Could the Mongols have conquered Europe?

[Reenk Roink]

Jalal ad Din did not defeat an army under the leadership of Chingis Khan. Shah Muhammad inherited the Khwarazm empire and with it a huge army. The army were Turkish descendants of the mercenary army of Khutbeddin who had declared independence from the Seljuks, plus Qangli Qipchaqs that made up his bodyguard. He annexed Khurasan and refused to pay further tribute to Qara Khitai. Osman of Transoxiana switched allegiance to Khwarazm. When Qara Khitai fell to the Mongols, Muhammad marched almost unopposed into Transoxiana and became the richest ruler in Islam.
By the time of his treachery towards Chingis his army was truly massive, reportedly 400,000 in Transoxiana alone, twice the size of any army the Mongols had ever managed. The Khwarazmian army was deployed along the Syr Darya in a 500 mile front. Jalal ad Din saw the folly of this and wanted an immediate strike against the Mongols. When news arrived that a Mongol army was approaching Ferghana, he took 50,000 men to meet them. The Mongol army, led by Jebe and Jochi had crossed the Tien Shan range with the task of creating a diversion. They suffered horrendous conditions losing men, horses and supplies in the freezing mountain passes. Jalal ad Din met around 30,000 wretched, starving Mongols in the Ferghana valley, as he advanced so they withdrew. They turned to face him in the foothills and after massive losses to both sides they retired. Jalal ad Din's men were not capable of pursuit but he could at least claim a victory.

And yet the army of the Sultan faced equally difficult conditions themselves. They were also an exhausted bunch and also not very well equipped. Not only that, but the army of Khwarizm was hated by the populous and had questionable loyalty. And yet Jalaladin was able to repel the Mongols after a one day battle. My point is, had he been able to do it again at the Indus, where Genghis was brilliantly able to seperate the army from the refugees and slaughter both, this would greatly affected future expeditions by the Mongols. Would there be more? Most probably, but then again, Jalaladin could also make preparations.

Only about half the Mongol army returned to Kashgar but their objective had been achieved, the Mongol army was now assembled and ready to go on the offensive. Chingis Khan realised the difficulties ahead and had requested help from his Tangut subjects, all he received was a contemptuous refusal. Regardless of this the Mongols went on to destroy the armies of Khwarazm in an incredible campaign.
As usual, religious tolerance was exercised by the Mongols but was questioned by the Moslems who resented the fact that others shared the same rights, they began to revolt. Chingis turned to his youngest son Tolui to set about suppressing these revolts. A very ruthless commander, Tolui embarked on a path of extermination. News arrived that Jalal ad Din had defeated a Mongol detachment at Ghazni. Shigiqutuqu was sent to deal with him but his force was insufficient and Jalal ad Din was not fooled by dummies on Mongol mounts. The Mongols were forced into retreat. Chingis decided to march on this irritable foe and as he approached over the hills, Jalal ad Din was forced to withdraw. Cornered, with his back to the Indus, he made a resilient stand but with another example of tactical skill, Chingis sent a small force which hit and routed the seemingly safe Khwarazmian right flank. After a second desperate charge, Jalal ad Din turned and fled, swimming across the river.

I find it odd how you try to downplay Jalaladin as an "irritable foe" when Genghis himself had such respect for the man that he prohibited his archers from shooting him while he fled.

So you see, this notion of invincibility is something that was perpetuated in the west, however losing a battle does not necessarily affect the outcome of a campaign. The Mongols suffered many set backs in Korea which is more or less on their doorstep but Korea too became part of their empire.

My point exactly. The Mongols were always able to follow up their defeats with victories (until Ain Jalut), due to their brilliant leadership, unmatched organization, and their unquestionable battle prowess.

In 1236, Batu's younger brother Suntai had been forced to halt his advance on the Bulgars when reinforcements from Smolensk and Kiev arrived. A year later would see the Bulgars defeated and from there, Russia, Poland and Hungary would crumple before the Mongol advance. Poland was left defenseless by a simple diversionary force that defeated all that she could field. Hungary was left so weak that parts of it were annexed to Austria.
Anyway, the question is about Europe and having studied Mongol history and researching information about their various campaigns and their opponents, I still have yet to find a reason to believe that European armies would pose any realistic threat to the Mongol advance

It was the internal difficulties withing the Mongol Empire itself that prevented an full scale invasion of Europe. Germany would have been easy, as the emperor was not on the Pope's good side then, and I don't believe that France or the low countries would have been able to put up much resistance. However, I do think that the Mongols would have been frustrated by the numerous fortifications around the continent, which were much more frequent than the Assassin strongholds...
The biggest problem, however, was that the Mongol borders were too overextended, and such an ambitious campaign as to conquer Europe would require many men, resources, and time. Subotai predicted that it would take 18 years to complete. In short, it was simply too difficult for the Mongols to invade and control Europe without jeapordizing their previous holdings.