Do you think the Mongols could have taken over Europe?

[ashblond]

Even the wealthiest European nations developed military forces that were primarily based on infantry and/or naval power, some people in here have missed this very important detail.

The only European powers that developed as a significant cavalry power were the ones in Eastern Europe and the ones that straddled Europe and Asia (e.g. Byzantines and Ottomans) and that's because throughout history people have realised that mass cavalry actions are not suitable in Europe.

Yet we have people proclaiming that they know more than some of the greatest military commanders in history, it's delusion on an epic scale.

The most important reason is that horse is an animal originated in Central Asia. That is why Eastern Europe had more cavalry than Western Europe, because they had easier access, not because they are not suitable for Europe.

Europeans are agricultural people, not nomads. Horses were rare and extremely expensive in Europe.
Many medival knights couldn't even afford a horse, let alone building a cavalry.

And many big wars: Hun invasion of Rome, Arab and Mongol invasion of Europe, clearly showed the advantage of cavalry against infantry.
And when did an European infantry ever win against a mass Asian cavalry?

You arguments are not based on historical facts.

[Mehrunes]

I wouldn't call their ships sucked, because they were not. And in fact the mongol boats, to be exactly, the Chinese ships were much larger and stronger than any European ships at the same time.

Because of geographic reasons, Europe doesn't really have typhoon or tsunami. Even today, in Asia Pacific region, typhoon and tsunami destroy many modern ships, cities, regions and kill thousands of people. And Europeans never experienced this.

I know they were Chinese ships. And no, they didn't use the big ones because they were too cost-inefficient to produce. They mostly used river boats and small ships that weren't ocean-going. Because of their inexperience with navy they significantly increased the amount of lost vessels.

More than that. The mongols lost the majority of 4000 ships, and 150,000 men.

And still had 100k left in Japan after that. They still got their ass handed to them. And they lost all major battles during second invasion prior to the typhoon.

[Deleted]

I think it would be much more interesting how they would have fared against the roman empire at its peak. A divided dark ages europe is not a challenge to consider.

[ashblond]

Because Europe has extensive grasslands past Eastern Europe You're too clueless to be a troll.

Serious?

The mongols conquered Chinese mountains, Tibet plateau, Middle East desert.

You are saying there are no grass to feed their horses in Europe?

I think you need more knowledge about world geography.

[Shakari]

I think it would be much more interesting how they would have fared against the roman empire at its peak. A divided dark ages europe is not a challenge to consider.

The Roman army was weak vs mounted archers which arguably the Mongol's were one of the best in past history, so like the battle vs mounted archers in the roman era's they probably would have been massacred.

[Kalis]

The most important reason is that horse is an animal originated in Central Asia. That is why Eastern Europe had more cavalry than Western Europe, because they had easier access, not because they are not suitable for Europe.

Europeans are agricultural people, not nomads. Horses were rare and extremely expensive in Europe.
Many medival knights couldn't even afford a horse, let alone building a cavalry.

You know why horses were so expensive in Europe? It doesn't even take much thought to work it out.

It's because most of Europe wasn't suited to large scale horse breeding.

And many big wars: Hun invasion of Rome, Arab and Mongol invasion of Europe, clearly showed the advantage of cavalry against infantry.
And when did an European infantry ever win against a mass Asian cavalry?

There were plenty of opportunities for an Asian cavalry force to conquer Europe, yet none ever made much impression outside territories suitable for cavalry. Funny that.

You arguments are not based on historical facts.

Seriously, you haven't even put a seconds thought or research into anything you have written. It's mindless tosh and seems entirely based on you having watched some documentary on the Mongols and thought they must be invincible.

Serious?

The mongols conquered Chinese mountains, Tibet plateau, Middle East desert.

You are saying there are no grass to feed their horses in Europe?

I think you need more knowledge about world geography.

That's odd, because every single historian disagrees with you. Every single one.

Even the people that think the Mongols would conquer Europe know that feeding their horses would be a massive issue, due to the landscape in Europe at the time...except you.

[Mehrunes]

Now look at the History of the Turks.

They did make a nice little Empire, took most of Persia and The Eastern parts of the Byzantine Empire (East Roman Empire).

But they couldn't get fully into Asia Minor, and the Crusades happened at the same time, which basically stopped their advance.

Then The Mongols happened, and in a very short period of time, they were swallowed whole by the Horde. They were reorganized, taught Siege warfare, Became a part of the Winning Team.

When the Horde fell 100 years later, they Became a New Horde, and used the new methods learned. They Eventually took all of Asia Minor, and Became the Ottomans.

The thing is, if the Mongol Empire didn't split, the Ottomans, would have taken all of Europe. But they did, and the split happened because of the massive failure with Japan.

Dafuq do Ottomans have to do with Mongol Empire? Their only contribution is destabilization of Seljuk's Sultanate of Rum which then imploded into Beyliks. By the time of Osman I Ilkhanate was had barely any presence left in Anatolia. He was the first ruler in the region during that period that minted his own coins and not Mongol ones. Their rise marks the fall of Mongol influence in the area. And there's no basis to call the Ottomans a horde.

If the Mongol Empire didn't split, there would be no Ottomans.

And for your information, China was walled, Forested, and out numbered the Mongol horde, they took china rather quickly.

Ah, yes, the wall argument. How nice that the Mongols pretty much went around of what remained of the wall at that point. Great Wall of China as it's known today is younger than Mongol Empire. And the previous one was so old that it was eroding by the Mongol invasion of China.

[ashblond]

I think it would be much more interesting how they would have fared against the roman empire at its peak. A divided dark ages europe is not a challenge to consider.

There is no comparison. They are armies of different generations, weapons and tactics.

Roman infantry won't stand a chance against Mongol cavalry archers.

[Bakis]

Serious?

The mongols conquered Chinese mountains, Tibet plateau, Middle East desert.

You are saying there are no grass to feed their horses in Europe?

I think you need more knowledge about world geography.

Ask yourself one question. What could be the reason for Europe never having a military force which crack troops as well as overall tactics were based on horseback.

Clarification: the European feudal cavalry would get beaten to the ground by the Mongols but what made Europe a problem was that it heavily relied on fortifications, that coupled with the laregly forested Western Europe in the mongols path out from Eastern and Central Europe hade a significant impact on the traditional mobile military might of the Mongols.

[Gothicshark]

China wasn't focused toward maritime to the extent that Europeans were. China's defences were directed toward where the threat was likely to come from, which just so happened to be where the Mongols strength lay.

No, I'm speaking as someone that knows European and Middle Eastern military history, along with having a knowledge of European geography - you know little to nothing about either of those.

This is just gibberish.

Name one Chinese or Arab commander that had superior knowledge of the Mediterranean and one navy that had military vessels developed for Mediterranean warfare in comparison to just the Venetians.

Because Europe has extensive grasslands past Eastern Europe You're too clueless to be a troll.

Those tactics only work if you have the Mongol Horde enforcing them, take away their main strength that isn't workable in Europe, i.e. the sheer volume of horse archers, and you end up with one infantry army against another infantry army, which leads to stalemate.



The Ottomans are a good example, I used them earlier - they built a mixed force, their most famous elite soldiers were infantry, as that is what is successful in Europe.

Clearly you have never been to Asia or looked at a map of Asia. Europe is nearly a treeless flat water-less desert in comparison.
Cities on water, almost every village and city in Asia is on the water, or in the middle of lakes, or surrounded by giant rivers. Once out side of agricultural areas (aka any hill or mountain) you are in triple canopy rain-forests. Do you understand how hard it is to move through a triple canopy rain-forest? Look at film of Vietnam. Europe is positively lacking in forests in comparison to Asia. You actually can walk between trees in Europe. In Asia you either have to cut the trees down, or find a road.

I lived in Germany, England, and Spain, I studied European History in Europe. I Studied Military History, and Geography as an Elective during my studies in Engineering.

The Gibberish he was speaking is true, most of Europe is inland, only a handful of nations have coasts, and of them only a select few have sea side capitals. Most Capitals in Europe are inland near large Rivers, just like every other human cultivated lands. In land near the crops, near a large river for water and commerce. The fact that European crops require large open fields is a huge advantage to large mobile armies. Back in the 13th and 14th century there were lots of nice open fields with crops growing in most places in Europe. It's why the cities were able to grow large enough for the age of conquest in the 15th century.

Navies in the Med. Lets look at this closely, I agree Venice was the power house, it relied on Trade for everything. They had a large navy, and an even larger trade fleet.

Now lets look at what they traded in. Spices from Asia, Silks from Asia, Gold from Europe. So in the hypothetical 14th century where the Mongols took Japan, whose side would they take? Would they fiercely defend their city on water which grows no crops, or would they make treaties with the Asians who they make so much money in trade with? Well when the Ottomans took Constantinople what did Venice do? Read that bit of history.

I personally think that if the Mongols came to Europe, Venice would be on their side. Hell Whose ships would be used to try and take England and Portugal, I'd say Venetian ships.

And the Ottomans during the Mongol years were Turks in the Mongol Horde.

- - - Updated - - -

Dafuq do Ottomans have to do with Mongol Empire? Their only contribution is destabilization of Seljuk's Sultanate of Rum which then imploded into Beyliks. By the time of Osman I Ilkhanate was had barely any presence left in Anatolia. He was the first ruler in the region during that period that minted his own coins and not Mongol ones. Their rise marks the fall of Mongol influence in the area. And there's no basis to call the Ottomans a horde.

If the Mongol Empire didn't split, there would be no Ottomans.




Ah, yes, the wall argument. How nice that the Mongols pretty much went around of what remained of the wall at that point. Great Wall of China as it's known today is younger than Mongol Empire. And the previous one was so old that it was eroding by the Mongol invasion of China.

The Ottomans of the 15th Century were descended from the Turks of the 13th Century who were the first people the Mongols incorporated into their Armies. Learn the History.

- - - Updated - - -

Ask yourself one question. What could be the reason for Europe never having a military force which crack troops as well as overall tactics were based on horseback.

ok, learn your history, European warfare is written on the backs of horses.

Only one set of invaders didn't use Horses, they used low riding ocean going ships. Ships capable of navigating the large network of Rivers in Europe.

Ever wonder what a Knight was? He was a heavy armored warrior on a horse. Europeans used many of the same tactics developed by the Mongols as soon as they started into the wars of the 15th Century.

[Grimbold21]

The Iberian Peninsula wouldnt require thst much of a military effort, if any. All the mongols had to do wss to play the different kingdoms against each other

[Bakis]

ok, learn your history, European warfare is written on the backs of horses.

Only one set of invaders didn't use Horses, they used low riding ocean going ships. Ships capable of navigating the large network of Rivers in Europe.

Ever wonder what a Knight was? He was a heavy armored warrior on a horse. Europeans used many of the same tactics developed by the Mongols as soon as they started into the wars of the 15th Century.

I edited while you wrote, I wrote vaguely opening up for the knight argument.

[ashblond]

You know why horses were so expensive in Europe? It doesn't even take much thought to work it out.

It's because most of Europe wasn't suited to large scale horse breeding.

Who said Europe wasn't suited for large scale horse breeding? Europe is a large, flat, green land compared with other civilizations the mongol conquered.
Europe didn't have large scale of horse breeding because Europe is agricultural civilization, not nomads, not because the land or territories are not suited.
France, who had one of the strongest cavalries in Europe during medival time, is a western European country.

Moreover, even, not suited for horse breeding =/= not suited for cavalry warfare.

There were plenty of opportunities for an Asian cavalry force to conquer Europe, yet none ever made much impression outside territories suitable for cavalry. Funny that.

We are talking about Mongol invasion of Europe. And the direct reason why they didn't conquest was because their army retreated due to the death of Khan and succession. It has nothing to do with Europe territories suitable for cavalry or not.

Your arguments lack reasoning and logic.

[Munson85]

They probably would have rolled whatever Europe crapped out sure. "Conquered" is a pretty strong word. At worse it probably would have been an even shorter lived "Mongol yoke" type of deal where Europe had to pay some kind of tribute for awhile.

Or the Europeans would have hid in their castles while the country side was destroyed. I really can't imagine the Mongols actually holding real political sway over any real chunk of Europe for any length of time. Europe did tend to unite versus outside threats. It might have really sucked to live in Eastern Europe (more so then usual) for a century of two, but I really doubt the Mongols would have held on as some kind of occupying force.

[Kalis]

Clearly you have never been to Asia or looked at a map of Asia. Europe is nearly a treeless flat water-less desert in comparison.
Cities on water, almost every village and city in Asia is on the water, or in the middle of lakes, or surrounded by giant rivers. Once out side of agricultural areas (aka any hill or mountain) you are in triple canopy rain-forests. Do you understand how hard it is to move through a triple canopy rain-forest? Look at film of Vietnam. Europe is positively lacking in forests in comparison to Asia. You actually can walk between trees in Europe. In Asia you either have to cut the trees down, or find a road.

The Mongols struggled in Vietnam due to the terrain.

And you need fodder to feed horses, the point about forests is that they don't have the fodder required for hundreds of thousands of horses, nor are they suitable for horse archer tactics. You've just nullified the Mongols greatest strength.

I lived in Germany, England, and Spain, I studied European History in Europe. I Studied Military History, and Geography as an Elective during my studies in Engineering.

So you lived in 13th Century Europe? If you think that the terrain in modern Europe is comparable, then you're wrong, so I don't know why you bring it up.

The Gibberish he was speaking is true, most of Europe is inland, only a handful of nations have coasts, and of them only a select few have sea side capitals. Most Capitals in Europe are inland near large Rivers, just like every other human cultivated lands. In land near the crops, near a large river for water and commerce. The fact that European crops require large open fields is a huge advantage to large mobile armies. Back in the 13th and 14th century there were lots of nice open fields with crops growing in most places in Europe. It's why the cities were able to grow large enough for the age of conquest in the 15th century.

So how come nobody ever noticed that Europe was suitable for mass cavalry warfare? You'd think one of the numerous commanders would have noticed, but no.

Navies were incredibly important to Europe as overland travel often wasn't practical due to the terrain and that also made it impractical for large scale cavalries. Europe also relied heavily on maritime trade and warfare. You seem to think that those are somehow irrelevant, as if Europe evolving in a certain direction militarily was somehow not because the terrain dictated that evolution.

So, no that poster is talking utter gibberish. In fact that poster thinks that Europe didn't have large scale cavalries due to the horses originiating in Asia, which misses the point about why horses were so plentiful in Asia and not in Europe...perhaps because the terrain didn't suit horses.

Navies in the Med. Lets look at this closely, I agree Venice was the power house, it relied on Trade for everything. They had a large navy, and an even larger trade fleet.

Now lets look at what they traded in. Spices from Asia, Silks from Asia, Gold from Europe. So in the hypothetical 14th century where the Mongols took Japan, whose side would they take? Would they fiercely defend their city on water which grows no crops, or would they make treaties with the Asians who they make so much money in trade with? Well when the Ottomans took Constantinople what did Venice do? Read that bit of history.

I personally think that if the Mongols came to Europe, Venice would be on their side. Hell Whose ships would be used to try and take England and Portugal, I'd say Venetian ships.

Why have you suddenly decided that the Mongols took Japan? How does that make sense?

And the Ottomans during the Mongol years were Turks in the Mongol Horde.

...who adapted over time to using tactics that suited campaigning in Europe.

Asian tactics don't work in Europe, European tactics don't work in Asia - if you take away the Mongols main strength, then they become just another European force fighting against other European forces.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said Europe wasn't suited for large scale horse breeding? Europe is a large, flat, green land compared with other civilizations the mongol conquered.
Europe didn't have large scale of horse breeding because Europe is agricultural civilization, not nomads, not because the land or territories are not suited.
France, who had one of the strongest cavalries in Europe during medival time, is a western European country.

Moreover, even, not suited for horse breeding =/= not suited for cavalry warfare.

The land use in 13th Century Europe was not the same as it is in modern Europe. What the actual fuck?

We are talking about Mongol invasion of Europe. And the direct reason why they didn't conquest was because their army retreated due to the death of Khan and succession. It has nothing to do with Europe territories suitable for cavalry or not.

You brought up other Asian armies, now you're dismissing them.

Your arguments lack reasoning and logic.

You are so clueless that you think modern Europe has the same landscape as that of 13th Century Europe. How can you try to insult other people when you don't even know something that basic?


Edit: To give an indication of the differences in terrain, this is what large swathes of Europe looked like at the time...

[Bakis]

Who said Europe wasn't suited for large scale horse breeding? Europe is a large, flat, green land compared with other civilizations the mongol conquered.
Europe didn't have large scale of horse breeding because Europe is agricultural civilization, not nomads, not because the land or territories are not suited.
France, who had one of the strongest cavalries in Europe during medival time, is a western European country.

Moreover, even, not suited for horse breeding =/= not suited for cavalry warfare

Europe is a bit diverse, bringing up France which is not heavily forested or rocky as an example is not very wise given it is beyond just those areas.
There is a big gash of heavily forested and/or mountain terrain starting where the Mongol had their western frontier.
The number one reason why they halted and I think everyone agree on that is the death of the Khan.
That however does not automatically mean they could push on like they came across any other theatre.
Nor should any one doubt the siege capabilities of the Mogols but Western Europe is littered with castles and other fortifications at the time.
The prefered tactic would be to just go around or in when needed siege them, the amount of fortifications in Western Europe however would make it impractical to say the least.

Could the Mongols conqure Europe? Sure it is possible, to what extent and under which conditions is the question.
Western Europe would favor raiding campaings far more than 'real' conquest though.

[ashblond]

The land use in 13th Century Europe was not the same as it is in modern Europe. What the actual fuck?

What was the 13th century Europe landscape? You didn't give any explanation.

You brought up other Asian armies, now you're dismissing them.

The Huns reached Chalon, France from east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...launian_Plains

The Arabs reached Tours, France from south.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

The Mongols invaded the whole Eastern Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

So what is the unsuited land for cavalry in Europe in your theory?

You are so clueless that you think modern Europe has the same landscape as that of 13th Century Europe. How can you try to insult other people when you don't even know something that basic?

I had no intention to insult anyone, but merely point out the lack of logic in your post.
Maybe I would agree that Mongols couldn't conqueror Europe because of logistics, diplomacy or other reasons.
And certainly they couldn't rule long in Europe, just like they couldn't rule long in China or Arabia.
But saying Europe is not suited for horses or cavalry and bringing up navy is just unfounded.

[Gothicshark]

The Mongols struggled in Vietnam due to the terrain.

Yes but they did win until an inter-sexual person finally kicked the Chinese out.

And you need fodder to feed horses, the point about forests is that they don't have the fodder required for hundreds of thousands of horses, nor are they suitable for horse archer tactics. You've just nullified the Mongols greatest strength.

Not a problem that the Mongols hadn't faced and solved already. In fact, because of their constantly changing tactics, the Nature of the forests in Europe would actually give the Mongols an advantage.

So you lived in 13th Century Europe? If you think that the terrain in modern Europe is comparable, then you're wrong, so I don't know why you bring it up.

deep sigh. Seriously, at this point it's like logic circles. Yes the climate has changed, yes there were more forests back then. Yes there were far fewer people as well. None of these issues would have even made a dent in an invasion by the Mongols, they took all the way up to the Danube. They took Russia during winter, and they took China in a ground war. Two things any military historian says are impossible.

The Monguls paused do to a secession crisis. And they never came back because they focused on Japan which broke their will.

So how come nobody ever noticed that Europe was suitable for mass cavalry warfare? You'd think one of the numerous commanders would have noticed, but no.

/facepalm Cavalry is a French word that comes from Italian. If Cavalry wasn't important in Europe then the word would be "морин хуур" morin khuur the Mongol word. We use the word in English from the source of the concept. French Cavalry was the real deal, Knights were very important in European warfare.

Navies were incredibly important to Europe as overland travel often wasn't practical due to the terrain and that also made it impractical for large scale cavalries. Europe also relied heavily on maritime trade and warfare. You seem to think that those are somehow irrelevant, as if Europe evolving in a certain direction militarily was somehow not because the terrain dictated that evolution.

you make my head hurt, Romans built roads and bridges through out all of western Europe, many roads of Europe today are still along the same paths the Romans originally built. Further East where the Romans didn't invade, the local populations still built roads everywhere. It's not until you get east do the roads run out. But then the Mongols took all of that.

So, no that poster is talking utter gibberish. In fact that poster thinks that Europe didn't have large scale cavalries due to the horses originiating in Asia, which misses the point about why horses were so plentiful in Asia and not in Europe...perhaps because the terrain didn't suit horses.

Horses originated in North America, years ago they moved into Asia over the land bridge that humans used to come to North America. Unfortunately all the horses in North America died out some time ago, and were reintroduced with the Spanish.

Horse warfare was a real deal in Europe, I am baffled how you can not understand the importance of the Knight in the field of battle.

Why have you suddenly decided that the Mongols took Japan? How does that make sense?

In order for this hypothetical situation to be contemplated, you have to find the one thing that caused it not to happen. I disagree that it was the succession crisis that caused the Mongols from a proper European campaign, it was the failure in Japan and the loss of 150,000 men at arms. That crushed the Mongols will to continue. Had that campaign not taken place, or had they won, they would have continued westward. You can see this because the Successor Empires that came out of the Mongol Empire did just that.

..who adapted over time to using tactics that suited campaigning in Europe.

Asian tactics don't work in Europe, European tactics don't work in Asia - if you take away the Mongols main strength, then they become just another European force fighting against other European forces.

Who said they would use Asian Tactics. The Mongols strength was your strength that you dismissed. Mongols incorporated people into their armies and made generals of locals, to solve this problem as they spread out. Yah the image is the Guy with bow on horse back, the reality is they had a massive force with as many different tactics as landscapes.

What did they do when faced with large walled cities? They killed the crops around the city, poisoned the cattle, used siege weapons to toss rotting flesh into the cities, and set massive fires around the cities.

They poisoned the waters, and basically forced people to try and flee the cities, when they did, the Mongols would kill everyone sparing nothing. They would then gather people from near by villages show them what happened and give them horses.

The next city they came to they would give them a choice, die or join. Most Joined. Once you joined life was good, word spread on that as well.

The land use in 13th Century Europe was not the same as it is in modern Europe. What the actual fuck?You brought up other Asian armies, now you're dismissing them.

You are so clueless that you think modern Europe has the same landscape as that of 13th Century Europe. How can you try to insult other people when you don't even know something that basic?

No personal insults please. I lived in Europe, and studied the history there. I know what has changed and what is the same. Please leave personal insults out of this.

[ashblond]

Europe is a bit diverse, bringing up France which is not heavily forested or rocky as an example is not very wise given it is beyond just those areas.
There is a big gash of heavily forested and/or mountain terrain starting where the Mongol had their western frontier.
The number one reason why they halted and I think everyone agree on that is the death of the Khan.
That however does not automatically mean they could push on like they came across any other theatre.
Nor should any one doubt the siege capabilities of the Mogols but Western Europe is littered with castles and other fortifications at the time.
The prefered tactic would be to just go around or in when needed siege them, the amount of fortifications in Western Europe however would make it impractical to say the least.

Could the Mongols conqure Europe? Sure it is possible, to what extent and under which conditions is the question.
Western Europe would favor raiding campaings far more than 'real' conquest though.

Of course Europe is diverse, but certainly not as diverse as the whole Asian continent, from Chinese rivers, mountains, Tibet plateau, Siberian forrest to Arabian desert.

Mongol conquest of Europe is just an assumption.
One can only say that it is possible, judging by how strong their military is, and how fast they swept the whole eastern Europe.
But would they have conquerored the whole Europe if their Khan didn't die at that specific moment? Nobody can really answer.

But his claim that Europe was not suited for cavalry and navy could stop Mongol invasion of Europe is just too off.

[Easo]

Some people realy do have a huge hardon on Mongols...

About the so much quoted battle of Mohi. Mongols suffered serious losses in it too and contrary to popular belief, their manpower was not limitless. Hungary never did fully fall, since bunch of places held against the siege , and the Mongols started to get bogged down in them.
Please remember that further in Europe there would be even more fortified places and castles.
They would simply fully bog down in long sieges sooner or later.