How does the Mongol invasion of Europe proceed if Ogedei Khan lives another 20 years?
- Thread starter Sirius
- Start date
I think they would stop at Germany, at best. Forests plus castles everywhere, not something good for them.
Perhaps a proper conquest of Hungary?
Perhaps a proper conquest of Hungary?
![[totally a legit person]](/forum/data/avatars/m/134/134906.jpg?1617940240){kind=avatar}
They wouldn't be able to get past Hungary and Poland, there are just too many castles, they'd need to change the entirety of their war machine to have a possible chance of a victory past them, maybe some Magyar style raiding is possible for them?
The whole campaign outside Russian territories was a big-scale raid and not a campaign of conquest. The pattern was noticeably different and the main attention had been paid to the synchronization of advance then to subduing the area: while everywhere else there were numerous sieges, there the resisting places had been bypassed. A formal goal of the campaign was to fulfill the will of Genghis and reach “the last Western Sea”. When the Adriatic coast was reached, everybody pretended that they believed that this is is “last sea”.
Unlike other campaigns, a practical goal of this one was not defined either. Ulus Jochi was ending in the Kipchack Steppe and Russian territories but a head of a new ulus was not appointed, which indicates that the territory was not expected to be a part of the empire even if the standard diplomatic procedures (request to submit to Khan’s power) had been performed: the Mongols had been doing things by the book.
Ogedei’s death was important only in one aspect: there was no authority forcing the Mongolian princes to stay together against their will. Guyuk already tried to leave earlier with his allies but was stopped by his father. Subotai, with all the reputation he had, was just a servant of the Khan and could not order the Genghisids. So, with Ogedei living longer, we may expect that campaign may continue for a while in the same raiding style but then, again, for how long could it continue realistically? The fresh horses could be brought to the Hungarian plain by the spring allowing to keep raiding but this was the last available steppe “base” so we can expect one more raid which could go as far as the Northern Italy (making Frederick II very happy) or simply do some looting in Germany.
After this, the Mongols would most probably turn to their base on Volga. Nogai would get his domain on the Danube as a vassal of Batu but none of them is going to be left with a considerable Mongolian force. Genghisids who were not from Jochi branch of the family would not stay on Batu territory and return to their domains. OTOH, Batu was not too interested in the extensive Western conquest either: Jochi Ulus already was huge and required much more troops than he had, especially taking into an account hostility of many of his cousins. Russian territories could be controlled from Volga but even Poland and Hungary could not. And areas to the West did not have steppes big enough to support considerable numbers of horses and cattle.
.
Actually, this was exactly what they were doing during the Western campaign. Of course, most of the castles and fortresses in Poland and Hungary at that time had been wooden and taking them would not be much different from those in the Central Russia but the Mongols on the early stage of the Western campaign had been avoiding unpromising sieges even in Galitz.
This implies that the forests of the Central Russia did not exist.
Actually, many Mongols, including Subotai himself, came from the heavily forested areas (Subotai and Jelme were from Uriankhai).
I often see this, and I'm genuinely curious - was the fortification of Medieval Europe something sui generis?
I recognize that this is a secondary question to whether the Mongols would struggle with it - but I think it's worth asking whether there were other similar fortified areas in the world and assessing how the Mongols did against comparable defenses.
the mongols cant bring the thousands of chinese engineers siege engines and infantry they used to conquer the song to europe , the rus and khareziam forts where made of ramped earth not stone making them easy to destroy .
I mean, yeah, there's logistical concerns. But what about Mongol siege craft in Iran? And could suitable European engineers be hired/requisitioned?
iranian siege craft is not mentioned much on the sources the mongols used almost exclusively chinise siege engines they could get iranians to make chinise siege engines for them
also what european would join them after what they did to hungary and poland unlike china europe could unite or at least some states could unite against a bigger foe seen for example when otto manged to unite his vassals against the magyars or how the one hundred years war (at is end ) unified france under the common enemy of england same with the hre and spain against france etc.
but still the iranian thing solves one issue (the distance is also great ) there is still the infantry notion since horse archers are not good for sieges where the only way to take them out is via assults
Which sources?
I don't know if there was a coherent "European" identity at the time to that extent. You state that "unlike china europe could unite" while ignoring that China was largely united. And that most of the arguments as to why Europe wouldn't fall to the Mongols rely on decentralization - the number of fortifications, the number of uncultivated forests, etc.
Well, motte-and-bailey castles were very unique to Europe, they were some of the most well designed castles in the world at the time, the Mongols would not be able to take them, though Northern Italy had been lagging in that area, so maybe it would've been a better target for further raiding. Also, the European nations held some other advantages, like knights, a army of only knights could keep up with the Mongols, close the distance thanks to their plate armour, and be better at fighting in melee. It'd be the same strategy that Otto the Great used to beat the Magyars, the only difference this time around, would be some of the best armoured calvary in history versus some of the best calvary archers in history. Also, the Pike, longbow, and crossbow were taking of and being refined in use and tactics at this time, if they were used correctly, they'd be a serious problem.
I don't know - certainly there are plenty of examples of armies of knights losing battles to opponents who relied heavily on mounted archers, and its not as if the Chinese were unfamiliar with combined arms tactics themselves.
I think the more credible argument is that a whole host of decentralized castles, many of which are built on difficult ground to attack, could make holding territory difficult or impossible. Which is why I'm hoping someone can definitively state whether or not the Mongols ever overcame something like that.
read The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia it goes in to detail about what siege engines the mongols used most them being chinese with some muslims (not persian ) siege engines .
the pope already called for anti mongol crusade and even the otl the kingdom of bohemia and other states where going to the help of poland this is why the mongols chose the battle of legniza since they did not want the big bohemian army to reunite with the poles .
china was not largely united it was divided by 3 states that had bad relationships and even in the face of mongol invasion they did nothing to help each other the song flat out helped the mongols conquer the jin dynasty the siege of siege of Caizhou was a mongol song siege , if the hre can leave all its squables behind they can raise an army it would require the mongols to choose the battle because they would be at disadvantage Battle of Lechfeld 2 since in the olt mohi would have been a mongol defeat if where not for subotia saving batu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechfeld
Last edited:
plate armour did not exist yes tho just the coat of plates and some minor plate
pretty much this the reason why the left was probably a combination of the cuman revolt , the hungarian steppe flooding slowing down the movements since the siege engines and supply chains stuck on the mud and creating a lack of pastures for a cavarly based army that a no no
but i disagree with you on some things.
"they were also helped massively in lands of the Rus by the fact that the Mongols got along well with the other steppe tribes in the region so the Cumans and Volga Bulgars just hopped in the car when Subutai asked if they wanted to go kill some Rus. " not quite this is the same subotia that attacked them and forced them to join the rus against him in the battle of the kalka river heck the cuman revolt is an example that they did not like the mongols that much."
"partitioned mess at this point) was essentially just a united empire in the way that the East and West halves of Rome were. " not quite no one dared ogedies rigth to rule or authority this only happend after his death but maybe in this timeline the princes do dumb things to gain the favor of the kurultai and ogedie
"Regarding folks who might jerk off to the idea that the Mamluks didn't fairly beat the Mongols? At Ain Jalut, while Qutuz enjoyed a numerical advantage, it was by no means a crushing one (especially given previous Mongol tactics and victories from worse situations"
to be fair comparing kitbuka to subotai is like comparing a wolf to kodiak bear , one being an avarge general the other being one of the contenders of the greatest military geniuses to live , but to be fair he has only 6 years left on him in this timeline maybe even less since he migth catch something that kills him in 1243 or 1244 Etc or ogedie recalls him to figth against the song.
Well, Genghis Khan fought and won many sieges in China, though I'm not fairly knowledgeable on Chinese castles, I believe they were not as complex as their European counterparts in many ways. Such ways that would allow them to hold out for very long periods of time, most likely long enough to force the Mongols to leave the siege, thus not securing their logistics, the land, and leaving a possible army in their flank, which wouldn't be a ideal situation. Either that or wait for the European armies to come and face them at a disadvantage, which would mean a lot of risk without any high reward for it, not an ideal situation for the Mongols either to say the least of it. The Mongols even avoided Hungarian and Polish castles, which were mostly wooden at the time, Motte-and-bailey castles were not only made of stone but also much more complex and intricately designed for sieges.
Sorry, my memory is a terrible thing, and neither am I a very smart person or very knowledgeable at all.
Edit: my grammar is terrible.
Last edited:
Holding Europe seems out of the cards, but raiding it? I'd hate to bet against the Mongols' track record.
Hungary isn't the most ideal example to project forward to Mongol excursions into central/western Europe because a lot of the country is open plain like the Mongols favored. That being said, the Hungarian knights they fought did not have a good time.
Hungary isn't the most ideal example to project forward to Mongol excursions into central/western Europe because a lot of the country is open plain like the Mongols favored. That being said, the Hungarian knights they fought did not have a good time.
Last edited:
Medieval walls of Bukhara
Medieval walls of the Russian towns had wooden walls on the top of the ramped earth
Stone fortifications of Poland and Hungary are mostly post-Mongolian (had been built between the Western Campaign and the 2nd raid). Prior to this in Poland they were mostly wood and earth construction.
But construction of the castles was not the major problem because most of them had been small and their garrisons tiny. In a big scale campaign of conquest there would be no need to take all or even most of them because garrison’s ability to project power was close to zero. BTW, territory of Caucasus was full of the stone castles and it’s conquest was not a big deal. The pattern of conquest was to take the big cities and to show an example: of a place surrendered without resistance, it was not destroyed and its population was spared. But resistance meant destruction and death. Usually, few impressive “examples” were enough for the people in the region to get an idea (offer to surrender was a standard initial step). Submission of each an every castle owner was not required as long as the local ruler (prince, count, whatever) submitted. The following procedure was standard everywhere: the local boss was acknowledging Khan’s supremacy (in European terms became his vassal), size of his tribute and military obligations was defined and the area was pretty much left alone.
This was different for the raids because they were exclusively about looting and the things of value had been in the fortified places.