Do you think the Mongols could have taken over Europe?

[Shige]

Man, the European chauvinism is unbearable in this thread. There's a reason that, as a person descended from European culture, I know the name Ghengis Khan 800 years later - because Europeans 750 years ago were so scared of him it still echoes to today. But, sure, your European trickery would have carried the day.

I mean rivers, right? No one else ever built cities on them. And trees - that's going to really mess them up.

In the real world, the Mongols obliterated the Chinese, who were larger, more unified, and more technologically advanced than Europe. They crushed the middle east, which was again larger, more unified, and more technologically advanced. They took down cities that were larger and better fortified than any in Europe. They smashed Russia, across trees, mountains and rivers. The Mongol army was better organized and more mobile than anything in Europe. It had better siege capabilities (thanks Chinese engineers), better communications, and better supply corps than any European army of the era.

But.. but.. Europe has got shining knights and God, and hellhamster. Do not forget its last asset.

[Kalis]

Man, the European chauvinism is unbearable in this thread. There's a reason that, as a person descended from European culture, I know the name Ghengis Khan 800 years later - because Europeans 750 years ago were so scared of him it still echoes to today. But, sure, your European trickery would have carried the day.

I mean rivers, right? No one else ever built cities on them. And trees - that's going to really mess them up.

In the real world, the Mongols obliterated the Chinese, who were larger, more unified, and more technologically advanced than Europe. They crushed the middle east, which was again larger, more unified, and more technologically advanced. They took down cities that were larger and better fortified than any in Europe. They smashed Russia, across trees, mountains and rivers. The Mongol army was better organized and more mobile than anything in Europe. It had better siege capabilities (thanks Chinese engineers), better communications, and better supply corps than any European army of the era.

You've heard of Genghis Khan, that's great. You've undoubtedly heard of Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart and many others too, but wars aren't won by name recognition.

There's a good reason why infantry warfare dominated in Europe and cavalry warfare dominated further East, and you've ignored those reasons entirely.

[hellhamster]

But.. but.. Europe has got shining knights and God, and hellhamster. Do not forget its last asset.

At least I'm not bending my pretty butt over to invaders like you do :^)

[ParanoiD84]

You've heard of Genghis Khan, that's great. You've undoubtedly heard of Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart and many others too, but wars aren't won by name recognition.

There's a good reason why infantry warfare dominated in Europe and cavalry warfare dominated further East, and you've ignored those reasons entirely.

Crusader history is my favorite, richard never lost a battle against Saladin, could have taken Jerusalem but not holding it. Does not beat Baldwin IV though, he was only 16 years old when first defeating saladin in battle of montgisard with a much smaller force(something saladin had great respect of Baldwin for), Saladin only escaped by escaping on a racing camel back to egypt where he spread false propaganda that the crusader states had lost the battle in fear of loosing his support. Baldwin also had lepracy, matter of fact had Baldwin not died from lepracy at young age Battle of Hattin would have never happened as Baldwin knew how to defeat the Saladin. It was when Baldwin died and the retard Guy got command of the armies it went down hill for the crusader states. Also Barbarossa drowning and his army scatter on the way to the third crusade did not help either.

Also great respect for charles the hammer.

[Shige]

At least I'm not bending my pretty butt over to invaders like you do :^)

Invaders would flee at the sight of my bottom.

[Kalis]

Crusader history is my favorite, richard never lost a battle against Saladin, could have taken Jerusalem but not holding it. Does not beat Baldwin IV though, he was only 16 years old when first defeating saladin in battle of montgisard with a much smaller force(something saladin had great respect of Baldwin for), Saladin only escaped by escaping on a racing camel back to egypt where he spread false propaganda that the crusader states had lost the battle in fear of loosing his support. Baldwin also had lepracy, matter of fact had Badlwin not died from lepracy at young age Battle of Hattin would have never happened as Baldwin knew how to defeat the Saladin. It was when Baldwin died and the retard Guy got command of the armies it went down hill for the crusader states. Also Barbarossa drowning and his army scatter during the third crusade did not help either.

Also great respect for charles the hammer.

Richard the Lionheart was a dick in more ways than one. He taxed England then buggered off and left the country in the hands of his brother John, who was also a dick.

[ParanoiD84]

Richard the Lionheart was a dick in more ways than one. He taxed England then buggered off and left the country in the hands of his brother John, who was also a dick.

Richard would have sold London to to pay for the crusade if he could

[Kalis]

Richard would have sold London to to pay for the crusade if he could

Whilst Richard the Lionheart gallivanted around the Middle East beating up Saracens, England got left with a bloke whose main claim to fame is being the shittest monarch in English history.

[braeldiil]

You've heard of Genghis Khan, that's great. You've undoubtedly heard of Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart and many others too, but wars aren't won by name recognition.

There's a good reason why infantry warfare dominated in Europe and cavalry warfare dominated further East, and you've ignored those reasons entirely.

Yeah, the Chinese had no infantry at all when they got overrun. No gunpowder weapons, either. You've yet to address the fact that the Mongols soundly defeated multiple foes who were better in every meaningful way (technology, size, organization) than 1200s Europe. Styles are nice, but the Mongols beat pretty much everyone they faced, including defeating several of your precious "infantry" forces in Europe.

As to your list of names: The only name that I'd put on a level with Genghis is Alexander, and that's because he did pretty much the same thing - conquer and terrify the known world. Past that, I'd bet a lot more people know Genghis than any of the others. And lets not forget that everyone else you named was European, whereas Khan never actually conquered much of Europe. Remembering my historical badasses is one thing - remembering the ones from the other side of the planet is a whole nother thing.

[ParanoiD84]

Whilst Richard the Lionheart gallivanted around the Middle East beating up Saracens, England got left with a bloke whose main claim to fame is being the shittest monarch in English history.

Yeah John should have never been king, did more harm then good but mostly failing at everything i think most chroniclers and historians hate him actually.

[Deleted]

Genghis Khans army consisted of all steppe people. Be they Mongol or Turkic nomads which becomes clear that the Empire had quite the amount of manpower.
And if you would know more about European history you would know that many Europeans got their asses handed to them by Nomad horsearcher.
(Alans,Hungarians,the Mongols,The Turks at the beginning,the Bulgars,Volga Bulgars,the Pechenegs,the Kypcaks and the Cumans)

[Dwarfhamster]

Whilst Richard the Lionheart gallivanted around the Middle East beating up Saracens, England got left with a bloke whose main claim to fame is being the shittest monarch in English history.

Then got himself captured and then ransomed.

[hellhamster]

Time to watch this again

[Kalis]

Yeah, the Chinese had no infantry at all when they got overrun. No gunpowder weapons, either. You've yet to address the fact that the Mongols soundly defeated multiple foes who were better in every meaningful way (technology, size, organization) than 1200s Europe. Styles are nice, but the Mongols beat pretty much everyone they faced, including defeating several of your precious "infantry" forces in Europe.

You seem to have some hard on for the Mongols, I don't give a toss about 13th Century European forces, they hold little interest to me.

Mongol tactics don't work against European coastal cities, they are irrelevant, as are tactics used against the Chinese or anyone else that is half a world away. If you want to take those types of cities then you need a strong navy and a strong besieging force, the Mongols only ever proved themselves adept at one of those skills whereas the European forces were experienced sailors and competent at withstanding sieges.

When the Mongolians did use a navy they used it to transfer a landing force, not for naval engagements, they are completely different types of warfare. You don't put up an inexperienced cavalry force against the Mongol army in an open field and expect the inexperienced side to win, yet you are doing just that and expecting the inexperienced side to come out victorious.

As to your list of names: The only name that I'd put on a level with Genghis is Alexander, and that's because he did pretty much the same thing - conquer and terrify the known world. Past that, I'd bet a lot more people know Genghis than any of the others. And lets not forget that everyone else you named was European, whereas Khan never actually conquered much of Europe. Remembering my historical badasses is one thing - remembering the ones from the other side of the planet is a whole nother thing.

Name recognition has no relevance whatsoever, it's a ludicrous criteria for judging ability.

One of the greatest commanders in military history is virtually unknown in modern times, bar his name used as term for fighting a battle where the victor suffers heavy losses, yet to the ancients his tactics were extremely influential, with Hannibal of Carthage (another genius general) ranking him second only to Alexander the Great.

Asia had great generals, but virtually all were cavalry commanders and with good reason, as they were typically the main fighting force used in Asia. Alexander succeeded in Asia because he used the Companion Cavalry to deliver the knockout punch, he was both a great infantry and cavalry commander, if he'd been a second rate cavalry commander then few would remember him as he'd have lost.

[Independent voter]

This is from wikipedia

The Mongols invaded Central Europe with three armies. One army defeated an alliance which included forces from fragmented Poland and members of various Christian military orders, led by Henry II the Pious, Duke of Silesia in the battle of Legnica. A second army crossed the Carpathian mountains and a third followed the Danube. The armies re-grouped and crushed Hungary in 1241, defeating the Hungarian army at the Battle of Mohi on April 11, 1241. The devastating Mongol invasion killed half of Hungary's then-population.[14] The armies swept the plains of Hungary over the summer and in the spring of 1242, regained impetus and extended their control into Austria and Dalmatia and Moravia. The Great Khan had, however, died in December 1241, and on hearing the news, all the "Princes of the Blood" of Genghis Khan went back to Mongolia to elect the new Khan.[15]

[Mehrunes]

Western Europe had better fortification technology at the time of Mongol conquests. It was also unfavorable for an army focusing on cavalry to such an extent. Throw in coastal regions that fuck them over (or cities/fortifications located at major rivers). And even if they managed to beat HRE (good luck having them not unite against a common foe) or France, they'd still need to perform a naval invasion of Britain. Their invasion of Japan was a failure, so we don't exactly have too much going on in Mongols' favor in this aspect.

Protip

Dark age Europe had little advancement and was not in a good position compared to other regions of the world, in fact the Mongols defeated those other regions. I also see you misread "within their own territories as country v country" I also brought up that Europe was not doing all that great in the crusades.


"stop saying Europe wasn't always a great place waaah waaah waaaaaahhhH!!! my national pride!"

And how exactly did you compare these regions? And the point you brought up about the crusades was infighting. Which is a moot point because Europe was infighting since the dawn of time. And so were all the other regions. Including Japan that the Mongols did not manage to conquer.

Im not saying the world did. Europe took a hit and stagnated while other regions advanced, and those regions were defeated.

Unless you have some meaningful metric to compare the regions conquered by the Mongols with Europe during high middle ages, it makes the whole issue of European stagnation meaningless regardless of whether they did or did not stagnate, robbing you of your entire argument.

I dunno man, one of those walls was pretty great.

Which wall would that be exactly?

[GennGreymane]

Sounds like domination. I dont know why so many people think Europe is that unique, just look at the mongol track record.

[Deleted]

They would have smashed most European armies and individual kingdoms into dust.

Only chance Europe would have had would be to rally behind the common banner of the church and unite.

It's likely irrelevant since considering the populations density and religion they would'nt have been able to rule over them for long, since their empire would have been massively overstrectched.

[GennGreymane]

Which wall would that be exactly?

It has great in the title. It can be seen from space.

And how exactly did you compare these regions? And the point you brought up about the crusades was infighting. Which is a moot point because Europe was infighting since the dawn of time. And so were all the other regions. Including Japan that the Mongols did not manage to conquer.

Looked to a bit of history of the other civilizations in the vast area the mongols conquered. Persia was pretty powerful in those days, as well as China and many other civilizations that were crushed. Do you know why the Mongols didnt get into Japan? They call it Holy wind for a reason. Epic luck. Also they were all in pretty diverse regions. You had desert, mountains, snow, steppes, the works.

Also I see people ignore that Europe infighting is not just the countries, but as I stated many times, the nobility of their own countries infighting. (as in with their armies that the king would be needing >_>)

Unless you have some meaningful metric to compare the regions conquered by the Mongols with Europe during high middle ages, it makes the whole issue of European stagnation meaningless regardless of whether they did or did not stagnate, robbing you of your entire argument.

Civilizations that were far more prosperous were destroyed. I mean Geez France totally compares to China back then *eye roll*

[Azgraal]

The European Dark age is related to knowledge, not military strength.

This.

And if by any chance they managed to conquer Europe their rule would crumble faster than they came.