Cultural effects of a Mongol Western Europe

The question asked, which I am curious as well, is not how do they conquer western europe. But what are the effects, particularly cultural effects if that happens.

I am curious how Christianity would change in this scenario.

How they conquer Europe will affect what happen afterward.
 
The question asked, which I am curious as well, is not how do they conquer western europe. But what are the effects, particularly cultural effects if that happens.

I am curious how Christianity would change in this scenario.
Yeah although all this discussion on the feasibility of the scenario is very interesting, the main thing that seems to be being asked here is what it’s effects would be if it did occur. I’d say that’s a pretty unlikely scenario, but it’s cultural effects could still be interesting to examine, as unlikely as it is. There has been a lot of discussion on whether or not it could happen, but not much on what the effects of it happening would be.
the problem is that this is necessary questions when does it occur how does it occur and more would effect the cultural development so we need a pod and how it occurs (as unlikely as it ) to make the scenario work
 
the problem is that this is necessary questions when does it occur how does it occur and more would effect the cultural development so we need a pod and how it occurs (as unlikely as it ) to make the scenario work
Yes, we do, but we seem to be getting bogged down in discussing if it COULD occur, and not how it does. The base assumption should be that it does occur, however unlikely it is, but a lot of the arguments seem to be on whether or not its possible for it to happen. Debating if it could or couldn't just keeps us from getting to the meat of the scenario, which are its actual effects.
 
How does one differentiate a steppe from grasslands in terms of the effectiveness of grazing for horses? The Central Valley or Plain of China north of the Yangtze is famed for exceptional grazing opportunities for horses and the flat terrain that permits nomadic styled armies to operate there.

If Batu's campaign was part of a multiyear campaign, then I would suggest he was quite the poorly planned commander. Considering the failures of the Mongols elsewhere and breach of the policy of 'One War at a Time,' he was grossly overestimating his expertise and that of his army. I feel that though, this is something that the Mongols tended to overestimate in their campaigns at many occasions, drawing great inspiration from the campaign against the Khawarezmshahs.
Well, to start with, I'm not sure if anybody seriously claimed that Batu takes credit for planning the Western campaign (which included ALL operations to the West of Ural) because credit is going to Subotai about whom nobody said that he was a poor planner even if the whole campaign took few years: invasion of Ryazan started in 1237 and withdrawal from Hungary - 1242 (so I assume that what you wrote was an irony). If anything, conquest of the North-Eastern Rus was a smashing success both militarily and politically: not only the big territory was conquered within few winter months but Batu managed to get himself the willing and efficient collaborators in the remaining branch of the ruling family (Yaroslav and his son Alexander). The same goes for the operations in Volga areas: within a very short time after the Western campaign a brand new nations, the Tatars, came into the existence and most of these feared people had been just the same Polovtsy who ceased to be a major military factor by the early XIII.

I'm not going to address the speculations regarding the events which did not happen because they involved seriously different scenarios even as far as the direction(s) of an advance in 1242 (everybody likes to talk about Germany but how about Italy and the Balkans: the Mongols had been raiding Croatia and not only Austria).

OTOH, the policy you mentioned never was fully implemented: conquest of Khwaresm was going on in parallel with the operations in China, Western campaign was going on in parallel with campaigning in China and so did conquest of Iraq.
 
Yes, we do, but we seem to be getting bogged down in discussing if it COULD occur, and not how it does. The base assumption should be that it does occur, however unlikely it is, but a lot of the arguments seem to be on whether or not its possible for it to happen. Debating if it could or couldn't just keeps us from getting to the meat of the scenario, which are its actual effects.
Well, but how would have a serious impact on what happens next. For example, the effect was quite serious upon the nomadic people of the Volga steppes where the Mongols settled: the whole new nation had been created (Tatars with the clear sub-entities like Nogais and Crimeans). OTOH, effect on the Russian or Georgian lands, which ended up as the vassal territories, was much more limited. In other words, the details and pattern of the conquest are important for answering the question. Or we can just go easy way and to say that, as in China, the cultural impact would be minimal due to the huge numeric disparity between the conquerors and the conquered.
 
Well, to start with, I'm not sure if anybody seriously claimed that Batu takes credit for planning the Western campaign (which included ALL operations to the West of Ural) because credit is going to Subotai about whom nobody said that he was a poor planner even if the whole campaign took few years: invasion of Ryazan started in 1237 and withdrawal from Hungary - 1242 (so I assume that what you wrote was an irony). If anything, conquest of the North-Eastern Rus was a smashing success both militarily and politically: not only the big territory was conquered within few winter months but Batu managed to get himself the willing and efficient collaborators in the remaining branch of the ruling family (Yaroslav and his son Alexander). The same goes for the operations in Volga areas: within a very short time after the Western campaign a brand new nations, the Tatars, came into the existence and most of these feared people had been just the same Polovtsy who ceased to be a major military factor by the early XIII.

I'm not going to address the speculations regarding the events which did not happen because they involved seriously different scenarios even as far as the direction(s) of an advance in 1242 (everybody likes to talk about Germany but how about Italy and the Balkans: the Mongols had been raiding Croatia and not only Austria).

OTOH, the policy you mentioned never was fully implemented: conquest of Khwaresm was going on in parallel with the operations in China, Western campaign was going on in parallel with campaigning in China and so did conquest of Iraq.
The poster, framed the invasion as a comprehensive policy of Mongol expansion. Supposedly to occur in three different directions during the life of Ogedai. I said that this policy was a failure. Namely, Ogedai failed to complete his conquests, Batu's were not in success of what was supposedly wished by him. In the Mid East, Mongols wasted their time beating their heads against Nizari fortifications and not expanding into the Abbasid realm overtly until a decade later.
 
Wow! He had 4,000 Mongols and the newly-subdued Kipchaks as his own troops and this would be enough for conquest of Europe? How that can be taken seriously?



His "prize" was a designated domain of Jochi, which was ending in the Kipchak steppes. He could not held anything against the Great Khan's will because this would be a rebellion punished by death.


I wonder why Prince Yaroslav bothered to travel to Karakorum to have his status of the Great Prince of Vladimir confirmed....


If something look like a duck and squeaks as a duck, it is probably a duck. The same goes for the raid. It was a raid.




There was a Mongolian state in Europe and it never was close to conquering territory outside Eastern Europe.


Well, the Mongolian vassal states had been paying tribute and providing the auxiliary contingents in the case of war. Nothing else in Russia, Georgia, Armenia Minor. So why would it suddenly be different in Germany?




Well, I'm sorry that you have a headache. Take some aspirin or whatever.



Term "designated heir" does not make too much sense in the Mongolian apanage system where property of a father had been divided between his sons based upon the specific rules. Enough to say that his elder brother, Ordu, got already conquered part of Jochi's domain, Western Siberia (White Horde). Batu's domain had to be, yet, conquered and conquest had been done by the forces sent by the Great Khan. Batu was not even a formal commander of these forces until beginning of the Western Raid.




Now, this is a complete nonsense. While there are records of the military proficiency of many Genghisid princes in this and other campaigns, the only military record related to Batu is his performance at Mohi, which is a questionable compliment. Batu was not a great commander, he was a great statesman and diplomat. The very fact that he accepted Subotai's rebuttal and publicly acknowledged that he was wrong, tells a lot.

The military brain of the whole expedition was Subotai. Most of the troops involved had been the contingents sent by the Great Khan. Batu did not, yet, have time to build up his own army based on the newly-conquered domain and, due to the fact that most of his own troops were going to be the Polovtsy (Kumans), their inability not only to conquer Europe but even to conduct the effective big scale raids into Hungary and Poland had been demonstrated during Nogai's life time. After the Western campaign Batu got himself busy building up his newly-created state, organizing its military force, controlling situation in the vassal Russian lands and being engaged in a political maneuvering which allowed him to survive through Guyik's reign and to help to elect Mongke with who he was on good terms. No major wars or conquests, just some punishing expeditions here and there.




The key word is "believe". You can believe whatever you want but your beliefs are not mandatory for everybody else.


If you know, than your earlier talk about the plains in Germany and elsewhere does not make sense. Should I be "insulted" by your earlier statement or by this one?



"Limited" in which sense? Their conquests had not been limited to the steppes but at that time they had been settling only in the steppes to preserve a nomadic life style. This was a part of Genghis testaments: people of the yurts had to keep themselves separately from the people of the houses.

In the CA there was plenty of steppe and a lot of the nomadic population. BTW, to keep up with the tradition, even Timur lived in a tent (in a middle of a luxurious park), not in the palace. The rulers of the "GH" started building their capital(s) and palaces but these were winter quarters: during the summer "everybody" was moving into the steppes. One of the alleged main reasons for Ilkhanate failure to keep Syria was a shortage of space suitable for keeping the horses (and other nomadic livestock). Hulagu himself spent his time living as a nomad in southern Azerbaijan and Armenia.

China and its conquest were a specific case but, AFAIK, there were no major Mongolian settlements in the midst of the China proper even if the Mongolian aristocracy started moving into the Chinese estates as early as during Ogdai's reign. But conquest of China was done, to a great degree by the non-Mongolian troops. Mukhali had at least as many local troops as he had Mongols and it is a known fact that even during the 1st Genghis' campaign in China there was a big cooperation from the "natives" subdued by the Jurchens. Armies used on the later stages had been seemingly even less Mongolian. Enough to say that Kublai had a whole tumen composed of the Russians.
Look, I understand that we don’t agree about this matter and that’s okay, although all your attempts to ridicule and make fun of my statements ignoring centuries of historiography and the dynamics of the Mongol Empire’s dissolution. If you like play with words and say a thing and then the opposite only to contradict me, it sounds me a pathetic hobby but ok, I have nether the time and the will to start an argument about it. So, let try to start again this discussion in a civilised and not-nosense way: the author proposed this thread asking in what form and with what consequences a Mongol conquest of Europe could take place. So, instead to contradict the POD and the same spirit of this thread, why you don’t propose your version to make this happening? Do you think an earlier death of Ogodei and an other Great Khan’s election could fit the author’s request?
How does one differentiate a steppe from grasslands in terms of the effectiveness of grazing for horses? The Central Valley or Plain of China north of the Yangtze is famed for exceptional grazing opportunities for horses and the flat terrain that permits nomadic styled armies to operate there.

If Batu's campaign was part of a multiyear campaign, then I would suggest he was quite the poorly planned commander. Considering the failures of the Mongols elsewhere and breach of the policy of 'One War at a Time,' he was grossly overestimating his expertise and that of his army. I feel that though, this is something that the Mongols tended to overestimate in their campaigns at many occasions, drawing great inspiration from the campaign against the Khawarezmshahs.
The Mongols were clearly able to fight in less fertile countries, demonstrating it during Hulegu’s campaign in Middle East. If they were able to fight in “sterile” regions like Northern Russia or the mounts of Caucasus I can see them fighting successfully in the German, Italian and French plains, as they did in Eastern European ones. What are you thinking when you speak of “failures elsewhere”? By the way, the “One War at Time” doesn’t apply here: Mongols were not engaged in same large-scale conflict in 1241, a part the war in China against Songs. But this war was evidently considered different, in fact Hulegu could invade and conquer Middle East while the conflict in China was still ongoing.
 
The question asked, which I am curious as well, is not how do they conquer western europe. But what are the effects, particularly cultural effects if that happens.

I am curious how Christianity would change in this scenario.

Well, it wouldn't be deliberately changed. For all that they were incredibly ruthless, Mongols were - and modern Mongolians still are - incredibly religiously tolerant, and they were hugely tolerant by the standards of the day. They wouldn't have an issue with Western Europeans practicing Christianity as they always had - they'd probably even keep the Papacy, as long as the Pope submitted to the Great Khan.

However, change would come for two reasons. Reason one being that the Mongols - given how a lot of them were Nestorian Christians - wouldn't tolerate large-scale anti-heresy stuff by the Western Church. They'd want their domains to keep the peace, and they wouldn't want Mongol Christians being bothered as heretics. Ditto, I can see them protecting Jews more because they'd find them useful.

Secondly, the Mongol Empire was pretty darn cosmopolitan. Odds are, Europe would suddenly have a lot of non-Europeans moving in, from Mongols to Chinese to Arabs. What the cultural effects of that would be would be interesting to study...
 
The question asked, which I am curious as well, is not how do they conquer western europe. But what are the effects, particularly cultural effects if that happens.

I am curious how Christianity would change in this scenario.
Well before we can discuss this, we must come to an agreement that the most likely and frankly only way for a Mongol conquest of western/Central Europe to occur is by Mongol assimilation and local European support. Namely, the Mongols reach an agreement with much of the inhabitants of Germany or France and or the Pope and work with these groups to overturn the Empire, the royalty of France, etc.

In other words, before we can discuss the situation, we must refute such claims that the Mongols can just force their way into massive demographic powerhouses like Europe. Just as the Mongols required Chinese integration, assimilation and cohesion to conquer China, so too do they require in Europe. Further, victory in Europe, may come at the cost of failures elsewhere.
 
Is Europe going to end up under Batu's domains, as part of some vassal horde, or as a new Ulus entirely?

I could see Nogai, for instance, ending up running a decent part of Eastern Europe under Batu's suzerainty.
 
Look, I understand that we don’t agree about this matter and that’s okay, although all your attempts to ridicule and make fun of my statements ignoring centuries of historiography and the dynamics of the Mongol Empire’s dissolution.

I reject an implication that you have some kind of a superior knowledge on the subject and I’m just inventing the things. What I’m telling you is based upon reading of the numerous modern researches and your condescending tone is not warranted.

If you like play with words and say a thing and then the opposite only to contradict me, it sounds me a pathetic hobby but ok, I have nether the time and the will to start an argument about it. So, let try to start again this discussion in a civilised and not-nosense way: the author proposed this thread asking in what form and with what consequences a Mongol conquest of Europe could take place. So, instead to contradict the POD and the same spirit of this thread, why you don’t propose your version to make this happening? Do you think an earlier death of Ogodei and an other Great Khan’s election could fit the author’s request?

The question formulated that vaguely does not make too much of a practical sense because (a) a lot would depend on when and whois a replacement and (b) the forces allocated for the Western Campaign were not adequate for the conquest of “Europe” (outside the part of it which was conquered).

The whole issue of Ogdai’s death as a critical factor has a major problem: while the tradition was requiring an assembly of the princes for election of a new Khan, this did not happen for the next few years and in a meantime the empire was ruled by Guyuk’s mother as a regent. Needless to say that Batu simply did not appear at kurultai. Not sure that Nogai did, he was busy establishing his own domain in Bulgaria. So, strictly speaking, if there was a serious wish to continue the campaign, election could be postponed (anyway, it was postponed for few years). So the critical question is “was there a wish?”

Subotai was, judging by his biographies, for continuation of the campaign but (a) he was a strict adherent to the law and (b) with all his influence he was just a service man, not a Genghisid and decision was not his to make.

The participating princes, starting with Batu, had nothing to gain from the continuation of the campaign. The conquered territories of Russia and Volga region became Batu domain but it was not going to be expanded beyond that (when Nogai’s domain was created, it was formally subordinated to the Blue Horde but Nogai was acting pretty much independently until he was kicked out of the region). In practical terms Batu simply could not control a much greater territory with the forces of his own and had to establish control over the lands he already owned. Nobody was assigned a new “Western” domain by Ogdai so where is the interest? Well, on a top of a pure geography and shortage of the steppes in Central Europe, the attractive pieces of the real estate were in the rich areas of the CA and Muslim world in general, not in rather poor Central Europe. The closest exception was Italy and the raids into Croatia may (or may not) be an indication of the future direction. The same goes for Austria but in neither case the area could be directly controlled even if we assume that the whole thing was about conquest.

And, of course, there would be a need for at least doubling numbers of the troops to cover territory that big and the obvious questions are how these extra troops could be raised without impacting other operations and where could they be located in ...er... conquered Europe with all their livestock?
 
Last edited:
The question asked, which I am curious as well, is not how do they conquer western europe. But what are the effects, particularly cultural effects if that happens.

I am curious how Christianity would change in this scenario.
Christianity (Nestorian creed) was at that time one of the major religions of the Steppe. Batu’s son was a Christian, Hulagu’s wife was a Christian, Kit-Buka was a Christian, etc. There was also a strong Nestorian presence in the conquered areas: after taking Baghdad Hulagu presented Caliph’s palace to the leader of the local Nestorian.
 
The poster, framed the invasion as a comprehensive policy of Mongol expansion. Supposedly to occur in three different directions during the life of Ogedai. I said that this policy was a failure. Namely, Ogedai failed to complete his conquests, Batu's were not in success of what was supposedly wished by him. In the Mid East, Mongols wasted their time beating their heads against Nizari fortifications and not expanding into the Abbasid realm overtly until a decade later.
First, thanks for the clarification.

Second, I do not quite agree with OPs premise of the unlimited conquest in all directions simultaneously being a definite policy of the empire. But if we accept that premise, then you are right: running in all directions simultaneously was not productive (one may argue that, no matter what, conquest of the territory from Ural to Moldavia and Novgorod was a clear success).

As far as China was involved, the conquest assumption is correct because it was reasonably close and possessed an enormous wealth. But then, again, it was done in stages and while Genghis was concentrating on Khwaresm, operations in China had been conducted by a reasonably small Mongolian force which had been gradually strengthened by adding the local troops changing the sides. If Gumilev is to be trusted, the Southern China had been eventually conquered by the armies which were predominantly not Mongolian in their composition so the whole conquest unsurprisingly (taking into an account balance of the forces) a multi-generation affair which involved both military and diplomatic efforts and a lot of administrative activities including substantial change of the attitude toward the local population. However, it seems to be relatively quiet there between 1234 (fall of Jin) and 1253 (Mongke sends Khubilai against Dali Kingdom). Anyway, even if the whole Mongolian force was concentrated there it would be a long and tedious enterprise taking into an account size of the territory, size of the population, logistics, fortifications, etc.

The Western campaign required general mobilization and for few years Europe became the major theater with China being reasonably quiet.

As far as Iraq is concerned, there seems to be a low intensity conflict all the way to Hulagu expedition, which required serious mobilization across the empire, especially from the Jochi domain (which later backfired).

So, as I said, IMO the premise is rather questionable and reality was close to picking one main theater at a time.

The Western campaign seems to be “everybody’s favorite” because it is widely open to the speculations and because (just as it was the case with the Huns and Arabs before and the Ottomans after) the earlier (and even some modern) European historians tended to be on a rather hysterical (or over-dramatized) side when they are describing the events. Schema is the same: a wave of the Asiatic barbarians is going to consume the whole Europe but then some dramatic event (battle or death) happens and Europe is saved (the fact that in all these cases the “barbarians” remained in Europe and that at least in two cases they remained pain in the butt well after the “turning point” is blissfully ignored, just as an annoying fact that there was not enough of them to conquer Europe, etc. 😂

IMO, the European Campaign can be broken into two clearly different parts:
1. Conquest of the Eastern Europe. The primary territorial goal was conquest of the Volga-Black Sea steppes (very attractive for the nomads) with the expansion of “sphere of influence” to the Russian territories unsuitable for the direct settlement. Campaign required extensive mobilization (not sure about impact upon operations in China). The whole thing was interpreted as a conquest of the territories which belong to Jochi domain (which should include all Kipchak lands). Had been done reasonably fast (efforts related to conquest of the non-Russian part tended to be ignored) and, as intended, given to Batu.

2. Invasion into the Central Europe with pursuing the “rebellious” Kumans being an excuse and Genghis “testament” (overall superiority of the Great Khan) something of a formal diplomatic base. Besides this very vague framework, there was nothing clear and we are reduced to the pure speculations. If return was mandatory why Batu did not go to Mongolia and why Nogai did not go as well (if I’m not mistaken, he remained on the lower Danube). What were the measures to consolidate the Mongolian hold on Hungary? Surely, some contingent could be left there as was the case when Hulagu left for kurultay leaving Kit-Buka to continue operations in Syria. Somehow, people tend to ignore importance of the raids for Mongols and they were a major source of wealth. The raids into Hungary and Poland had been happening after the Western campaign when there was no hope for conquest. Then, again, in the rather extensive diplomatic exchange with the Western Europe after the Western Campaign, request for acknowledging supremacy of the Great Khan was a repeated item even if there were no plans for conquest and ignoring of that requirement by the Western side did not have any noticeable impact on the communications. So here we have two options: either to consider this part of military activities as a great and successful raid or to speculate on how this force would proceed with a conquest of the whole Central and Western Europe.
 
Last edited:
The question asked, which I am curious as well, is not how do they conquer western europe. But what are the effects, particularly cultural effects if that happens.

I am curious how Christianity would change in this scenario.
Well here's what I think, the Golden Horde is able to conquer more of Eastern and Central Europe. Annexing or at least vassalizing many countries like the Baltics, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Croatia. All the while inflicting heavy raids and destruction. Then much of western Europe is raided by the Mongols, the entire HRE including Bohemia, Germany lands, and Italian states, along with France and Burgundy. Although these places are unlikely to be conquered outright.

So for long term effects, it can go in many different ways. What I think may happen is that Europe winds up a lot like all the other main civilizations of Eurasia. That is they revert back into a much more conservative mindset due to the trauma induced by the Mongol invasions and the later black death, it will still happen ittl most likely. Combined with the massive labor shortage, the loss of leadership, rises in heresy to explain the world's wrongs, the church becoming much more strict to combat this, peasant revolts, famines, and freezing winters from the little ice age. There is a very firm chance that with all that chaos the cities of Northern Italy might not be able to carry out the Renaissance, or at least not like what it was iotl, and that's ignoring the possibility that Pisa and Florence go up in smoke during the invasions.

For examples of more conservative societies after the Mongols, just look at Russia, the isolationist Ming and Qing dynasties, the powerful but not always creative Ottomans, and fanatic Safavids. What the specifics of a more conservative Europe would be, I'm not sure. Though countries like Spain, England, and Sweden who were spared from the raids are going to have a much greater chance for expansion and influence among their neighbors. Maybe all of Iberia unites and conquers Italy and north Africa? Spreading the inquisition even further? Maybe England and France form a dynastic union combining their interests? Maybe Sweden or Denmark decided to all Adolphus earlier and conquer the Baltics and Germany. These are pretty out-there ideas I know, but they're a start.
You're free to disagree or point out an error in my writings, hell the exact opposite may happen and Italian merchants are able to create even more art with even more money and conquests. But I'll stand by this for now.
 
The question asked, which I am curious as well, is not how do they conquer western europe. But what are the effects, particularly cultural effects if that happens.

I am curious how Christianity would change in this scenario.
The answer to that depends on whether the conquest ends at the Rhine, or at Atlantic Ocean. And also depends on whether they manage to remain there (like the Manchu did in China), or if they are thrown out within 10-20 years - aka as soon as the Western countries get their s&&t together.
 
I had a POD once where the Mongol invasions suddenly made Vinland interesting. Bit of a panic with the Mongols slaughtering people in Europe. Suddenly the remoteness of Vinland became an asset and a draw rather than a dealbreaker.

In any case, I can see nations that are not sacked by the Mongols have an upswing, probably get a population boost from refugees etc. What happens next depends a lot on how things shake out in the areas the Mongols sack.
 
I need to revive my “Gers on the Danube” TL. My view on that was the Mongols were able to capture the King of Hungary and force him into a vassal relationship which gives them a base of operations in the Pannonia Plains. From there they are able to extort the Byzantines, break the Poles and launch attacks into the Po River Valley.

The name of the game for their staying power was recruiting locals directly into their army or enticing mercenaries from the Balkans allowing them to roll into Italy and southern Germany. I think I was aiming for them to also leap frog into France as a kind of Reverse-Napoleon in Italy campaign.
 
Last edited:
Well here's what I think, the Golden Horde is able to conquer more of Eastern and Central Europe. Annexing or at least vassalizing many countries like the Baltics, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Croatia. All the while inflicting heavy raids and destruction. Then much of western Europe is raided by the Mongols, the entire HRE including Bohemia, Germany lands, and Italian states, along with France and Burgundy. Although these places are unlikely to be conquered outright.

So for long term effects, it can go in many different ways. What I think may happen is that Europe winds up a lot like all the other main civilizations of Eurasia. That is they revert back into a much more conservative mindset due to the trauma induced by the Mongol invasions and the later black death, it will still happen ittl most likely. Combined with the massive labor shortage, the loss of leadership, rises in heresy to explain the world's wrongs, the church becoming much more strict to combat this, peasant revolts, famines, and freezing winters from the little ice age. There is a very firm chance that with all that chaos the cities of Northern Italy might not be able to carry out the Renaissance, or at least not like what it was iotl, and that's ignoring the possibility that Pisa and Florence go up in smoke during the invasions.

For examples of more conservative societies after the Mongols, just look at Russia, the isolationist Ming and Qing dynasties, the powerful but not always creative Ottomans, and fanatic Safavids. What the specifics of a more conservative Europe would be, I'm not sure. Though countries like Spain, England, and Sweden who were spared from the raids are going to have a much greater chance for expansion and influence among their neighbors. Maybe all of Iberia unites and conquers Italy and north Africa? Spreading the inquisition even further? Maybe England and France form a dynastic union combining their interests? Maybe Sweden or Denmark decided to all Adolphus earlier and conquer the Baltics and Germany. These are pretty out-there ideas I know, but they're a start.
You're free to disagree or point out an error in my writings, hell the exact opposite may happen and Italian merchants are able to create even more art with even more money and conquests. But I'll stand by this for now.
To start with, the Golden Horde could not accomplish any of the actions on your list due to the lack of resources. It could maintain control over the Russian territories and for a while Nogai could influence situation in Bulgaria region before he was kicked out. But even the raids to Poland and Hungary had been ending up with either a limited success or a failure. Besides pure shortage of the available numbers, there was shortage of skills: all these engineers were “imperial resource” and left after the Western Campaign. In the later raids to Poland and Hungary there was a visible shortage of skills needed for storming the stone fortifications.

Then goes the scope of conquest/raiding: there were limits for penetration dictated by the need to give people and horses rest and food. The Golden Horde was based in Volga region and it is a very long ride from Volga to Paris. 😜

Regarding cultural impact, it is useful to remember that population of the Golden Horde was predominantly not Mongolian except for the ruling dynasty and few aristocrats: all sons of Jochi got 4,000 Mongols and the rest were the subdued local tribes. These tribes adopted Mongolian law and the rules of life prescribed by that law but even this was with some limitations because there were conflicts between requirements of Yasa and the Muslim laws and quite a few of the Turik subjects of the Horde were Muslims. The same goes for language, weapons and other ‘trifles’ all the way to the horses (Tatar horse is not exactly the same as Mongolian pony). Taking into the account that the Kipchaks (Polovtsy) lived in Volga area for centuries before they “became” Tatars, there was very little new in the terms of a cultural impact on their neighbors (Russians, Hungarians, Bulgars) and the same goes for the natives of Upper Volga (Volga Bulgaria) who retained a lot of their ethnic identity. Of course, there was some impact like better communications with the East and availability of its goods. Of course, there were human losses but in the ore-Mongolian times the Russian principalities had been in a state of never ending wars both with the outside neighbors and between themselves and I have very serious doubts that population did not suffer so nothing really new there. Needless to say that by definition the conquerors did not interfere into the “cultural affairs” of their Russian subjects: the Church was a protected entity and Genghis’ laws did not apply to the sedentary population.

Now, as far as the “conservatism” is involved, there is no indication that any of the cultures listed, especially China, had been more open societies before the conquest than after. If anything, Khubilai “opened” China to some degree by introducing ethnically mixed administration, opening country from trade with the CA, etc. Chinese xenophobia was there before the Mongols and afterwards it was just a return to the traditional mentality. Anyway, Khubilai preserved all Chinese administrative structures.

“Conservatism” (or whatever) of the Russian states was religion-based: most of the neighbors to the West had been Catholic states and relations between the two creeds were not quite friendly even before the Mongols came into the picture. Not that pre-Mongolian Russia was among the most advanced places in Europe and blaming everything on the Mongols was a favorite excuse for laziness and ineptitude even in the XX century. OTOH, not sure how exactly “conservatism” has to be defined if the social processes of consolidation had been happening practically on the same time table as in the most advanced (in this specific aspect) parts of Europe: Ivan III was a contemporary of Louis XI. Ditto for the early absolutism: Ivan IV was a contemporary of Elizabeth of England. Closed society? Ivan III had been in extensive diplomatic exchange with the Western Europe, was inviting the Italian specialists and there were plenty of foreigners in Tsardom of Ivan IV and the numbers kept growing with a possible interruption for the ToT. Regular infantry with the firearms had been created well ahead of most Europe. And when their inadequacy in tactical terms became obvious by the mid-XVII, the government introduced a massive military reform along the western lines (and conducted by the western specialists, not exactly a sign of the closed society). People stuck to their religion? What a big surprise: there were religious wars fought in Western Europe over that issue. Of course, the country was reasonably backward but it was mostly because it had been blocked from the advanced regions by the hostile neighbors.

Not sure how the Ottomans got into the picture because their state is post-Mongolian and, again, the pre-Mongolian Turks were not exactly at the front of civilization and by the time of Mongolian invasion the Seljuk empire already fall apart. However, on the initial stages of its development the Ottoman state was quite advanced, especially in the military area, and widely open to the things “western”.
 
Last edited:
The Mongols were the strongest fighting force justaxposed with their contemporaries in history. Had Ogedei lived for a few more years, the entirety of Europe would have fallen under the Mongol yoke. If China, a much stronger and more advanced empire fell, why not Europe?
 
Top