The Mongols did not invade Europe

The population estimate I have read for the Carpathian basin - The Kingdom of Hungary - was 3 million before the mongol invasion. That lives a lot of empty space - many of which was forested at the time. There were also swamps along some of the rivers and extensivly in the southern Banat.

About the royal ring: its rather hard to imagine that when the mongol have especially tried to capture the king they wouldnt have the wits to use his ring if captured. They have destroyed the army of the king and were able to do as they pleased without serious opposition. Its pretty easy to imagine that they found someone who was willing to help them with the letters. And they dont have to inform every village themselfs - just the counties. They will be the one to inform the villages so the local administration does that for them.

And even if we go with the most modest estimate - with the only reason for doing so being your weak imagination - we are speaking of 15-20% of population loss. 2 man in every 10 dead. Thats already plenty brutal if you ask me. Also if sources agree about the mongol brutality from Central Asia through Russia to Hungary maybe we might believe them.

Usefulness of the swamps as the hiding places for the people with their livestock and food supplies is limited (what your cattle is suppossed to eat and where are you going to stay?) and, as you noticed, they were not conveniently located all over the country so most of the population in the raider area simply could not use them. The same goes for the forests: Central Russia was heavily forested but the Mongols had been operating there without major problems (so-called “forest Mongols” lived on the fringes of taiga, which is more than a match for any European forest). Anyway, you can always find somebody showing you the path to the hiding places. If there are willing cooperators ready to write the letters (without cheating with the content), to carry these letters to the regional centers, deliver them and report about the false victory (with a high risk of being contradicted by fleeing survivors and tortured), why do you think that the lower classes would be less prone to a cooperation if promised a personal security? What would be the reason for the Mongols to kill most of the local population on the territories they hold (which would be only a part of Hungary)? Just for the fun of it even if this meant that these dead people would not be producing food for the conquerors?

Now, as far as the estimates are involved, the contemporary reports, from China to Hungary, are known for the gross exaggerations all the way to a complete annihilation of a local population being reported by a (presumably) local eyewitness. Then we have to separate the losses from the invasion from those of the unrelated causes: very cold and wet winter with a flooding of a big part of the Hungarian Plain and resulting famine (the Mongols hardly could be blamed for the climate). How many people died from each of these reasons? Do you have any meaningful breakdown or just repeating the numbers without thinking? How many of the reported losses were the people taken prisoners and sent Eastward? The Mongols tended to do this to the artisans. I understand that these people are still “losses” but they were not killed as your post implies.

Now, was 15 - 20% something unheard of during the MA? Judging by an endless list of the cities destroyed in the Central Russia, percentages there should be at least on the same level (and, contrary to all evidence, practically all princes were reported killed) and if we believe the more or less contemporary estimates for the CA, the losses here would probably exceed 100% of the reported population (just for the case of Bukhara, one has to believe that it had over a million of population and was completely depopulated after being taken by the Mongols). If you believe these stories, I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge really cheap. But let’s accept the number, just for the sake of the arguing. Russian principalities had been back in business and even easily taxable immediately after the Western Campaign (in other words, as soon as Batu had time to establish at least some administration). The same goes for most of the CA.

So why the same or lower level of the losses and destruction would be catastrophic for Hungary where the Mongols stayed only for few months and which they did not tax afterwards?
 
Usefulness of the swamps as the hiding places for the people with their livestock and food supplies is limited (what your cattle is suppossed to eat and where are you going to stay?) and, as you noticed, they were not conveniently located all over the country so most of the population in the raider area simply could not use them. The same goes for the forests: Central Russia was heavily forested but the Mongols had been operating there without major problems (so-called “forest Mongols” lived on the fringes of taiga, which is more than a match for any European forest). Anyway, you can always find somebody showing you the path to the hiding places. If there are willing cooperators ready to write the letters (without cheating with the content), to carry these letters to the regional centers, deliver them and report about the false victory (with a high risk of being contradicted by fleeing survivors and tortured), why do you think that the lower classes would be less prone to a cooperation if promised a personal security? What would be the reason for the Mongols to kill most of the local population on the territories they hold (which would be only a part of Hungary)? Just for the fun of it even if this meant that these dead people would not be producing food for the conquerors?

Now, as far as the estimates are involved, the contemporary reports, from China to Hungary, are known for the gross exaggerations all the way to a complete annihilation of a local population being reported by a (presumably) local eyewitness. Then we have to separate the losses from the invasion from those of the unrelated causes: very cold and wet winter with a flooding of a big part of the Hungarian Plain and resulting famine (the Mongols hardly could be blamed for the climate). How many people died from each of these reasons? Do you have any meaningful breakdown or just repeating the numbers without thinking? How many of the reported losses were the people taken prisoners and sent Eastward? The Mongols tended to do this to the artisans. I understand that these people are still “losses” but they were not killed as your post implies.

Now, was 15 - 20% something unheard of during the MA? Judging by an endless list of the cities destroyed in the Central Russia, percentages there should be at least on the same level (and, contrary to all evidence, practically all princes were reported killed) and if we believe the more or less contemporary estimates for the CA, the losses here would probably exceed 100% of the reported population (just for the case of Bukhara, one has to believe that it had over a million of population and was completely depopulated after being taken by the Mongols). If you believe these stories, I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge really cheap. But let’s accept the number, just for the sake of the arguing. Russian principalities had been back in business and even easily taxable immediately after the Western Campaign (in other words, as soon as Batu had time to establish at least some administration). The same goes for most of the CA.

So why the same or lower level of the losses and destruction would be catastrophic for Hungary where the Mongols stayed only for few months and which they did not tax afterwards?

Yeah lets take all the sources we have and toss them to the trash because those were all grossly owerstated and you dont believe them. Lets rewrite history instead on what you think is plausible and eyewitnesses and people who lived through the mongol invasion be damned. Sorry but I cant debate on a base like that.
 
Yeah lets take all the sources we have and toss them to the trash because those were all grossly owerstated and you dont believe them. Lets rewrite history instead on what you think is plausible and eyewitnesses and people who lived through the mongol invasion be damned. Sorry but I cant debate on a base like that.

I did not propose to throw out all the sources, which is a cheap demagoguery, but you should understand that most of these sources had been providing the inflated numbers and many of them had not been provided by the reliable eyewitnesses. What you call rewriting the history had been done by Hans Delbruck, one of the most reputable military historians, and his method of a critical analysis is still valid.

So far you did not answer even seemingly simple question: what was a breakdown of the alleged losses between 3 main factors: killed during the raid, captured and dead from a climate-caused famine. Surely, your sources should provide something relevant besides just blaming everything upon the sadistic Mongols and lost royal signet.
 
Last edited:
I did not propose to throw out all the sources, which is a cheap demagoguery, but you should understand that most of these sources had been providing the inflated numbers and many of them had not been provided by the reliable eyewitnesses. What you call rewriting the history had been done by Hans Delbruck, one of the most reputable military historians, and his method of a critical analysis is still valid.

So far you did not answer even seemingly simple question: what was a breakdown of the alleged losses between 3 main factors: killed during the raid, captured and dead from a climate-caused famine. Surely, your sources should provide something relevant besides just blaming everything upon the sadistic Mongols and lost royal signet.

Sorry but its not me who is seemingly implying that even without the mongols a comparable loss of life would have taken place. Also how do you separate the reasons? Guy died of starvation - lets write it done to climate. Wait, he didnt had enough food because the mongols took it. Or killed his sons who was supposed to help with the farming. Also want to point out that all your points of the mongols not wanting to destroy a potential military base are valid at most till they decided to retreat from Hungary. The moment that happens their interest is in destruction - this aligns pretty well with our sources from Hungary.

And I can agree that some of the sources - or even most of them - have inflated number of casualties. The problem is however we have a very wide range of sources from very diverse people. What did Rogerius (a primary source and eyewitness from Hungary) know of anything going on in Central Asia. My point is that these were not "classics" and cant be grouped as such as the people who wrote them wrote them without knowing from each other. And all of them point out the brutality of the mongols and we have no source praising their mercy. Instead they made use of the fear their brutality evoked. And if such a wide range of sources agree on their brutality than Im willing to believe it.

Also killing of only a fifth of the population of an area is horrible and brutal enough for me. I also want to point out that these are only the lowest estimates that range up to 50-60% of the population. I also did not say that the mongols were not equally bad elsewhere just that they were really hard on Hungary - because thats what i know. I havent studied Russian or Central Asian history nearly the same extent as hungarian. Its in regards of the mongol invasion of hungary that i have read primary sources on and not the other lands. Thats why I kept my comment to Hungary.
 
Sorry but its not me who is seemingly implying that even without the mongols a comparable loss of life would have taken place.

You "seemingly" have an over-developed imagination because I did not "imply" anything of the kind, just asked if you can separate 3 types of the losses: (a) killed, (b) captured and sent to the Mongolian lands (either on Volga or all the way to Mongolia) and (c) those who died from the climate-related famine. It seems that you have no idea.

Also how do you separate the reasons? Guy died of starvation - lets write it done to climate. Wait, he didnt had enough food because the mongols took it.

Nice try but you seemingly don't know what you are talking about: the recent researches confirmed that there was an extremely cold and snowy winter after which a big part of the Hungarian Plain presumably turned into a swamp (which was cited as one of the possible reasons for the Mongolian retreat) with a resulting famine. Do you insist that the snowy winter and following flooding had been caused by the Mongols? BTW, it is highly unlikely that 50K Mongols could take with them ALL grain and cattle in Hungary or even a considerable part of them.

Or killed his sons who was supposed to help with the farming. Also want to point out that all your points of the mongols not wanting to destroy a potential military base are valid at most till they decided to retreat from Hungary. The moment that happens their interest is in destruction - this aligns pretty well with our sources from Hungary.

Process of a retreat took a very short time and they did not have time or the numbers needed to cause a global damage to Hungary big part of which they did not even occupy.

And I can agree that some of the sources - or even most of them - have inflated number of casualties. The problem is however we have a very wide range of sources from very diverse people. What did Rogerius (a primary source and eyewitness from Hungary) know of anything going on in Central Asia.

The problem with Rogerius is that at the time of the invasion he was in Romania, first in Várad then in Csanád, but not in Hungary proper, then escaped, went to the Rome and made archdeacon of Sopron to which town he went in 1243. He was reporting his personal experiences and did not do anything which could pass for a thorough research. In that sense he was not different from the people (mostly monks) who left chronicles of the Mongolian invasion of Russia and in the 1930's Pokrovsky gave an explanation of the doom and gloom pictures left by such sources: they were giving city-dweller's view and the cities (places where there was much more to loot) routinely suffered more than a countryside. Places could differ but mentality was the same. Anyway, Rogerius hardly could be suspected in doing any serious numbers counting and you missed the very important point: he was captured by the Mongols but not killed and he escaped. Which means that the Mongols were not killing everyone they captured and that some of these people had a good chance to escape.


Also killing of only a fifth of the population of an area is horrible and brutal enough for me.

Here we go again. OK, at a risk of hurt your sensibilities, pretty much everybody at that time was brutal and we don't know how many people the Mongols really killed. When the estimates are varying between 10 and 60% it means that nobody has a clue and that even the lowest estimate is in doubt.

I also want to point out that these are only the lowest estimates that range up to 50-60% of the population.

Which can not be taken with any degree of a seriousness. 50,000 people armed with the bows and swords physically could not kill 1,500,000 - 1,800,000 within few months.


I also did not say that the mongols were not equally bad elsewhere just that they were really hard on Hungary - because thats what i know. I havent studied Russian or Central Asian history nearly the same extent as hungarian. Its in regards of the mongol invasion of hungary that i have read primary sources on and not the other lands. Thats why I kept my comment to Hungary.

Well, sometimes it is useful to expand your "horizon" to get a broader picture indicating the patterns. Nonetheless, unless you are saying that by whatever reason the Mongols decided to be exceptionally destructive in Hungary, it is not quite clear why their few months' stay in the area was more damaging than conquest of Russian principalities which seemingly recuperated within very few years.
 
You "seemingly" have an over-developed imagination because I did not "imply" anything of the kind, just asked if you can separate 3 types of the losses: (a) killed, (b) captured and sent to the Mongolian lands (either on Volga or all the way to Mongolia) and (c) those who died from the climate-related famine. It seems that you have no idea.

Nice try but you seemingly don't know what you are talking about: the recent researches confirmed that there was an extremely cold and snowy winter after which a big part of the Hungarian Plain presumably turned into a swamp (which was cited as one of the possible reasons for the Mongolian retreat) with a resulting famine. Do you insist that the snowy winter and following flooding had been caused by the Mongols? BTW, it is highly unlikely that 50K Mongols could take with them ALL grain and cattle in Hungary or even a considerable part of them.

Process of a retreat took a very short time and they did not have time or the numbers needed to cause a global damage to Hungary big part of which they did not even occupy.

Historians cant agree if the death toll was 20 or 60 % yet you want me to provide a detailed statistics of exactly what caused each death... Anything else you want?
You are also saying that the mongolians couldnt take all the food. But destroying it by burning or other means is unheard of. That way they could have denied it to their enemies.
And do you think that the mongolians taking and destroying a huge amount of the available food didnt compound the effect of harsh winter? No one can say how many would have survived without the mongolians who have died.

The problem with Rogerius is that at the time of the invasion he was in Romania, first in Várad then in Csanád, but not in Hungary proper, then escaped, went to the Rome and made archdeacon of Sopron to which town he went in 1243. He was reporting his personal experiences and did not do anything which could pass for a thorough research. In that sense he was not different from the people (mostly monks) who left chronicles of the Mongolian invasion of Russia and in the 1930's Pokrovsky gave an explanation of the doom and gloom pictures left by such sources: they were giving city-dweller's view and the cities (places where there was much more to loot) routinely suffered more than a countryside. Places could differ but mentality was the same. Anyway, Rogerius hardly could be suspected in doing any serious numbers counting and you missed the very important point: he was captured by the Mongols but not killed and he escaped. Which means that the Mongols were not killing everyone they captured and that some of these people had a good chance to escape.

You might be interested in looking at a map of Europe in the middle ages. Please tell me when you find Romania. Than you could look up the Kingdom of Hungary and see the mentioned Várad and Csanád nearly in the center of it. Maybe you should get your basic geographie strait before debating an area.

And in regards of Rogerius: what do you want from a source? He was there and he has survived it - he witnessed the whole mess firsthand. Or what do you understand under primary sources? Of course he is not enough to form a complete picture but when the sources all the way to central asia agree that the mongolians were extremly brutal than maybe they are right.

"Here we go again. OK, at a risk of hurt your sensibilities, pretty much everybody at that time was brutal and we don't know how many people the Mongols really killed. When the estimates are varying between 10 and 60% it means that nobody has a clue and that even the lowest estimate is in doubt.

Which can not be taken with any degree of a seriousness. 50,000 people armed with the bows and swords physically could not kill 1,500,000 - 1,800,000 within few months."

And again if everyone else was just as brutal how comes that the sources all point to the extreme brutality of the mongols. If it was just business as usual why would they make a point in mentioning it? Maybe because against whatever you want us to believe the mongols were more destructive than the ones these people were used to. That these states didnt cease to exist doesnt mean that the mongolians werent that bad.


Well, sometimes it is useful to expand your "horizon" to get a broader picture indicating the patterns. Nonetheless, unless you are saying that by whatever reason the Mongols decided to be exceptionally destructive in Hungary, it is not quite clear why their few months' stay in the area was more damaging than conquest of Russian principalities which seemingly recuperated within very few years.

For the hungarians the mongols were exceptionally destructive as they havent suffered such losses against prevous invaders. To the people of Central Asia they were exceptionally destructive. Froma mongol point of view I have my doubts - they were horribly destructive everywhere.

And there have been not many wars when even the 20% of a people perishes - especially before modern times. In this regards the mongols with even their lowest estimated numbers being that high count IMO as one of the most brutal conquerors. That doesnt detract of their military genius and incredible effectivness.
 
Historians cant agree if the death toll was 20 or 60 % yet you want me to provide a detailed statistics of exactly what caused each death... Anything else you want?

AFAIK, their lower range is around 10% but as far as what I want, it is simple: I want people to be careful about the sweeping statements when they don't have definite data to support them. I also want people doing some analysis of what they read before jumping to the conclusions. When you have something definite to say in any of these areas, we can continue.
 
AFAIK, their lower range is around 10% but as far as what I want, it is simple: I want people to be careful about the sweeping statements when they don't have definite data to support them. I also want people doing some analysis of what they read before jumping to the conclusions. When you have something definite to say in any of these areas, we can continue.

The lowest I have ever seen is 15% but what does a few thousand lifes matter... And what im saying is based on the sources we have. Sources from huge, not connected areas agree on the mongols brutality. When you are ready to accept what all of our sources claim intead of pursuing your fantasies based on you imagination we can continue.
 
The lowest I have ever seen is 15% but what does a few thousand lifes matter... And what im saying is based on the sources we have. Sources from huge, not connected areas agree on the mongols brutality. When you are ready to accept what all of our sources claim intead of pursuing your fantasies based on you imagination we can continue.

OK, let me make it clear:
(a) "the mongols brutality" implies that there are "brutal nations", which is a rather dangerous claim to make
(b) there is no attempt to analyze the materials you read
(c) Various "sources" at various times had been making claims about the Hunnish brutality, Magyar brutality, Ottoman brutality, Russian brutality, Polish brutality, German brutality (and I'm not talking about WWII), French brutality, English brutality, Swiss brutality, Spanish brutality (there was even a term "Spanish Fury"), Swedish brutality, Persian brutality, and the list is going on so the Mongols are hardly unique.
(d) Implication that Hungary was somehow a special case in the terms of the scope and lasting effect of the damage needs explanation why and some confirming facts. AFAIK, an extensive construction of the stone fortifications after the Western Campaign hardly can be used as a prove that the country suffered a crippling damage: for comparison, the 1st stone fortress in the whole Russia was built only in 1368.
 
(a) "the mongols brutality" implies that there are "brutal nations", which is a rather dangerous claim to make
I have to agreee with Tibi088 here, the Mongols were extremely brutal by any source from China through Persia to Europe. Just look at the death tolls anywhere. I mean they even bragged about it, which might be written off as psychological warfare, sure, but when every single contemporary source supports it, it is hard to deny.
 
OK, let me make it clear:
(a) "the mongols brutality" implies that there are "brutal nations", which is a rather dangerous claim to make
(b) there is no attempt to analyze the materials you read
(c) Various "sources" at various times had been making claims about the Hunnish brutality, Magyar brutality, Ottoman brutality, Russian brutality, Polish brutality, German brutality (and I'm not talking about WWII), French brutality, English brutality, Swiss brutality, Spanish brutality (there was even a term "Spanish Fury"), Swedish brutality, Persian brutality, and the list is going on so the Mongols are hardly unique.
(d) Implication that Hungary was somehow a special case in the terms of the scope and lasting effect of the damage needs explanation why and some confirming facts. AFAIK, an extensive construction of the stone fortifications after the Western Campaign hardly can be used as a prove that the country suffered a crippling damage: for comparison, the 1st stone fortress in the whole Russia was built only in 1368.

a. I dont think there are brutal nations. But that doesnt change that according to the sources the mongols at the time of their great success adopted a thus far uniquly brutal method of war - that also happened to be really effective.
b. When the sources describe that entire areas were devastated and depopulated and various horrible atrocities that the mongols committed, when they all give so high casualty numbers that its actually impossible to take them at face value than I would like you to give me a source analysis that somehow sees in this: "they werent really more brutal than other conquerors".
c. The mongols are unique in the sense that the sources depicting them survives from regions so far away that nothing but the experience of the mongol conquest connects them. Also the uniformity of such a wide array of sources is unique. Than there is the scale: the swedish were a menace in Germany in the 30 years war and the Ottomans on the Balkans. The mongols from China to the borders of Germany - thats a lot bigger area. But if we come back to the mongols in Hungary: if I think really hard about it I can come up with 3 other occassions were a comparable loss of life was suffered before the world wars. And actually all 3 are either part of the Ottoman presence or a result of it. This basically means than in the history of Hungary between 896 and 1914 we are speaking of 2 or 4 (depending on how we count the ones during the ottoman wars) such occassions. That puts the mongols in a pretty uique place in Hungary.
d. I specifically said that I dont know if hungary was a special case just that it was hit really hard by the mongol invasion:
I also did not say that the mongols were not equally bad elsewhere just that they were really hard on Hungary - because thats what i know. I havent studied Russian or Central Asian history nearly the same extent as hungarian. Its in regards of the mongol invasion of hungary that i have read primary sources on and not the other lands. Thats why I kept my comment to Hungary.

Please read it this time.
 
I have to agreee with Tibi088 here, the Mongols were extremely brutal by any source from China through Persia to Europe. Just look at the death tolls anywhere. I mean they even bragged about it, which might be written off as psychological warfare, sure, but when every single contemporary source supports it, it is hard to deny.

Yes, all sources are talking about their brutality and yet in all areas of the conquest (Western campaign was different being just a big raid) we have a wide-spread local cooperation either immediately after conquest or even during the conquest. Take China, more than a half of Muqhali forces (7 rumens, IIRC) were recruited in China. In Russia, immediately after the dust settled, the leading princely family started actively cooperating. In Central Asia quite a few cities had been spared because they paid tribute without resistance. Not to mention that most of the nomadic tribes had been incorporated with the same rights as the Mongols. Batu was left with a huge domain and only 4,000 Mongols so within few years he created a brand new nation, the Tatars (who had nothing to do with the real Tatars defeated by Genghis). Could that be done by a pure fear? Highly unlikely.

Fear as a psychological warfare was, indeed, an important Mongolian tool but its purpose was to achieve a voluntary submission by showing a few examples of what happens in the case of a resistance. So indiscriminate killing would work against that program because it makes submission meaningless.

Talking about the geographic scope is meaningless because nobody else was conquering territories that big but quite a few conquerors provided impressive examples of an extreme cruelty within areas of their operations in much more recent times.

Now, about the death tolls. They were obviously high but they were also grossly exaggerated. Stories about the losses in Khwaresm are combination of the real facts (some places were completely destroyed, usually in response to a stubborn resistance) and obvious fantasies because some of the presumably depopulated cities (with the size of their pre-Mongolian population being grossly exaggerated) had been functioning immediately after the conquest. Also keep in mind that most of the information about these events is coming from the official historians on the Mongolian service who lived after the events and followed an old tradition of glorifying victories by exaggerating the devastation and numbers of the killed (can be traced to the Ancient world and not only in Asia: Herodotus and Caesar also had been sinning in that area).

On a “receiving side” situation is not much better by the similar (but reversed) reasons: to underscore the scope of a defeat any exaggeration would do, like writing about complete extermination of the population in a big area written by an “eyewitness” who lived in a monastery located in a functioning city (aren’t they all dead?). In the Central Russia with all local princes being presumably killed not only was not a noticeable shortage of them immediately after the conquest but there was even a competition for the better thrones with one brother denouncing another as disloyal to the Great Khan. Needless to say that the targets of that competition were the places presumably totally destroyed but somehow existing and even having a lot of a taxable population (Batu was getting a lot of a revenue from the Russian lands even after sending a required part to the Great Khan). Unfortunately for us, those who were writing chronicles had been writing a literature, not the scientific researches, and as a result they were very free with the numbers and doom and gloom stories because their goal was to produce certain emotions (either admiration by the scope of conquest or a grief at a mysery).


BTW, in the XII - XIII everybody was bragging about the numbers of enemies killed and the enemies did not have to be combatants. To use the most obvious example, look at the Crusaders’ practices both in Asia and Europe and well after that time, The stories related to the practices of the 100YW are quite scary and, IIRC, Henry V is credited with a sentence that a war without the burning is like a sausage without a mustard. During the 30YW Swedish soldiers behaved in Mecklenburg in such a way that even their commander was terrified (after the war its population was 1/6 of the initial) and their behavior in the PLC during the Deluge was seemingly along the same lines.

Going down this line, if you read the Trilogy of Henryk Sienkiewicz written in the late XIX, he described the ...er... common practices of the Polish wars with the Cossacks, Swedes and Ottomans without any phony indignation: impaling (sometimes with the “exras”), flaying alive, torchuring, massive murders of the civilians, looting, etc. This was XVII century and the habits were still quite cruel. There is probably no need to go into the standard Ottoman practices and explanation that they did nothing in China does not make them better. The last but not the least is Russian example. 2 rulers managed to achieve a noticeable decrease of the population (based upon the available taxation documents), something in a range of the 20 - 25%, and one of them ended as “Grozny” and another as “Great”.
 
Could that be done by a pure fear? Highly unlikely.
If it is backed by sufficient overwhelming force, it absolutely can. You yourself say "In Central Asia quite a few cities had been spared because they paid tribute without resistance." Knowing that the other option is wholesale slaughter of your people, tribute can be a tempting offer.
 
If it is backed by sufficient overwhelming force, it absolutely can. You yourself say "In Central Asia quite a few cities had been spared because they paid tribute without resistance." Knowing that the other option is wholesale slaughter of your people, tribute can be a tempting offer.

Which “overwhelming force” are you talking about? Batu was left with only 4,000 Mongols in a midst of the newly conquered territory with the Great Khan not being his bossom buddy, to put it mildly. And yet, within very few years the Kipchak Horde became a major regional power capable of raising big armies built upon the Mongolian model. He needed to attract the conquered nomads (and at least some of the Russian princes) to make his newly-founded state stable and so he did.

As I already mentioned, Mukhali had more Chinese (of all types) than Mongolian troops in his army operating in China and they came voluntarily. Actually, the process started even during initial Genghis’ invasion and continued all the way to Khubilai who seriously relied upon the local support both for the final conquest and for dealing with his brother.

In the Great Liao the Mongols were considered by the locals as savior from a cruel usurper, Kuchlug (being a Nestorian he oppressed the local Muslims) so he was hunted down by the locals and delivered to the Mongols.

As for the tribute vs. extermination, is it a sign of a witless brutality or we can add a certain wisdom into the picture? Principle of carrot and stick always was quite effective if applied properly and the Mongolian rulers had enough brains to do just that.
 
Top