facing the Mongols were logistics and the nature of tribal succession, which caused more problems than their external foes did for several decades.

[Reenk Roink]

There are wide ranging figures, historical accounts notoriously exaggerate numbers. Likewise there are notoriously exaggerated accounts of battles also. Ain Jalut was basically a victory by Sultan Kutuz and all the troops he could muster over a rearguard force of Georgian and Armenian conscripts and a small contingent of Mongols under the leadership of Ked Bukha. Whatever the accounts on numbers, Ked Bukha commanded about a quarter of the number that followed Kutuz. The Mongols attacked and broke the Mamluk left, desperate pleas by Kutuz to stand firm, redeployment of troops and the timely strike by Baybars into the Mongol flank won the day.
Troop numbers are not really important, it was the reversal of fortune and the great boost to morale that this Mongol defeat gave to the Mamluks. As I mentioned above, the political implications and uncertainties in the Mongol empire prevented Hulegu from achieving his aim. He dared not risk his position, which was anything but secure. An example of this.....there were Golden Horde troops among the Mamluk ranks!
For an astonishing insight of the Mongol empire I would really recommend reading ...Qaidu and the Rise of the Independant Mongol State in Central Asia .. by Michal Biran. The facts unearthed in this study make for some surprising reading
.........Orda

Good points. Though that is why I brought up the numbers. With Ain Jalut, either the forces were even, or the Mamluks outnumbered the Mongols depending on the translation.

I also recently read something about the Mamluks being created as a counter to the Mongolian warriors and being able to defeat them in close combat.

I'll be sure to pick that book up...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

An excellent link, screwtype! Bookmarked, for future reference!

I have to agree with you and Lord of Hosts - to me, it seems, that the Mongols were reaching their limit, both internally and externally. I also think that the territorial difficulties they would have faced are being underestimated in this thread, but what do I know? I'm no scholar, and I wasn't there.

And the Mongols would have had to be very, very good to win 100% of the time against the might of the West - and they still would have had a rough time subduing the conquered area even if they mystically cut swathes through kingdom after kingdom.

[Orda Khan]

I also recently read something about the Mamluks being created as a counter to the Mongolian warriors and being able to defeat them in close combat.

A huge number of them had already been defeated by the Mongols as they mopped up the steppes and Russia. At one stage the number of Turkic prisoners were almost equal in size to their captors. They were sold into slavery, many of them ending up in Egypt. After the execution of the Caliph of Baghdad, there were hostilities between Berke of the Golden Horde and Hulegu and what became the Ilkhanate. These hostilities between cousins and the fact that Berke had allied with the Mamluks, prevented any further expansion by Hulegu and the subsequent Ilkhans. Many Golden Horde troops serving in Mamluk ranks never returned. The Mamluk position thrived on its security. Later they were utterly crushed by Timur

........Orda