Would the Mongols have conquered western Europe?

scottyd2506 said:

Your opinion does not reflect facts. almost all of West Europe was thick woods. they grew up fighting this kind of war. does the word vietnam still make you grit your teeth?.

Click to expand...

You've hit it right on the head. Plenty of guys fought the kind of war that they grew up with - which when you're up against the Mongols could turn out to be your biggest mistake - and they still got smashed to bits by the hordes of Batu and Subotai.

scottyd2506 said:

You just don't get it do you, Europe like the one you see one google map is not that same as it was 800-900 years ago. Through this time may woods have been taken down to grow vast fields to feed a vast population that is still growing.

Click to expand...

It might not have been all plains, but it definitely wasn't all thick impregnable woods either. Even 800 years ago.

scottyd2506 said:

There was pretty much no fields to fight in.
This all looks good in the movies you watch. To have all those men fighting out in the open for camera to see. History is not Hollywood bud.

Click to expand...

Even if it was all thick woods, if there was a good story, Hollywood could still go in. Remember Vietnam?

Ancient Battles were fought on open ground almost without exception. Organised bodies of men require it. Moving, organised, commanding large groups of men in a middle of a forest is just too hard. Battles are a conflict resolution system. Both sides want a answer and the pre-battle manoeuvring will determine just which bit of open ground that will be used. Be forced back onto unsuitable rough ground in battle is a key cause of defeat in many battles.
Vietnam has zero relevance. The logistical capabilities of the period means getting a large Army into the field is a strain on whatever system and normally compels the army seek a resolution even if weaker.

List Three Major Battles in Western Europe fought mainly in woods. If they used to it and common place surely thats easy.

Knights , Spear men require it. Western Feudal armies are going to at there best and require open level ground to fight, thats it. Light cavalry is the best type of scouting troops, they just were numerous or that good in western europe. The Mongols were the perhaps the best light cavalry ever, they are going to better at the whole scouting thing.

My understanding is the Mongol horses were not adapted to eat grain. I haven't done specialist research on this, but it makes a lot of sense in what I know about horses (and the situation in mongolia and europe), I grew up with Horses, had my own Arab pony from age 5. Not a great rider for all that.

Just coz the Huns or someone did something does not mean that someone else a 1,000 years later can do something, it's a long time things change a lot in the order of tie. But Western Europe, care to list when any of these places England, Germany, Italy, Spain, France were conquered by Nomad Horsemen? I can't think of any, Eastern Europe is different, much closer to large areas of pasturage. I don't count the Goths as such, most of their forces were not cavalry (though often the best more significant part, but there force profile and ways of working were definitely not nomad horseman).

Fractious Nobles, is it harder to conquer a stablish Empire or a collection of fiercely independent states and stuff? Against the Empire, one big battle or two replace the top of the existing structure and almost everyone will come to terms with the new rule, there are used to being not very active subjects, the collection of Independents will require to beaten down one by one mostly. The Empire has much greater force projection powers and can muster a bigger army, the collection has issues with this. The very nature of the absolute rule Mongols went with meant that it would not be attractive to Western Nobles, personally I think their long established behaviour inclines me to believe they would not, but thats a pretty subjective value Judgement. The question is also wold the Mongols have conquered Europe, if it's the mongols plus half of Europe conquering europe isn't that not the Mongols conquering Europe?

As for Mongols success if the East in wide variety of terrain environments, I would say initially they were able to work of a very close logistical base of large amounts of pasturage. And as they were able to co-opt large parts of the Chinese empire at the time (as it is so often the case with Empires), subsentquentially they were able to field large forces and numbers and non-mongols which an internal part of their other successes in the east.

pugsville said:

My understanding is the Mongol horses were not adapted to eat grain. I haven't done specialist research on this, but it makes a lot of sense in what I know about horses (and the situation in mongolia and europe), I grew up with Horses, had my own Arab pony from age 5. Not a great rider for all that.

Click to expand...

I have to admit that I did not have the privilege of growing up with horses. I wish I did, cos they're magnificent beasts. But what I grew up with were cattle, sheep, and goats, besides chicken, ducks and geese. I lived with my uncle, and he sort of kept a few of each.

I even 'midwifed' a few goats, sheep and cattle when they gave birth, helping the mother mop up its wet baby dry from the blood and fluids of its birth bag. I'd smear the remaining wet hanging portion of the baby animal's umbilical cord completely with dry ash, and it would just dry up and fall off within a couple of days or so, while the flies won't bother cos it's all dried up. No need for a vet to do it. It was my uncle who taught me the trick.

From that experience, my observation was that any animal that eats grass (cattle, sheep) or leaves (goats) would naturally eat grain when offered to it. Rice, corn etc.. It in fact it would just lap it up. Maybe it's just wired into them. Corn would be straight forward, but boiled rice would be better than raw rice, I think.

The rice plant and the maize plant are also species of grass. You can just chop the plants up and give it to your animal. Ok, you lived on a farm, so you'd know that too. No quadruped would turn away from it. Now, if they're feeding on those plants in the field, would they be avoiding any grain on those crops? No, they'd just lap it up happily.

Hell this Scotty chap is some ....... You ........ Western Europe would never have developed heavy Cavalry if the terrain was all "thick woods" because heavy European cavalry is as useless as Mongol cavalry in such terrain. Unbelievable moronic.

If Europe was 99% thick woods cavalry and also archers would have been totally useless. Archers weren't that often seen on a medieval battlefield except in Britain, mounted Knights were more common so we can only come to the conclusion that battles in Europe were fought mostly, not always, in open terrain.

Archers and Crossbowmen were pretty common on medieval European battlefields, not in huge numbers as with later English armies, but nearly always present as auxiliary rather than main force strength, and increasingly so as time went on. They were not 'rare' just not present in huge numbers.

You're right Pugsville and maybe I wasn't precisely enough about this. Just wanted to point out that in the time the Mongols arrived archery were seen as a coward way to fight battles and therefore only small groups of them were used in battles. In other words, Europeans did not field many archers because they could not, they just didn't like to do so.
The Mongol attack on Europe eventually changed this thinking and helped Europe to develop better battle field tactics- getting slaughtered by superior archer tactics certainly changed some minds.

I would not put it down to honor or cowardice, but western European warfare evolved to deal with the problems of other European armies, within that context their armies worked. Mass spear men are not particularly vulnerable to archers, and most archers are not going to stand up to charging Knights, Archers were not particularly strong within the European context. Large numbers of Horse Archers are normally associated with large amounts of plain. The Evolution of the longbow was also one of Archers who were willingly to stand up and fight (most troops equipped with predominately with bows are not keen for hand to hand) though often aided by stakes and stiffened with stakes.

The Mongols did have the advantage of culture shock, that their way of warfare was not really known and experienced in western Europe, if there was a long period of conflict western armies would have adapted, Larger amounts of foot archers would have been one response (foot archers should out shoot mounted archers, the formations are much much denser, the horse itself is such a vulnerable target harder to effectively armour, and they out range mounted archers)

pugsville said:

. Mass spear men are not particularly vulnerable to archers, and most archers are not going to stand up to charging Knights

Click to expand...

This was certainly not true in the context of the longbow. The densely packed Scottish Schiltrons certainly found this out the hard way.

However, you are very right in asserting that archery was not predominant in european warfare, amptly demonstrated at Crecy, in the utter disdain with which the French Knights and nobility treated their Genoese crowwbow contingent.

This is where they coud come unstuck, initially. The key for the Mongolians would be to gain as much ground as possible, quickly, and not extend the war into one of attrition, whereby the europeans can gain the opportunity to learn methods of counterattack. However, on the flip side of the coin, it took the French over 100 years to counter the effectiveness and utter dominance of the longbow, and this was with the rise of field artillery.

Mangekyou said:

However, you are very right in asserting that archery was not predominant in european warfare, amptly demonstrated at Crecy, in the utter disdain with which the French Knights and nobility treated their Genoese crowwbow contingent.

Click to expand...

They didn't reckon with the Saxon longbow then, did they? And they got whupped, big time.

Mangekyou said:

This is where they coud come unstuck, initially. The key for the Mongolians would be to gain as much ground as possible, quickly, and not extend the war into one of attrition, whereby the europeans can gain the opportunity to learn methods of counterattack.

Click to expand...

That's what Mongols never do, hang around.

Mangekyou said:

However, on the flip side of the coin, it took the French over 100 years to counter the effectiveness and utter dominance of the longbow,

Click to expand...

Which began with Crecy, didn't it?

Dreamhunter said:

They didn't reckon with the Saxon longbow then, did they? And they got whupped, big time.

Click to expand...

Correct. I dont think its something the French had encountered before, and their chivalry demanded they die in a head first charge.

That's what Mongols never do, hang around.

Click to expand...

Indeed so

Which began with Crecy, didn't it?

Click to expand...

I would say it even began with Sluys

Mangekyou said:

This is where they coud come unstuck, initially. The key for the Mongolians would be to gain as much ground as possible, quickly, and not extend the war into one of attrition, whereby the europeans can gain the opportunity to learn methods of counterattack.

Click to expand...

Would the Mongols be able to withstand coordinated fire?

Qianlong said:

Would the Mongols be able to withstand coordinated fire?

Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by "co-ordinated fire".

Do you mean archery?

Artillery?

Cavalry charges?

Qianlong said:

Would the Mongols be able to withstand coordinated fire?

Click to expand...

Umm, I'd say, they'd keep themselves out of the range of any enemy weapon, then come back at ya with their own blistering, withering arrow volleys.

Mangekyou said:

It depends what you mean by "co-ordinated fire".

Do you mean archery?

Artillery?

Cavalry charges?

Click to expand...

I meant Archers.

Also, I'm wondering if there was a time where the Mongols were surrounded.

Qianlong said:

I meant Archers.

Also, I'm wondering if there was a time where the Mongols were surrounded.

Click to expand...

Subotai lost to a tribe in Europe. Lost his whole army.

I know I am late to the figth here, but my oppinon is that the Mongols would not have thrived were there is no steppe.

Qianlong said:

I meant Archers.

Also, I'm wondering if there was a time where the Mongols were surrounded.

Click to expand...

They were outwitted once. Beaten by wile and guile in Java, Indonesia.

in 1293, Kublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty had sent envoys to many states to ask them to put themselves under his protection and pay tribute. Men Shi or Meng-qi, one of his ministers was sent to Java, and was not well received there. Kertanagara, king of Singhasari kingdom, was offended by his brazen proposal and branded him in the face with a hot iron as was done to common thieves, cut his ears, and scornfully sent him on his way.

Kublai sent a large invasion fleet to Java with 25,000 soldiers on 1,000 ships and a year's provisions to punish King Kertanegara. They were led by Shi-Bi the Mongol, Ike Mese the Uyghur and Gao Xing the Chinese.

Having defeated the Sumatran-based Srivijayan empire in 1292, the Singhasari kingdom of King Kertanegara had become the most powerful kingdom in the area. However, Jayakatwang, Adipati (Regent) of vassal kingdom Kediri rose in rebellion and killed King Kertanegara. Kertanegara's son in law, Radin Wijaya, was somehow pardoned and given permission to build a new jungle fringe settlement. Big mistake.

When the Mongol army arrived in Java, Radin Wijaya pledged allegiance to them and offered his alliance. He duped the Mongols into believing that it was Jayakatwang the usurper who had maimed Minister Men-Qi. The Mongols believed him, because Men-Qi had reported that it was the king of Singhasari - meaning Kertanegara who had by now been dead - who had maimed him. The Mongols then combined with Radin Wijaya's army and invaded Singhasari, now ruled by the usurper Jayakatwang.

Once Jayakatwang's army was destroyed by the Mongols, Raden Wijaya returned to his newly found small kingdom, pretending to prepare his tribute settlement, leaving his allies to celebrate their victory. Shi-bi and Ike Mese allowed Raden Wijaya to go back to his country to prepare that tribute and a letter of submission, but Gao Xing disliked the idea and he warned his other two co-generals. Wijaya asked the Mongol forces to come to his country unarmed.

Two hundred unarmed Mongol soldiers led by two officers were sent to Raden Wijaya's small kingdom to collect the promised tribute, but Raden Wijaya quickly mobilised his forces again and ambushed the small Mongol convoy, killing them all. Then Raden Wijaya marched his forces to the main Mongol camp and launched a surprise attack - catching them drunk, confused and bewildered - killing many and sending the rest fleeing back to their ships.

The Mongols had to withdraw in total chaos, as the monsoon winds to carry them home would end soon, which would leave them stranded in a hostile island for six months. The Mongol army lost more than 3,000 of its elite soldiers.

Radin Wijaya's small kingdom prospered, and eventually grew into the famed Javanese-based empire called Majapahit.

Qianlong said:

I meant Archers.

Also, I'm wondering if there was a time where the Mongols were surrounded.

Click to expand...

Okay

I don't think they could, although they would very rarely put themselves in sucha ituation, with their rapid movement. It would be up to th europeans to force them into such as situation.

As for surrounded, yes they have been ambushed and surrounded before, the most notalbe being Ain Jalut, by the Baibar-led Mamluks, but up until that battle, they were very rarely caught in such a manner, and even after it va relatively infrequent, until past the 14th century +

If you want to get a very in depth take on Mongol warfare and military technology, plus the aura of history surrounding Tiemuzhen aka Genghis Khan; you might wish to order, rent or purchase "Genghis Khan" on DVD. It is a huge Chinese production spread over several DVDs (each DVD containing six 45 min. each episodes on the life of Tiemuzhen). Truly illuminating, of the highest quality and unbelievably expansive. It is rendered originally in Chinese with English subtitles. It gives an in depth, detailed exposure to Mongol culture and how Tiemuzhen slowly rose to become Genghis Khan. I am currently watching the 3rd DVD and it takes at least four hours to watch each Disc. The main actor (actually there are four actors for various younger ages of Tiemuzhen) is incredibly well cast. I have never seen any production on any historical personage with the detail this production has. Unlike Alexander the Great, Tiemuzhen is defeated several times and has to endure ongoing hardship and much animosity to become the "Khan of Khans." If you want to truly get to understand this great historical personage, I highly recommend this set of DVDs. I am especially looking forward to the disc containing Tiemuzhen's encounter with the Shah of Quarazem and his incredible conquest of China.

Zarin said:

If you want to get a very in depth take on Mongol warfare and military technology, plus the aura of history surrounding Tiemuzhen aka Genghis Khan; you might wish to order, rent or purchase "Genghis Khan" on DVD. It is a huge Chinese production spread over several DVDs (each DVD containing six 45 min. each episodes on the life of Tiemuzhen). Truly illuminating, of the highest quality and unbelievably expansive. It is rendered originally in Chinese with English subtitles. It gives an in depth, detailed exposure to Mongol culture and how Tiemuzhen slowly rose to become Genghis Khan. I am currently watching the 3rd DVD and it takes at least four hours to watch each Disc. The main actor (actually there are four actors for various younger ages of Tiemuzhen) is incredibly well cast. I have never seen any production on any historical personage with the detail this production has. Unlike Alexander the Great, Tiemuzhen is defeated several times and has to endure ongoing hardship and much animosity to become the "Khan of Khans." If you want to truly get to understand this great historical personage, I highly recommend this set of DVDs. I am especially looking forward to the disc containing Tiemuzhen's encounter with the Shah of Quarazem and his incredible conquest of China.

Click to expand...

Oh, I haven't seen this one before, Thank you.

I do have a set of Dvd's about conquerors, and Genghis Khan features in that.