WI: Ogedei Khan, 1186-1244

In 1241, the Mongol hordes had destroyed the best armies Eastern Europe had to offer. Under the direction of brilliant Mongol general Sabotai, they had defeated a joint Polish-German-Templar-Teutonic army and smashed the Hungarian King's army, and had settled down for the summer in the Hungarian plains to let their horses graze and to prepare for the upcoming campaigns.

Half of the Mongols would most likely go for the rich triad of cities Antwerp, Brugge, and Brussels, cutting down Germany on the way there, and settle in France's fertile grasslands, devastating Paris on the way. The other half would head for Vienna, attack the rich lands of Northern Italy and move south to sack Rome.

HRE Frederick was busy in Italy fighting the local lords and the Pope, and his German homeland was left to its own devices and was full of divided bickering nobles. And while King Louis IX of France had in his possession quite the collection of chivalrous knights, he only had a couple thousand, and seeing how effective the Teutons and Templars were in years past, Christendom did not have much hope of stopping the Tartars at all.

So yeah, IOTL, Ogedai Khan died late 1241, and Sabotai's armies withdrew to Karakorum to choose the next Great Khan. If he had not died, the Mongols would have continued on with their highly successful campaigns. What do you guys think would happen if Ogedai died three years later? Enlighten me. :D
 
First of all, Ogedei's survival for just three years would have changed the dynamics in Russia. Ogedei really needs to find a suitable successor because he's got plenty of claims sprouting from the Jochids, Chagataids and Toluids (Il-Khanate) for the spot of Great Khan.
 
In 1241, the Mongol hordes had destroyed the best armies Eastern Europe had to offer. Under the direction of brilliant Mongol general Sabotai, they had defeated a joint Polish-German-Templar-Teutonic army and smashed the Hungarian King's army, and had settled down for the summer in the Hungarian plains to let their horses graze and to prepare for the upcoming campaigns.

Half of the Mongols would most likely go for the rich triad of cities Antwerp, Brugge, and Brussels, cutting down Germany on the way there, and settle in France's fertile grasslands, devastating Paris on the way. The other half would head for Vienna, attack the rich lands of Northern Italy and move south to sack Rome.

HRE Frederick was busy in Italy fighting the local lords and the Pope, and his German homeland was left to its own devices and was full of divided bickering nobles. And while King Louis IX of France had in his possession quite the collection of chivalrous knights, he only had a couple thousand, and seeing how effective the Teutons and Templars were in years past, Christendom did not have much hope of stopping the Tartars at all.

So yeah, IOTL, Ogedai Khan died late 1241, and Sabotai's armies withdrew to Karakorum to choose the next Great Khan. If he had not died, the Mongols would have continued on with their highly successful campaigns. What do you guys think would happen if Ogedai died three years later? Enlighten me. :D


1. They NEED, MUST, catch King Bela. Paramount importance. With the King captured, they could negotiate/kill him/blah blah but basically, Hungarian resistance will probably collapse. This gives them a small but reliable staging area instead of a restless occupation zone.

They failed to do so OTL before Batu's corps left. The fact that he fled to Croatia didn't help.

2. Germany, once Hungary (and Poland) falls, is a soft enough target if the Mongols go in looking for vassals at once. If they start sieging down towns and castles, they will lose valuable campaign time every year.

I am not sure (nor is anyone) what their real intentions were towards Germany.
 
And regardless of their intentions, the issue of how well Hungary could support the horde's horses has been raised - I'm assuming the Mongols could deal with that to some extent, but it makes for problems if they want to treat it as a base of operations.
 
In 1241, the Mongol hordes had destroyed the best armies Eastern Europe had to offer. Under the direction of brilliant Mongol general Sabotai, they had defeated a joint Polish-German-Templar-Teutonic army and smashed the Hungarian King's army, and had settled down for the summer in the Hungarian plains to let their horses graze and to prepare for the upcoming campaigns.

Half of the Mongols would most likely go for the rich triad of cities Antwerp, Brugge, and Brussels, cutting down Germany on the way there, and settle in France's fertile grasslands, devastating Paris on the way. The other half would head for Vienna, attack the rich lands of Northern Italy and move south to sack Rome.

HRE Frederick was busy in Italy fighting the local lords and the Pope, and his German homeland was left to its own devices and was full of divided bickering nobles. And while King Louis IX of France had in his possession quite the collection of chivalrous knights, he only had a couple thousand, and seeing how effective the Teutons and Templars were in years past, Christendom did not have much hope of stopping the Tartars at all.

So yeah, IOTL, Ogedai Khan died late 1241, and Sabotai's armies withdrew to Karakorum to choose the next Great Khan. If he had not died, the Mongols would have continued on with their highly successful campaigns. What do you guys think would happen if Ogedai died three years later? Enlighten me. :D

Well, Maybe I could sum my point of view in few points for- and against- Mongol victory in Europe.

The points in favour of Mongols:

1. Quality. The Mongol army was without a doubt most effective war machinery of the time, leaving european armies with their terrible (when deployed against steppe style) fighting strategy in great disadvantage.

2. Politic situation in Europe. European Leaders of that time seemed not to care and even realize the seriousness of situation, and there was no unity, with guelphs and ghibellines in Italy and Anglo-French conflicts, which means they would probably not be able to put together army strong enough to face the invading Mongols. Also, the morale of such army might have been weakened by horrific reputation of Mongols.
But, what is very interesting, when the Mongol horses reached the azure Adriatic, Frederick II, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and King of Sicily, expressed the opinion that it would be good to use them as allies in the struggle against the Papal throne; but the idea was forgotten in 1241 when the Mongols left. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they stayed. They were capable of diplomacy as well.

The points against Mongol victory:

1. Numbers. Only maximum of 2 or 3 tumens (20,000-30,000 soldiers) participated in European campaign, so no any large numbers of Mongols against most of western europe.

2. Fortifications. The Mongols had serious problems with attacking fortified towns, and castles respectively.

3. Morale. Problems with fortifications and maybe stay in foreign countries for such a long time (1235+) would probably lead to fall of morale among Mongol troops.

4. Size of the conquered territory. It would be impossible to manage the whole conquered territory with a single army. When Ogedei died in 1241 and power fell into the hands of the queen Toregena, Guyuk's mother, Guyuk's and Bun's followers were recalled, and poor Batu (Leader of Golden Horde armies) was left holding an enormous country with only 4,000 faithful troops and with extremely tense relations with the central government because of previous conflicts with son of Ogadai, Guyuk, which meant no support for Batu. There could be no question of holding the conquered territories by force. Internal conflicts between leaders the of Mongol Empire should be also kept in mind.

My personal opinion is the Mongols would be able to plunder large areas on their way into the Western Europe as they were only week's ride from Paris, but their ability to conquer larger cities at the time is questionable, because they didn't carry their siege equipment
 
They would likely crush the remainder of Polish resistance and then vassalize the Germanies. As well as send an army into the Po River Valley and decimate the Northern Italian City-States and march on Rome.
 
2. Fortifications. The Mongols had serious problems with attacking fortified towns, and castles respectively.

I'm fairly certain that Mongols were masters of siege warfare through their destruction of many fortifications in China, Middle East, and Russia. The southern song far outweighed Europe in number of troops, organization, and fortifications yet still lost out to the mongols. Only problem for the Mongols here is lack of numbers and lack of want to actually hold those lands in the current situation.
 

RousseauX

Donor
My personal opinion is the Mongols would be able to plunder large areas on their way into the Western Europe as they were only week's ride from Paris, but their ability to conquer larger cities at the time is questionable, because they didn't carry their siege equipment
The mongols certainly were capable of laying siege to and taking formidable fortified cities everywhere else in the world, I don't see why Europe would be different.
 
Wasn't the horde of Batu Khan made out of 5 tumens and roughly another 5-10k auxiliary troops?
 
Only problem for the Mongols here is lack of numbers and lack of want to actually hold those lands in the current situation.

Very well, but the fact also is that they really tried and failed to conquer castles in Croatia, and in Hungary (e.g. Sitno in present-day Slovakia). Many of larger cities in Poland for example were not captured but abandoned by panicking citizens and thus left for Mongols. Now I'm not saying the Mongols weren't capable of conquering formidably fortified cities, but as far I know, they didn't have their siege equipment carried with them. For example, when invasion of Middle East was being prepared, Mongols summoned 1,000 engineering experts from China to build siege equipment to ensure successful campaign.

Wasn't the horde of Batu Khan made out of 5 tumens and roughly another 5-10k auxiliary troops?

Depends in which era. I don't know the number of auxiliaries, but modern estimates are that Mongol invading force (by which I mean field armies participating in battles) in 1241 was made of maximum of 3 tumens, with only 25,000 Mongol troops participating in Battle of Mohi..
 
Batu and Ogodei would have to decide what to do with Guyuk. Ogodai had taken Batu's side when Guyuk was sent home in disgrace, but had subsequently sent him on his way back to Europe with reinforcements.

If Batu and Guyuk can't reconcile, maybe Batu's best option would be to send Guyuk and his army to establish his own khanate somewhere in Europe. Which might suit Ogodei, too, because his preferred heir was his grandson, Shiramon, to whom Guyuk was a potential threat. Wherever Guyuk goes -- Russia north of the Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, the Balkans and north Italy are all possible -- that area gets a Mongol population, (rather than distant tax gatherers) which will not be easy to displace.
 
Well, Maybe I could sum my point of view in few points for- and against- Mongol victory in Europe.

The points in favour of Mongols:

1. Quality. The Mongol army was without a doubt most effective war machinery of the time, leaving european armies with their terrible (when deployed against steppe style) fighting strategy in great disadvantage.

2. Politic situation in Europe. European Leaders of that time seemed not to care and even realize the seriousness of situation, and there was no unity, with guelphs and ghibellines in Italy and Anglo-French conflicts, which means they would probably not be able to put together army strong enough to face the invading Mongols. Also, the morale of such army might have been weakened by horrific reputation of Mongols.
for additional sources see Wordsworth Reference books "Dictionary of Military Biography"/Subatai Ba'adur

But, what is very interesting, when the Mongol horses reached the azure Adriatic, Frederick II, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and King of Sicily, expressed the opinion that it would be good to use them as allies in the struggle against the Papal throne; but the idea was forgotten in 1241 when the Mongols left. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they stayed. They were capable of diplomacy as well.

The points against Mongol victory:

1. Numbers. Only maximum of 2 or 3 tumens (20,000-30,000 soldiers) participated in European campaign, so no any large numbers of Mongols against most of western europe.

2. Fortifications. The Mongols had serious problems with attacking fortified towns, and castles respectively.

3. Morale. Problems with fortifications and maybe stay in foreign countries for such a long time (1235+) would probably lead to fall of morale among Mongol troops.

4. Size of the conquered territory. It would be impossible to manage the whole conquered territory with a single army. When Ogedei died in 1241 and power fell into the hands of the queen Toregena, Guyuk's mother, Guyuk's and Bun's followers were recalled, and poor Batu (Leader of Golden Horde armies) was left holding an enormous country with only 4,000 faithful troops and with extremely tense relations with the central government because of previous conflicts with son of Ogadai, Guyuk, which meant no support for Batu. There could be no question of holding the conquered territories by force. Internal conflicts between leaders the of Mongol Empire should be also kept in mind.

My personal opinion is the Mongols would be able to plunder large areas on their way into the Western Europe as they were only week's ride from Paris, but their ability to conquer larger cities at the time is questionable, because they didn't carry their siege equipment

Wrong facts,wrong conclusion.
1) The operation was planned meticulusly about eight years before its execution.The planning was something that von Moltke and his staff would envy.The army allocated for Southern Russia- eastern Europe was 150000.
From 1231 the Mongols were collecting information on political and economic situation in Europe,even about the connections of ruling class families;Subodai,on the strength of that information said that he needed 18 years to conquer Europe down to the Atlantic coast.(see www.mongolianculture.com/mhistory.html)

2) Mongols din't know much about sieges until they conquered China;there they aquired engineers,materials(gunpowder) and the necessary know how,but the chief planner and field commander was an Alexander-class general and he knew that
is better to dominate your enemy in the open and maintain the initiative instead of losing it in a siege and give your enemy time to recover(Vicompte de Tyrenne).

3)Most of the Mongol cavalry were away from their country conquering foreign lands for years and were used to living on plunder.
Their law,the 'yasak' equated military disobedience with common law crimes.No question of discipline ever arose In Mongol units and their moral was never yet in question.

4)The Mongols did not invade Europe with one "army",or let's say one army as they meant it then in Europe,The mongolian army was divided in four corps which had the strength of an army of that time,for the 1241 campaign.
See :Eric Hildinger's"The Mongol invasion of Europe www.HistoryNet.com/MilitaryHistory/articles 1997

the Mongol army,for the purposes of the campaign of full winter 1241(a great surprise) was arrayed from North to south in four corps under the command of Kaidu,Baidar,Batu and Kwadan-Subodai placed himself in the central corps with Batu son of Ogodai and nominal head of the campaign,but Subodai was the field commander according to the explicit orders of Ogodai.The army numbered 70000 men as the attack wave,more to follow later when needed.

The Mongols showed a unique sychronicity of the various corps with well defined objectives and time limits per objective.
Their aim was to converge on the feudal army*of king Bella IV and surround it.
First moved the northern arm anihilating the poles and Teutonic knights in Liegnitz;burning the cities in his wake Baidar(senior commander) crosses the Oder in Ratimbor,advances south parallel to the river and defeats the 30000 Germans of Eric of Silesia."The only thing he has to do now is to settle his score with the Hungarians.
Batu and Subotai smashed through the Hungarian border defences and were waiting for the other armies to converge,
whereas Kwadan,after winning three pitched battles forces the passes of the Carpathians and entered the Hungarian plains from the south."The Mongols,after crossing the river Szeis or Sjasso during the knight,surrounded the 100000 strong'
feudal army* of King Bella IV and proceeded to anihilate this force by arrow and incediary fire always retreating before the charging Hungarians and firing.The Hungarian army was destroyed unable to give battle since the Mongols were avoiding it!"(Erick Mauraise:"Introduction to Military History" by Swiss Army Directorate of Military and Historical Studies)
*Eric Mauraise is speaking about the feudal armies with some disdain as in the same book,on middle ages he writes"The achievement of arms were of particularly mediocre value(with possible exception of Bouvin-1214) in comparison to the feats of the Mongol cavalry.That magnificent cavalry had conquered Eurasia from the Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic sea within the space of a generation."
Their superiority was due to:
a)The Mongol horse and the Mongol Bow.The bow had almost double range(*) from the bows of that time,and their hardy ponies from the harsh mongol steppe could endure hardships that no other horse could."they cover distances up to 70 miles a day,moving faster with great ease than our armoured divisions with absolute aytarky since their logistics was minimal(the fastest advance with armour was in 1940 with the 19th panzercorps of general Guderian in his drive for the Channel with 54 klm/day.)
b) their military law 'yasak' which equated military disobedience to the crimes of common criminal law
c) to the vertical organization of their army which was structured in squadrons,regiments and corps of 100,1000 and 10000 horsemen respectively all capable of moving silently in the battlefield with the signs of small battle flags.
Basil H. Liddel-Heart,the formost authority of UK in armour movement based his theory of armour strategy and tactics(combined arms operations with preponderance on tanks) on the movements of that magnificent cavalry;unfortunately his best pupil was not English but general Heinz Guderian,one of the great captains of history since his tanks changed the course of a world war and that of history.
It is of course imperative to know that the Mongol cavalry movements are still studied in all schools of war today and Subodai has given a lot of head and other pains to thousands of aspiring tank officers throughout the world with his ingenius planning and its cloackwork application.
 
Last edited:
Wrong facts,wrong conclusion.
1) The operation was planned meticulusly about eight years before its execution.The planning was something that von Moltke and his staff would envy.The army allocated for Southern Russia- eastern Europe was 150000.
From 1231 the Mongols were collecting information on political and economic situation in Europe,even about the connections of ruling class families;Subodai,on the strength of that information said that he needed 18 years to conquer Europe down to the Atlantic coast.(see www.mongolianculture.com/m.history.html)

Wish that link worked, hadn't heard that assessment by Subatai before.
Great post.
 
Wrong facts,wrong conclusion.
1) The operation was planned meticulusly about eight years before its execution.The planning was something that von Moltke and his staff would envy.The army allocated for Southern Russia- eastern Europe was 150000.
From 1231 the Mongols were collecting information on political and economic situation in Europe,even about the connections of ruling class families;Subodai,on the strength of that information said that he needed 18 years to conquer Europe down to the Atlantic coast.(see www.mongolianculture.com/m.history.html)

2) Mongols din't know much about sieges until they conquered China;there they aquired engineers,materials(gunpowder) and the necessary know how,but the chief planner and field commander was an Alexander-class general and he knew that
is better to dominate your enemy in the open and maintain the initiative instead of losing it in a siege and give your enemy time to recover(Vicompte de Tyrenne).

3)Most of the Mongol cavalry were away from their country conquering foreign lands for years and were used to living on plunder.
Their law,the 'yasak' equated military disobedience with common law crimes.No question of discipline ever arose In Mongol units and their moral was never yet in question.

4)The Mongols did not invade Europe with one "army",or let's say one army as they meant it then in Europe,The mongolian army was divided in four corps which had the strength of an army of that time,for the 1241 campaign.
See :Eric Hildinger's"The Mongol invasion of Europe www.HistoryNet.com/MilitaryHistory/articles 1997

the Mongol army,for the purposes of the campaign of full winter 1241(a great surprise) was arrayed from North to south in four corps under the command of Kaidu,Baidar,Batu and Kwadan-Subodai placed himself in the central corps with Batu son of Ogodai and nominal head of the campaign,but Subodai was the field commander according to the explicit orders of Ogodai.The army numbered 70000 men as the attack wave,more to follow later when needed.

The Mongols showed a unique sychronicity of the various corps with well defined objectives and time limits per objective.
Their aim was to converge on the feudal army*of king Bella IV and surround it.
First moved the northern arm anihilating the poles and Teutonic knights in Liegnitz;burning the cities in his wake Baidar(senior commander) crosses the Oder in Ratimbor,advances south parallel to the river and defeats the 30000 Germans of Eric of Silesia."The only thing he has to do now is to settle his score with the Hungarians.

Very interesting , I must say. Although there are some things I would disagree with, it seems pretty accurate.
What's your source? Do you know Lev Gumilev's "Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom"? It's from 1970..
And, what's your opinion of the topic then?
 
MadWeaver,
Herzen's Love-Child'

I wish to apologise for the report since I was cut halfway through due to faulty Internet connection at home;Now I can continue from the office.
 
What would be a good scenario for Mongols is that Poland and most other East European gives tribute and coordinate with the Mongols instead of continue fighting and later made as a vassal which makes the Mongols strong in Europe then Guyuk establishes a Khanate in Eastern Europe, you could have a Mongol puppet as the ruler of the HRE.
 
Again :D , do you know Lev Gumilev's "Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom"? Really good book, I think.

Also, do you think long-lasting Mongol presence in central/western Europe would be possible (let's say at least as long as Ilkhanate in Persia) ?
What areas do you think they would conquer if they did not have to return?

Thanks :)
 
Again :D , do you know Lev Gumilev's "Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom"? Really good book, I think.

Also, do you think long-lasting Mongol presence in central/western Europe would be possible (let's say at least as long as Ilkhanate in Persia) ?
What areas do you think they would conquer if they did not have to return?

Thanks :)

It is possible that they could use OTL Romania as a base and replace the Cumans then conquer nearby parts of Hungary, Poland and also conquer Bulgaria from there.
 
Wish that link worked, hadn't heard that assessment by Subatai before.
Great post.

It does work:google -mongolcultures.com/mongolhistory and you will be in.
There you will have to chose what you open,but there I am sure you know more than me about this contruption...
This is history authentic from the mongol side of things.
 
Top