I don’t think my comparison is that way off the mark considering unlike the Rus and the HRE,the Mongols and all those Turkic invaders had similar levels of tactics and equipment with the exception that the Mongols were much better organized.Heck much of the Mongol army actually consisted of Turks. Could be plain bad luck with the Mongols simply meeting more competent opposition.
What if The Mongols invaded further into Europe? (Read the OP).
- Thread starter Historianweebnino
- Start date
Sorry if I misworded my post what I meant is that they would be defeated by the Holy Roman Empire and forced to leave Western Europe not that they would be forced to leave the entire continent, obviously The Holy Roman Empire would be incapable of forcing the Mongols out of their conquered territories East of Western Europe .
Timurids/Mughals had cannons. That's a sea change right there. Maybe the Mongol horde could've conquered India, but it's quite telling that they, you know, didn't. And specifically that they tried and failed more than once. The later actions of a twice removed (at least) successor polity against a much weaker Delhi Sultanate are irrelevant to what the Mongol horde did and could have done. Just as with Kievan Rus and the HRE
If they try to invade they HRE they suffer a defeat similar to the one they suffered in their second invasion of Hungary.
Heavy cavalry supported by a large ring of castles was the Achiles heel of the mongols in Europe and the empire had that in abundance, to the point the hungarians even brought some knights from HRE and employed them to great effect during the second invasion.
Heavy cavalry supported by a large ring of castles was the Achiles heel of the mongols in Europe and the empire had that in abundance, to the point the hungarians even brought some knights from HRE and employed them to great effect during the second invasion.
The difference was not in the ethnic composition but in what you are seemingly shrugging off as “being better organized”. The Turks and other earlier nomadic invaders had the tribe-based forces while the “Mongols” of Genghis and the next generation had pretty much a regular army with the uniform regulations, standardized minimal equipment, maneuvers on the army level, organized logistics, etc.
They faced plenty of the competent opposition and, in the case of China, the greatly superior numbers as well. Speaking of which, in the time in question the least likely place for the “competent opposition” was Europe: its warfare, both in the Eastern and Western Europe, was based upon the bands raised by the feudals and the armies were ad hoc assemblies of these bands, not the armies in a modern sense.
That is better organisation. Not sure why you are trying to nit-pick.
I don’t disagree, but the type of decentralized defence in Europe meant that you have to repeatedly go through sieges after sieges until your army gets worn out. In China, the defence fell apart after the Mongols crossed the Yangtze because the bankrupt Song Empire was maintain the loyalty of its’ forces, but more importantly, there was no real layers of defences beyond the Yangtze River.There was no third layer of defence(the Huai-Qin Mountains was the first layer, Yangtze was second layer) beyong the Yangtze for the Song Dynasty to fall back on while they reorganize. Not so ironically, the last places to surrender in Song China was actually in Sichuan where the Song Dynasty actually constructed such layered fortress defensive systems. It even stopped an all out attack led by Mongke Khan himself.
Last edited:
Because it made a critical difference.
Sorry, but this was not Mongolian way of doing things and 99% of the castles were the small fortifications with the tiny armed bands inside incapable of causing any noticeable harm outside the walls. The Mongols, as they did in the Russian lands, would go after the big towns and rulers. There would be two options: either the ruler submits, accepts the Khan as a supreme ruler and agrees to pay tribute, after which his territory is pretty much left alone, or he refuses and in this case there are major destruction which lasts either until he is dead or until he submits. Usually, the “lessons” were scary enough to curb enthusiasm of pretty much everybody in the region. Besides, a specific castle may be bypassed but this does little good to its owner because there is nothing around except for the corpses and burned villages. OTOH, an “example” made on a couple of the resisting places usually tended to be educational for the neighbors.
Take conquest of the Russian principalities. Every town and probably even a reasonably big village had some defenses. The Mongols did not take and burn all of them: after the first examples had been made, there were princes eager to collaborate because this was saving their territories and gave a chance to benefit from getting the territories of those who tried to resist.
Western Europe of that time was not too different. Emperor Fredetick II did not give a damn about Poland or Hungary because they were on the Papal side in the ongoing conflict. To a great degree the same applied to the HRE which was split in its loyalties. He himself was not bellicose toward the Mongolian ambassadors and, while feeling a need to protect his own territories, most probably would applaud the Mongolian looting of Lombardy and other pro-papacy areas. So it was all complicated and the Mongols would not have to go from one lousy castle to another to achieve their goal.
In China, the defence fell apart after the Mongols crossed the Yangtze because the bankrupt Song Empire was maintain the loyalty of its’ forces, but more importantly, there was no real layers of defences beyond the Yangtze River.There was no third layer of defence(the Huai-Qin Mountains was the first layer, Yangtze was second layer) beyong the Yangtze for the Song Dynasty to fall back on while they reorganize.
You are forgetting to mention that there was a huge disparity of the numbers, huge fortified cities, rather complicated terrain and quite a few capable commanders on the other side. Full conquest of China took 3 generations and, actually demonstrates the pattern: from the very beginning the Mongols were attracting the locals on their side. The same happened in Khwaresm and, in slightly different form, Russian principalities. Why would the Germans be different?
OTOH, the whole premise is not defined clearly. In OTL the Western campaign was not a conquest but a big looting raid, even if it was accompanied by the standard diplomatic procedures. It was formally required by Genghis’ testament and had to be done even none of the involved players was really interested except for the looting aspect. So Ogdai is neither here nor there but how the things would look like with Genghis Khan being alive is anybody’s guess.
Last edited:
It’s an unnecessary nitpick. You don’t need to write an essay every time you mention that the Romans are good for example because 90% of the forum has a fairly good idea of what they are capable of. Same deal with the Mongols.
How is that any different from standard warfare by Western/Central European rulers? You still raid the lands of your enemies, but how often does that translate into real control? The English launched massive Chevauchees throughout France. It didn’t convince many French lords to defect over to the English side despite similarities in culture, religion, and the English king actually having a fairly good claim on the French throne. Even with some lord defecting, you still have to somehow take the castles of opposing lords.More importantly, a lot of lords and especially the Emperor had no real capital to speak of. They could flee to another castle behind the enemy approaches. Because of how many fortresses individual lords have, they may also renege on deal they made with the Mongols as soon as they left the area, and the Mongols would have a difficult time going after said fortresses once they come back. The lords have perfected this cat and mouse game with their liege lord, especially in the HRE. They submit to the Emperor, and rebel once more as soon as the Emperor is out of the earshot.
The issue in the HRE is that even if a Duke agreed to betray the emperor, the count/baron under him might not and could keep resisting, and there is strong religious motivation to legitimise such a thing. The whole place is completely decentralised.If the Mongols actually invade the HRE, the Emperor and the Pope will agree on one thing for once.
Because many of those places were not decentralised to the degree of the HRE, especially in China, and the huge fortified cities you mentioned are far more vulnerable to sieges than the castles of Europe. In a European castle,you only need to feed the lord’s family, the servants and the garrison.Often you only need a few dozen people in a castle to hold it out against an army numbering in thousands. In those Chinese cities, you need to feed the city’s population as well. Most of the time, the bigger the cities, the harder it is to defend.
Last edited:
As people already said, I agree that major overextension would be a huge issue for mongol invasions further into Europe, especially as Mongolia is pretty far from there and a lot closer to China. Heck, Temujin’s original base of operations (pre/unification of the tribes) was in Khamag Mongol, which is southeast of lake Baikal, very far off somewhere like the Caspian or Black Seas. It’s incredible they got as far as they did to be honest.
The other extreme of this scenario would be a less extensive mongol conquest, perhaps where the Khwarezmians never killed mongol diplomats and focussed on invading the Abbasids again, in which case the Mongols could have conquered China much earlier without stretching themselves into the Middle East, Turkestan or Europe. Like the Qing dynasty but much earlier. Obviously they would still collapse eventually but the circumstances would be quite different as would the western nations’ development.
The other extreme of this scenario would be a less extensive mongol conquest, perhaps where the Khwarezmians never killed mongol diplomats and focussed on invading the Abbasids again, in which case the Mongols could have conquered China much earlier without stretching themselves into the Middle East, Turkestan or Europe. Like the Qing dynasty but much earlier. Obviously they would still collapse eventually but the circumstances would be quite different as would the western nations’ development.
danteheadman
Banned
While I agree with you, I think that the Mongols could have also pulled a Seljuk and taken over a large piece of Anatolia (and Byzantium perhaps by a Mongol successor) if they can defeat the Mamluks. Over decades, much like they did in China, they could have slowly absorbed and become acculturated to Greek-Roman culture. Byzantium and Anatolia was certainly worth it, if / once Egypt is taken.
But looking at the actual history, this ITTL Greco-Roman Mongol successor state wouldn't be Christian. The Ilkhanate OTL converted to Islam before they were stopped in Egypt by the Mamluks; this was because they Persianized and Islamized after taking Iran. So if they do prevail over the Mamluks and take Egypt before inevitably turning to Anatolia and Byzantium, they likely wouldn't be Tengri, Buddhist, or Nestorian, and are unlikely to convert to Orthodoxy or (somehow) Catholicism. In many ways, the Mughals and Ottomans can be considered the cultural and institutional successor states of Mongol successor states.
Regardless, a Greekified Turko-Persian Mongol successor in the Mediterranean could try pulling a Yuan in Constantinople. OTL that was the Ottomans. If they manage it earlier, then it would be more Mongol and less Turkic, but the cultural synthesis of Persianate and Hellenic within an Islamic framework is likely to prevail.
The only way that a Nestorian Mongol successor state could conquer Europe is if they go through Russia. And they will only do that if North-Eastern Europe was more economically enticing to the Golden Horde. Which requires a far larger POD than is being contemplated in this thread.
Still - it would be exceedingly cool to read a TL where a Persianized and Hellenized Turko-Mongol "Caliphate of Rúm" is able to unite the Persian and Mediterranean world and have friendly relations with a Sinicized Turko-Mongol Yuan Dynasty. Assuming this state of affairs is sustained into the modern period and butterflies Christian European Atlantic-colonial dominance, it would certainly lead to an eventual synthesis of Chinese and Islamic philosophical and theological ideas, as both East and West would have a fruitful exchange of ideas along the durable post-Mongol Silk Road trade routes.
Chingis death wouldn't have changed much he probably would have done the same as early ogedie also his death wasn't the cause of the retreat in 1242 how ever it did most likely prevent a return in 1243/1244Let's assume that Genghis Khan lives 3 or 5 years longer than he did in our timeline and Odegi Khan lives another 5 to 6 years and dies at around the same age as Genghis Khan did originally and decides to press further into the continent how far does he make it , would they or their descendants make it into Western Europe? , Scandinavia? , how would it effect history.
I'd say if the Khan doesn't want to halt the invasion of china then there stopping some were in Germany taking Europe would take a multi year it not multi decade long conquest of slowly incorporating the locals to aid in the war and to push towards France and Spain like the one of song china and unlike china Europe is not next to the center of the empire
Also since the succession system of the mongols ain't great and in the words of jackminster mongol history when I talked to him a civil war was becoming more of reality so a civil war like we saw in 1260s even if it's a little later is still very much plausible
Also since the succession system of the mongols ain't great and in the words of jackminster mongol history when I talked to him a civil war was becoming more of reality so a civil war like we saw in 1260s even if it's a little later is still very much plausible
Last edited:
In the case of Mongols, it resulted in the greatest land empire.
These chevauchees were anything but “massive” and they were quite different from the Mongolian conquest campaigns. Besides, the Black Prince & Co had in their disposal pretty much the same feudal bands strengthened by the archers while the Mongols had a regular army.
Besides, the comparison is not relevant on two accounts:
1. The English were quite successful in attracting quite a few “French lords” on their side. You can start with the Dukes of Burgundy.
2. The Kings of England had been pretenders to the French throne. The Mongols more often than not did not replace the local rulers. Their demand was to acknowledge Khan’s supremacy and to pay tribute. Worked in the Russian lands, Caucasus, Asia Minor, Outremer, Armenia Minor and other places. Frederick II seemingly did not consider this such a terrible option either.
An argument that the German “lords” were just a bunch of suicidal maniacs living in a vacuum of their castles isolated from the rest of the world is quote old. To start with, most of the “lords” did not have numerous castles and none of them had unlimited number of them. So if a lord flees before the enemy approaches and the garrison is offered reasonably good terms, why would it be suicidal if the lord abandoned them? Then, following this logic, the enemy does not have to bother about these ‘other’ castles, he just have to take the last one in which the lord hides.
Then, the lords do not live off the castle. They live off the land and, of they are important enough, off the cities. And it is expected that the lord is providing a protection for his feudal underlings and the cities because if he does not, they have a right to change their affiliation. So there is no need to bother excessively about chasing a specific lord. It is enough to cause enough damage and he will be forced to go to the field. Worked in Rus, Poland, Hungary, etc. BTW, FII and his son Henry had been raising some troops in Germany by exactly that reason: the lord had to protect his subjects. It is anybody’s guess how things would progress if the Western campaign proceeded but diplomatic solution is not out of the question: FII did not kill the Mongolian ambassadors, did not directly reject the idea and had been friendly to them.
Resisting to whom? If the overlord makes a deal his territory is left untouched and his vassals are exclusively his problem unless he explicitly asks for the Mongolian help against specific underling.
Religious aspect is absent because the Mongols were required to respect all the religious institutions and exempted them from the usual taxation.
Sorry, but this picture of the HRE is not serious.
They did not and did not have reason because one who makes a deal first wins. And at least FII was pragmatic enough to make a deal.
There were plenty of big cities in the Western Europe and the Russian princedoms were anything but centralized. I already addressed the castles issue.
And the local peasants who are fleeing to its defense as soon as the enemy approaches. And in your schema who will keep feeding the lord and the garrison after enemy kills all his peasants or takes them prisoners and burns the countryside to the ground? The Mongols had been quite effective in doing these things and the slaves had been a valuable commodity.
Yes, and this is a fundamental problem with all these Mongolian conquest scenarios. The center of the empire and of each ulus has to be in the areas capable of supporting the huge numbers of horses and cattle. There are no adequate areas in Germany and ability to keep subdued areas well out of the easy rich is problematic in a long run. Even the conquest process would require a relatively easy reach to the fresh horses. The Western campaign was a massive raid which did not last long and which was never too far away from the horse supply area but a prolonged stay in the middle of Germany would be a completely different story.
The big problem was not just a succession in a narrow sense but the traditional appanage system which Genghis did not change. It was just a matter of a short time when the rulers of the uluses become the semi-independent and then fully independent. Batu, who was the second head of Jochi Ulus became semi-independent and soon enough his successors became fully independent, adopted title “khan”, started minting their own money, etc.. The same goes for other Genghizides.
Then, it looks like the Genghis system of army formations not being based on a tribal principle relatively soon was more or less abandoned in the favor of traditional one empowering the tribal leaders and all types of the warlords.
yeah batu force was what was left of the original campaign against the rus people seem to forget that this army or what was left of it had been fighting since 1236 and did not just steamroll i mean they did but hard fighting occurred, Batu force didn't have the numbers, IMO the motivation, nor capability of conquering to the Atlantic in 2 years like some people think
I think people vastly overestimate the difficulties that Mongols would face in conquering Europe. China was a far harder nut to crack and they cracked it, Japan and Vietnam doesn't change that fact. Similarly if they can take or not take Europe is a different question which involves determination, luck, etc. but assuming that they can't at all is ignorance. AND they did not fail to take India. The United Empire never launched a campaign in India, and the defeat suffered by Chagatai Khanate cannot be said to be that by the United Empire as the OP dictates so Kievan Rus, Soviet Union analogies are uncalled for.
Castles won't hinder the Mongols as they were as good as you can be in mediaeval times in siege warfare. Whatever castle or city resists would be razed. The Mongol armies don't just charge across steppe terrain. They operated in forests of South China, mountains and deserts of Middle East, etc. They can most likely take Constantinople if they are determined enough.
Decentralisation isn't a recipe of resilience. It can be a sort of dominos too like the many states of Russia that just gave up. A few states fall and are razed, the others rush to make a deal. The idea that one odd lord in a realm decides to resist, then that means one thing, that lord gets ended.
Logistics are not like today in the mediaeval world. Supply lines don't stretch from Mongolia to the frontline. And starting bases in modern Russia and Ukraine are ood enough and as soon as they try then Hungary is likely to be taken. And the Great Hungarian Plain is a good place to launch campaign and recuperate after campaigns.
Castles won't hinder the Mongols as they were as good as you can be in mediaeval times in siege warfare. Whatever castle or city resists would be razed. The Mongol armies don't just charge across steppe terrain. They operated in forests of South China, mountains and deserts of Middle East, etc. They can most likely take Constantinople if they are determined enough.
Decentralisation isn't a recipe of resilience. It can be a sort of dominos too like the many states of Russia that just gave up. A few states fall and are razed, the others rush to make a deal. The idea that one odd lord in a realm decides to resist, then that means one thing, that lord gets ended.
Logistics are not like today in the mediaeval world. Supply lines don't stretch from Mongolia to the frontline. And starting bases in modern Russia and Ukraine are ood enough and as soon as they try then Hungary is likely to be taken. And the Great Hungarian Plain is a good place to launch campaign and recuperate after campaigns.
taking 70 years assuming the conquest starts in 1250s and we give half of that time that would mean 1280s for Europe to be conquered
the problem is castle density not castles its selfs this among other things what made the Muslims despite vastly outnumbering the crusaders not able to retake all the crusader's states even by the late 13th century were the crusaders states were weak fortresses like Krak des chevaliers resisted the mamelukes for more than a month
against the Latins maybe if the conquest is delayed enough that the niceans take it back not likely unless they develop their navy the ottomans besieged the city before 1453 ending in the siege lasting so long that another issue came up
maybe not for the horses but yes for the siege engines and engineers from Persia and china this is why Mongol campaigns took time from the vote to it mongke planned for the invasion of the middle east in 1252 and halagu didn't leave until 1256 if they want to conquer Europe they are going to need the approval, help whether it be military or political from the khan an example is that mongke made the Jochids and Chagatais join halagu, if batu is acting independently than the conquest slows down a lot since he doesn't have the support of getting thousands of reinforcement and spends more time recruiting locals.
To be fair that famous alliance that we all know only came about do to a specific murder