The Mongols Raze Europe, 1242

[Umbral]

I doubt the bows are going to fall apart the moment they get into a more humid climate. It'll make the drying period required to make them more difficult, yes. But the Mongols were not a desert people.

There are actually rain and snow at times in Mongolia. Which climate is significantly harsher than Europe. Also, the Mongols seemed to handle China and the areas around the Caspian/Black Sea well enough.

I can see them wearing out faster and needing replacements eventually, but it is a solvable problem.

 

[Elfwine]

I doubt the bows are going to fall apart the moment they get into a more humid climate. It'll make the drying period required to make them more difficult, yes. But the Mongols were not a desert people.

There are actually rain and snow at times in Mongolia. Which climate is significantly harsher than Europe. Also, the Mongols seemed to handle China and the areas around the Caspian/Black Sea well enough.

I can see them wearing out faster and needing replacements eventually, but it is a solvable problem.

A solvable problem is still likely to be costly in the short run, and in general make it take longer.

It will take far longer than two years to take Germany and France. And this is assuming no European equivalent to Jalal ad-Din.

I believe Subotai thought it would take eighteen for a conquest of Europe (I'm not sure exactly what that means, but presumably not Scandinavia and who knows on Britain). Say he's overestimating European capacity for resistance and cut that in half.

Is Ogedei going to live another ten years (he's fifty-seven in 1241)? Are Batu and Guyuk going to avoid fighting again?

I think you could have the Mongols throughly ravage Mittleuropa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grossgliederung_Europas.png and possibly into Italy, but there's only so much you can do. Mongols can only do so much so fast.

 

[mosodake]

I doubt the bows are going to fall apart the moment they get into a more humid climate. It'll make the drying period required to make them more difficult, yes. But the Mongols were not a desert people.

There are actually rain and snow at times in Mongolia. Which climate is significantly harsher than Europe. Also, the Mongols seemed to handle China and the areas around the Caspian/Black Sea well enough.

I can see them wearing out faster and needing replacements eventually, but it is a solvable problem.

IIRC, composite bows were used in China by the Chinese as well, including the south. Southern China is much wetter and more humid than any part of Europe, so they must have figured out some way to make them work.

 

[Russian]

ASB.
How would they have dealt with ... The multiplicity of castles, each requiring a lengthy siege?

The castles of 'hassasins' were probably as best as you can get. But mongolian ilchans solved this problem. Easy.

The Mongols also aren't used to the damp climate.

Actually the Mongols did very well near the Caspian sea, prospered in the area of the Black sea. They outplayed their opponents in the swamps and marshes of Northern Russia.

You also need to deal with how the Mongols deal with mountains in Italy

In the mountains of Caucasus they dealt just fine. As they did in Afghanistan and Altai.

European militaries in those times were disorganized, yes, but nonethless more effective than the standing armies of the russian principalities.

You must have in mind that russians did very well against their neighbours - turkish nomads of the steppe. But the mongols crushed them.
And for European west the mongolian tactics was even more strange and hard to fight against. They had a little less successful experience than russians against steppe nomads.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

If the Mongols kill roughly 20% of the population of Central Europe (roughly the HRE, maybe parts of Northern Italy, etc.) I would actually say that rather than retard economic growth, in the long term it would probably lead to a very different, perhaps even earlier, agricultural and subsequent industrial, revolution. Serfdom collapsed in England in the 14th century because of the Black Death; similar situation in Central Europe, where around 1/3 of the population died. If, instead of happening in 1348, this catastrophe happens in 1242, you'd basically bring things like tenants' rights, common political participation and private property rights hundreds of years forwards.

Secondly: people have said that European castles would survive Mongol attacks; I think that in a straight siege they'd probably survive for quite a while. However, the Mongols probably wouldn't besiege them; they'd just go around them and sack the much wealthier, much more easily intimidated towns, especially if they go to Northern Italy. This would obviously be hugely damaging in the short run, but in the long run would probably destroy most peoples' faith in the Feudal system; one of the causes of the Peasants' Revolt in England was dissatisfaction with the inordinate power unproductive knights had over productive villeins. If knights are shown to be completely incapable of defending their people, then there's going to be a lot of pressure for reform. Obviously not like a revolution, but probably a move towards communes and merchant republics in the towns and generally more freedom for the common folk in the countryside.

 

[Hnau]

So it looks like once again that we have a variety of strong opinions on the subject of a Mongolian invasion of Europe.

You know one idea that I could concede is the idea of the Mongols taking Vienna in early 1242, then moving in one strong westward offensive through Germany. They conduct raids and leave the German armies weakened but are forced to retreat east for the winter of 1242/43. The next year however they try again in Germany and are able to force an opening which allows them to reach the Low Countries and northern France. The Mongols pasture their horses in middle France winter 1243/1244. Meanwhile Batu Khan takes a substantial detachment to Budapest/Vienna (putting down uprisings along the way) and pass the winter there. In early 1244 he would break into Italy from the east forcing a passage of the Isonzo. The same campaign would take place that I had detailed before only now Pope Innocent IV has ascended to the papal chair... in addition to the death of Frederick II the newly-elected Pope may suffer a violent death at the hands of the Mongols, most definitely leaving the Catholic Church in a perilous state of affairs especially as Rome has been devastated. Batu Khan would stay in northern Italy until the spring of 1245 when news would arrive of the death of Ogadai and he would withdraw his forces. Sabotai would do the same.

Maybe this staggering of the two major offensives would prove more plausible to our naysayers? Italy suffers 20% depopulation, France and Low Countries 40%, Germany 50%? Is that a little more realistic?

 

[Gimple]

For this TL to succeed Khan needs to live a few more decades.

 

[Elfwine]

So it looks like once again that we have a variety of strong opinions on the subject of a Mongolian invasion of Europe.

You know one idea that I could concede is the idea of the Mongols taking Vienna in early 1242, then moving in one strong westward offensive through Germany. They conduct raids and leave the German armies weakened but are forced to retreat east for the winter of 1242/43. The next year however they try again in Germany and are able to force an opening which allows them to reach the Low Countries and northern France. The Mongols pasture their horses in middle France winter 1243/1244. Meanwhile Batu Khan takes a substantial detachment to Budapest/Vienna (putting down uprisings along the way) and pass the winter there. In early 1244 he would break into Italy from the east forcing a passage of the Isonzo. The same campaign would take place that I had detailed before only now Pope Innocent IV has ascended to the papal chair... in addition to the death of Frederick II the newly-elected Pope may suffer a violent death at the hands of the Mongols, most definitely leaving the Catholic Church in a perilous state of affairs especially as Rome has been devastated. Batu Khan would stay in northern Italy until the spring of 1245 when news would arrive of the death of Ogadai and he would withdraw his forces. Sabotai would do the same.

Maybe this staggering of the two major offensives would prove more plausible to our naysayers? Italy suffers 20% depopulation, France and Low Countries 40%, Germany 50%? Is that a little more realistic?

I'll put it this way, doing just Germany like that would be a bit much within only a few years. Germany is large enough and spread out enough that it would take some doing.

You could, if the Mongols are really and truly committed to this for some bizarre reason, lead to Europe being razed - but not in Ogedei's lifetime.

 

[eighthgear]

I doubt the Europeans will take well to subjugation from afar by non-white heathens. A widespread guerilla resistance could make Europe literally more trouble than it's worth - it's not like Medieval Germany actually has that much wealth. The most realistic way for Mongols to get a proper foothold in Europe IMO would be to take out the relatively weak and very rich Byzantines and expand from there. As for dampness, the Mongols weren't stupid, nor were the people who they conquered. China is very wet in parts, and the Chinese use bows. I'm sure the Mongols could adapt whatever tech they use.

 

[Elfwine]

I doubt the Europeans will take well to subjugation from afar by non-white heathens. A widespread guerilla resistance could make Europe literally more trouble than it's worth - it's not like Medieval Germany actually has that much wealth. The most realistic way for Mongols to get a proper foothold in Europe IMO would be to take out the relatively weak and very rich Byzantines and expand from there. As for dampness, the Mongols weren't stupid, nor were the people who they conquered. China is very wet in parts, and the Chinese use bows. I'm sure the Mongols could adapt whatever tech they use.

I hate to harp on something that sounds like a petty detail, but:

The "relatively weak and very rich Byzantines"? What exactly does one mean by that?

The strongest splinter of the 1204 conquest of Constantinople, the Empire of Nicaea, which is paying tribute (and not that rich)?

 

[eighthgear]

I hate to harp on something that sounds like a petty detail, but:

The "relatively weak and very rich Byzantines"? What exactly does one mean by that?

The strongest splinter of the 1204 conquest of Constantinople, the Empire of Nicaea, which is paying tribute (and not that rich)?

Sorry, I'm not that great with Byzantine history and got my eras messed up. Still, wasn't Constantinople richer than any city in Europe except for Rome (because of the Pope)?

 

[Elfwine]

Sorry, I'm not that great with Byzantine history and got my eras messed up. Still, wasn't Constantinople richer than any city in Europe except for Rome (because of the Pope)?

Its okay, it happens. But not after 1204 to answer your question.

The damn crusaders sacked it and then singularly failed to do anything except let the city rot for fifty-five years.

 

[Gimple]

Speaking of Chinese. The Mongols could have wasted China first, then bringing in Chinese generals and technology laid siege and destroyed all castles in their wake.

 

[Sumeragi]

Now, would such decay of those composite bows avoidable, like, maybe using oils or greases? Lanoline, by example?

What about the Korean composite bow? Korea is a place which can be more humid than Central Europe at times, and yet those bows (from the 500's) still manage to pierce steel armor while being shot from a running horse. Basically, weapons wouldn't be a problem.

What I do see is the Mongols having trouble getting past the Rhine. It's going to be pretty hard to continue occupation of all those woods and swamps of Central Europe, and a breakthrough into France (which had a pretty large population) would be a tough act. We're most likely going to see the Germanic peoples being "Mongolized" (cue groans from those Nordicists )

 

[kasumigenx]

I think the Mongols might need to avoid conquering Southern China for this to happen.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think Doug Hoff's Empty America at least had the Mongols take several generations before conquering France. They did manage to get pretty much all of the HRE in one campaign, though. They were helped by the Venetians and other turncoats, including Frederick II.

 

[Elfwine]

I think Doug Hoff's Empty America at least had the Mongols take several generations before conquering France. They did manage to get pretty much all of the HRE in one campaign, though. They were helped by the Venetians and other turncoats, including Frederick II.

Not sure if you'd need several generations to take France given how long it took to take out Song China, which would be a tougher target.

And how are the Venetians and Austrians going to make it significantly easier to take over the HRE?

 

[Aelita]

If the Mongols kill roughly 20% of the population of Central Europe (roughly the HRE, maybe parts of Northern Italy, etc.) I would actually say that rather than retard economic growth, in the long term it would probably lead to a very different, perhaps even earlier, agricultural and subsequent industrial, revolution. Serfdom collapsed in England in the 14th century because of the Black Death; similar situation in Central Europe, where around 1/3 of the population died. If, instead of happening in 1348, this catastrophe happens in 1242, you'd basically bring things like tenants' rights, common political participation and private property rights hundreds of years forwards.

Secondly: people have said that European castles would survive Mongol attacks; I think that in a straight siege they'd probably survive for quite a while. However, the Mongols probably wouldn't besiege them; they'd just go around them and sack the much wealthier, much more easily intimidated towns, especially if they go to Northern Italy. This would obviously be hugely damaging in the short run, but in the long run would probably destroy most peoples' faith in the Feudal system; one of the causes of the Peasants' Revolt in England was dissatisfaction with the inordinate power unproductive knights had over productive villeins. If knights are shown to be completely incapable of defending their people, then there's going to be a lot of pressure for reform. Obviously not like a revolution, but probably a move towards communes and merchant republics in the towns and generally more freedom for the common folk in the countryside.

The thing is, the plague just destroyed people. A Mongol invasion would destroy capital as well.

Historically, foreign invasions served to strengthen feudalism, not weaken it. And since the physical wealth of Europe as well as its people would be equally ravaged, I can't see a rebalancing of the relative power between classes happening.

 

[Elfwine]

The thing is, the plague just destroyed people. A Mongol invasion would destroy capital as well.

Historically, foreign invasions served to strengthen feudalism, not weaken it. And since the physical wealth of Europe as well as its people would be equally ravaged, I can't see a rebalancing of the relative power between classes happening.

You might get something where the feudal system is devastated, if that was it, but when the towns are devastated as well, I tend to agree here. It won't favor reform, it'll favor huddling closer to those with the armies/castles - not rejecting them.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Not sure if you'd need several generations to take France given how long it took to take out Song China, which would be a tougher target.

And how are the Venetians and Austrians going to make it significantly easier to take over the HRE?

Well, it took a few years. There was an immensely badass battle that secured France for a good while.

I forgot how it worked, but basically Venice was like the Trade Confederacy to the Mongols' Sith. Also Christendom basically lost the HRE because of dumb European infighting.

It's all here if you wanna skim through some of the bottom parts that cover the Mongol invasion... http://emptyamerica.blogspot.com/