Plausibility Check: Mongols in Europe

How far can the Mongols actually get into Europe? Is it possible for them control at least half of it? And is it possible for some of them to convert to Christianity?

Let's discuss.
 
If they had the will and the desire, the Mongols could control all of Europe. But that's incredibly unlikely, mostly because such an invasion would be too costly and timely to be worth it for any Khan. Europe was unimportant compared to China.
 
If they had the will and the desire, the Mongols could control all of Europe. But that's incredibly unlikely, mostly because such an invasion would be too costly and timely to be worth it for any Khan. Europe was unimportant compared to China.

I have to agree. The Mongols are capable of taking whole of Europe. But the cost is greater than the reward.
 
Surely they might ruin Europe pretty much but hardly take totally to control, and hardly Mongols can keep even Eastern Europe very long.
 
The Mongol advantage is the horse which require open plains, whereas the advantage of Europe is its forests and hills. Especially its forest - the Black Forest would be Europes major protection against the Mongols.

Afterall the Mongols defeated the Hungarian Knights, although not in Croatia. They could have taken the Balkans and maybe ventured further in but beyond the Carpathians there is no grazing land able to support them.
 
I'm personally of the opinion that the Mongols couldn't have held on to Eastern Europe in perpetuity, but it would be much easier for them in Eastern Europe than in the West. The Balkans is too heavily-forested and hilly, whilst Germany had Europe's highest density of castles in Europe. The Mongols wouldn't be able to outmaneuver their pikemen reliably.
 
There are few places left in Europe that were worth the effort of a siege that the Mongols didn't lay their hands on, I believe Po Valley was one of them.
 
The Mongols could probably have taken and held the Pannonnian Basin a la Magyar style, provided they adopted the local religion so as to keep Crusaders off of their back.
 
I think that Mongols could have formed an important political entity between Pannonian Plain, Baltic and Danube, vassalizing Poland, Balkanic realms, and possibly HRE states. Half of Europe is a reasonably plausible outcome.
How long would it last however, is another question (depends a lot from what would happen in the Imperial Mongol structures).

Rather than one factor, you have multiple parallel reasons that their advance would be clearly more difficult westwards : lack of men (IRRC, estimated to 20 000/30 000, meaning something already REALLY important for the era and place, and without counting auxiliaries, admittedly), western realms having definitely enough structuration and ressources to have a good enough defense, density of stone fortification (wooden fortifications were prevalent in Eastern Europe and Eastern HRE, but ceased to be by the XIth century in western Europe) that were an issue to Mongols conquerors in Croatia, and being definitely too far of traditional Mongol bases and support (Russia was already the further point from these centers at this point.

It doesn't mean that Mongols couldn't raid the shit out of Germany, Italy or even France, Magyar-style, and I don't think these could really do something about it. (It would damage relations hard enough for seeing these trying to get Hungarian Mongols at the first sign of weakness).

I don't see their quick Christianisation as something necessary to last, but rather something akin to traditional Mongol policies : use anti-religious policies as a terror and political weapon when necessary, being relativly tolerent if not.
While evangelisation would probably be a thing at term, arguably, the first missionaries would probably have to compete with whatever could exist : lithuanian priests, nestorians, muslims, tengrism, etc.

Eastern Europe and Hungary would definitely look more as what Russia is. Hungary was already quite influenced by Cumans IOTL before Mongol campaigns, and I think it would definitely mark the country (maybe an Hungarian "Tatarstan"?), as a big part of European geopolitics.

Interestingly, Mongols conquests and presence in Europe may end not only as IOTL, meaning better communication with Far-East Asia in a continent united under Pax Mongolica, but as well the reverse (critically if Egypt falls in the same time).
 
The Mongol advantage is the horse which require open plains, whereas the advantage of Europe is its forests and hills. Especially its forest - the Black Forest would be Europes major protection against the Mongols.

Afterall the Mongols defeated the Hungarian Knights, although not in Croatia. They could have taken the Balkans and maybe ventured further in but beyond the Carpathians there is no grazing land able to support them.

Here we go again with European biases. Hills and forests? Really?
Don't get me started on with the walls justification.

Mongols have conquered nations with forests, hills, excellent walls with more advanced tech than Europe during that time period.

The Mongols are capable of taking the whole of Europe. But there is no reason for them to take it.
 
Here we go again with European biases. Hills and forests? Really?
Don't get me started on with the walls justification.

Mongols have conquered nations with forests, hills, excellent walls with more advanced tech than Europe during that time period.

The Mongols are capable of taking the whole of Europe. But there is no reason for them to take it.

To be more precise, those obstacles makes Europe past Germany not worth the effort, not making it impossible.
 
Here we go again with European biases. Hills and forests? Really?
Don't get me started on with the walls justification.

Mongols have conquered nations with forests, hills, excellent walls with more advanced tech than Europe during that time period.

The Mongols are capable of taking the whole of Europe. But there is no reason for them to take it.

If I read the above correctly, I think the argument is not that there were stone fortifications but that that there was stone fortification on every other hill.

Noone denies that MOngols took Chinese cities with fortifications, but it took time and the countryside was AFAIK wide open once the Great wall was breached. The point is that stone castle, unlike wooden forts cannot be burned down quickly and take time to reduce. So the point of the dense network of castles is that it would bog the mopngols down as they cannot bypass all of them; they serve as refuge for the local population and as base for the armies that would take the Mongols in the back. Yes, the mongols can burn the land around the Castle, but if they move on, the european can withstand this (just as the French withstood the ENglish Chevauchees by bunkering in castles after each of their big defeazts in the 100 year war).
 
If I read the above correctly, I think the argument is not that there were stone fortifications but that that there was stone fortification on every other hill.

Noone denies that MOngols took Chinese cities with fortifications, but it took time and the countryside was AFAIK wide open once the Great wall was breached. The point is that stone castle, unlike wooden forts cannot be burned down quickly and take time to reduce. So the point of the dense network of castles is that it would bog the mopngols down as they cannot bypass all of them; they serve as refuge for the local population and as base for the armies that would take the Mongols in the back. Yes, the mongols can burn the land around the Castle, but if they move on, the european can withstand this (just as the French withstood the ENglish Chevauchees by bunkering in castles after each of their big defeazts in the 100 year war).
It's not that Chinese neglected their defences, but that most West European castles doesn't house a big, lucrative target, while Chinese fortifications are mostly fortified cities and thus worth the trouble taking them. How many major cities were in eastern Germany in the midde ages, anyway?
 
From what I gathered, Chinese systematical fortifications outside protection of towns, weren't that focused on by Chinese policies before the Ming Dynasty, after they chased of Mongols.

Mind you, fortifications weren't a problem for Mongols to go whereever they wanted. They had siege equipment quite fitting for this task. But it's eventually about doing it for every massive fortifications to control the land, when castles in medieval Europe were less build to protect strategic places, than to mark the territory and ensure seniorial domination (I think we can rid out the smallest castles as a threat to Mongol domination quite easilty).

Eventually, with the limited ammount of "human ressources" they had, going trough the effort would eventually oblige their armies to be divided in different groups (you can't easily feed an army, critically if largely horse-based) on the same grounds for weeks) and more vulnerable. Doesn't mean they couldn't largely damage the concerned regions, and go back with large wealth.

Think late Carolingian situation on the scale of consequences.
 
Last edited:

Neirdak

Banned
I think that Europe was lucky and saved by a few events:

- The sudden death of Grand Khan Ogodei.
- The Mongol families/clans feuds and infighting.
-
The stupid feud between Grand Khan Guyuk and Batu Khan, which led to Subutai conquering Song China.
- The decision of Batu Khan not to become Grand Khan and to push the inept Mongke Khan on the throne after the death of Great Khan Guyuk.
- The differences between conquests that are only ordered by Great Khans and raids that can be ordered by Khans.
- His later decision to focus on inner family politics instead of conquering Europe.
- The sinicization of Mongol dynasty and the focus on China.
- The inability of Batu's son to become Grand Khan and his quick death.
- The choice of Berke (Batu's brother) to go to war against Hulagu Khan, after the death of Batu's son, which separated the Golden Horde from the Empire. Berke also supported Great Khan claimant Ariq Böke in the Toluid Civil War, which enraged Kubilai Khan.
- Funnily, the intervention by Berke against Hulagu probably saved the remainder of the "Holy Land", including Mecca and Jerusalem, from the same fate as Baghdad.

Could the Mongols conquer Europe?

I have heard the geographic-determinist argument for why the Mongols could not have taken Europe, but to my mind it doesn't hold; the Mongols did in fact rule in places beyond the grasslands, notably Song China. Much more convincing is the argument that Mongol imperial unity only had a certain shelf-life and the overwieldy Mongol Empire doomed to break into warring factions eventually. Conquest on a grand scale far from their power-base was only really possible where the Mongols were unified.

I just know that Mongols were disunited and only raiding Europe after Ogedei's death. Their campaigns in eastern Europe against Poland and Hungary show just how unprepared the squabbling fiefdoms at the edge of (at that time) the world's greatest empire were. These campaigns became merely raids and not organized conquests. They didn't even try to conquer Europe and were focused on family feuds and Asia, Ogodei's death (and Batu's feud with the new Great Khan) caused the recall of the best units of the Mongol standing army under the command of Subutai to Asia.

Adverse terrain, limited grazing and mounting losses that weren't as easily replaced in the west would have slowed them, but once they secure a more permanent occupation of Hungary, they can launch new conquests and greatly reduce their logistics. South China was also even more inhospitable for steppe ponies than Western Europe.

So, what if they actually tried to conquer Europe and were united under Batu Grand Khan and conducted by Subutai Khan?
 
Last edited:
Top