PDA

View Full Version : The Mongols Conquer Most of Europe.......


Malta
November 20th, 2007, 02:38 AM
......what next?

As you can see from the map The Black is the extent of the Mongol Empire around the time of Ogadai's death. The Grey portion of the map the proposed extent of Mongolian conquest within a few years. Around the 1240's

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6883/mongoleuropesi8.gif

Now taking a look at this proposed map and scenario, the Mongolians have a few options here.
But first lets review Europe so far. Pretty much under Mongolian conquest the whole thought that could have been the Re-Birth of culture, wiped out as cities from Moscow to Rome to Antwerp and Paris, all the way to the Pyrenees has been leveled, what survives of the European population in these areas crushed under the book of the Mongol Yoke, living in small scattered villages and towns, in ever fear.

So taking a look at the map, the Mongols have a few options here.

1:They could go South into the Balkans, crushing the various Serbian-Bulgar Kingdoms. Then going on to take Constantinople. Maybe even linking up across the Anatolia?
Or could they have? The terrain of the Balkans could have worked against the Mongols possibly aided the Serbian-Bulgars Kingdoms, and could the Mongols have taken one of the greatest cities in history?

2:They go south of the Tiber river and into southern Italy, crushing Hohenstaufen rule in southern Italy to the boot tip? Hoping over into Sicily?

3:Crossing the Pyrenees would they have crushed the various Spanish Christian States and moved on to Granada, making the Mongolian Empire strech, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, the longest empire that history would ever know. Or could the Spanish Kingdoms united? Maybe even Granada could have helped and somehow tried to stop the Mongols at the Pyrenees.

4:Invading England, would they? Would Edward (Longshank's) relationship have paid off and spared the Isles from conquest? Maybe making them a simple ally-vassal and saving England as the last bastion of the European culture? If they had would England be saved from the Mongols, much similarly in a fashion that Japan was saved, or how England would later be saved from the Spanish Armada? If not, how would they have faired fighting up to the Scotlands? Would the Welsh, Scots, and others have allied with he Mongols to backstab everyone else? Would they have bothered with Ireland? Or Scandinavia?

5:How while all this was happing, would Islamic Middle East and North Africa have viewed all of this? After seeing the easy destruction of Europe would they have united to face off against the Mongols? (Specially after the fall of Baghdad in mind). Would they have instead simply fell upon with full force onto the Crusader States? Would these states have recieved a influx of population, refugees escaping Europe. After Consolidating over Europe would the Mongols (Presuming they had not broken up) have crossed into the Middle East more sucessfully? From the Anatolia or from the Iberia?

Mars
November 20th, 2007, 02:48 AM
The same thing that happened in OTL would happen here i would think. Eventually the mongols would split up into various successor kingdoms and fight amongst themselves. The khanate of Europe would eventually break up into independent European kingdoms again. It would be interesting to see the response of the rest of the west. Maybe crusades would be mounted against the mongols. Maybe the mongols in europe would convert to Christianity. Maybe the west would adopt more mongolian style tactics afterwards. Who knows.

Malta
November 20th, 2007, 02:58 AM
The same thing that happened in OTL would happen here i would think. Eventually the mongols would split up into various successor kingdoms and fight amongst themselves. The khanate of Europe would eventually break up into independent European kingdoms again. It would be interesting to see the response of the rest of the west. Maybe crusades would be mounted against the mongols. Maybe the mongols in europe would convert to Christianity. Maybe the west would adopt more mongolian style tactics afterwards. Who knows.

Though by the point of the map, who would be strong enough to launch crusades? Unless of course the Pope managed to flee, (Unless the Mongols hadn't put him in a carpet like they did the Caliph). somewhere else, maybe the Crusader States, but would they have been strong enough to launch a crusade? Specially with the Islamic States breathing down their necks.

Elidor
November 20th, 2007, 03:14 AM
It will be interesting when the Mongol Khanate breaks up. If the Mongols do a good job of destroying the pre-invasion order, Europe's border will be redrawn. The HRE will probably be cease to exist, speeding up formation of Nation-states.

Or The Mongols can claim to be The Holy Roman Emperors themselves, and have a caste system with a mongolian-born nobles ruling over Europeans. Even after a mongol break-up/overthrow, European rulers might try to claim to be Genghis' decedents.

NapoleonXIV
November 20th, 2007, 03:19 AM
We've looked at this before. It's doubtful the Mongols could have gotten very far into Germany. For all their vaunted invinciblity it took the Mongols decades to conquer Southern China because they had to get off their horses and take broken land and this was close to home base. In Europe they were heavily overextended as well and they knew it. I think they were glad to go home and there was good reason they never returned in force.

Dave Howery
November 20th, 2007, 04:12 AM
the Mongols could probably have ridden through and devastated that area... but hold it as part of the empire? I think not... too far away from their center, too rough terrain, too many small castles to take down.

None of which means they couldn't have gone where they pleased and killed and looted wherever they wished... the Europeans proved time and again that they couldn't stand up to them in open battle. The warlords might have forted up in their various castles, but that wouldn't win them the war....

Mars
November 20th, 2007, 10:28 AM
The Mongols could have taken parts of eastern europe, like the huns did by settling on the hungarian plains, there is pasture there for their horses - though definitely not as much as in the steppes, so yeah, their cavalry force will be sufficiently smaller. Still, it think it is possible for them to control at least eastern Europe. France and the HRE are a different matter, could they have done it? Im sure it as possible, they had the siege technology and manpower. But it probably would have been a daunting task. It would make for an interesting TL though. Very interesting. :rolleyes:

woodlin
November 20th, 2007, 11:02 AM
yet the Mongolian empire collapased in less than 2 decades.it was impossible for them to go further west.how can they rule the vast land of china where rebellions came in a row while their own population kept falling after years of war.the total population of Mongolians at that time was no more than a million. it was already a miracle that they conquered from west pacific to east europe.france? a dream

Malta
November 20th, 2007, 11:21 AM
yet the Mongolian empire collapased in less than 2 decades.it was impossible for them to go further west.how can they rule the vast land of china where rebellions came in a row while their own population kept falling after years of war.the total population of Mongolians at that time was no more than a million. it was already a miracle that they conquered from west pacific to east europe.france? a dream

Thats why they use their most powerful weapon of all: Fear.

Fear, more like a promise, if you rebel we will come to you anmd put your head onto a spike. By now, Europe is still reeling from it's utter crushing, which I think would be more complete in Europe, as it was just a emerging civilization, it didn't have the long noble sophisticated history of China. It was divided and semi-barbarian at this time period. Pretty much everywhere the population is scattered into backward villages living in fear and uncapable of organizing.

Also the Mongols would use a few to govern, as they did in Russia. But the breakup is inevitable, it would happen after Europe's flame sputtered and died.

Hannibal.Caesar
November 21st, 2007, 12:47 AM
......what next?

As you can see from the map The Black is the extent of the Mongol Empire around the time of Ogadai's death. The Grey portion of the map the proposed extent of Mongolian conquest within a few years. Around the 1240's

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6883/mongoleuropesi8.gif



Debates about the Empire aside, I can't see the Mongols leaving Denmark totally alone while conquering the rest of Europe.

The Sicilian
November 21st, 2007, 03:30 AM
Was there a whole lot in Europe that the Mongols would find appealing? More so that the riches of the ME, India and SE Asia?

panzerjay
November 21st, 2007, 04:22 AM
IHMO, in time the mongols would become christenize and then the whole "heartland" would be too. if they dont smash things up too much

Ridwan Asher
November 21st, 2007, 08:11 AM
IHMO, in time the mongols would become christenize and then the whole "heartland" would be too. if they dont smash things up too much

Don't think the "whole heartland" part is likely though....

Umbral
November 21st, 2007, 08:14 AM
This is an interesting subject. I started a "Norse in north america" TL, where this invasion caused a large Norwegian/Scandinavian migration to Vinland. Which suddenly looked a bit more enticing when the Mongols seemed set to kill everyone in europe.

It got put on the back burner when I realized what an enormous amount of work it would be to just get an accurate idea of what happened in europe in the meantime.

......what next?

As you can see from the map The Black is the extent of the Mongol Empire around the time of Ogadai's death.
I also agreee that the southern portion of Denmark at least got off too lightly. Alps might have held out.

But first lets review Europe so far. Pretty much under Mongolian conquest the whole thought that could have been the Re-Birth of culture, wiped out as cities from Moscow to Rome to Antwerp and Paris, all the way to the Pyrenees has been leveled, what survives of the European population in these areas crushed under the book of the Mongol Yoke, living in small scattered villages and towns, in ever fear.
I would have thought there would be a couple of cities that surrendered without combat. At least the first would probably get good terms. Its the sort of thing a sensible conqueror wants to encourage, after all.

They would be mongol-dominated, of course.

Invading England, would they? Would Edward (Longshank's) relationship have paid off and spared the Isles from conquest? Maybe making them a simple ally-vassal and saving England as the last bastion of the European culture? If they had would England be saved from the Mongols, much similarly in a fashion that Japan was saved, or how England would later be saved from the Spanish Armada? If not, how would they have faired fighting up to the Scotlands? Would the Welsh, Scots, and others have allied with he Mongols to backstab everyone else? Would they have bothered with Ireland? Or Scandinavia?
The Mongols had a poor history of seabourne invasions. If they did manage to cross the channel, I could see them taking England, leaving Scotland and Wales.

However, I think the last bastion of european culture would be Norway. At the time, we had our maximum size on, and was well governed by one of the most competent Kings in pre-modern history, Håkon IV. Covering Iceland and Greenland, the combination of sea, navy, forests, mountains and winters would probably be too much for the Mongols. A sensible change of capital city would probably suffice to keep the Mongols at bay.

Not sure how Sweden was doing at the time, but I can't see the Mongols easily getting to them without both naval and forest crossings.

How while all this was happing, would Islamic Middle East and North Africa have viewed all of this?
I was planning to have the Mali become more involved in mediterranean trade, and "enter play" from there.

Mars
November 21st, 2007, 07:28 PM
IMO the most important thing that is going to determine what land the mongols conquer is geography. Look at the area surrounding a specific place, if that area has wide espanses of grassland, then the mongols are surely to conquer it. If its mountainous and heavily forested, they are not. They would definetly settle in the hungarian plain as the huns, avars and alans did year before. I doubt they would conquer the central, mountainous areas in northern italy and switzerland. Besides, why do they want europe? The middle east is richer at this time - why not go after that? You have to explain not just how they would win in this rough terrain unsuitable for horse archer nomadic warfare, but why they decide to ignore the richer lands in egypt and go for europe. One reason could be that there is a different mongol Khanate controlling egypt already or blocking their path to it. As to how they are going to feed thousands upon thousands of steppe horses on the lands of europe (remember mongol horses lived off the land, they did not have a train of horse food supplying them), you're on your own.

WhatIsAUserName
November 21st, 2007, 08:27 PM
We've looked at this before. It's doubtful the Mongols could have gotten very far into Germany. For all their vaunted invinciblity it took the Mongols decades to conquer Southern China because they had to get off their horses and take broken land and this was close to home base. In Europe they were heavily overextended as well and they knew it. I think they were glad to go home and there was good reason they never returned in force.

Mongols weren't invincible, of course, but you have to look at all the facts. It took the Mongols decades because China, under the Song, comprised one of the most powerful states in the world at the time. If the Mongols were the world's most powerful empire at the time, Song China would have taken second place. Southern China at this time was a disorderly mess with some of the worst political leadership in the world, and but it was strong enough that it managed to hold out relatively long (oftentimes held inexplicably together by luck, to be honest).

Europe, at this time, was weaker, divided, and (IIRC) less technologically advanced. Of course, in Europe, the Mongols would be overextended, but I think that this isn't as significant a problem as it never hindered the conquests of Persia, Russia, etc.

After Ogadei's death, the Mongol Empire already started to splinter, which is a key reason why they didn't just go forth and invade Europe.

Tyr
November 21st, 2007, 09:16 PM
I'd agree they wouldn't get far due to all the forests and castles.
Even Poland has a lot of these...They could probally destroy Poland but permanently conquer it? The HRE would probally challenge them once they've suffered their first big losses.

The suggestion they would head to the middle east does suggest something else- they start attacking eastern Europe but then are drawn in towards Constantinople.

Malta
November 21st, 2007, 11:59 PM
1:Aye, i saw that TL, I liked where it was going I hope you can get things up and going again.

2: They would allow any surrendered cities' inhabitants to leave safely, but then pretty much burn the place to the ground. Like with that saying, that a year after the Mongolians conquered a city, you could drive a horse over the spot smoothly (At least I do think for Ghengis in cases).

3:Well the whole question of Mongols invading comes from that Edward the 1 had a alliance with one of the Khanates. So maybe he could get England off better when facing them at his doorstep.

This is an interesting subject. I started a "Norse in north america" TL, where this invasion caused a large Norwegian/Scandinavian migration to Vinland. Which suddenly looked a bit more enticing when the Mongols seemed set to kill everyone in europe.

It got put on the back burner when I realized what an enormous amount of work it would be to just get an accurate idea of what happened in europe in the meantime.


I also agreee that the southern portion of Denmark at least got off too lightly. Alps might have held out.


I would have thought there would be a couple of cities that surrendered without combat. At least the first would probably get good terms. Its the sort of thing a sensible conqueror wants to encourage, after all.

They would be mongol-dominated, of course.


The Mongols had a poor history of seabourne invasions. If they did manage to cross the channel, I could see them taking England, leaving Scotland and Wales.

However, I think the last bastion of european culture would be Norway. At the time, we had our maximum size on, and was well governed by one of the most competent Kings in pre-modern history, Håkon IV. Covering Iceland and Greenland, the combination of sea, navy, forests, mountains and winters would probably be too much for the Mongols. A sensible change of capital city would probably suffice to keep the Mongols at bay.

Not sure how Sweden was doing at the time, but I can't see the Mongols easily getting to them without both naval and forest crossings.


I was planning to have the Mali become more involved in mediterranean trade, and "enter play" from there.


Edit:Well if not totally conquer Europe they could the least have a lot of free reign in it. They go in pretty much put a torch to everything and tear down a lot of the major cities (They had engineers from China to destroy the castles with gunpowder! Thats how they did things back east, bringing gunpowder in earlier), their are areas in Europe proper that the Mongols with their steppe horses could settle down pretty well, along the Po River maybe.
The overall fact is that they have pretty much wreaked Europe, and with sacking cities like the North Roman cities and Paris and such, they have either delayed or ruined the Reniassance.

The Sicilian
November 22nd, 2007, 03:04 AM
You need a cause before people start rampaging across Europe.

Malta
November 22nd, 2007, 03:11 AM
Ogedei lasted longer, he already had plans on invading Western Europe in OTL. Subutai's attacks on Hungary and Poland were crushing in OTL, if you can take a easy target, why not?

Also, it was after the Mongolian invasion ended OTL that stone castles were widely built.

Umbral
December 7th, 2007, 12:24 PM
Bumpity bump.

Advernt
December 7th, 2007, 01:21 PM
The Mongols could find it easier to conquer Europe if they play off the Europeans against each other , and creating vassals all across their territories instead of direct conquest . After all , if you were a medival Lord , and the neighbouring kingdom / fiefdom was just ravaged , it's a matter of self preservation to submit under Mongol rule .

That being said , I wonder whether Ogedei will attempt to get himself crowned the Emperor of Rome by holding the pope at bowpoint . That might make subjagating Europe a little easier , as the symbolic title might make it easier to force European aristocrats to defect and surrender in droves.

I can forsee many opportunistic noblemen swearing oaths of fealty to the Mongols in hopes for power under mongol rule .

Treachery is a powerful weapon , and I can forsee the Mongols conquering vast swarthes of Europe via defections and surrenders.

Gladi
December 7th, 2007, 03:10 PM
... and they are then driven out by warriors of Valhala as Ragmarok starts.

Sorry, but this is completely arbitrary and as such has nothing to do with historic porcesses.

Condottiero
December 7th, 2007, 03:34 PM
Ogedei lasted longer, he already had plans on invading Western Europe in OTL. Subutai's attacks on Hungary and Poland were crushing in OTL, if you can take a easy target, why not?

Also, it was after the Mongolian invasion ended OTL that stone castles were widely built.

Not in Spain and Portugal...

Ran Exilis
December 7th, 2007, 09:06 PM
Also, it was after the Mongolian invasion ended OTL that stone castles were widely built.

Not in Spain and Portugal...

That still wouldn't really make a difference, as the Mongols didn't have much trouble with taking the many castles and fortresses in Georgia and Armenia.

And those were by far the strongest in all of Europe at the time...

Gladi
December 7th, 2007, 10:46 PM
That still wouldn't really make a difference, as the Mongols didn't have much trouble with taking the many castles and fortresses in Georgia and Armenia.

And those were by far the strongest in all of Europe at the time...

Where do they get occupying troops. How do their support their troops in prolonged campaign. Where could they settel themselves, where could they establish their headquartuers, in what way could they control it the area - ie administration. Were the military encounters really that one-sided?

Advernt
December 8th, 2007, 01:35 AM
It's likely that vast areas of Europe will retain the feudal structure , only that this time , the allegiance of assorted Barons are to the khan instead of the King / HRE etc.

Gladi
December 8th, 2007, 08:00 AM
It's likely that vast areas of Europe will retain the feudal structure , only that this time , the allegiance of assorted Barons are to the khan instead of the King / HRE etc.

But the feudal structure is military in its nature. One, large scale conquest could severely weaken the structure. Two, it poses a security risk. Three, how does it work with a standing army? Would Mongols be able to keep independant troops on hand?

Advernt
December 8th, 2007, 02:14 PM
In that , I mean that the remnants of a feudal culture will remain . Vast parts of Ogedei Dominion might initially start out as vassal baronies . Ofcourse , overtime , if Mongol Domination remains strong and Europe turns into another bastion of Mongol power for a time ,the feudal structure will probably be demolished . However , what will it be replaced by?

Gladi
December 8th, 2007, 03:30 PM
In that , I mean that the remnants of a feudal culture will remain . Vast parts of Ogedei Dominion might initially start out as vassal baronies . Ofcourse , overtime , if Mongol Domination remains strong and Europe turns into another bastion of Mongol power for a time ,the feudal structure will probably be demolished . However , what will it be replaced by?

So how exactlz would this work? What considerations would Mongols have to take into an account?

DeepyBlue
December 8th, 2007, 07:34 PM
Personally, you guys, I'm really interested in this idea of a European khanate. Say the Mongols conquered Europe up to Spain, England, and Scandinavia. In your opinion, would major cities in the rest of Europe, like Paris, Vienna, Venice, etc. be spared? Or would they be burnt to the ground?
I'm not an expert, but maybe we can come up with an idea based on how the Hordes treated some of the larger conquered cities. What were the biggies at time of conquest, and did they stay biggies?
Sorry if I sound inquisitive, but I'm brainstorming for an alt-history story idea. Your thread has already been a huge help, so thanks!

Matthais Corvinus
December 9th, 2007, 07:54 PM
IMO the most important thing that is going to determine what land the mongols conquer is geography. Look at the area surrounding a specific place, if that area has wide espanses of grassland, then the mongols are surely to conquer it. If its mountainous and heavily forested, they are not. They would definetly settle in the hungarian plain as the huns, avars and alans did year before. I doubt they would conquer the central, mountainous areas in northern italy and switzerland. Besides, why do they want europe? The middle east is richer at this time - why not go after that?

The Mongol Hordes were not centrally controlled, they were a couple of different bands all being led by members of Genghis Khan's family. They had split the world between them. Batu Khan was the Khan who got Europe. He was planning on invading Europe in 1242. There were several major battles fought between European and Mongol forces. The Europeans got trounced, and Hungary got destroyed. And the Mongol forces that did this were scouts. The Mongols were going to move their invasion force in in 1243, but then the Great Khan died, and the Golden Horde never got its momentum back.

The "Mongol" Horde that would have been invading Europe btw was actually mostly made up of non-Mongol Turkic tribes.

You have to explain not just how they would win in this rough terrain unsuitable for horse archer nomadic warfare, but why they decide to ignore the richer lands in egypt and go for europe. One reason could be that there is a different mongol Khanate controlling egypt already or blocking their path to it. As to how they are going to feed thousands upon thousands of steppe horses on the lands of europe (remember mongol horses lived off the land, they did not have a train of horse food supplying them), you're on your own.

The Mongols were not one trick ponies when it came to warfare. There were nomad warriors before the Mongols, but none of them came close to the kind of world-wide success that the Mongols achieved. Why is this? because they were not just horse-mounted archers. They used siege warfare in China, in fact a lot of their forces were Chinese. I think that the same thing would happen in Europe.

I don't think that Europe would effectively unite in the face of the Mongol invasion. In 1243 there wasn't even a Pope, due to disagreements between the previous one and the Emperor Frederick. The Mongols would use the European princes disputes to turn one against another. The Mongols might not have brought siege engineers with them, but I think that they can properly motivate some to work for them.

Also, the Mongols biggest weapons was fear. Once they sack a few cities, then others won't stand up to them. Maybe if each and every city and fortress held out against the Mongols, then EVENTUALLY the Mongols would get tired. But who wants to be among the number of cities and fortresses who are to be sacrificed before the Mongols get tired?

When the Mongols invaded China, China was divided, and had been for some time. After the Mongol invasion, China was united and stayed that way. The Mongol invasion is happening in a time when the idea of a "Universial Empire" was not dead in Europe, and nation-states were not even close to maturity. The Mongol invasion could very well short-circuit Europe's development towards political division. In China the Mongols used the forms of the Chinese Emperors in order to legitimize their rule. The same thing could happen in Europe, with the Mongols converting to Christianity and declaring their empire the Holy Roman Empire. The Mongols will rule for at least a couple of generations, so when Mongol rule is finally tossed off, the "natural order" is a unified Europe. Mongol rule will unify a lot of things, making Europe a single economic unit, and wiping away the old borders. There wouldn't be the warfare that there was pre-Mongols, cause they destroyed or co-opted everyone who could oppose them. From this Europe's perspective the history of Europe would be Rome, Rome falls then chaos, then the German Emperors emerge (Charlemagne being the first), then the Mongols take over, and now the man who overthrew the Mongols will be crowned the new Holy Roman Emperor.

Anyone like to see a timeline of this?

DeepyBlue
December 9th, 2007, 08:13 PM
All right, someone brought the thread back! Matthais has some good points. Now, let me ask this - if Mongol influence led to a unified Europe, what effect would this have on the discovery of the New World? It seems to me that if these political divisions disappear as Matthais suggests, then there wouldn't be that colonization competition spurred by the Portuguese and Spanish.
Do you guys think the Mongolians would have the chops to send parties to America? Maybe Chinese merchants get to it first from the Pacific side...
I wonder what America would be called, since Amerigo Vespucci is effectively out of the equation?

Matthais Corvinus
December 9th, 2007, 08:34 PM
Post-successful Mongol invasion, England and Sweden/Norway stand alone as the last independent Europeans. England gets thousands of refugees from Europe, mainly from the wool-producing areas Flanders that is among the richest in Europe, and thus a major Mongol target. Fishing becomes more important to England as the population ballons, as many continental fisherman come to England to escape the Mongols, and it is easier to get more fish than it is to clear and develop farmland (is this right? I just made it up, anyway . . . ).

Sovereignty over Iceland is achieved to extend the range of England's enlarged fishing fleet. As the fleets push out further and further, and England's population continues to grow, the major cod areas off North America are found, Newfoundland is used to dry fish, and settlements develop organically there. Settlement in North America is given a huge boost during the lead up to the Mongols major invasion attempt of England in 1300.

During this time, the Major Mesoamerican Empire (maybe Aztec, maybe not) is found, and conquered. American gold is the fuel that drives the successful English bid to unseat the Mongol, and make themselves the rulers of Europe, culminating in King Henry V being crowned Emperor Henry I Khansbane, the name by which his dynasty would be known, in 1336.

Umbral
December 9th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Post-successful Mongol invasion, England and Sweden/Norway stand alone as the last independent Europeans. England gets thousands of refugees from Europe, mainly from the wool-producing areas Flanders that is among the richest in Europe, and thus a major Mongol target. Fishing becomes more important to England as the population ballons, as many continental fisherman come to England to escape the Mongols, and it is easier to get more fish than it is to clear and develop farmland (is this right? I just made it up, anyway . . . ).

Sovereignty over Iceland is achieved to extend the range of England's enlarged fishing fleet. As the fleets push out further and further, and England's population continues to grow, the major cod areas off North America are found, Newfoundland is used to dry fish, and settlements develop organically there. Settlement in North America is given a huge boost during the lead up to the Mongols major invasion attempt of England in 1300.

During this time, the Major Mesoamerican Empire (maybe Aztec, maybe not) is found, and conquered. American gold is the fuel that drives the successful English bid to unseat the Mongol, and make themselves the rulers of Europe, culminating in King Henry V being crowned Emperor Henry I Khansbane, the name by which his dynasty would be known, in 1336.

Remember that at this time, the existence of Vinland was well known, if not considered very interesting. Norway held Iceland and Greenland, and through them had the occasional contact with Vinland.

I suspect it would be easier to just funnel refugees through Norway and across the Atlantic. Norway already have the maritime traditions for it.
In this situation, would Norway and England want to end up in a war over Iceland anyway? I would have thought Norway, Sweden and England would stick together.

Oh yes:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=34545&highlight=vinland+bountiful

Ran Exilis
December 9th, 2007, 09:52 PM
Where do they get occupying troops.

Propably from eastern Europe - especially in the western Khanates, the lionshare of the troops of the Mongols consisted of locals who had submitted to the Mongols.

Sending troops and fighting alongside the Mongols was usually one of the things that the Mongols demanded from those who wished to submit to them.

In fact, the lionshare of the troops of the Golden Horde actually consisted of Qipchaq and other Turks, and to a lesser extent, Russians.

And in the Il-Khanate, a very large number (several tens of thousands) of the troops that participated in the conquest of Rum, Baghdad and the wars againest the Mamluks were Armenians and Georgians.

Likewise, the armies of a Mongol Khanate that would conquer Europe would propably largely consist of Europeans from nations that had been defeated during earlier campaigns. For example: if the Golden Horde would have successfully invaded Europe, then its army would initially consist largely of Qipchaq and Russians, and as the campaign progresses, large numbers of Hungarians, Polish, Germans and Bulgarians, etc. would be added to the Mongol army.

And to prevent rebellions among such newly conscripted soldiers, the Mongols made sure that new soldiers were spread evenly over the Mongol army, so that there were, for example, no more than 2 or 3 new soldiers in any unit of 10 men.

Three, how does it work with a standing army? Would Mongols be able to keep independant troops on hand?

Indeed they would - they'd just apply the "divide and rule"-method.

They simply use ethnically (and religiously) mixed regiments, and avoid using troops of the same ethnic/religious background as the local population in the conquered territories.

In the Il-Khanate, many of the troops that were garissoned in predominately Armenian and Georgian lands were either Mongols or Turks and Khwarezmians, whereas Armenian and Georgian troops were used in the wars againest the Caliphate of Baghdad and the Mamluks.

The Mongols used the religious differences and hostilities that existed between these groups in order to play them off againest eachother.

...and exploiting ethnic and religious differences would work extremely well in Europe...

In other words: Russians are likely to be loyal to other Russians rather than to the Mongols, and ditto for Germans and other Germans - but why would a predominately Russian garisson want to side with the local German population rather than enjoy the privileges granted to them for serving their Mongol overlords?

How do their support their troops in prolonged campaign.

Well, the trick is that the Mongols, especially during the early phases of their invasion, simply prevented their campaigns from becoming prolongued in the first place.

Georgian and Armenian princes hiding in their impenetrable castles?
Meh, just ravage the countryside and burn some crops - gotta be on schedule!

Daghestani tribesmen that staunchly refuse to submit?
Meh, ignore 'em - it's not like they have anything of value anyway.

..
The point is that the Mongols initially avoided the confrontation with opponents that they considered to be too tough to handle, and then they'd organize a second campaign againest a specific enemy that had proven itself to be tougher than than the others.

That's the reason why the Mongols avoided any direct confrontations with the Caliphate of Baghdad until their third invasion of the Middle East (the first invasion was basically a large scouting party under Jepe and Subodei, the second invasion was under Chormagun, who subjugated most of Persia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Rum Sultanate, and the third invasion was under Hulegu Khan, who destroyed Baghdad)

Where could they settel themselves, where could they establish their headquartuers,

The Panonnian plains, propably.

That is one of the few areas in Europe that is suitable for a large number of nomads, and the Mongols tended to operate from places where there were enough pastures to feed their horses, and where the climate and terrain were suitable enough to stay with a large army of horses throughout the year.

When the Mongols invaded the Middle East and Persia under Chormagun, he made the Mughan plain (which is another area that's very suitable for large numbers of horse nomads) in Azerbaijan his headquarter and base of operations, and the Mughan plain remained the main headquarter and base of operations for the Mongols under Hulegu Khan and his successors, which is the reason why all the capitals of the Il-Khanate have been in Iranian Azerbaijan.

in what way could they control it the area - ie administration.

After the area has been conquered and brought under Mongol control, the Mongols would leave the civil affairs to one or several governors that they would have appointed, while the local garrison and the militairy affairs would be left in the hands of a Mongol commander.

Were the military encounters really that one-sided?

Before the war between the Golden Horde and the Il-Khanate, any pretty much any battle involving the Mongols and locals in the west ended in the defeat of the latter.

This was mainly because of the fact that the Mongols hadn't been weakened by internal conflicts yet, so their attention as well as the full might of their armies was focused on their external enemies.

After that the war between Berke Khan of the Golden Horde and Hulegu Khan of the Il-Khanate, the Mongols were just too caught up in and worn down by internal conflicts to be able to invade and conquer Europe.

They nonetheless tried invading Europe several times after this point - especially under Nogai Khan, who was the defacto leader of the Golden Horde during the late 13th century - but now the Mongol armies were much smaller, the Mongols had to contend with rival Mongol khanates at the same time, and the Europeans were beginning to get the hang of the strategies and tactics that the Mongols used.

Ran Exilis
December 9th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Personally, you guys, I'm really interested in this idea of a European khanate. Say the Mongols conquered Europe up to Spain, England, and Scandinavia. In your opinion, would major cities in the rest of Europe, like Paris, Vienna, Venice, etc. be spared? Or would they be burnt to the ground?
I'm not an expert, but maybe we can come up with an idea based on how the Hordes treated some of the larger conquered cities. What were the biggies at time of conquest, and did they stay biggies?

That depends entirely on wether these cities surrender to the Mongols or choose to resist.

Kiev is a good example: this city was propably the biggest and wealthiest city in all of northeastern Europe at the time, and the Mongols actually were willing to spare it.

However, Kiev chose to resist the Mongols to the bitter end, and in retalliation, only the city's cathedral was left standing.

Sorry if I sound inquisitive, but I'm brainstorming for an alt-history story idea. Your thread has already been a huge help, so thanks!

If you want some in-dept information about the (early) Mongol invasions and the Mongol tactics,
then you should really take a look at this (http://radar.ngcsu.edu/%7Etmmay/Chormaqan_thesis.pdf) article.

It's mainly about the campaigns of Chormagun in the Caucasus and the Middle East,
but much of the information in that article is relevant to this debate, and propably your AH-ideas as well...

Advernt
December 10th, 2007, 09:30 AM
Would a later successor of Ogedei attempt to take on a European title , such as the Roman Emperor , etc , to solidify and give their khantate more symbolic authority? Also , how plausible is it for entire German principalities and major French lords to quickly surrender to the Mongols after the Mongols prove their point ? Which European cities at the time might have been more receptive to a new overlord?

Also , how will the Papacy deal with the invasion ? Would the Khan simply massacre the College of Cardinals and replace it with more amendable and more loyal priests under their control ?

Which succesor states might form out of the eventual dissoulution of a European Khantate? Perhaps a Khantate of the Franks with the Pyrennese , Rhone and Rhine as their border , a Khantate south of the Alps , a Khantate in Sicilly , a German Khantate , a Khantate in the Carpathian Plains , etc....

How far will the ATL analouge of the Enlightenment be butteflied away , or delayed by , if it happens? Could this bring about the rise of larger states faster in Europe , and we might have Nations that can pass for a unified Germany , a unified Scandanavia , a unified Balkans , a unified Central Europe etc...as the cultural homogenizes under Mongol rule ? ( Small groups are more vulnerable to cultural extinction etc.....)

Matthais Corvinus
December 10th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Would a later successor of Ogedei attempt to take on a European title , such as the Roman Emperor , etc , to solidify and give their khantate more symbolic authority? Also , how plausible is it for entire German principalities and major French lords to quickly surrender to the Mongols after the Mongols prove their point ? Which European cities at the time might have been more receptive to a new overlord?

I think that you would see a series of massively one-sided victories, as the German Emperor and the French King raise their armies and try to stop the invasions. The Monarchs would be looking for big battles, and so would the Mongols, so I think you would see a lot of Europe spared as the Mongols just burn their way across Poland and Germany, heading for the Low Countries, probably the richest region of Europe at that time. Once the monarchs have been defeated, then I think that Europe surrenders rather easily.

Also , how will the Papacy deal with the invasion ? Would the Khan simply massacre the College of Cardinals and replace it with more amendable and more loyal priests under their control ?

There actually wasn't a Pope in much of 1241, all of '42, and much of '43, the year that the Mongols would be invading. It was rather complex, but boiled down to that the Papacy and the Emperor were having a disagreement, so the Emperor decided that there shouldn't be a Pope for a while. If the Mongols win quickly, the Church might be encouraged to just recognize the conquest, rather than face the same fate as the European princes who opposed the Mongols. The Mongols would probably convert very quickly, maybe even 1st generation, so the Church would actually be a position to give Europe's Mongol rulers the legitimacy they need to rule. Emperor-Khan Batu I, crowned in Rome, by the Pope, can't get more legitimate than that.

Which succesor states might form out of the eventual dissoulution of a European Khantate? Perhaps a Khantate of the Franks with the Pyrennese , Rhone and Rhine as their border , a Khantate south of the Alps , a Khantate in Sicilly , a German Khantate , a Khantate in the Carpathian Plains , etc....


The other Mongol Hordes that took over major settled areas adopted that areas forms of government, then fell to that settled areas natives. The only places where the Khanates remained was the steppe, where the native nomads had become part of the Hordes.

How far will the ATL analouge of the Enlightenment be butteflied away , or delayed by , if it happens? Could this bring about the rise of larger states faster in Europe , and we might have Nations that can pass for a unified Germany , a unified Scandanavia , a unified Balkans , a unified Central Europe etc...as the cultural homogenizes under Mongol rule ? ( Small groups are more vulnerable to cultural extinction etc.....)

Well the Europeans would be brought directly into the Pax Mongolia that now reigns from West Europe across the whole to Eurasia to East Asia. Europe's merchants would have access to an unprecedented market, the like of which had never been seen before and never would be seen again. When Europe falls, the Mongols still have some good years of peace left in them before the Khans begin to fight each other. I think that the idea of cultural homogenization would definitely be a possibility, as the Mongols use divide and conquer ethnically. I think actually that under the Mongol regime, the authority and reach of the Church would increase substanially. In China, the Mongols inherited and used the existing Imperial bueracracy. In Europe, the closest thing to the Chinese Imperial buercracy is the Church.

wow. Are there any Mongol wins timelines?

Ran Exilis
December 10th, 2007, 10:49 PM
wow. Are there any Mongol wins timelines?

Ogedei survives a bit more (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=17129), by Condottiero.

Basileus' Interference TL (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=11464) also includes a Mongol conquest of Europe.

Communist Wizard
December 10th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Hmmm...
The map and the borders:
I doubt that the borders would be there... at all. First of all, Mongols got quick and easy victories on the steppes and desert, prime horseback battlefields. Germany, Italy, etc. were full of mountains, swamps, forests, etc. I.E., migraines for the men on horseback. I doubt it would be quick and easy, it would most likely be long and bloddy.
The Mongols were seen as barbarians, I also doubt that droves would just surrender to them.
Another thing, why would they not take Denmark and Scandinavia and etc.? Still, might be a solid TL in the making, nice job.

Ran Exilis
December 10th, 2007, 11:19 PM
Communist Wizard - you're back!

You've been away for quite a while...

First of all, Mongols got quick and easy victories on the steppes and desert, prime horseback battlefields. Germany, Italy, etc. were full of mountains, swamps, forests, etc. I.E., migraines for the men on horseback. I doubt it would be quick and easy, it would most likely be long and bloddy.

Not neccesarily - the Mongols also didn't have too much trouble with conquering the Caucasus, in spite of the fact that that campaign mainly took place in Europe's roughest mountains.

Besides, the Mongols included lots of soldiers from previously conquered areas in their armies, and they also forced nations that had submitted to them to send troops and join them on their campaigns.

Mongols on horseback may have some trouble with most terrain in Europe, but I doubt wether the same thing would go for Russians and Hungarians who had joined the Mongols...

The Mongols were seen as barbarians, I also doubt that droves would just surrender to them.

One word - terror.

Regardless of how the Mongols were regarded, the sheer terror they inspired, along with their reputation of invincibility, made sure that people surrendered in droves to them anyway.

Another thing, why would they not take Denmark and Scandinavia and etc.? Still, might be a solid TL in the making, nice job.

Scandinavia has a lot of difficult terrain, and more importantly, it is far from rich.

Therefore, it's not unlikely that the Mongols wouldn't really bother with that place.

Nonetheless; if the Mongols manage to take northern Germany and the Low Countries, then it seems only logical that they'll also go for mainland Denmark.

Matthais Corvinus
December 10th, 2007, 11:54 PM
Hmmm...
The map and the borders:
I doubt that the borders would be there... at all. First of all, Mongols got quick and easy victories on the steppes and desert, prime horseback battlefields. Germany, Italy, etc. were full of mountains, swamps, forests, etc. I.E., migraines for the men on horseback. I doubt it would be quick and easy, it would most likely be long and bloddy.
The Mongols were seen as barbarians, I also doubt that droves would just surrender to them.
Another thing, why would they not take Denmark and Scandinavia and etc.? Still, might be a solid TL in the making, nice job.

The Mongols conquered on pretty much every terrain imaginable. They conquered China. China was at that time, significantly ahead of Europe in all (nearly all?) areas of military technology, including fortifications, and varied in its environments. They fell to the Mongols. Europe mid-13th century is politically divided: the Emperor Frederick II engaged in war with the Papacy (no pope circa 1241-43 as previously mentioned), and I think that he would fight the Mongols; and the French King Louis IX (St. Louis) was a crusade addict, he would definitely rally his French host to battle the demon Mongols, and he would lose and die gloriously. The King of Hungary was already dead, killed by the Mongols in one of their scouting missions in '41 or '42. The English King, Henry III was incompetent, and I don't think he would venture onto the continent to fight the Mongols.

Basically I think that the Mongols will go burning across Germany, aiming to sack the Low Countries. Frederick and Louis will both want to fight the Mongols. Frederick will face them as they burn through Germany. He loses and flees to his power base in Sicily. Louis faces them next. He dies in the battle.

Frederick has decided that fighting the Mongols is not a good idea, and withdraws his forces to Sicily. The Mongols sack the low countries. With the Emperor having abandoned them and Louis dead (without male issue), the French and German princes decide they don't want to fight the Mongols anymore.

This may not be the exact way that it plays out, but the Mongols will destroy the continental monarchs. With this chaos, and the tour de force that the double victory will create, the German and Louis princes might keep fighting. Maybe a new German Emperor rises to unite the scattered Christian princes, and goes for round 2. But I'm a really big Mongol fan, and I think that they are basically unstoppable in this situation. They'll smash whatever the princes throw at them, and they'll conquer Europe. Then they will convert to Roman Christianity, and become Holy Roman Emperors.

Earling
December 11th, 2007, 01:19 AM
The Mongols conquered on pretty much every terrain imaginable. They conquered China. China was at that time, significantly ahead of Europe in all (nearly all?) areas of military technology, including fortifications, and varied in its environments. They fell to the Mongols. Europe mid-13th century is politically divided: the Emperor Frederick II engaged in war with the Papacy (no pope circa 1241-43 as previously mentioned), and I think that he would fight the Mongols; and the French King Louis IX (St. Louis) was a crusade addict, he would definitely rally his French host to battle the demon Mongols, and he would lose and die gloriously. The King of Hungary was already dead, killed by the Mongols in one of their scouting missions in '41 or '42. The English King, Henry III was incompetent, and I don't think he would venture onto the continent to fight the Mongols.

Just as an aside, but unless this is some timeline, the King of Hungary didn't die in '41 or '42. He didn't die to the Mongols at all and was reasonably effectively at rebuilding and fortifying his ravaged country. Infact if you look at how quickly Hungary recovered from the Mongol invasion you get a glimpse of the vitality possible in middle ages Europe.

Mongol invincibility shouldn't be exaggerated. They were defeated in Vietnam, Japan and by the Egyptian Mamluks. European division could be as much a strength as a weakness. It certainly didn't prevent them launching 'international crusades' (of varying success against a notionally "superior" foe). Further more, division means that the Mongols cannot simply perform a coup de grace, get a puppet ruler and bam, they rule all of Europe. Universal empire in Europe is dead, it has been since Charlemagne going on half a millenium ago. The feudal system had been imposed exactly to mitigate or defeat the kind of nomadic invaders who existed before the Mongols. Every single noble from the Emperor down to the lowest knight is seeking at once to defend and then to expand his interests. If they kill the emperor, the nobles will not just bow down and accept a new puppet, they shall seek to take advantage of the situation. Any Mongolian occupying force is going to be small, far smaller than that which is required to effectively govern all of Europe. The imposition of a new "universal" European khanate will have to be an entirely artificial construction which will require a complete change in society from the top down.

Basically I think that the Mongols will go burning across Germany, aiming to sack the Low Countries. Frederick and Louis will both want to fight the Mongols. Frederick will face them as they burn through Germany. He loses and flees to his power base in Sicily. Louis faces them next. He dies in the battle.

How exactly do the Mongols go "burning across Germany". Seiging castles is a lengthy process. If they ignore these castles then their supply lines are effectively nonexistant. They can slaughter alot of the population, possibly manage to feed their horses (although its unlikely, Europe just doesn't have the agriculture for the horse intensive system of the Steppe, pushing 5-10 horses per man) and then find themselves surrounded by the vast feudal levy of the European powers. If they win one battle, unless its vast in scale and literally wipes out all the nobility of the HRE, another force will be relatively swiftly assembled. Didn't the conquest of China take something in the region of 65 years? Something on the time scale of that could well conquer Europe, but it would require a significantly more concentrated and protracted effort than seems to be being implied. Sixty five years might be too much, but at a minimum I think it should be 10-20 years, not the smash and conquer idea which seems to be suggested.

Europeans are also capable of adapting, as the Muslim Mamluks did, to the Mongolian method of war. There won't just be reruns of Legnica/Mohi again and again the length and breadth of Europe.

Frederick has decided that fighting the Mongols is not a good idea, and withdraws his forces to Sicily. The Mongols sack the low countries. With the Emperor having abandoned them and Louis dead (without male issue), the French and German princes decide they don't want to fight the Mongols anymore.

Why do the princes do this? Your completely changing the mindset of your average European prince. Its an entire class essentially bred for war. The culture of chivalry is still strong. Look to the crusades, the hundred years war and numerous other examples. The nobles want a war and if its against some pagan invader with the papal gift of absolution then all the better. These are not the 'civilised' Chinese or Muslims. The nobility are used to a 'notional' loyalty (one enforced only so long as the relative monarch is strong, which isn't often), far less than the centralised empires of these other powers.

If terror was that effective wars wouldn't be that common and the establishment of far more potent and powerful states would have occured. Instead almost every noble was looking after themselves with a limited notion of loyalty and disregard for the concequences. It is only in the following centuries that the nobility started to be reigned in and nation states began to form.

A mongol conquest is not impossible; the mongols are without a doubt the premier fighting force of the age. Such a conquest will however be a lengthy process and it will not be accomplished by a couple of 'raids' which miraculously rout (to the point of a complete slaughter) every European force in existance. A European-wide 'unit' constructed to simplify the payment of tribute would also take a lengthy time to construct and would probably require the decimation of the aristocracy.

Matthais Corvinus
December 11th, 2007, 03:21 AM
Just as an aside, but unless this is some timeline, the King of Hungary didn't die in '41 or '42. He didn't die to the Mongols at all and was reasonably effectively at rebuilding and fortifying his ravaged country. Infact if you look at how quickly Hungary recovered from the Mongol invasion you get a glimpse of the vitality possible in middle ages Europe.

Your quite right.

Mongol invincibility shouldn't be exaggerated. They were defeated in Vietnam, Japan and by the Egyptian Mamluks.

These losses are exceptions that prove the point. After conquering all of China the Mongols then had enough military and political power to waste armies of thousands in pointless wars on the periphery of their empire.

The Egyptian Mamluks victory over the Mongols was while Hulegu Khan and the main force had returned to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan. The man Hulegu left in charge decided to keep expanding with his much reduced forces, and this is the army that the Mamlukes defeated.

Nit-picks I won't mention.

Further more, division means that the Mongols cannot simply perform a coup de grace, get a puppet ruler and bam, they rule all of Europe. Universal empire in Europe is dead, it has been since Charlemagne going on half a millenium ago.

I simply don't agree with you on this point. Europe already was a universal state. The Church was the universal state, and the Emperor was its protector. The Holy Roman Empire was not called the Kingdom of Germany for a reason. The King of Germany, Otto, became the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto I, (962) because he expanded his dominion to include not only Germany, but Italy and Burgundy as well. He was crowned by the Pope. The Holy Roman Emperor was in theory (and at that time and various ones after it in practice) the first of the crowned heads of Europe.

The current Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, was involved in a battle with the Pope for supremacy. The Pope was the Vicar of Christ in a time when people really believed that. That this conflict existed points to the universality of the Imperial title. The conflict was between the two positions (and men who occupied them) which could justly lay claim to mantle of leadership for all Christiandom.

The feudal system had been imposed exactly to mitigate or defeat the kind of nomadic invaders who existed before the Mongols.

I disagree with you based on stuff that isn't really relevant to this thread.

Every single noble from the Emperor down to the lowest knight is seeking at once to defend and then to expand his interests. If they kill the emperor, the nobles will not just bow down and accept a new puppet, they shall seek to take advantage of the situation. Any Mongolian occupying force is going to be small, far smaller than that which is required to effectively govern all of Europe. The imposition of a new "universal" European khanate will have to be an entirely artificial construction which will require a complete change in society from the top down.

How exactly do the Mongols go "burning across Germany". Seiging castles is a lengthy process. If they ignore these castles then their supply lines are effectively nonexistant. They can slaughter alot of the population, possibly manage to feed their horses (although its unlikely, Europe just doesn't have the agriculture for the horse intensive system of the Steppe, pushing 5-10 horses per man) and then find themselves surrounded by the vast feudal levy of the European powers.

The Mongols are going to ride their horses across Europe, burn down unwalled towns and villages and kill as many peasants as they can get their hands on. They don't need supply lines. They'll attack during the harvest, living off the land, and the land will at least support a single season of campaigning. The Mongols don't need to take castles or cities. They can drive the peasants into the strong places and then burn down everything outside of them. The strong places don't produce food, and can't feed the swelled population. Disease, starvation, cowardice, the strong places fall. Happens faster with their Europeans allies siege trains.

The Mongols' goal is simple. They're going to kill lots of peasants and destroy some armies. They were capable of very sophisticated diplomacy and I think that this show of force is going to bring in the European allies that they need.

At least Louis IX, the Saint, will give them the large-scale battle that will showcase Mongol military skill, and kill lots of French nobility in the offing.

If they win one battle, unless its vast in scale and literally wipes out all the nobility of the HRE, another force will be relatively swiftly assembled. Didn't the conquest of China take something in the region of 65 years? Something on the time scale of that could well conquer Europe, but it would require a significantly more concentrated and protracted effort than seems to be being implied. Sixty five years might be too much, but at a minimum I think it should be 10-20 years, not the smash and conquer idea which seems to be suggested.

Why do the princes do this? Your completely changing the mindset of your average European prince. Its an entire class essentially bred for war. The culture of chivalry is still strong. Look to the crusades, the hundred years war and numerous other examples. The nobles want a war and if its against some pagan invader with the papal gift of absolution then all the better. These are not the 'civilised' Chinese or Muslims. The nobility are used to a 'notional' loyalty (one enforced only so long as the relative monarch is strong, which isn't often), far less than the centralised empires of these other powers.

I'm not claiming that all the nobles will suddenly lay down their arms. What I am saying is the Mongols will be in a position to offer some of the European nobility the ability to vastly improve their position within the pre-existing hierarchy. The feudal structure would work well for the Mongols, because they would be able to kill a relatively few number of people in order to inherit the power structure.

Also, the moment that they are choosing to attack is really a big part of the success of their campaign. Their is no Pope, thus no one to declare a Crusade against them, and I think that France's King would really be willing to martyr himself.

Europeans are also capable of adapting, as the Muslim Mamluks did, to the Mongolian method of war. There won't just be reruns of Legnica/Mohi again and again the length and breadth of Europe.

The Muslim Mamlukes, as noted, were at the defeated a depleted force operating at the periphery of the empire. The Europeans are facing a Mongol group that has decided that Europe is their golden ticket.

If terror was that effective wars wouldn't be that common and the establishment of far more potent and powerful states would have occured. Instead almost every noble was looking after themselves with a limited notion of loyalty and disregard for the consequences. It is only in the following centuries that the nobility started to be reigned in and nation states began to form.

Mongol terror wasn't common. Read the history of their conquests. Mountains of skulls, the skinning of entire cities. Depopulation that takes generations to come back. Europeans didn't do war like the Mongol did. No one did. That's why they won like no one ever did.

Earling
December 11th, 2007, 05:43 AM
These losses are exceptions that prove the point. After conquering all of China the Mongols then had enough military and political power to waste armies of thousands in pointless wars on the periphery of their empire.

The Egyptian Mamluks victory over the Mongols was while Hulegu Khan and the main force had returned to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan. The man Hulegu left in charge decided to keep expanding with his much reduced forces, and this is the army that the Mamlukes defeated.


That is certainly true, but surely Europe is at the periphery of their empire?
The Mamluks also did more than just win one single battle. While you can argue with reasonable accuracy that it was internal squabbling amongst the Mongols which prevented them being crushed, the Mamluks won a string of victories between 1260 and 1300~. This is interesting, because the Mamluks have quite a few things in common with your traditional European cavalryman of the period.


The current Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, was involved in a battle with the Pope for supremacy. The Pope was the Vicar of Christ in a time when people really believed that. That this conflict existed points to the universality of the Imperial title. The conflict was between the two positions (and men who occupied them) which could justly lay claim to mantle of leadership for all Christiandom.

Universal on paper but not in practice. You seem to be drawing the conclusion that the conflict implies both are equally strong, my interpretation is infact that both are equally weak. Neither side really defeated the other, both found it relatively easy to continue the conflict. Frederick effectively gained support for his Italian war by sacrificing the very authority I talked about. He granted greater independence for German princes which causes the HRE's power to weaken from then onwards. Even then there is a major difference between the "HRE" as it stood and a European Khanate stretching from the Volga to the Atlantic. In a similar vein the Pope could inspire people to go on Crusade but lacked the ability to force people to go. The Church may have been universal but its actual authority in temporal matters was limited.

The Mongols are going to ride their horses across Europe, burn down unwalled towns and villages and kill as many peasants as they can get their hands on. They don't need supply lines. They'll attack during the harvest, living off the land, and the land will at least support a single season of campaigning. The Mongols don't need to take castles or cities. They can drive the peasants into the strong places and then burn down everything outside of them. The strong places don't produce food, and can't feed the swelled population. Disease, starvation, cowardice, the strong places fall. Happens faster with their Europeans allies siege trains.

The Mongols' goal is simple. They're going to kill lots of peasants and destroy some armies. They were capable of very sophisticated diplomacy and I think that this show of force is going to bring in the European allies that they need.


So the Mongols just roam at will, presumerably in fairly significant numbers, otherwise they will be killed by simple attrition, meanwhile avoiding any and all fortifications worthy of the name? Living off the land is fine for people, it isn't so fine for horses. If the Mongols are reduced to a central European (Germany/Italy) ratio of horses (maybe one per person at best) they will not be faster than their European foes. If they are not faster than their European foes, they can be brought to battle. At this point they will find themselves forced to fight, possibly on foot, against far larger armies and they will probably be cut down. Why do you imagine the Europeans will endlessly behave in the same way, launching impetuous charges which go awry and leading to a subsequent massacre? The Mongols are not invincible. Their primary advantage over their European foes is their greater command of in-battle strategy. Yet if you remove the horses, their options are greatly diminished. A feigned flight doesn't work so well if you cannot actually escape.

If the Mongols are taking castles and cities with European (or Chinese) siege trains then once again the question of supply lines comes into play. You have to feed the people and horses who are going to besiege these fortifications, possibly for months. This is going to be difficult if the peasant population has been decimated.

Also in regards to universal positions, you can't have it both ways. The Mongols are unlikely to be in favour of the authority of either the Emperor or Pope. These two are likely to oppose them strongly. That the Mongols can find European allies against these two (only France really comes to mind, possibly Venice at a push) rather indicates their lack of universal authority. Personally I think the ability to play divide and rule would diminish as the nature of the Mongol threat was realised. A force which has ravaged Hungary is one thing. One which has routed the Holy Roman Emperor and had the Pope crushed in a carpet is quite another.

I'm not claiming that all the nobles will suddenly lay down their arms. What I am saying is the Mongols will be in a position to offer some of the European nobility the ability to vastly improve their position within the pre-existing hierarchy. The feudal structure would work well for the Mongols, because they would be able to kill a relatively few number of people in order to inherit the power structure.

Also, the moment that they are choosing to attack is really a big part of the success of their campaign. Their is no Pope, thus no one to declare a Crusade against them, and I think that France's King would really be willing to martyr himself.

The theory being that the Mongols can just kill a few people and then set themselves up as the top of the Feudal food chain. Except that this theory implies that those below them are loyal to the system. They are not. The only reason people are going to pay tribute is if the Mongols establish something which can enforce their will, i.e an occupationary force of some description. Occupying all of Europe will take far longer than a year or two.

What independence will the Mongols grant exactly? The very imposition of levied tribute, rather than military service, is something many nobles are not entirely used to and will probably resent.

Where are you getting this idea that there is no Pope from? You may be right in the very specific short term (1242?), but Innocent IV is there by the middle of 1243. There seems to be no reason why a Mongol invasion would prevent the election of a Pope.

The Muslim Mamlukes, as noted, were at the defeated a depleted force operating at the periphery of the empire. The Europeans are facing a Mongol group that has decided that Europe is their golden ticket.

They defeated a depleted force in 1260 and then went on to win several battles through the rest of the century. When the Mongols ignored basic military strategy (such as riding around Western Europe with contempt for supply lines) they paid the price. The Mamluk force may have outnumbered the Mongol force, but such a situation is likely to be repeated in Europe.

There is a difference between a carefully planned, step by step invasion over the course of decades (something which is unlikely to happen given Mongol politics) and a smash and grab raid over the course of a year or two which somehow not only brings Europe to her knees (apparently most of these battles are bloodless for the Mongols) but manages to unite her; something no one has managed for half a millenium.

Mongol terror wasn't common. Read the history of their conquests. Mountains of skulls, the skinning of entire cities. Depopulation that takes generations to come back. Europeans didn't do war like the Mongol did. No one did. That's why they won like no one ever did.

Mongol terror may not have been common, but it doesn't matter. The nobility have been bred not to fear death and chivalrous conflict, especially with the pagan or heretic, is to be commended. Obviously some people embrace this idea more than others. If anything Mongol terror may well prove to be counter productive inspiring a growth in religious fervour and a view that the end is most definately nigh. In my view comparing feudalistic Europe to the civilised and centralised Muslim and Chinese Empires isn't sensible.

If Hungary faced what can be expected of a Mongol invasion, her situation is notable. Yes her peasant population were cut down, possibly as many as half being slain. Yes large numbers of immigrants would be brought in to make up for the dead. Despite this Hungary was still capable of playing the Feudal war of the period, fighting Austria and Bohemia. If the peasants had been culled, the feudal lords who are key to the European system emerged from their forts and could and did continue to wage war.

stevep
December 11th, 2007, 09:42 AM
There actually wasn't a Pope in much of 1241, all of '42, and much of '43, the year that the Mongols would be invading. It was rather complex, but boiled down to that the Papacy and the Emperor were having a disagreement, so the Emperor decided that there shouldn't be a Pope for a while. If the Mongols win quickly, the Church might be encouraged to just recognize the conquest, rather than face the same fate as the European princes who opposed the Mongols. The Mongols would probably convert very quickly, maybe even 1st generation, so the Church would actually be a position to give Europe's Mongol rulers the legitimacy they need to rule. Emperor-Khan Batu I, crowned in Rome, by the Pope, can't get more legitimate than that.

If this happened - not sure how the Mongols would feel about Papal claims of pre-eminence;) - it could also have a big impact on Russia and the western steppes. The Mongol conqueror's of Europe would come from what became in OTL the Golden Horde and the two would be linked for a while at least. An early conversion might well mean that TTL's GH equivalent also goes Christian, although whether Catholic or Orthodox would be an interesting point.

Also a Christian Mongol state in either area would have an extra reason/excuse for a new crusade. As such the Muslim ME might see attacks from the north before as well as the east. Rivarily between the two hordes, which occurred historically, might see the Ilkhans convert to Islam earlier and religious war causing even more devastation. :(

Steve

DeepyBlue
December 12th, 2007, 09:51 AM
Steve's got some good points, but if I remember correctly, the Mongols were actually pretty tolerant when it came to religion. I can actually see a good chunk of the Horde converting to Catholicism if it means a more legitimate rule in Europe, but I don't think it would spark another Crusade. Not their style. Besides, after the Fourth Crusade, which happened a few decades earlier in 1202, the Church was so embarrassed with the Venetians' behavior that they probably wouldn't have wanted anything to do with the hypothetical Crusade #5.
I could see an interesting mix of Catholicism, Islam, and shamanism in the new khanate, though. Veeerrry interesting. Someone earlier mentioned a Khan being crowned by the pope, and I kept thinking of that painting of Napoleon being crowned pop in the 1800's. That would interesting if there was a Mongol version of that. Photoshop, anyone?

Gladi
December 12th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Before the war between the Golden Horde and the Il-Khanate, any pretty much any battle involving the Mongols and locals in the west ended in the defeat of the latter.

They nonetheless tried invading Europe several times after this point - especially under Nogai Khan, who was the defacto leader of the Golden Horde during the late 13th century - but now the Mongol armies were much smaller, the Mongols had to contend with rival Mongol khanates at the same time, and the Europeans were beginning to get the hang of the strategies and tactics that the Mongols used.

Bright day
There have been arguements that the Hungarian campaign was not so one-sided. If I remember correctly the big defeat was when Mongols caught Hungarians without their pants on while the latter tried fording a river to get at the former. Hungarians certainly knew some Mongol tactics as they had their own steppe people in their employ, like Cumans I think who have kept much of the tradtional tactics.

Also at the battle of Leignitz. The Mongols feinted Henry Pious to battle before the reinforcements arrive. This points to uncertainity of the Mongol commander that he would be able to fight both Silesians and Czechs.


I will make further comments when I am home.

Ran Exilis
December 12th, 2007, 04:30 PM
Bright day
There have been arguements that the Hungarian campaign was not so one-sided. If I remember correctly the big defeat was when Mongols caught Hungarians without their pants on while the latter tried fording a river to get at the former. Hungarians certainly knew some Mongol tactics as they had their own steppe people in their employ, like Cumans I think who have kept much of the tradtional tactics.

You've got some good points; the Cumans had only recently arrived in Hungary at this point (most of them had fled westwards as a result of an earlier Mongol invasion), and I know for a fact that they retained their nomadic lifestyle for a while. These Cumans would certainly have been familiar with steppe warfare.

And given the right circumstances, you could very well be right that the Hungarians could have defeated a Mongol force in battle.

Nonetheless, I don't think that that would have made much of a difference on the long run, as the Mongols had already faced and defeated much more formidable opponents who were experts at steppe warfare, such as the Khwarezmians.

And the Khwarezmians had succeeded a few times in holding off or defeating Mongol forces - yet every setback and defeat the Mongols suffered againest the Khwarezmians only made the Mongols more determined the crush them, which they did.

Also at the battle of Leignitz. The Mongols feinted Henry Pious to battle before the reinforcements arrive. This points to uncertainity of the Mongol commander that he would be able to fight both Silesians and Czechs.

The Mongol commanders were trained to be cautious, and they would retreat rather than face an opponent of which they knew they couldn't defeat right now.

And if that would happen, then they'd just retreat and return with a bigger army.

Though I admit that you have a good point with that the Europeans could have put up much more resistance to the Mongols, I still don't think that the Mongol advance into Europe could have been properly stopped if the Mongols really went for it.

Gladi
December 12th, 2007, 06:13 PM
Though I admit that you have a good point with that the Europeans could have put up much more resistance to the Mongols, I still don't think that the Mongol advance into Europe could have been properly stopped if the Mongols really went for it.

Nor do I, but how many men and how long?

Hundred thousand for twenty years?
Hundred thousand for two years?
Ten thousand for twenty years?
Ten thousand for two?

Do they have resources avaible and mroe importantly would they be willing to discharge them?

Umbral
December 12th, 2007, 08:18 PM
130 000 man or so, wasn't it? With plans to invade Austria, Italy and the German Principalities initially? That is what I remember reading somewhere when preparing my own time line anyway. But that was some time ago and I may be misremembering it.

Ran Exilis
December 12th, 2007, 08:23 PM
130 000 man or so, wasn't it? With plans to invade Austria, Italy and the German Principalities initially? That is what I remember reading somewhere when preparing my own time line anyway. But that was some time ago and I may be misremembering it.

That number could very well be correct - IIRC the army with which Hulegu Khan invaded Persia and the Caliphate consisted of over two hundred thousand men.

Gladi
December 12th, 2007, 08:31 PM
That number could very well be correct - IIRC the army with which Hulegu Khan invaded Persia and the Caliphate consisted of over two hundred thousand men.

So we have a number of 130 000.

Now these guys are going to eat several tons of foodstuffs every day, hmm not just several but a lot of tons of foodstuff. And they will have what half a million horses with them?

They msot likely would not be able to concentrate this force for long. Or would they? How many troops can various European countries field at this time? (I doubt that we would get united front...)

They will also need a dedicated hearthland where they could winter. Would they be able to use Hunagry from the get go?

How long can these men remain with task of conquereing Europe? What other challanges, rebllions, war await the Khanate?

Are they likely to recieve reinforcements? Are Mongols willing to stand any casualties?

stevep
December 12th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Steve's got some good points, but if I remember correctly, the Mongols were actually pretty tolerant when it came to religion. I can actually see a good chunk of the Horde converting to Catholicism if it means a more legitimate rule in Europe, but I don't think it would spark another Crusade. Not their style. Besides, after the Fourth Crusade, which happened a few decades earlier in 1202, the Church was so embarrassed with the Venetians' behavior that they probably wouldn't have wanted anything to do with the hypothetical Crusade #5.
I could see an interesting mix of Catholicism, Islam, and shamanism in the new khanate, though. Veeerrry interesting. Someone earlier mentioned a Khan being crowned by the pope, and I kept thinking of that painting of Napoleon being crowned pop in the 1800's. That would interesting if there was a Mongol version of that. Photoshop, anyone?

DeepyBlue

The Mongols were actually very tolerant in religious terms, especially compared to Christian and Muslim states at the time. However I'm thinking that after a Mongol conquest of much of Europe such an idea might be popular for the new Mongol rulers because:
a) It gives them an additional reason for invading areas such as Egypt and Syria which are very rich.
b) It gives an outlet for a lot of the surviving military population of Europe, removing them as a source of potential unrest and by offering them a chance of loot and religious fulfilment helps bind them to the new Mongol state.
c) It also gives a way of providing ties to the surviving political and especially religious establishments of Europe. If the 'controlled' Pope calls for a new crusade to liberate the holy lands it means that any resistance to the Mongols is not just rebellion against their secular rule but verging on heresy. Could also use this as an extra reason for extracting troops from subject states that they think are inclined towards unrest, weakening them in the process.
d) Given that much of Europe is unsuitable for the Mongol lifestyle they might also have some incentive for finding employment for some of their own troops.

As such I could see reasons why the Mongols might fancy supporting a new crusade against the Muslims. They wouldn't have much religious incentive themselves but a wily Khan could find advantages in using religious feeling to his benefit.

Steve

Matthais Corvinus
December 13th, 2007, 08:59 PM
I was actually thinking about the Crusader states before. In the 1240's there was still a strip of coast controlled by Latin Christians. I think that they might have already started to reap some the rewards of having the Mongols attack Europe already. Some the refugees from Europe, especially Italian merchants, were bound to be looking for somewhere that was beyond the reach of the Mongols. Using Italian boats, a lot of refugees could be brought to the Holy Land. Jerusalem was actually back in Christian hands at this time, thanks to the Emperor Frederick II, who had gotten the Egyptian Sultan to hand it over to him. In OTL it would fall again in 1244, but perhaps these refugees would manage to hold the Muslims off.

Lots of European refugees, Jerusalem in Christian hands, anyone for a revived Outremer in the wake of a Mongol invasion of Europe?

Ran Exilis
December 13th, 2007, 10:11 PM
I was actually thinking about the Crusader states before. In the 1240's there was still a strip of coast controlled by Latin Christians. I think that they might have already started to reap some the rewards of having the Mongols attack Europe already. Some the refugees from Europe, especially Italian merchants, were bound to be looking for somewhere that was beyond the reach of the Mongols. Using Italian boats, a lot of refugees could be brought to the Holy Land. Jerusalem was actually back in Christian hands at this time, thanks to the Emperor Frederick II, who had gotten the Egyptian Sultan to hand it over to him. In OTL it would fall again in 1244, but perhaps these refugees would manage to hold the Muslims off.

Lots of European refugees, Jerusalem in Christian hands, anyone for a revived Outremer in the wake of a Mongol invasion of Europe?

You're overlooking one rather important detail - during the late 1250's and 1260's, another branch of the Mongol horde under Hulegu Khan would invade this region.

That doesn't neccesarily need to be a problem, though, as the relations between the Il-Khanate and the Crusaders was initially rather good, and the relations between the Il-Khanate and the Crusaders only took a turn for the worse after the Crusader lord of Sidon launched a raid in inland, Mongol-held territory, killing several Mongol soldiers and a minor Mongol commander.

...but unfortunately, that minor Mongol commander happened to be a cousin of the Mongol general Kitbuqa Noyen, who was left in charge of the Mongol territories in Syria and the surrounding territories.

In revenge, Kitbuqa razed most of Sidon to the ground, and soon afterwards, the Mamluks of Egypt took advantage of the recent hostilities between the Mongols and Crusaders, and managed to play the two off againest eachother, which in the end resulted in the Mamluk victory at Ain Jalut...


...But if the Crusader states in the Levant are much stronger than in OTL and now largely populated with refugees from Europe, then I doubt wether something as foolish and reckless like that raid by the lord of Sidon would (be allowed to) happen, so there is a good chance that the relations between the Il-Khanate and the Crusader states remain good ITTL.

Gladi
December 13th, 2007, 10:59 PM
You're overlooking one rather important detail - during the late 1250's and 1260's, another branch of the Mongol horde under Hulegu Khan would invade this region.

But would this happen in a TL featuring European campaign?

stevep
December 13th, 2007, 11:12 PM
But would this happen in a TL featuring European campaign?

Gladi

The details might be different in terms of the Mongol commander and the exact dates but, baring some unforeseen problem, the Mongols would seek to conquer the region. Its richer than Europe and closer to their lands in central Asia.

The only thing I could see is that if the conquest of Europe is very rapid then a Mongol led attack from there might reach the region 1st. However given the time it would probably take to secure Europe and organise the new Khanate there then a push southwards this would take a lot of doing, even for the Mongols.

Steve

Ran Exilis
December 13th, 2007, 11:43 PM
But would this happen in a TL featuring European campaign?

It almost definitely would - the Mongols had set their sights on Persia and the Abbasid Caliphate, and they had already organized several earlier campagins in this area.

In 1240, northern Persia, the Caucasus, and the Rum Sultanate were conquered by the Mongols, so they already had a firm foothold in the area, and aside from their plans to loot Baghdad, the Mongols also had to deal with the Assassins and the remnants of the Khwarezmians.

Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu, who was the main threat to the Mongols in the Middle East, had been dead since the early 1230's, but the Khwarezmian hordes were still roaming throughout the Middle East - and most of them still refused to submit to the Mongols.

And judging from what kind of a persistent enemy the Khwarezmians had been, I doubt wether the Mongols would just ignore the last remnants of the Khwarezmian empire.

Gladi
December 14th, 2007, 09:25 AM
It almost definitely would - the Mongols had set their sights on Persia and the Abbasid Caliphate, and they had already organized several earlier campagins in this area.

You misunderstand me.

I am not asking if Mongols would have reason to invade, I am asking if they would have men, money and leaders.

We have jsut agreed thet 130 000 Mongols went off to Europe. They won't all be coming back. And whatever you might say about using auxiliaries, they won!t have Europeans in 1450's in their armies yet.

Also conquest of Europe woudl divert lot of capital. Not only for supporting the troops, but for setting up new administration. I find it somewhat doubtfull that European conquest is going to be profitable right away in large scale. Certainly Mongols will get plunder and tributes from fearful lords, but that would likely remain in hands of Mongols in the place, enriching the conquerors.

And if the Mongol conquerors of Europe get good money for themselves, if not for whole Khanate. Than we can expect a flow of ambitious Mongols into Europe in addition to any other distractions they akready had in this period.

Further- If Outremer is strengthened by refugees from Europe (who in the short time will be more of a burden), it will cause a reaction from Muslims who will have to come together in face of this threat.

stevep
December 14th, 2007, 10:05 AM
You misunderstand me.

I am not asking if Mongols would have reason to invade, I am asking if they would have men, money and leaders.

We have jsut agreed thet 130 000 Mongols went off to Europe. They won't all be coming back. And whatever you might say about using auxiliaries, they won!t have Europeans in 1450's in their armies yet.

Also conquest of Europe woudl divert lot of capital. Not only for supporting the troops, but for setting up new administration. I find it somewhat doubtfull that European conquest is going to be profitable right away in large scale. Certainly Mongols will get plunder and tributes from fearful lords, but that would likely remain in hands of Mongols in the place, enriching the conquerors.

And if the Mongol conquerors of Europe get good money for themselves, if not for whole Khanate. Than we can expect a flow of ambitious Mongols into Europe in addition to any other distractions they akready had in this period.

Further- If Outremer is strengthened by refugees from Europe (who in the short time will be more of a burden), it will cause a reaction from Muslims who will have to come together in face of this threat.

Gladi

As Ran said the Khanate who attacked the ME in the 1260's were a totally different one to those who attacked eastern Europe in the 1240's. Therefore there is likely to be very little problem of resources being switched from one to another. As an earlier post said much of the occupation force for Europe may actually come from the already subjected Russian population and other eastern people.

In one way it might actually help the invasion from the east. Historically the two Khanates were fairly bitter rivals. If what OTL became the Golden Horde is actually concentrating on invading central and western Europe it may not be clashing as much with the IlKhan in the south, which will give them more opportunities against the Marmalukes. [Even more if about the same time the European Khanate is attacking from the north, at least until the two start clashing].

The other big question is what butterflies prompt the westward move and how things change from that. Historically the 1247 invasion was curtailed because the Great Khan died back in Mongolia and because the rules for inheritance laid down by Genghis Khan called for the members of the family to return for the election of a new Great Khan. Again in 1260 another such death prompted Hulgari [sp?], the leader of that invasion to head east again. He didn't make it in time for the election, not sure if the northern Khan did in 1247. If the former is butterflied away then who dies when will affect the future movement of the various hordes. Also the rivalry between the Golden Horde and Ilkhans was because they supported different elements in the 1260 election. This could be butterflied away by changing circumstances. Things could of course go wrong for the Mongols in other ways and sooner or later the various Khanates will squabble. However a lot could happen to change things in many ways.

Steve

Gladi
December 14th, 2007, 10:15 AM
Gladi

As Ran said the Khanate who attacked the ME in the 1260's were a totally different one to those who attacked eastern Europe in the 1240's. Therefore there is likely to be very little problem of resources being switched from one to another. As an earlier post said much of the occupation force for Europe may actually come from the already subjected Russian population and other eastern people.

In one way it might actually help the invasion from the east. Historically the two Khanates were fairly bitter rivals. If what OTL became the Golden Horde is actually concentrating on invading central and western Europe it may not be clashing as much with the IlKhan in the south, which will give them more opportunities against the Marmalukes. [Even more if about the same time the European Khanate is attacking from the north, at least until the two start clashing].

The other big question is what butterflies prompt the westward move and how things change from that. Historically the 1247 invasion was curtailed because the Great Khan died back in Mongolia and because the rules for inheritance laid down by Genghis Khan called for the members of the family to return for the election of a new Great Khan. Again in 1260 another such death prompted Hulgari [sp?], the leader of that invasion to head east again. He didn't make it in time for the election, not sure if the northern Khan did in 1247. If the former is butterflied away then who dies when will affect the future movement of the various hordes. Also the rivalry between the Golden Horde and Ilkhans was because they supported different elements in the 1260 election. This could be butterflied away by changing circumstances. Things could of course go wrong for the Mongols in other ways and sooner or later the various Khanates will squabble. However a lot could happen to change things in many ways.

Steve

Then if they are such rivals, then maybe if the exertion of the former is alrge enough the latter could try to improve the score in it's favour.

And about the Russian troops. Kiev was destroyed just in 1240. I admit that my knowledge of Mongol affairs is pretty much non-existant, but raising tens of thousands troops from recently conquered territory seems not only ruinously expensive, but also to be of rather dubious wisdom if we are talking about local garrisons without effective Mongols oversight.