Could Europe Survive a true Mongol Invasion?

I disagree. If China had been as feudalized as Europe, the Mongols wouldn't have succeeded there either. They were able to march in and seize control over a central administration; Europe didn't have one - nor even did the states that it was divided into. That would have necessitated reducing every little castle on the continent.
Not really. Only the choiciest morsels needed to be taken to conquer "Europe", and you're presupposing that the European nobility would act completely contrary to how the rest of the Mongol conquests had acted: Disunity in action. Some, in fact many, surrendered, others fought. It would've been no different in Europe and probably easier, since power was so decentralized. Every man for himself, as they say.
Also, China is close enough to Mongolia for reinforcement. It would take months and months for troops from Asia to arrive in France.
As I've said before, this depends entirely on the focus of their base. If it were China, yes France was too far; but if it were Europe, then their base of operations would've been closer to Europe, either in Russia or Mesopotamia/Persia.
Mesopotamia was a terrible place for the Mongols - an irrigated river valley surrounded by desert, and none to healthy for horses. That's why they just sacked everything and moved on. It still hasn't recovered from them, you know.
It was a lot better for the Mongols than the situation in southern China. Compared to southern China, the ME was positively a heaven. In the ME, at least cavalry warfare was possible and encouraged, given the examples of various Persian, Arabic, and Turkish empires within the region. In contrast, cavalry warfare was virtually impossible in southern China; most of the battles were fought as infantry down there. If that wasn't enough, the Mongols probaly lost more men in the mosquito-infested jungles in the south and southwest to diseases and parasites than the combined total of all men lost in the Western campaigns. Simply put, it was absolutely brutal and a torture for the Mongols in southern China. As far as the Mongol devastation in the ME, well, they weren't alone. The Mongols pretty much did it everywhere they went; the ME in general was not all that special--northern China suffered just as much. The only difference between northern China and the ME is that N China recovered, but the ME didn't.
The Mongols didn't view it as a zero-sum game, i.e. "China or Europe?" Gengiz Khan acquired leadership by having the most expansive goal - conquest of the entire world.
There's a big difference between a dream and reality. Yeah, they wanted to conquer the whole world; they couldn't because they were only a flash in a pan. It was China or elsewhere. No ifs or buts. During the brief period in which the Mongols had the resources for grand imperial expansion, China consistently drained off the bulk of their resources, leaving very inadequate resources for campaigns elsewhere.
As far as the rest of the Middle East goes, they did try to conquer it and largely failed, checked by the Mamelukes, who had similar armies and tactics.
No they didn't. Hulegu's expedition was not originally intended as a major conquering expedition, and he was never given followup support for subjugating the region. In fact, the establishment of the Ilkhnate was something of an accident, resulting from the Mongol civil war. And the Ilkhanate was subsequently cut off from steppe manpower due to its wars against the Golden Horde, and Kublai had nothing to spare, since he needed all his troops to take the Song dynasty. The fact of the matter is that the Mongol dream of world empire was just that, a dream, and Ghengiz's successors were not as determined in conquest as he. The second Khan drank and debauched himself to death, after many years of inaction, for chrissakes.
 
Last edited:
That actually hadn't entered into my considerations. Also worth thinking about is how far the Mongols were from their homeland. Russia was much closer to Mongolia, and they were able to assemble as many as 200,000 troops to invade. However, only about 60,000 invaded Hungary. The Mongols might not have enough manpower to go the distance in Europe.
AFAIK there were only 30000 troops that invaded Russia. They just wouldn't be able to supply the bigger forces.
 
I agree with many others about the potential supply issues: keeping their horses fed in Europe, not to mention other more general problems with supply and logistics, would almost certainly be problematic for the Mongols. To successfully subdue most/all of Western Europe, they would probably need well over 150.000 troops, and it is questionable whether this number was attainable under the circumstances.

Even if the Mongols were able to assemble a sizeable invasion force, it is bound to shrink the further they advance west, even assuming no military action. This being 13th century Europe (densely populated compared to the Eastern steppes) I am sure that outbreaks of disease would constantly chip away at the Mongols' strength.

Then we come to military resistance. Although the Mongol victories at Liegnitz and Mohi had no doubt been decisive, the armies they faced were hardly the best in terms of overall quality that Europe could field - by some accounts these had been hastily raised and were even quite small (the Allied army at Leignitz may well have been smaller than 4.000 men). And even so there are enough historians that believe that the battles were not nearly as one-sided as is often believed.

Furthermore, even after the total defeat of the Hungarians, the Mongols didn't necessarily have it easy - apparently they were constantly harrassed by Hungarian irregulars and failed to take a number of important strongpoints. Further west they could expect better armies with more time to prepare (and hopefully learn from the initial defeats), not to mention fortresses and strongpoints that were not only more densely concentrated but were also of a higher quality overall than those in Hungary.

In short, the combination of logistical constraints and military resistance would almost certainly be enough to eventually see off the Mongol threat IMO.
 

Vault-Scope

Banned
At first, Europe would get smacked. In the initial invasion, European countries would get thrashed. They would be quite unprepared for the Mongolian style of warfare. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and quite possibly even the Holy Roman Empire and its constituents, would be subjugated in a similar manner as Russia was.

Russia was divided in numerous tribes and city-states at the time and never completely fell, Moscow for example got raided and burned down by Russian resistance dozens of times.

I agree with many others about the potential supply issues: keeping their horses fed in Europe, not to mention other more general problems with supply and logistics,

Easier to feed horses in europe than in mongolia. Supplies of what exactly? Nothing they can´t get from looting conquered territories in europe.
 
Last edited:
Just one more factor to add to the mix. By this point, he was getting on in years, but the invasion was being directed by Subutai, one of the last commanders from the beginnings of the Mongol conquest and arguably one of the most successful generals in history.
 
The Mongols are going to end up needing large numbers of troops in order to totally take Europe, but those troops don't need to be raised initially.

A huge raid, similar to the scout expeditions that destroyed armies in Hungary and Poland, but on a larger scale, would force Emperor Frederick and King Louis to battle. Both men were at the top of the feudal ladder, and were not only owed feudal obligation by the their vassals, but also owed their vassals protection. A Mongol army raiding through Germany would be force Frederick either to battle, or the Germans would look for a new leader.

I don't know if Frederick would oppose the Mongols. He could probably hole up in Sicily and stay out of there way with relatively little threat to himself or his possessions in Naples and Sicily. Or he could lead the Germans in battle against the Mongols. Either way, he loses Germany.

If Frederick fails to lead Germany, King Louis (future St. Louis) probably takes up the slack. The man went looking for infidels abroad to slay, and now he has them at his front door. The image of Louis leading the armies of Christiandom against the new Scourge of God is just too good for Louis to resist. He'll lose, and most of his army will end up martyrs.

After that first big raid, where at least Louis and probably Frederick give battle, the Mongols are going to be able to use the feudal system to their advantage. With the King of France and the Holy Roman Emperor either dead or massively beaten on the battlefield, many of the lesser lords are going to be looking to make a deal. No one wants to have his lands destroyed.

That is where the Mongols are going to be able to recruit their massive armies. Having suffered huge defeats and a few cities having been made examples of, European lords will swear allegience to Batu Khan. With the original Mongol troops as the hard core, the next campaigns will be aided by European troops, under the command of the European princes that have sworn allegience to Batu.

By granting land to their new vassals, the Mongols are going to enlist their European allies in their cause. Rather than fighting simply for the Mongols, the European who join the Mongols will be defending their own new positions and the territory that goes along with it.
 
Ironically, I can remember this question coming up on one of the first web boards I ever joined, back in the 90's, and someone on it was dreadfully affronted by the idea that the Mongols could conquer Europe, and said that all claims that they could were actually anti-Russian (!) propaganda designed to stir up fears about 'hordes from Asia' conquering Europe...
 
For an example of a mongol type military force conquering a Europe like landmass I would look at the example of the Mughals in India. AS far as I understand it the Mughals relied heavily on the horse archer and the mongol style of rule by fear. This style of warfare was used against a very decentralized group of states.

I think that if the thirteenth century invasion of europe was successful, I don't think it would last. But much later like fifteenth century mongols would reinvade and establish a Mughal like tolerant power in europe.
 
I have checked about the battles of Liegnitz and Mohi in wikipedia (I know it is just wikipedia...) and I have seen that the attacking mongol force managed to siege eighty fortified places but to take only three. It has been said that it was just an scouting force, but... would a mongol horde survive being stuck attacking a network of towns, castles, fortified monasteries as that of Europe, while surviving attacks from relief armies, epidemics, and lack of pastures for the horses.

One more thing, when reading about these "european auxiliaries" of the mongol army I thought of the crusader kingdoms in holy land, fighting each others allied to other islamic states.
 
It depends on how thorough the conquest is.

In theory, the Mongols probably could have directly conquered the majority of Europe, if they had been as relentlessly persistent as they were about conquering, say, Sung dynasty China. Central and southern China had mountains, hills, forests, and lots of fortified cities and towns, somewhat like western Europe, and was more densely populated with a more organized and centralized government structure on top of that. The Mongols conquered it with a lot of persistence and by using infantry, engineers, and labor from the parts of China that they had already subdued to do most of the dirty, bloody work in terrain that wasn't suitable for cavalry. I think that they could do the same in Europe, with enough time and determination. I very much doubt that they would do this, though. As others have noted, Europe was just not as rich a prize as Sung China, and was a lot further away from the heartlands of the Mongol Empire.

The second, and more likely option, is a partial/vassal conquest along the lines of the Russian principalities. This could be achieved with a few smashing victories in battles and sieges, which I believe a Mongol army would have been capable of doing in Europe, especially because they were facing much less unified enemies who for the most part were not familiar with steppe tactics. The Mongols would probably establish their "European" capital in Hungary, and directly rule over the flatter grasslands areas in Hungary and parts of Poland and Romania. Most of the rest of Europe would be under rulers who would be expected to pay tribute. These rulers would maneuver for greater power by seeking Mongol favor against their rivals, and not defying Mongol authority unless it weakened enough to give them a good chance of success.

This would probably not last as long in central and western Europe as it did in Russia, though. Western and central Europe have more mountains, peninsulas, and islands than Russia, making many areas harder to reach, and tougher to enforce authority over. Also, compared to the steppes of the Volga and Ukraine, the grasslands of Hungary and Poland are smaller, which would give the Mongols in Europe a smaller base from which to maintain an army.
 
It depends on how thorough the conquest is.

In theory, the Mongols probably could have directly conquered the majority of Europe, if they had been as relentlessly persistent as they were about conquering, say, Sung dynasty China. Central and southern China had mountains, hills, forests, and lots of fortified cities and towns, somewhat like western Europe, and was more densely populated with a more organized and centralized government structure on top of that. The Mongols conquered it with a lot of persistence and by using infantry, engineers, and labor from the parts of China that they had already subdued to do most of the dirty, bloody work in terrain that wasn't suitable for cavalry. I think that they could do the same in Europe, with enough time and determination. I very much doubt that they would do this, though. As others have noted, Europe was just not as rich a prize as Sung China, and was a lot further away from the heartlands of the Mongol Empire.

The "Mongol" horde that conquered Russia and that would have attacked Europe was not strictly Mongol. As the Mongols rode west they recruited more steppe peoples, and by the time that they reached the Rus the Mongol army was made of mostly non-Mongol turkish steppe people.

While I agree that Europe was not as rich a prize, it was far richer than anything else that Batu's Army had in its sights. I think that if they have launched the large scale invasion in 1242, they would have wanted to finish the fight, and acquire what would have been the wealthiest part of his/their potential domain.

The second, and more likely option, is a partial/vassal conquest along the lines of the Russian principalities. This could be achieved with a few smashing victories in battles and sieges, which I believe a Mongol army would have been capable of doing in Europe, especially because they were facing much less unified enemies who for the most part were not familiar with steppe tactics. The Mongols would probably establish their "European" capital in Hungary, and directly rule over the flatter grasslands areas in Hungary and parts of Poland and Romania. Most of the rest of Europe would be under rulers who would be expected to pay tribute. These rulers would maneuver for greater power by seeking Mongol favor against their rivals, and not defying Mongol authority unless it weakened enough to give them a good chance of success.

Europe had a rather easily revived "universal empire" in the various iterations of the Roman Empire. With Europe's feudal structure and strong, centralized religion (the only on-the-ground unifying political feature of Europe circa 13th century), doesn't it make sense for the Mongol to convert to Catholicism and assume the title of Holy Roman Emperor?

This would probably not last as long in central and western Europe as it did in Russia, though. Western and central Europe have more mountains, peninsulas, and islands than Russia, making many areas harder to reach, and tougher to enforce authority over. Also, compared to the steppes of the Volga and Ukraine, the grasslands of Hungary and Poland are smaller, which would give the Mongols in Europe a smaller base from which to maintain an army.

Even if it doesn't last as long, I think the Mongol invasion could do seriously strange things to European history. Even though the Mongols would maintain the feudal structure, I think that they would end up simplying the structure, rewarding earlier allies with large grants of land. Those princely dynasties that cooperated with the Mongols have an interest in maintaining the same kind of universal state, and if the Church ended up allying itself to the Mongol Empire, it too would have an interest in maintaining the new Roman Empire.

Also, the Mongol period would have introduced European merchants into the Pax Mongolia trade system, which would probably have whetted an appetite for eastern trade goods. Having the relatively cheap supply cut off once the Mongol Empire falls apart is going to spur quicker investment in finding alternate routes to those trade goods.

Anyway, I think the Black Death would probably be a good end to the Mongol period. That would definitely discredit the Mongol dynasty, potentially aid any rebels, and be a blow (though not necessarily a fatal one) to the whole post-Conquest power structure.

The Mongols victory thins the ranks of the landed nobility, gives the merchants a boost, then the Black Death leads to the end of the Mongol period, and accelerates the introduction of the money economy to Europe. The merchant cities got big concessions during the Mongol period, as the Mongols saw the cities as a counterweight to potential rebellions by the European princes, and as a result several European merchant cities are now quite powerful. "The Communes' League" was a key player in the creation of the post-Mongol order . . .
 
Top