Question: How did the Mongols defeat Khwarezmian Empire when most of it was desert and the Mongols can't feed their horses off the land?
It's not exactly desert - it's steppe. And steppe is paradise for the Mongols.
Question: How did the Mongols defeat Khwarezmian Empire when most of it was desert and the Mongols can't feed their horses off the land?
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.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.
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.Also, China is close enough to Mongolia for reinforcement. It would take months and months for troops from Asia to arrive in France.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
AFAIK there were only 30000 troops that invaded Russia. They just wouldn't be able to supply the bigger forces.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.
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.
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,
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.