The Mongols are stereotyped as being horse archers but they had a mixed cavalry force of horse archers and lancers
Wrong because ALL of them had bows, even the lancers and their tactics was much more diverse than a primitive division into a shooting and shock cavalry.
so it's not like it would be useless
What exactly would not be useless?
(granted I believe they did actually have slightly more horse archers), I also don't expect hungry to hold every pass (I expect them to fail that's why I included them in my anticipated western border of the Mongols if you look back) Im just saying if the mongals are in greater numbers (which I expect they will be without the middle east) they need to plug the leaks in the mountains or get drowned out.
No offense but it is very difficult to understand what you are trying to say ("hungry" instead of "Hungary" is just one of too many cases and why should I spend time trying to figure out the real meaning of what's printed).
As for what
seems to be your point, it does not make too much practical sense on 2 accounts. 1st, if not all passes are being held then your stratagem is just a suicidal trap for the defenders and 2nd, absence of the earlier conquest of Persia/Khwaresm in 1219/21 (
which is NOT "Middle East") would not make any noticeable positive impact on the size of the armies engaged in conquest of the Eastern Europe and then Western Campaign (1236 - 41): these events had been separated by quite a few years and so are the Western Campaign and conquest of the Abassid Caliphate in 1257/58 (between 1236 and 1257 the Mongols just did few limited in size raids of Caliphate territory), which qualifies as "Middle East" but at that time hardly was "Persia" (as in thread's title). For the conquest of Caliphate the the Great Khan Munke ordered mobilization of the troops from all parts of the empire including the Golden Horde, which simply did not exist before 1241.
Do you remember when I said that cavalry tactics get debuffed in forest environment
I remember it and what you wrote clearly indicates (nothing personal) that you don't have a clear idea both about the Mongols and what amounts to the "forest environment". Part of the Mongolian tribes, so-called "forest Mongols", lived in taiga forests to the North of Baikal Lake. More than that, Subotai was from Uriankhai area - a heavily forested region. Central Russia was a heavily forested area in the mid-XIII. "Heavily forested" does not mean that there are only trees growing "shoulder to shoulder" because the very fact that the area was inhabited by the sedentary people and had numerous towns (not to mention even more numerous villages) clearly indicates that there are clear spaces, natural and artificially created. The same goes for the forested areas inhabited by the nomadic people. Also, even a superficial familiarity the relevant history would tell you that the "native" (Russian) warfare of that period had been based on the heavy cavalry with the addition of the horse archers (in the southern princedoms facing the steppe) and an infantry being "remote second" pretty much the same as was the case in the Central and Western Europe of that period. And these armies had been fighting each other all the time prior to the Mongolian appearance in these "densely forested" areas which according to your theory should be impossible. The same goes for the German forests: if all Germany of the XIII century is one big dense forest than there are no cities, castles, etc. and the knights (according to your theory) are pretty much useless. However we do know that none of the above is correct. Which means that most of the local population did not live in the middle of the forests and this leaves us with a fundamental question: why would the Mongols go into these forests if everything of any value is outside them?
this is why I said early on I think they would be stopped shortly after hitting the HRE because of a number of factors that include, professional troops,
The troops of the Central and Western Europe of that period were just as "professional" as their counterparts in the Eastern Europe so this can be easily disregarded. In both cases the "armies" had been ad hoc assemblies of the feudal bands based upon the heavy cavalry. In both cases an individual band was built around a feudal seignior and consisted of a number of the heavily armed horsemen supported by the mounted followers having a lighter armor. There could be some foot soldiers but they were mostly used for the defense of the fortified places and, in the field, for protecting a camp, etc. The only exception were city militias (both in the East and in the West) of a varied quality. The details varied from region to region but the principle was the same and the troops defeated at Legnitz and Sajo in 1241 were not substantially different from those defeated at Kalka in 1223 or at Sit in 1238 or from those that could be raised within the HRE.
And as far as the HRE was involved, Frederick II seemingly did not have too many illusions about a possibility of defeating the Mongols and in the mid-1241 he disbanded whatever he managed to assemble, ordered his vassals in Swabia, Austria, and Bohemia to avoid field battles, hoard all food stocks in every fortress and stronghold, and arm all possible levies as well as the general populace. In other words, engaged in the same strategy as Khwaresm Shah Mohammed during the Mongolian invasion. The main difference was (and Frederick was well up to date with the Mongolian affairs) that, unlike the case of Khwaresm, the Western Campaign was from the very beginning planned as a massive raid with no intention of a permanent conquest: on the way West the Mongols had been explicitly avoiding the prolonged sieges (even in princedoms of Galiz) to keep offensive along the long front on schedule and well coordinated.
In other words, the whole idea of the Mongolian conquest (as opposite to the
raid) of the Western Europe is a popular fantasy which is goes against many known facts and can't be taken too seriously (Ogdai's death was just a convenient excuse for these issues to reveal themselves). It belongs to the same category as the Arab conquest of Europe if they won a battle of Poitiers or the Ottoman conquest of Europe if they took Vienna.
in superior defenses like castles and natural borders like forests, rivers
In the Central Russia the Mongols took by storm numerous fortified cities within a single winter campaign. Fortifications of China and those of the cities of the Central Asia quite often had been much more formidable than those of the XIII century Europe. I already addressed the "forests" issues. As for the rivers, the Mongols crossed quite a few major rivers in Asia and Eastern Europe (Volga, AFAIK, being wider than any other river in Europe) and Central Russia was/is full of the small rivers.