Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The (non) Mongol Conquest Of Europe 1242-? A.d., Could Subotai have altered hist

Expand Messages
  • Ty
    http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4912&hl= http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3451&st=0 The (non) Mongol Conquest Of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4912&hl=

      http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3451&st=0

      The (non) Mongol Conquest Of Europe 1242-? A.d., Could Subotai have
      altered history?
      Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic
      Spartan JKM
      May 17 2005, 09:30 PM
      Post #1


      Settling Member


      Group: Members
      Posts: 15
      Joined: 30-April 05
      Member No.: 2 282




      I'm just floating with this, and I'm thinking off the top of my head,
      someone please correct me of some errors I may have made with
      specifics with trivia etc.

      My fellow astute poster Malthaussen, amid a discussion of the
      possibility of Roman legions and Mongols meeting each other, opened my
      mind regarding the feasability of a Mongol conquest of western Europe.
      I stated they couldn't because of the terrain and lack of pasturage.
      But he/she pointed something very accurate out to me; that is a
      logistical problem, something that can be manipulated, and they may
      have been able to swiftly crush the kingdoms of Europe, but not
      maintain any hegemony there.

      One of the most impacting turning points in military history is
      certainly the possible Mongol devastation of Europe. As we know, the
      eastern European armies of Poland, Hungary, and Silesia were
      obliterated by the expeditionary forces under the nominal leadership
      of Batu Khan, with the brilliant Subotai as the direct commander. His
      whirlwind campaign was awesome (militarily speaking, of course), rife
      with large-scale feigned retreats and smoke bombs. They simply and
      swiftly rode around larger armies, crushing them with devastating
      shock tactics with archery fire. Subotai regulated the efficient
      maneuvering of tens of thousands of men, across mountain ranges, and
      in unkown territory (they reconnoitered). He was a master chess-player
      of grand strategy, and benefited from a level of fealty and quality of
      his soldiers not enjoyed from a commander since Julius Caesar.

      I'm sorry - I don't mean to delve into all this information, most of
      which plenty of you are just as knowledgeable, or more, as I am.

      European culture and Christendom may owe its existence today to the
      death of an old Asian war chief, the Great Khan Ogedai, back in 1241.
      He was the very ethos that drove the Mongols, and the princes didn't
      hesitate to follow protocol upon his death - to return and provide for
      his successor. Their warring focus would never be on a return to
      Europe, but on China, Persia, and the Arab states. Furthermore, there
      was civil strife brimming, and Batu perhaps figured a European
      expedition would not recieve the support from the other princes.
      Contrarily, his vulnerable rear could be shut off by rivals.
      Chaghatai, the last son of Chinggis, had recently died as well.

      The Mongols were poised to move west. Influenced by the Chinese, they
      were the most efficient military force ever assembled before and,
      quite possibly, since.

      One primary component of Chinggis Khan's incredibly efficient military
      strategy was utter destruction and terror; they struck a paralyzing
      fear into the hearts of possible future opponents, and left no
      possibility of revolt among the defeated. This policy, in stark
      contrast to the viable manner in which the likes of the benign Scipio
      Africanus won the peace, was very efficacious.

      They indeed were in the gruesome business of leveling other people's
      societies, but they were quite benevolent when not resisted. Cities
      were generally left under native governors. Religious tolerance was
      important in consolidating rule, and they gained support of minorities
      thought to have been oppressed by Muslims. Administration was commonly
      more benign than pre-Mongol governments. Is that a consolation?

      Their hardiness, mobility, training, cohesion, and co-ordination, was
      all supreme. They were nomads who lived off the land with their
      horses, thus they needed no supply lines or camp followers.
      They functioned as a nation in arms, and grew in numbers, as many
      Turkic peoples integrated with them. Moreover, they utilized the
      technology of their subjugated peoples. Siegery was perfected which
      enabled them to take fortifications.

      A successful Mongol invasion of Europe in whole was risky. The Mongols
      were brilliant reconnoiters, and Subotai would have been fully
      apprised of the political and topographical situation in Europe. The
      big question was Europe capable, or willing, to combine in a huge,
      co-ordinated defensive effort. Would the papacy have called for a
      'home crusade'? If not, Europe would have suffered a wholesale
      destruction of life and culture, rendering impossible the great
      movements of the Renaissance and Reformation. The incredible surge,
      getting under way at this very time, of cultural and intelluctual
      advancement would have halted, probably inexorably.

      Could they have succeeded? They had ridden through the steppes of
      central Asia, Russia, Ukraine, and the eastern part of Europe in as
      devastating and dynamic a military sweep as any in history. But here,
      in Poland and Hungary, the huge pastures ended. With maybe 5 horses
      per warrior, they needed the vast pasturage to function to their
      style. Their marked advantage in speed, mobility, and surprise were
      all greatly decreased if they had to fight their way through the hilly
      and wooden regions of the remainder of Europe. Forests, rivers, and
      plowed fields with crops and ditches, hedges, and wooden fences, and
      all types of tilled soil, everywhere in western Europe at this time,
      would have offered no conducive foothold for the celerity they were
      used to. Under these conditions, European knights would have superior
      armor and numbers (hypothetically). Also, their bows might have lost
      strength and accuracy once they approached the 'damp point', where the
      climate near the littoral became more humid than the dry steppes they
      had only fought in before. I'm nitpicking now, though. This would have
      been a logistical problem, though, and all great captains, like
      Subotai, knew that the greatest uncertainty in war is not physical
      obstacles but human resistence. This terrain issue, perhaps, simply
      means the Mongols could not have maintained their hold on Europe if
      they successfully conquered it. But that wouldn't have been their intent.

      Let's hypothesize Subotai's conquest, probably beginning in early 1242:

      The armies were situated in Hungary and Poland, so Vienna would
      probably have been sacked first, and the survivors scattered into the
      countryside. The Hapsburg Monarchy, just getting under away in
      Austria, would have collapsed.

      Contemporaneously, Germany would have succumbed. Frederick II was at
      odds with the papacy at this time, and the parochial states,
      influenced by the Hapsburgs, were in near anarchy. They would have
      been brushed aside so long as the Mongols were careful in the uneven
      terrain.

      Subotai would have then struck at the riches of the Low Countries,
      obliterating Antwerp and Ghent, erasing the nascent financial center
      of Europe. Nobody would have tended to the windmills and dikes, thus
      the great delta of the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt would have reverted to
      irreperable swampland.

      Pasturage would be a necessity for their horses, so they would have
      swept down upon the valleys of France. Paris, the intellectual center
      of the High Middle Ages and of Aristotelian logical study, which would
      lay the groundwork for a fundamentally new world view (a material one)
      would have been destroyed. Remember, the Mongols hated cities.

      Around the same time other tumens would likely have forced the Alps
      and descended into the Po Valley of northern Italy, which would
      provide pasturage. But this wasn't the open steppes of Asia. They
      would have to hurry. They would have destroyed everything they
      couldn't carry, and plunder every city. Rome would have been shown no
      scruples. Without the examples of classicism for inspiration, the
      Renaissance may have never germinated at all.

      What about England? Well, Kubilai Khan did fail, twice, against Japan
      with seafaring expeditions, due part to terrible weather. He was
      repulsed both times at Hakata Bay. The English Channel was certainly
      choppy, and the shores of berth would not have been ones of their own
      country.
      How about this for another debate - the Mongols vs. the English
      longbowmen, who thrived prodigiously against mounted soldiers, albeit
      lesser ones than the Mongols, a century later. Interesting.

      The Mongols would have installed governors and tax collectors, and
      returned to Asia. What would remain?

      Goodness, it's scary: from beginning to end of this swath of
      destruction, the peoples throughout Europe would have been left in a
      state of abject poverty and havenless, with no room for any style of
      learning and the arts. Europe might have become a land of gypsies. The
      Mongols would have pulled the up-and-coming societies by the roots.
      Depopulated and regressed, Europeans would have been afflicted with a
      bleak struggle for survival. China survived, though, and would
      continue their great ways of civilization.

      With the governments destabilized, all the political stability,
      economic growth, and wide contact amongst different cultures would not
      have fostered. No urban civilization. No Renaissance. No Reformation.
      All the provisions for the new world that would come - spiritual,
      intellectual, industrial, and commercial would not have been there to
      provide the inspiration and basis for the wonderfully contributional
      works of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert, Dante Alighieri, Giovanni
      Boccaccio, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Wyclif, John Huss, Leonardo Bruni,
      Filippo Brunelleschi, Lorenzo Valla, Johann Gutenberg, Donato
      Bramante, Leonardo da Vinci,....I think you get the point with the
      last name. That pattern could be connective to the present.

      Probably no Age of Exploration. No Dutch Revolt, which was the seedbed
      of the subsequent democratic revolutions. No Printing Press. No
      Capitalism. No Humanism. No Industrial Revolution. No Courtly Love......

      Many twists in history, eh?

      Thank you, Spartan JKM

      This post has been edited by Spartan JKM: May 17 2005, 10:39 PM

      General_Zhaoyun
      May 19 2005, 10:20 AM
      Post #2


      SMQ Staff (administrator)


      Group: Admin
      Posts: 2 466
      Joined: 27-June 02
      From: Taiwanese living in Singapore
      Member No.: 3




      QUOTE
      With the governments destabilized, all the political stability,
      economic growth, and wide contact amongst different cultures would not
      have fostered. No urban civilization. No Renaissance. No Reformation.
      All the provisions for the new world that would come - spiritual,
      intellectual, industrial, and commercial would not have been there to
      provide the inspiration and basis for the wonderfully contributional
      works of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert, Dante Alighieri, Giovanni
      Boccaccio, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Wyclif, John Huss, Leonardo Bruni,
      Filippo Brunelleschi, Lorenzo Valla, Johann Gutenberg, Donato
      Bramante, Leonardo da Vinci,....I think you get the point with the
      last name. That pattern could be connective to the present.

      Probably no Age of Exploration. No Dutch Revolt, which was the seedbed
      of the subsequent democratic revolutions. No Printing Press. No
      Capitalism. No Humanism. No Industrial Revolution. No Courtly Love......


      I think you assume the Mongols is able to rule Europe for many
      hundreds of years and that their empire would be long-lasting after
      they conquered whole of Europe.

      Don't forget the 4 great khagnate of Mongol empire fragmented only
      after about 100 years. In China, uprising by red turban overthrew the
      Yuan dynasty, which lasted no more than 90 years.

      The mongols may be brilliant conqueror, but they are not brilliant
      ruler. That's why their empire doesn't last long, despite having
      conquer a large territory.



      --------------------
      "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." - Confucius
      Founder of History Forum Simaqian Studio and China History Forum

      Spartan JKM
      May 19 2005, 06:25 PM
      Post #3


      Settling Member


      Group: Members
      Posts: 15
      Joined: 30-April 05
      Member No.: 2 282




      Oh, on the contrary, General, I know they wouldn't have stayed and set
      up some form of Mongol/Turkic hegemony. I think the Mongols under
      Subotai could have likely swept through western Europe, bypassing the
      kingdoms in Switzerland and Spain, but their subjects could not be
      sustained under their power for any extended period. It's much
      different than the Russian city states, where they were on the vast
      steppe that supported their cultural ways. In the West, only by
      completely subjugating the populous and controlling harvests could the
      Mongols expect to feed their vast amounts of livestock. It would
      necessitate a complete change in culture, from a nomadic, pastoral
      lifestyle to a static, agrarian lifestyle. It would require a huge
      administrative force to be employed. They hated, for the most part,
      such a static lifestyle, so they wouldn't fight to conquer a land that
      would force them to abandon their culture.

      I feel they could have wrought devastation to such a high magnitude,
      rendering the people in a state of such regression, 'advanced
      civilization' might not have germinated. This is an entertaining
      hypothesis, and deductive logic adds to the fun, but many things can
      be analyzed with an opposite scenario.

      Thanks, Spartan JKM

      Excelsior
      May 20 2005, 04:34 PM
      Post #4


      Fledgling Member


      Group: Members
      Posts: 2
      Joined: 2-May 05
      Member No.: 2 337




      This is one of the huge 'what-ifs' of history. Good post.

      I think the Mongols could have defeated European knights in the grassy
      plains of Europe, so long as they weren't forced to fight against
      their likening. Easier said than done, though. They certainly wouldn't
      have stayed. I agree with that issue.

      This post has been edited by Excelsior: May 20 2005, 04:36 PM

      TMPikachu
      May 20 2005, 11:48 PM
      Post #5


      Settling Member


      Group: Members
      Posts: 26
      Joined: 19-November 04
      Member No.: 1 399




      Why wouldn't the rennaissance have germinated? Pax Mongolica brought a
      good amount of stability, allowing trade to flourish East and West.
      The Rennaissance, from when it occurred, seemed to happen when the
      Mongols contacted the Europeans (another question would be, would the
      Rennaissance have happened at all without mongol contact?)
      In fact, the famous (and very first) english writer Geoffry Chaucer,
      in his Canterbury Tales, has a story that praises Genghis Khan as the
      greatest king of kings ever to be king. That was the longest tale too.
      Generally the view of the Mongols and Eastern civilization in the
      Rennaissance was one of awe (well, alot of exoticism and fantasy goes
      in it too).

      In the Yuan dynasty, Chinese literature bloomed greatly, mostly
      because Mongol rulers did not care much for censoring, and sharp
      minded Chinese, without official posts to look for, turned more to
      writing and the arts. (there are still many bad things that happened
      under Yuan rule, I am just highlighting some good, and Yuan dynasty
      did not send China down the crapper either, we need corrupt late Ming
      officials for that )

      Hmm...

      What if Mongols imported Chinese to minister the Europeans?


      I'm just saying that I don't think Mongol rule is going to be a
      terrible, horrible thing, and it seems like an argument that the loser
      spouts. "Good thing they didn't completely destroy us, or we would've
      get to be so great!"


      'Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world' is a book that
      really shows the positive side of the Mongols.

      This post has been edited by TMPikachu: May 21 2005, 12:01 AM

      Spartan JKM
      May 21 2005, 12:59 AM
      Post #6


      Settling Member


      Group: Members
      Posts: 15
      Joined: 30-April 05
      Member No.: 2 282




      I think you add a very intelligent, benign perspective TMPikachu, and
      I simply posed the Reformation and Renaissance issues as a
      possibility. It is a fact that the Mongol warlike tradition was
      apocalyptic, and accounts of their barbarity seem staggering. The
      knigdoms around Merv, Nishapur, Bukhara, and Samarkand never regained
      their former prosperity.
      I do think Jack Weatherford is admirable for providing us with his
      study, which shows a good light of them, which is completely truthful.
      He keeps in mind what happens when one's story is told by his enemies.
      Have you ever read the nonsensical charges of inhumanity of Hannibal
      by the Romans. Nobody had bought that, and maybe they should apply the
      same thing to the Mongols. I always admired that, despite their
      ferocity when subjugating was complete, they rules wiser than the
      Europeans did, and may not have all been any crueler. This is a
      looong, fascinating topic.

      The Mongols didn't seem to create much of anything themselves, but
      they were certainly respectful and in awe of 'cultured civilization',
      particularly in China, thus the Yuan Dynasty was founded. They treated
      people who had learning skills as important commodities to be acquired
      and utilized. They had no interest in turning conquered peoples into
      Mongols. Instead, they made sure that goods, ideas, and people
      traveled safely across most of the known world, unleashing an era of
      unprecedented innovation and prosperity. But rebellions, including
      that of the famous aforementioned 'Red Turbans', gradually tore the
      fiber of Mongol rule.

      The innovations of paper, printing, gunpowder, and even the compass
      brought from the East by Mongols via the great trading routes indeed
      was incredibly substantial. Eurasia became open as never before to
      commerce and the exchange of ideas. But it was more the Europeans'
      venturing in to the East that brought these back to Europe (I think).
      I do indeed think it is a misconception for one to think of the nomads
      in Asia as 'less civilized human' than anyone from the West, but, even
      in subtle innuendo, I wouldn't go as far as saying they helped
      directly aid the Renaissance in Europe. The connection certainly
      helped, but the major components of the Rebirth in Europe, those being
      the arts, scholarship and sciences, were all concepts not brougth from
      the East (they certainly were extant in the East). That was going to
      happen anyway (without a massive invasion, of course). Hey, I'm no
      Chaucer; maybe I'm missing something. Thanks for responding to my topic.

      Thanks, Spartan JKM

      This post has been edited by Spartan JKM: May 21 2005, 02:45 PM

      Conquistador 2000
      May 21 2005, 07:15 PM
      Post #7


      Potential Historian


      Group: Members
      Posts: 111
      Joined: 29-November 04
      Member No.: 1 432




      ¡°I think you assume the Mongols is able to rule Europe for many
      hundreds of years and that their empire would be long-lasting after
      they conquered whole of Europe.

      Don't forget the 4 great khagnate of Mongol empire fragmented only
      after about 100 years. In China, uprising by red turban overthrew the
      Yuan dynasty, which lasted no more than 90 years.

      The mongols may be brilliant conqueror, but they are not brilliant
      ruler. That's why their empire doesn't last long, despite having
      conquer a large territory.¡±

      Thank you that is all true, what he says¡­

      And besides, when the Mongols conquered most of the world, the places
      they conquered mainly at its weakest or divided or poor.

      Europe was poor at this time specially Eastern Europe. When the
      Mongols invaded their fighting mainly peasants, the Mongols did not
      really find a professional army¡­When they invaded China, China was
      divided¡­

      Not to mention money attack, they don¡¯t even declare war ages come
      randomly. or they attack a neutral nation out of the blue.

      And that¡¯s mention also that this is before knights and soldiers had
      plate armor. I think if they have the proper equipment, and more
      organized army (like they did later on) the Mongols not have Conquered.

      You have to see is that nights and foot soldiers were variable to
      arrows, they had chain mill, which is the main armor at the time, I
      mean, Roman armor was stronger than what they wor. This is just
      battled statistics.

      I mean plate armor was so strong firearms can go through and not to
      mention longbows couldn¡¯t pierce it¡­

      And if China was united like daring the Han, I don¡¯t believe that the
      Mongols could take them. Same thing goes with the Romans, if the
      moguls fought the Romans at its strongest, I think the Mongols would loss.



      My point I¡¯m trying to make is that the Mongols, if they were faced by
      a good professional army, I believe they would loss.

      This post has been edited by Conquistador 2000: May 21 2005, 07:20 PM

      pelgus
      May 24 2005, 10:16 AM
      Post #8


      SMQ Staff (Mod)


      Group: Moderator
      Posts: 173
      Joined: 25-November 04
      Member No.: 1 418




      QUOTE(Conquistador 2000 @ May 21 2005, 09:15 PM)
      Europe was poor at this time specially Eastern Europe. When the
      Mongols invaded their fighting mainly peasants, the Mongols did not
      really find a professional army¡­
      <snip>
      My point I¡¯m trying to make is that the Mongols, if they were faced by
      a good professional army, I believe they would loss.

      It is my understanding that the Hungarian and Polish armies consisted
      mainly of wealthy nobility fighting as heavy cavalry. In Liegnitz the
      Poles were supported by Templars and Teutonic Knights, too. Not hardly
      peasants, but the best Europe had.

      The Mongols had the only professional army around, and several
      centuries ahead of Europe in strategy.

      As for the question of further conquest of Europe... there's a small
      chance of the Holy See taking advantage of the Mongols, since the next
      in line on their path would have been the Holy Roman Empire, which was
      fighting in Italy at the time. Mongols had already approached the Pope
      with an ultimatum to submit to their rule. Could the temptation have
      been too much?
      Under the Mongol rule Europe, I think, would have continued it's petty
      politics and local skirmishing, now with new leverage (Golden Horde)
      for the most gifted politicians -- just like in Russia. The position
      of Catholic Church may have been less, which in turn might have
      actually delayed the Renaissance a bit. But if Byzantine is left
      unmolested (by the Mongols, not by Ottomans), the influx of ideas old
      and new to Europe would still be inevitable.

      Ovidius
      May 24 2005, 10:45 AM
      Post #9


      SMQ Staff (Mod)


      Group: Moderator
      Posts: 143
      Joined: 10-August 04
      Member No.: 1 157




      I have some issues about this possible sweeping Mongol conquest of Europe.

      a/ Mongols invaded mostly in fields/steppes. From the point they
      arrived onward the Europe had much more forests, swamps, highlands
      etc. therefore the tactics would have been valued differently on the
      "field" of battle. Ambushes could be possible and even disastrous.
      b/ Also I'm unconfident about their siege abilities. Maybe many
      citadels in Europe would have fallen, but we have the example of
      Constantinopolis, a citadel which resisted to many asian invasions -
      the only ones that conquered it were the ottomans with a superior navy
      and most important - cannons! Though Mongols had gunpowder, they
      didn't had cannons, and a well defended and supplied city could last
      long or even be undefeatable.
      c/ the only serious battle we have as referrence is against the polish
      knights. Let me give you an example. In 1396 at Nicopolis, an elite
      western crusade force loses disastrously againt the ottoman army. The
      same ottoman army which was defeated/delayed few years earlier by an
      unprofessional army in the swamp of Rovine, north of Danube.
      d/ someone was mentioning Frederick II. Considering his cordial
      relations with some of the islamic rulers some interesting alliances
      could be considered against the mongolian "threat"

      I will give more thought on this.

      This post has been edited by Ovidius: May 24 2005, 10:45 AM

      Ogodei
      May 25 2005, 05:02 AM
      Post #10


      Settling Member


      Group: Members
      Posts: 15
      Joined: 5-May 05
      Member No.: 2 449




      a/ Mongols invaded mostly in fields/steppes. From the point they
      arrived onward the Europe had much more forests, swamps, highlands
      etc. therefore the tactics would have been valued differently on the
      "field" of battle. Ambushes could be possible and even disastrous.

      u think china is a big grassland or something,plus the chinese tried
      to ambush the mongols but mongols had great scouts and spys etc.

      b/ mongols had seige engineers from china and arabia,so it wouldnt be
      hard,im sure some of the chinese cities would have been harder to take
      than constantionpole.


      Ovidius
      May 25 2005, 12:53 PM
      Post #11


      SMQ Staff (Mod)


      Group: Moderator
      Posts: 143
      Joined: 10-August 04
      Member No.: 1 157




      Ogodei,

      I don't think anything like that, but someone said that Mongols will
      win due to their superior tactics in chivalry, tactics which were
      mostly fruitful in plains. Their tactics are not fit for any kind of
      enemy or relief. They were defeated by mamluks, they failed to take
      Japan or Java. Also there were enough asian rulers which submitted
      themselves to Mongols (like Uighurs), so they didn't actually fought
      all over the difficult terrain of their empire.
      Also I doubt they could place spies in any European kingdom or able to
      scout any foggy, swampy, narrow place they could've been ambushed.
      I can give you lots of battles and ambushes where lesser or weaker
      forces could stall or even defeat larger invading forces and you won't
      be able to prove that if an Mongol army would have been caught in the
      same situation they could overturn the battle.

      About seiging, Constantinopolis was invincible from sieges from land
      until its final collapse, but as I said, it was with cannons and
      attacked from the sea at the same time. It had three rows of thick
      walls and a huge moat. They defenders were throwing with 'greek fire'
      burning alive all close attackers or wooden siege devices. The
      defenders, though many times in numeric inferiority were good
      soldiers, the imperial guard, italian mercenaries, sometimes crusaders
      which in close combat were certainly not inferior to an Mongol
      soldier. Indeed, by the time of Mongol invasion the city was in
      crusaders' hands, but it doesn't make it an easy prey.

      Many asian invaders failed to advance too much in Europe, and I don't
      see a good reason why Mongols would succeed. From Huns to Ottomans
      they all were finally defeated. In fact, nobody ever, could take the
      entire Europe (even the imperial romans stalled little north of Danube
      and Rhine).


      Anthrophobia
      May 25 2005, 02:26 PM
      Post #12


      Apprentice Historian


      Group: Members
      Posts: 498
      Joined: 3-October 04
      Member No.: 1 256




      QUOTE
      I don't think anything like that, but someone said that Mongols will
      win due to their superior tactics in chivalry, tactics which were
      mostly fruitful in plains. Their tactics are not fit for any kind of
      enemy or relief. They were defeated by mamluks, they failed to take
      Japan or Java. Also there were enough asian rulers which submitted
      themselves to Mongols (like Uighurs), so they didn't actually fought
      all over the difficult terrain of their empire.
      Also I doubt they could place spies in any European kingdom or able to
      scout any foggy, swampy, narrow place they could've been ambushed.


      Obviously at least some places the Mongols conquered had "foggy,
      swampy, narrow place", and to think the Mongols weren't ambushed or
      defeated before is a joke. It's not just the Japanese/Java/ or
      Mamlukes that defeated them(they were only mentioned because they
      weren't conquered). They were defeated numerous times in their
      campaigns<at Beijing they were repulsed twice>, but the fact is that
      they adapted and came back.

      QUOTE
      About seiging, Constantinopolis was invincible from sieges from land
      until its final collapse, but as I said, it was with cannons and
      attacked from the sea at the same time. It had three rows of thick
      walls and a huge moat.


      And I suppose that no other city has walls and a moat? No matter
      anyway, a wall or a moat is only as strong as the people defending it.
      Also don't forget that Mongols already had gunpowder weapons,
      including grenades.

      QUOTE
      Many asian invaders failed to advance too much in Europe, and I don't
      see a good reason why Mongols would succeed. From Huns to Ottomans
      they all were finally defeated. In fact, nobody ever, could take the
      entire Europe (even the imperial romans stalled little north of Danube
      and Rhine).


      People used to say the same thing to China, but guess what happened?


      This post has been edited by Anthrophobia: May 25 2005, 02:27 PM


      --------------------
      Humans are generous when it cost them nothing

      Norseman
      May 25 2005, 03:29 PM
      Post #13


      Apprentice Historian


      Group: Members
      Posts: 294
      Joined: 24-October 04
      Member No.: 1 319




      The Nazis were close to conquer all of Europe.

      Ogodei
      May 25 2005, 10:33 PM
      Post #14


      Settling Member


      Group: Members
      Posts: 15
      Joined: 5-May 05
      Member No.: 2 449




      "They were defeated by mamluks, they failed to take Japan or Java"
      they were winning the battle in japan untill a cyclone wiped them out.
      the mongols caught disease in Java.
      Ain jalut the mongols were outnumbered 10:1 and nearly won

      apart from constantitoplewhich they could have taken if they took a
      city in china many times bigger,the mongols just bypassed castles cos
      they held only a few thousand people and werent a threat.they could
      take castles easily anyway ,remember the assassins that the cruasaders
      or arabs could not take out cos of their castles in the mountains of
      syria,the mongols used a chinese seige crossbow which could outrange
      anything and just sat there shooting at the assasssins even tho they
      were up a moutain.

      "Many asian invaders failed to advance too much in Europe, and I don't
      see a good reason why Mongols would succeed"
      when was there ever a asian invasion before in europe!
      Huns are not from asia!



      Ovidius
      May 26 2005, 08:19 AM
      Post #15


      SMQ Staff (Mod)


      Group: Moderator
      Posts: 143
      Joined: 10-August 04
      Member No.: 1 157




      It seems to me the discussion goes on the track "no matter what you
      say, we had it before"

      QUOTE
      Obviously at least some places the Mongols conquered had "foggy,
      swampy, narrow place", and to think the Mongols weren't ambushed or
      defeated before is a joke.
      Also should be obviously that I haven't said that. Still if we regard
      the Eastern European campaign and if we regard the territory conquered
      by Mongols and what was yet to conquer they did the easiest part. So,
      tehnically, they didn't prove they can conquer Europe by what they
      actually conquered in Europe. Sweeping in the russian steppes is easy.
      A lot migratory invasions succeeded to reach Pannonia.
      Mongols fought in China (for instance to conquer Sung) many decades.
      If they actually could advance in Europe and eventually defeat one
      kingdom or two it would have taken maybe same much. They wouldn't have
      finish it, even if they would have been mostly victorious, in one
      century. Their empire would have break apart and they still couldn't
      finish this potential conquest of Europe.

      QUOTE
      And I suppose that no other city has walls and a moat?
      It's not an issue that it has them, but how thick/tall/deep they are
      and how they are guarded. Constantinopolis is reknowned to be one of
      the best defended medieval cities. I didn't imagine we'll have to
      discuss it, but please, pick a city of your choice and we'll compare
      them as we can, maybe in another topic.

      QUOTE
      Also don't forget that Mongols already had gunpowder weapons,
      including grenades.
      Nothing that could break a strong city wall. What you call as grenades
      are probably the 'fire arrows'. Constantinopolis resisted two months
      being bombarded by cannons.

      QUOTE
      People used to say the same thing to China, but guess what happened?
      I doubt you can compare the number and the violence of the migrations
      in Europe to the attackers of China. Also Europe's invincibility to
      one single external force is valid also today, while China isn't anymore.

      QUOTE
      The Nazis were close to conquer all of Europe.
      The Nazis were half of the European countries. Today EU is also close
      to conquer all Europe I was talking about asian invasions

      QUOTE
      they were winning the battle in japan untill a cyclone wiped them out.
      the mongols caught disease in Java.
      Ain jalut the mongols were outnumbered 10:1 and nearly won

      Come on, they were winning everywhere but the evil nature and the
      infinite number of enemies brought them down, and with all that
      mongols were about to win. Please ...

      QUOTE
      apart from constantitoplewhich they could have taken if they took a
      city in china many times bigger
      What city?

      QUOTE
      the mongols just bypassed castles cos they held only a few thousand
      people and werent a threat
      Constantinopolis was a city of hundred thousands people. Maybe it was
      way larger and better defended than most european cities, still it's a
      trial for some attacker which is claimed to be able to conquer the world.

      QUOTE
      when was there ever a asian invasion before in europe!
      Huns are not from asia!

      Beside the ancient indo-europeans, from persians onward there were plenty.
      Huns are from Asia, even the historians are wrong and they are not
      Hsiung Nu, they still are reported to come from beyond Volga, so they
      are from Asia.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.