Do you think the Mongols could have taken over Europe?

[Bakis]

I'll concede that im comenting based on summary information - wiki - and according to that, the second mongol invasion of Japan was affected by the weather only when they returned in the summer.
That invasion started early in the year, got repelled, returned in the summer and then was partially destroyed by a typhoon.

Had a couple of beers so I can't promise you I'm correct but as I understood it the loss of ships wasn't a problem.
If i remember correctly it was the largest fleet until D-day. The problem was getting troops onto land.
The mongols had the funding and resources to build a giant fleet but just having a fleet wont get them Japan.
Archaeologist have found a substantial amount of ship not far from shore but the weather was a disaster.
Troop carrying ships couldn't land the troops but the position of the wrecks and anchors show that the ships got smashed either by coastal features or the waves (anchors pointing out to sea and the ships between them and land).

They could not land troops, nor get out onto deeper water to be safe from the storm pounding them closer and closer to land.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a numbers game, The mongols had the population and resources. Taking most of Europe would have been fairly easy, you forget how low the population of Europe was during the 13th century. Also because the Mongols offered peace before invasion, many nations in Europe would have surrendered without a fight. In some cases One nation would see an advantage in joining with the Mongols just to wipe out long time Rivals.

No a unified Mongol Horde would have only have problem in the one area history has shown they actually had trouble with.

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

The thing you ignore is the location of China vs Europe.

[Gothicshark]

The Mongols didn't use garrisons to the extent that most other armies did and so required that their supply line was mostly unbroken, which isn't possible around the Mediterranean or the North Sea/Atlantic regions, as you can just land an army to disrupt their rear and starve their main force. In heavily wooded regions you can use guerilla tactics to achieve a similar effect.

How exactly are the Mongol armies going to be effective without horses? They wouldn't be able to live off the land and they wouldn't be able to supply them sufficiently.



That's just a made up claim.

Actually... False.

The Mongols used forts just like any army. They did some things very different, and rather modern. They maintained a Supply line, and had large numbers of people in support. They more or less perfected Siege warfare for the area, yes, Europe had castles by the Beach. Stone walls fell easily to cannon fire. (it's why castles went out of fashion)

Things the mongols had, Automatic Crossbows, Compasses, Cannons, Guns. Yah sure the elite road into battle on horse back, with sword and bow. However by the mid 13th century they were using modern weapons gained from China, Modern tactics gained from the Turks. They had really improved on warfare. Meanwhile Europe was focused on taking back a sliver of coastline from the Arabs, and failing at it. Also Europeans were so intent on killing each other they could hardly do anything in the few places the Mongols did take. and when the 14th century happened the ottomans took a sizable chunk out of Europe.

- - - Updated - - -

Name some things that give them an advantage in naval combat, not in trading.

Cannons. If they didn't sink in a typhoon 4000 ships, with 150,000 soldiers on them.

- - - Updated - - -

They had already beaten the Mongols in different battles during the second invasion. What you can say is that the typhoon was the final nail in the coffin, which wrecked a supposedly stationary navy.

The Japanese resisted in some places, but they had lost quite a few islands before the Mongols lost the fleet due to weather.

[Grimbold21]

Had a couple of beers so I can't promise you I'm correct but as I understood it the loss of ships wasn't a problem.
If i remember correctly it was the largest fleet until D-day. The problem was getting troops onto land.
The mongols had the funding and resources to build a giant fleet but just having a fleet wont get them Japan.
Archaeologist have found a substantial amount of ship not far from shore but the weather was a disaster.
Troop carrying ships couldn't land the troops but the position of the wrecks and anchors show that the ships got smashed either by coastal features or the waves (anchors pointing out to sea and the ships between them and land).

They could not land troops, nor get out onto deeper water to be safe from the storm pounding them closer and closer to land.

- - - Updated - - -


The thing you ignore is the location of China vs Europe.

Im not gonna dispute that. Just saying that the summary of that particular invasion doesn't paint a scenario that relies on the weather factor as the main cause for Mongol defeat.

It did contribute obviously, but renewed knowledge after the first invasion resulted in the Japanese being better prepared. The bits of info suggest that, in several ocasions, as soon as the Mongols landed - or tried to - the Japanese would fall on them rapidly.

[Bakis]

Worth mentioning is that countries such as Hungary posed no problem, then again 11-20% forest.
A bit unsure about the exact % back then but it is between the two.

[Thomasyo4]

Why do so many people, in this thread, think that a few European forests would stop the Mongols? Asia has rainforests, deserts, mountain ranges, and swamps. The Mongols had one of the largest armies of civilization, a few trees wouldn't stop them

[Judgedredd]

It's a numbers game, The mongols had the population and resources. Taking most of Europe would have been fairly easy, you forget how low the population of Europe was during the 13th century. Also because the Mongols offered peace before invasion, many nations in Europe would have surrendered without a fight. In some cases One nation would see an advantage in joining with the Mongols just to wipe out long time Rivals.

No a unified Mongol Horde would have only have problem in the one area history has shown they actually had trouble with.

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

I wouldn't call 50 years to subjugate China quick. Genghis Khan didn't even live to see the whole of it conquered, dying in 1227. His grandson would finish the job in 1279, the major obstacle being the south of the country where the terrain just wasn't conducive to cavalry tactics.

[Bakis]

Im not gonna dispute that. Just saying that the summary of that particular invasion doesn't paint a scenario that relies on the weather factor as the main cause for Mongol defeat.

It did contribute obviously, but renewed knowledge after the first invasion resulted in the Japanese being better prepared. The bits of info suggest that, in several ocasions, as soon as the Mongols landed - or tried to - the Japanese would fall on them rapidly.

Yea I can agree but there is no question that the mongols had more ships more troops so it would have been crucial for some force mature giving them the finger.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do so many people, in this thread, think that a few European forests would stop the Mongols? Asia has rainforests, deserts, mountain ranges, and swamps. The Mongols had one of the largest armies of civilization, a few trees wouldn't stop them

Vacuum always rock.

[ashblond]

It's only illogical if you can't use a map. You have ignored the location of major European cities, I've already explained why navies are important, there is a reason that the likes of Venice became rich and powerful in Europe.

How are the Mongol armies going to feed their horses?

Most of Chinese cities are built near big rivers. China's largest cities are coastal cities. And China's capital was a coastal city during Mongol invasion time.

You are speaking like there are only sea in Europe, and most Europeans were sea people that living in small islands in medival time.
How many European capitals were coastal cities? Most medival Europeans were living in inland cities and villages.
What do you do with your ships when you lose all your land? sailing to Amercia?

And most important, Europe had no superior navy than China or Arab at the time.

To anser your questions: the Mongols feed their horses with grass. So please stop bringing up navy and trolling

[Kalis]

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.

[Judgedredd]

Actually... False.

The Mongols used forts just like any army. They did some things very different, and rather modern. They maintained a Supply line, and had large numbers of people in support. They more or less perfected Siege warfare for the area, yes, Europe had castles by the Beach. Stone walls fell easily to cannon fire. (it's why castles went out of fashion)

Then please explain Vauban fortresses? Castles with tall walls built at right angles became obsolete, yes, but shorter thicker walls built at acute angles and in a star shape to prevent blind spots could take weeks if not months to breach. Vauban's designs at Verdun were still militarily useful even during the First World War.

[Bakis]

This page do a good job listing the issues of anything but a raiding party deep into Europe

[Gothicshark]

It's only illogical if you can't use a map. You have ignored the location of major European cities, I've already explained why navies are important, there is a reason that the likes of Venice became rich and powerful in Europe.

How are the Mongol armies going to feed their horses?

Yah, Venice would have been something they wouldn't have tried for right away, I'd say Itally in general would have been at the end of any campaign. Just like Switzerland. They would have moved into Poland than Germany, and move south into France and Spain. They would then move into the mountains, (ie same thing they did in the east.) By the time they got around to Italy, England, Portugal, and Venice. Their Armies would be mostly made up of any Europeans who sided with them. Once again just like they did in Asia. The argument, well their tactics wont work because this peoples did things different, or this Geography is different, fail to understand what the Mongols actually did better than any one else at the time.

They convinced common people to join them, Kill your kings and join us. They sold them selves as the an Army of the common people, and promised that any and all resistance would be met with no mercy.

More nations joined them than fought. They added the unique technologies, and talents of each conquered land to their own. To see what the Mongol Horde would have done, Just look at the Ottomans. Former members of the Mongol Horde, originally from (what we now call) Turkmenistan. They took 1/4 of Europe with no support from the Rest of the Horde. They only stopped because they ended up making treaties and they had limited resources.

[Bakis]

More nations joined them than fought. They added the unique technologies, and talents of each conquered land to their own. To see what the Mongol Horde would have done, Just look at the Ottomans. Former members of the Mongol Horde, originally from (what we now call) Turkmenistan. They took 1/4 of Europe with no support from the Rest of the Horde. They only stopped because they ended up making treaties and they had limited resources

The not so forested and more distant parts though. Then you bring up another argument, resources.

[Xeones]

Why do so many people, in this thread, think that a few European forests would stop the Mongols? Asia has rainforests, deserts, mountain ranges, and swamps. The Mongols had one of the largest armies of civilization, a few trees wouldn't stop them

Eurocentrism, they also probably don't actually understand who the Mongols were beyond the mindless barbarian stereotypes.

Mongols integrated the cultures they conquered and seized the skilled to consolidate knowledge and made use of the best they found. Their military was the most advanced military in the world, a lot more than just a few horse archers which is all they seem to credit them with. Europe would have stood no real chance against the full might of the mongol empire unless they stood as a unified force which simply wouldn't have happened in the 12-1300's.

[Gothicshark]

I wouldn't call 50 years to subjugate China quick. Genghis Khan didn't even live to see the whole of it conquered, dying in 1227. His grandson would finish the job in 1279, the major obstacle being the south of the country where the terrain just wasn't conducive to cavalry tactics.

Taking China at all would have been considered impossible if the Mongols hadn't done it. Yah, it took the greater part of 80 years to take China, and it took the successor empire another 100 to take the rest of Asia. But they did it. Japan was only a failure because of a Typhoon, twice. That moment literally stopped the Mongols, they lost 150,000 men to wind and ocean. They lost honor, they lost the will to maintain the Horde mentality on a global scale. This however didn't stop the smaller successor Hordes from taking almost as many peoples as the original horde did.

- - - Updated - - -

Then please explain Vauban fortresses? Castles with tall walls built at right angles became obsolete, yes, but shorter thicker walls built at acute angles and in a star shape to prevent blind spots could take weeks if not months to breach. Vauban's designs at Verdun were still militarily useful even during the First World War.

Invented in 1633, the Mongols broke apart in 1280, the Ottoman Empire stopped expanding in the 15th Century. By 1633 Guns and cannons were technologies owned by everyone.

I'm saying the Mongols would have taken Europe in the 14 Century had Japan fallen to them. It was not the Secession issue that stopped them.

[Kalis]

Most of Chinese cities are built near big rivers. China's largest cities are coastal cities. And China's capital was a coastal city during Mongol invasion time.

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.

You are speaking like there are only sea in Europe, and most Europeans were sea people that living in small islands in medival time.

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.

How many European capitals were coastal cities? Most medival Europeans were living in inland cities and villages.
What do you do with your ships when you lose all your land? sailing to Amercia?

This is just gibberish.

And most important, Europe had no superior navy than China or Arab at the time.

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.

To anser your questions: the Mongols feed their horses with grass. So please stop bringing up navy and trolling

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

Yah, Venice would have been something they wouldn't have tried for right away, I'd say Itally in general would have been at the end of any campaign. Just like Switzerland. They would have moved into Poland than Germany, and move south into France and Spain. They would then move into the mountains, (ie same thing they did in the east.) By the time they got around to Italy, England, Portugal, and Venice. Their Armies would be mostly made up of any Europeans who sided with them. Once again just like they did in Asia. The argument, well their tactics wont work because this peoples did things different, or this Geography is different, fail to understand what the Mongols actually did better than any one else at the time.

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.

More nations joined them than fought. They added the unique technologies, and talents of each conquered land to their own. To see what the Mongol Horde would have done, Just look at the Ottomans. Former members of the Mongol Horde, originally from (what we now call) Turkmenistan. They took 1/4 of Europe with no support from the Rest of the Horde. They only stopped because they ended up making treaties and they had limited resources.

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.

[Bakis]

Eurocentrism, they also probably don't actually understand who the Mongols were beyond the mindless barbarian stereotypes.

Mongols integrated the cultures they conquered and seized the skilled to consolidate knowledge and made use of the best they found. Their military was the most advanced military in the world, a lot more than just a few horse archers which is all they seem to credit them with. Europe would have stood no real chance against the full might of the mongol empire unless they stood as a unified force which simply wouldn't have happened in the 12-1300's.

Under the assumption of a coherent culture basis, topography (East Europe is not forested heavily btw), needed resources and distance.
Why is there a reason to compare in a vacuum?

There is no question of the impact and might of the Mongols however it has to be put in context, most importantly distance and need/will to go a step further.
That is a decision that had been thought of and decided every step of the way and the further one get it becomes harder.
I mean, there seem to be a thought that the Mongols just conquered for the sake of it with no thought of the parameters, it is daft.

[Kalis]

Eurocentrism, they also probably don't actually understand who the Mongols were beyond the mindless barbarian stereotypes.

It's nothing to do with Eurocentrism, it's to do with knowledge of both European and Asian armies, and what is effective in different regions - in Europe the navy and infantry dominate warfare, in Asia it's the cavalry.

Look at the nations that have been most successful in those two continents, it is a common theme throughout history.

[Gothicshark]

Had a couple of beers so I can't promise you I'm correct but as I understood it the loss of ships wasn't a problem.
If i remember correctly it was the largest fleet until D-day. The problem was getting troops onto land.
The mongols had the funding and resources to build a giant fleet but just having a fleet wont get them Japan.
Archaeologist have found a substantial amount of ship not far from shore but the weather was a disaster.
Troop carrying ships couldn't land the troops but the position of the wrecks and anchors show that the ships got smashed either by coastal features or the waves (anchors pointing out to sea and the ships between them and land).

They could not land troops, nor get out onto deeper water to be safe from the storm pounding them closer and closer to land.

- - - Updated - - -


The thing you ignore is the location of China vs Europe.

Mongols added people to them from areas they took, the Armies facing Europe would have not looked Mongolian at all. They would have been Commoners, mercenaries, and subjected peoples from around the world. It wasn't just Mongols, they were a Horde.

As someone pointed out Turks are not Mongols, yet during this time they were apart of the Horde. My point is look at what the Ottomans did from 1300 to 1500, if you need a lesson on what would have happened. The Ottomans, were very limited in scope with out the Backing of Persia, Islamic Stan regions, China, east Russia, and eventually India. Yet they took 1/4th of Europe anyway. The Ottomans were happy enough to just make treaties with Austro-hungary.

[Xeones]

This page do a good job listing the issues of anything but a raiding party deep into Europe

Not really.

First point makes the mongols out to be nothing but archer calvary and nothing more. Completely a false assertion. The other flaw is they try to compare them with previous nomadic invasions from forces that basically lacked a government. The mongol empire was a true empire by the time they reached europe and was so until 1294 when Kublai Khan died and it became less centralized.

Second point discredits the expertise of Mongol siege warfare in conquering the great empires of the middle east with out any real basis for doing so. They supply not even a single reason for them to downplay the siege ability of the mongols, just saying "Trust me the europeans were pro" in essence.

Third point is just "they probably would have fallen but not for long!" Then goes on to cite religious outrage that would just result in mass extermination of the populace.