Could the Mongols have conquered Europe?

[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?

[screwtype]

One question:

Why would they invade Europe?

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