AHC/WI: Pan-European Reconquista

How can this scenario happen?

Essentially, the Mongols invade Europe--not just what they invaded in OTL, but they push as far as geography allows. France and Germany and Poland all have crossable plains, and even though the forests were denser then, there are still plenty of areas easy for an army of cavalry to ride across.

In order to make that possible, perhaps the Mongols do not invade, or more easily invade, one of the regions they invaded OTL outside of Europe (especially the costly China). In addition, perhaps religious conflict (anti-popes, internal crusades, etc.) or other conflict (one or two claimants invading an entire kingdom to attempt to take the throne) distracts certain European states.

In any case, at some point between the 1230s and 1290s, the Mongols reach the Atlantic Ocean. Or if they don't, they manage to kill the King of France and cause a succession crisis, and destroy all the states east of that (but north of the Alps and south of the North Sea).

Now, the Mongols are horribly overstretched. And the remaining states in Europe (England, Castile, Navarra, Portugal, Aragon, the Papal State, Venice, Genoa, Milan, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, basically anyone protected by sea or mountains) split up the rest of Europe between themselves. France is split between the Spanish kingdoms and England; Germany is split between the Italian states and Nordic kingdoms; crazy things happen with Poland and the East, and everything east of the Carpathians becomes part of the Golden Horde.

Certain regions with light cavalry traditions (Spain, for example) might be more successful in this 'Pan-European Reconquista'. While, because of the invasions, most of the nobles of the occupied kingdoms either defected irrevocably to the Mongols or died in defense of their homelands.

How could this scenario be made possible? And how would Europe develop from here on? Would the French and German cultures be replaced, due to the influx of nobles from elsewhere and existing devastation? Would the nature of warfare in Europe radically change? What about systems of political organization?
 
Last edited:
How can this scenario happen?

Subject to the extent one can say this about any nonphysically impossible scenario: It can't.

In order to make that possible, perhaps the Mongols do not invade, or more easily invade, one of the regions they invaded OTL outside of Europe (especially the costly China).
Why on earth would the Mongols invade Europe over China?

And the idea (to pick one area) of Germany being split between the Italian states and the Nordic kingdoms - what, we're playing CK now?
 
I can't see why not. Poland or Germany are tragically small and unconsequential when compared to the places the Mongols did conquer.
 
I can't see why not. Poland or Germany are tragically small and unconsequential when compared to the places the Mongols did conquer.

The problem is getting the Mongols to make the effort to do it.

Batu's force isn't really up to it, and "What if the Mongols focused on this instead of China?" is best compared to scenarios like "What if England fought for control of Greenland over the Caribbean?"
 
Assuming it did happen (I don't think it can be done and I mean the conquering in the first place): Europe will be most likely be devastated.

And why would Germany be split between the Nords and Italians?!?
 
Assuming it did happen (I don't think it can be done and I mean the conquering in the first place): Europe will be most likely be devastated.

And why would Germany be split between the Nords and Italians?!?

Because pagan controlled provinces are fair game for anyone who can seize them.
 
I meant I just can't see Germany be split and held between them.

Me neither. I'm just trying to think of the only way this scenario makes sense.

I mean, sure, if the Mongols were willing to put forth a major campaign to do it, Europe's chances of avoiding being conquered are pretty low.

But that's such a colossal if as to be something hardly worth taking seriously.
 
Me neither. I'm just trying to think of the only way this scenario makes sense.

I mean, sure, if the Mongols were willing to put forth a major campaign to do it, Europe's chances of avoiding being conquered are pretty low.

But that's such a colossal if as to be something hardly worth taking seriously.

I think several major campaigns is the way to describe any Mongol attempt to conquer Europe, at least what the OP described.

Would be interesting to see what the Mongols bring to conquered Europe though.
 
Subject to the extent one can say this about any nonphysically impossible scenario: It can't.

Why on earth would the Mongols invade Europe over China?
They don't necessarily have to skip China, they just have to have an easier time with China, or only bother conquering half of it.

And the idea (to pick one area) of Germany being split between the Italian states and the Nordic kingdoms - what, we're playing CK now?
It's occupied by the Italian states and Nordic kingdoms, and Italian and Nordic nobles are placed as rulers, but the land isn't directly annexed.

Though in the case of Spain and England, they could probably gain some direct territory. Spain has the jinetes and other cavalry to match the Mongols, and a precedent of conquering 'heathen' territory. While England's ruled by the Angevins or Plantagenet, who have a claims to much of France.

The problem is getting the Mongols to make the effort to do it.

Batu's force isn't really up to it, and "What if the Mongols focused on this instead of China?" is best compared to scenarios like "What if England fought for control of Greenland over the Caribbean?"
France and Germany are worth a lot of money to the Mongols, much more than Poland and Russia. Italy even more (and the Alps aren't that much of a barrier actually, considering their conquest of Tibet, and crossing of the Carpathians and Urals) if they invade it. They also don't have to conquer it, just raid it and sack cities (Hun style instead of Mongol style, I suppose you could say).

The comparison to Greenland vs the Caribbean is ridiculous. A better comparison would be the OTL "What if England fought for the Ohio Valley and Canada over the Caribbean?" Which they did, despite the Caribbean being more immediately profitable.

Assuming it did happen (I don't think it can be done and I mean the conquering in the first place): Europe will be most likely be devastated.
Invading, not conquering.

And why would Germany be split between the Nords and Italians?!?
Much of the German nobility would be either dead, or considered traitors to the Christian faith because they would defect to the Mongols.

Some German nobles would retain or regain their land, or acquire new land, but they might not even be the majority of the nobility in the region anymore. Meanwhile German and French would become a lot less prestigious after their centers of wealth, trade, and learning are destroyed by nomadic invaders, and the German nobles would probably start to align politically and culturally with the Italians, Scandinavians, English, and Spanish.

This sounds straight out of crusader kings 2.
I never mentioned the Fatimids :p.
 
They don't necessarily have to skip China, they just have to have an easier time with China, or only bother conquering half of it.

And maybe, just maybe, in some alternate universe far different than our own, the idea that the Mongols have no reason to take an interest in focusing on Europe would occur to alt-historians.

Pity that's not our timeline, it would make discussing the 13th century a lot more productive.

Why in the name of Temujin would the Mongols put invading Europe over conquering the rest of China? What possible incentive do they have?

And even if they have an easier time with China, they still are invested in keeping that rule and in nearby areas, not in wild rides to the other end of the continent.

It's occupied by the Italian states and Nordic kingdoms, and Italian and Nordic nobles are placed as rulers, but the land isn't directly annexed.
So it isn't annexed, its just ruled. If only one word could solve all the problems in the way.

Though in the case of Spain and England, they could probably gain some direct territory. Spain has the jinetes and other cavalry to match the Mongols, and a precedent of conquering 'heathen' territory. While England's ruled by the Angevins or Plantagenet, who have a claims to much of France.
I'm not sure how much weight I'd put on the jinetes against the Mongols, and very little on Henry III - or even Edward I.

Depending on the date, the extent of English claims have shrunk from 1180 as well, but that's a minor problem.

France and Germany are worth a lot of money to the Mongols, much more than Poland and Russia. Italy even more (and the Alps aren't that much of a barrier actually, considering their conquest of Tibet, and crossing of the Carpathians and Urals) if they invade it. They also don't have to conquer it, just raid it and sack cities (Hun style instead of Mongol style, I suppose you could say).
And China is worth more than all five put together.

I'm not sure if Russia is really worth less than Germany or France in this period. Certainly not substantially less.

The comparison to Greenland vs the Caribbean is ridiculous.
No, what's ridiculous is the idea that the Mongols are going to decide to only conquer half of China, but by God they want to go to Europe.

Seriously, if you have to propose a "Mongol invasion of Europe" what if, at least try to keep in mind how far removed from the list of things important to the Mongols Europe is.

Why not have the Mongols sail for the Americas while you're at it? It wouldn't be asking too much more of our suspension of disbelief.
 
They don't necessarily have to skip China, they just have to have an easier time with China, or only bother conquering half of it.
Or a harder time with Northern China: the Jurchen Jin don't have to lose. Its field cavalry was elite, and many of its problems weren't related to the military.

In fact, it seems that it wasn't until after Genghis Khan had won against the Jurchens that he thought he could conquer all of China. If Genghis is defeated by the Jurchens (which is not impossible but difficult: the Jin had many real problems), he might not want to conquer China at all.
 
Why in the name of Temujin would the Mongols put invading Europe over conquering the rest of China? What possible incentive do they have?
Indeed. I wonder why they started invading Europe before they finished conquering China in OTL.

And even if they have an easier time with China, they still are invested in keeping that rule and in nearby areas, not in wild rides to the other end of the continent.
The Golden Horde can't exactly worry too much about China.

And even while the Mongols are still united, they have several different generals to use. They don't all have to go to the same place.

So it isn't annexed, its just ruled. If only one word could solve all the problems in the way.
When Normans conquered Sicily, it was directly under the rule of William the Conqueror. When Bohemond conquered Antioch, it was directly under the rule of Norman Sicily. And the rest of the Crusaders split the Holy Land directly between the Pope and the King of France.

Placing a noble of a certain culture or geographic origin as the ruler of an area, in order to establish loose control in the form of an alliance, is not the same thing as annexing that area directly, and was much easier throughout most of history.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd put on the jinetes against the Mongols, and very little on Henry III - or even Edward I.

Depending on the date, the extent of English claims have shrunk from 1180 as well, but that's a minor problem.
So the Germans would have a trivial time defending against the Mongols, while the Mongols would crush the English and Spanish?

And China is worth more than all five put together.

I'm not sure if Russia is really worth less than Germany or France in this period. Certainly not substantially less.
They're invading it, not conquering it. And as long as it has wealth to take, it's worth invading. The Mongols invaded plenty of places poorer than China and even Russia.

No, what's ridiculous is the idea that the Mongols are going to decide to only conquer half of China, but by God they want to go to Europe.
They can't send one army to invade Europe; China might disappear while they're gone.

Seriously, if you have to propose a "Mongol invasion of Europe" what if, at least try to keep in mind how far removed from the list of things important to the Mongols Europe is.

Why not have the Mongols sail for the Americas while you're at it? It wouldn't be asking too much more of our suspension of disbelief.
The Mongols literally invaded every area that bordered them at least once. Most of them had plenty of wealth that could be exploited, but hard-to-overcome natural barriers (still, those barriers were usually overcome). Europe, however, has fairly open plains stretching from the Pyrenees to the steppe.

Invading Europe is not at all comparable to invading the Americas. The Mongols have no idea that the Americas exist, and no perceivable gain. While Europe has dozens of dozens of wealthy cities to pillage.
 
Last edited:
Edit:

Here's a question.

You asked "How can this scenario happen?"

Is there any possible answer that a mortal human could give that would convince you that it wouldn't, or are you determined to find some way that it could no matter what arguments are presented?

Because I don't see any profit in continuing to point out that the Mongols have no interest in pressing deep into Europe that justifies diverting forces to do so at the expense of China or that Italian city-states trying to wrestle control of say, Bavaria sounds like something out of Crusader Kings with no consideration for either military or political realities.
 
Last edited:
Here's a question.

You asked "How can this scenario happen?"

Is there any possible answer that a mortal human could give that would convince you that it wouldn't, or are you determined to find some way that it could no matter what arguments are presented?

Because I don't see any profit in continuing to point out that the Mongols have no interest in pressing deep into Europe that justifies diverting forces to do so at the expense of China or that Italian city-states trying to wrestle control of say, Bavaria sounds like something out of Crusader Kings with no consideration for either military or political realities.
Whenever someone proposes an idea, you respond sarcastically and aggressively. Whenever they provide several choices that they're not sure which one to pick, you pick the worst one to attack, or generate a new one that was never said. And when they respond just as sarcastically as you did, you assume they were being serious.

The Mongols diverted forces from the conquest of China in OTL, to invade eastern Europe, even places like Hungary and Croatia. Why is it so impossible that they could push into wealthier places like northern Italy, Germany and France? They showed little to no restraint at the places they attempted to conquer in OTL (even places as hard to invade, or as poor, as Tibet or Burma), yet still succeeded most of the time even when the odds were against them. Meanwhile you say at the same time that the Mongols could not defeat Germany, and Germany could not stand up to the Mongols...

Italian city-states trying to wrestle control of say, Bavaria.
That was a sarcastic reply to your sarcastic comment. Bohemond and the Norman conquest of Sicily were both examples of invaders emplacing nobles of the same culture, without direct annexation.
 
Last edited:
Whenever someone proposes an idea, you respond sarcastically and aggressively. Whenever they provide several choices that they're not sure which one to pick, you pick the worst one to attack, or generate a new one that was never said. And when they respond just as sarcastically as you did, you assume they were being serious.

I don't mind people proposing ideas. I mind people proposing absurd ideas with no effort made to weigh whether or not they're absurd, and no interest in listening to problems with their ideas.

Especially when combined with "Let's assume that somehow X happens." How X happened and why X happened is a huge part of answering stuff about the next step.

A battle won because troops are sent that historically weren't means those troops are there, eating food and burning powder, and not available elsewhere in response to anything done in the elsewhere, which has its own consequences. And what those consequences are plays a considerable role in answering what would happen if the battle is won, because they might render that a moot point.


So to be perfectly frank, when your scenario has things like (filling out names) Milan seizing Bavaria and Norway annexing Saxony, I don't think it makes a lick of sense. And I don't think it's reasonable on your part to expect it to be treated as if it does.
 
Last edited:
So to be perfectly frank, when your scenario has things like (filling out names) Milan seizing Bavaria and Norway annexing Saxony, I don't think it makes a lick of sense. And I don't think it's reasonable on your part to expect it to be treated as if it does.
But I didn't say Milan would seize Bavaria, or Norway would annex Saxony. I said Milanese nobles, and Norwegian nobles, would replace the deceased German nobles after the European states push out the Mongols. In similar manner to the Normans of Sicily--they were not vassals of the Duchy of Normandy.

I did accidentally imply that in the first post (even though I didn't directly say it), and I understand that original misconception, as I worded it badly. But I subsequently clarified what I meant (the thing I said above). Nonetheless, you continue to argue the original point. Whenever I read a thread you've posted in, usually you're doing that same thing. You argue against a past idea instead of the current one, or what you thought the argument was about instead of what it's been clarified to be. Sometimes it is a valid complaint, but not necessarily all the time.

If you want to prove a scenario impossible, you have to be consistent yourself with your arguments, and have valid complaints, to prove it so. I have been convinced by arguments here many times, but the only time I have been convinced by yours was once (I think it was the thread with the Chinese Mexico). You have a lot of historical knowledge, but you're quick to attack based on assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Top