Mongols conquered Europe

[Steffen]

"The mongols have conquered their empire by not laying seige to every enemy stronghold. They only lay seige to those who resisted and killed every single one of them. Those who surrendered are left alone. After the fall of a couple of strongholds, most of these walled towns or cities would surrender in fear of retribution."

But even successful sieges are in some way a pirrhus victory. Even the hardened mongols from the steppe wouldn´t like, say, eastern europe in the winter in the open.

They will run out of food, feed for their horses etc.

"The mongols do not live off the land. They live off their horses. They prefer mares over stallions due to their rich milk that they could drink. In most cases they would bleed some of their horses to drink their blood."

That´s part of the point: What will the horses eat? I remember that the British lost 80% of their horses in the Boer war, most of them simply died from malnutrition, stress and diseases, not enemy action.

In 1870/71, german cavalry also lost most horses to the lack of feed.
Both waged war, backed by huge transportation capacities in form of railroads. And they got massive problems feeding the horses.


"The mongols are the first army to used manuever warfare. The germans and the US have used manuever warfare in Europe with tanks, the mongols can do it in their horses."

Higly doubtful for me. 1. The terrain. Middle and Eastern Germany and Europe are littered with huge forests. Not the nice well attended forests of today, but more the dense underwood going over into swamps and the like type. I belive somewhere in Lithuania is a part which can still qualify as this kind of jungle.

So there are not many routes available for armies: especially the large cavalry hordes.


"In almost all the victories the Mongols fought, they were always outnumbered. They won due to their discipline,organization, and merit based leadership system. I'll take them over undiscipline knights who break formation to charge their enemy and are lead by some lord due to his birth"


I give you the point. But after several setbacks, I believe the knights would adapt to holding the formation.
The leadership thing is not so important: The physical abilities ae most important in the old "leading from the front" types of leadership, where a teutonic knight would have the advantage of armor protection.
Military leadership in this period is, with the exception of extraordinary stupidity, still something more for balls than for brains.


Another aspect comes into my mind: The would be quite disappointed with the loot in most of medieval europe. Not much precious metals, not much silk, spices or anything.

Unless they take conquering with a kind of l´art pour l ´art attitude, I would foresee much unrest in the hordes, a desire to get out of Europe,back to the steppe and to somewhere with more loot.

 

[DonKent]

"The mongols have conquered their empire by not laying seige to every enemy stronghold. They only lay seige to those who resisted and killed every single one of them. Those who surrendered are left alone. After the fall of a couple of strongholds, most of these walled towns or cities would surrender in fear of retribution."

But even successful sieges are in some way a pirrhus victory. Even the hardened mongols from the steppe wouldn´t like, say, eastern europe in the winter in the open.

They will run out of food, feed for their horses etc.

"The mongols do not live off the land. They live off their horses. They prefer mares over stallions due to their rich milk that they could drink. In most cases they would bleed some of their horses to drink their blood."

That´s part of the point: What will the horses eat? I remember that the British lost 80% of their horses in the Boer war, most of them simply died from malnutrition, stress and diseases, not enemy action.

In 1870/71, german cavalry also lost most horses to the lack of feed.
Both waged war, backed by huge transportation capacities in form of railroads. And they got massive problems feeding the horses.


"The mongols are the first army to used manuever warfare. The germans and the US have used manuever warfare in Europe with tanks, the mongols can do it in their horses."

Higly doubtful for me. 1. The terrain. Middle and Eastern Germany and Europe are littered with huge forests. Not the nice well attended forests of today, but more the dense underwood going over into swamps and the like type. I belive somewhere in Lithuania is a part which can still qualify as this kind of jungle.

So there are not many routes available for armies: especially the large cavalry hordes.


"In almost all the victories the Mongols fought, they were always outnumbered. They won due to their discipline,organization, and merit based leadership system. I'll take them over undiscipline knights who break formation to charge their enemy and are lead by some lord due to his birth"


I give you the point. But after several setbacks, I believe the knights would adapt to holding the formation.
The leadership thing is not so important: The physical abilities ae most important in the old "leading from the front" types of leadership, where a teutonic knight would have the advantage of armor protection.
Military leadership in this period is, with the exception of extraordinary stupidity, still something more for balls than for brains.


Another aspect comes into my mind: The would be quite disappointed with the loot in most of medieval europe. Not much precious metals, not much silk, spices or anything.

Unless they take conquering with a kind of l´art pour l ´art attitude, I would foresee much unrest in the hordes, a desire to get out of Europe,back to the steppe and to somewhere with more loot.

Good post.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol

Use of articulation. Mongols used a system of horns and flags, blown or raised-and-lowered by the field commander. This allowed them to move their troops to preplanned positions on the field of battle, or modes of attack or retreat (such as charge, withdraw, or flank). In addition, they utilized subcommanders that were empowered to make decisions on the spot.

Mongols based their forces almost wholly on light cavalry. Light cavalry consists of primarily archers and light swordsman mounted on horseback. Mobile and numerous, light cavalry can choose its battles, retreating from forces it cannot handle, such as heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry lacks archers (who can kill at range) and is designed mainly to provide shock - using weight, speed, and fear of their massed movement (no one wants to be trampled to death) to break enemy heavy infantry lines.
Thus, when light cavalry meets heavy cavalry, the lighter, more numerous, faster moving, bow using, well-articulated light cavalry will usually defeat mounted knights - the cream of European military power.

Their conception of armor was markedly different. European knights used heavy plate armour (sheets of loops of chain and pieces of metal plate to protect the wearer, restricting his vision and movement). Mongols used silken clothes. The silk cloth allowed Mongol warriors greater ranges of movement, better vision and endurance. It still provided resistance to projectile weapons. It thus gave them a qualitative advantage over their opponents.
If a mongol soldier was struck with an arrow, it penetrated the skin and sank into the flesh. However, the silk was not cut but pulled into the wound. Mongol doctors could easily pull an arrow from the wound, because it was wrapped in silken cloth. This reduced the chance of infection and made cleaning and dressing the wound easier, hopefully returning the skilled warrior to combat more quickly.

This simple procedure saved many lives. In a prolonged conflict, the Mongols retained more battlefield veterans than their opponents. This usually resulted in a situation where an army of veteran Mongols faced a conscript peasant army, with disastrous results for the Mongols' opponents.

Mongols utilized doctrines never before seen. As nomads, Mongols carried all of their wealth and provisions with them on horseback. It was equivalent to placing an entire city on horseback. It was more mobile than many of their opponents' armed forces, who were tied to the towns for supplies.
Since their way of warfare was superior (articulated veteran light cavalry) they could not be bested in combat. The traditional solution to this problem is to attack the opponents' supply tail (food, fields, water, etc.). However, their city-dwelling opponents were tied to a supply tail, not the Mongols.

This doctrines assured their victory against foes throughout their history. The closest modern analogue is the modern aircraft carrier, with its ability to bring an entire city of warriors next door to an opponent on short notice, strike at them, and retreat away, without the possibility of pursuit.

Mongols' effective use of terror is often credited for the unprecedented speed with which Mongol armies spread across western Asia and eastern Europe.
First, the Mongols would provide an opportunity to surrender, usually on favourable (certainly to the Mongols) terms. These offers were typically dictated to the first major population center in a new territory.

If the offer was refused, the Mongols would sack the city, execute the entire population (save a handful of skilled workers), and burn the city and the surrounding fields to the ground. They would often construct an edifice of cleaned skulls outside the walls of the destroyed city to serve as a reminder of their passage.

Finally, they would allow a few survivors to flee, to spread terror throughout the countryside. By first offering favourable (or at least acceptable) terms for surrender, and then invariably completely destroying any resistance, it is argued that Mongols forestalled most combat with invaded peoples. The Mongols quickly developed a reputation of being unstoppable, genocidal opponents. After the initial victories, and proof of the Mongols good intentions, it became more difficult for rulers to convince their people to resist an invasion.

Hopes this helps.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Good post.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol

Use of articulation. Mongols used a system of horns and flags, blown or raised-and-lowered by the field commander. This allowed them to move their troops to preplanned positions on the field of battle, or modes of attack or retreat (such as charge, withdraw, or flank). In addition, they utilized subcommanders that were empowered to make decisions on the spot.

Mongols based their forces almost wholly on light cavalry. Light cavalry consists of primarily archers and light swordsman mounted on horseback. Mobile and numerous, light cavalry can choose its battles, retreating from forces it cannot handle, such as heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry lacks archers (who can kill at range) and is designed mainly to provide shock - using weight, speed, and fear of their massed movement (no one wants to be trampled to death) to break enemy heavy infantry lines.
Thus, when light cavalry meets heavy cavalry, the lighter, more numerous, faster moving, bow using, well-articulated light cavalry will usually defeat mounted knights - the cream of European military power.

Their conception of armor was markedly different. European knights used heavy plate armour (sheets of loops of chain and pieces of metal plate to protect the wearer, restricting his vision and movement). Mongols used silken clothes. The silk cloth allowed Mongol warriors greater ranges of movement, better vision and endurance. It still provided resistance to projectile weapons. It thus gave them a qualitative advantage over their opponents.
If a mongol soldier was struck with an arrow, it penetrated the skin and sank into the flesh. However, the silk was not cut but pulled into the wound. Mongol doctors could easily pull an arrow from the wound, because it was wrapped in silken cloth. This reduced the chance of infection and made cleaning and dressing the wound easier, hopefully returning the skilled warrior to combat more quickly.

This simple procedure saved many lives. In a prolonged conflict, the Mongols retained more battlefield veterans than their opponents. This usually resulted in a situation where an army of veteran Mongols faced a conscript peasant army, with disastrous results for the Mongols' opponents.

Mongols utilized doctrines never before seen. As nomads, Mongols carried all of their wealth and provisions with them on horseback. It was equivalent to placing an entire city on horseback. It was more mobile than many of their opponents' armed forces, who were tied to the towns for supplies.
Since their way of warfare was superior (articulated veteran light cavalry) they could not be bested in combat. The traditional solution to this problem is to attack the opponents' supply tail (food, fields, water, etc.). However, their city-dwelling opponents were tied to a supply tail, not the Mongols.

This doctrines assured their victory against foes throughout their history. The closest modern analogue is the modern aircraft carrier, with its ability to bring an entire city of warriors next door to an opponent on short notice, strike at them, and retreat away, without the possibility of pursuit.

Mongols' effective use of terror is often credited for the unprecedented speed with which Mongol armies spread across western Asia and eastern Europe.
First, the Mongols would provide an opportunity to surrender, usually on favourable (certainly to the Mongols) terms. These offers were typically dictated to the first major population center in a new territory.

If the offer was refused, the Mongols would sack the city, execute the entire population (save a handful of skilled workers), and burn the city and the surrounding fields to the ground. They would often construct an edifice of cleaned skulls outside the walls of the destroyed city to serve as a reminder of their passage.

Finally, they would allow a few survivors to flee, to spread terror throughout the countryside. By first offering favourable (or at least acceptable) terms for surrender, and then invariably completely destroying any resistance, it is argued that Mongols forestalled most combat with invaded peoples. The Mongols quickly developed a reputation of being unstoppable, genocidal opponents. After the initial victories, and proof of the Mongols good intentions, it became more difficult for rulers to convince their people to resist an invasion.

Hopes this helps.

You don't need to lecture us about the Mongol tactical and strategic system, we're all aware, and nobody is disputing the fact that the Mongols were tough customers.

The issue is whether the Mongols had the ability to successfully adapt to the conditions of Western Europe, and if you're new, you might not be aware that we have debated this ad nauseum. As previously pointed out, Europe is densely forested. Bad for horses. Europe is very, very cold. Also bad for horses. Mongol expansion into centers of civilization had been facilitated by their ability to decapitate centralized empires and simply replace the ruling dynasties. Their campaign into China involved the seige of only a couple of cities before they just simply assumed the throne.

Your analysis of their terror tactics is accurate except for a very important thing: cities that did not resist were spared destruction ONLY if they had no wealth or strategic improtance. A very large number of cities threw open their gates in the hopes of good treatment only to be ruthlessly sacked. In Europe, the Mongols will have to clear away the profusion of castles that dot the landscape and control communications. While adept at seige warfare, they suffered far more casualties from this than in field battles since their mobility was useless, and they were subject ot attrition and starvation like any other beseiging force. Meanwhile, since Europe is essentially a collection of tiny little statelets, there are no large capitals that can be taken to gain control over any polity or large geographical region.

The fragility of horses is the key factor overlooked in any of these Mongols Conquer the Universe! scenarios. The Turks originally were subjects of the Avars. The Avars were purely horse nomads, butthe Turks were equally reliant upon cattle. In the 6th century a famine resulted in the Turks overthrowing the Avars, because cattle are far more resistant to dietary disruption than horses. The Europeans can defeat a Mongol advance with the simple tactic of burning everything horses can eat.

In addition, the Mongols were not robots, they were individuals with divergent personal and tribal interests, united by a desire for booty. The horrendous effort to reduce Western Europe for very small gains will quickly lead to the breakup of Mongol armies.

One might also consider why the Mongols, who remained a power for a centrury and a half, went on to conquer other regions but never made an attempt upon Western Europe. It's because they knew they would lose.

 

[DominusNovus]

But even successful sieges are in some way a pirrhus victory. Even the hardened mongols from the steppe wouldn´t like, say, eastern europe in the winter in the open.

Didn't they invade Russia in the winter?

 

[Peter]

Winter isn't a problem, ever seen a siberian winter?

 

[Paul Spring]

Yeah, the Mongols could handle very cold winters. Remember that Mongolia is just to the south of Siberia and has winters that are almost as harsh. They actually did invade the Russian principalities in the winter - steppe horses were tough and they would break through ice and snow to munch on the vegetation that was left underneath it. What actually stopped them was when spring came and the thaws and melting snow and ice turned the ground into a thick mass of mud. This gave Prince Alexander Nevski of Novgorod time which he prudently used to offer his submission to the Mongols.

Cold winters weren't the kind of thing to stop or slow down the Mongols. Dense forests, barren deserts, mountains, and swamps were better, although the Mongols could still cross those if they were willing to lose a lot of horses and probably some men as well.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Winter isn't a problem, ever seen a siberian winter?

And what precisely was the Mongol presence in Siberia? Take a look at a map and you will see that the Mongols stuck to the open plains of the South part of Russia, where the weather was more temperate and there was abundant grassland. The Golden Horde was around for a long time, and was militarily overwhelmingly superior to any of the Russian statelets to the north, but never made the slightest attempt to move into them.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

And BTW, if I sound pissy and grumpy it's because I am; please don't take it personally.

 

[KJM]

Mongols Conquer the Universe!

One of us should post such a scenario in the ASB section sometime.

 

[Tom_B]

One of us should post such a scenario in the ASB section sometime.

Their ruler Ming Khan renames Earth as (drum roll please)

Mongo

 

[NapoleonXIV]

The Mongols got lots of local peasants as recruits because they levied less taxes than the local landlords, who they killed and replaced. It would have been local European peasants besieging those castles.
I wonder what diseases the Europe had that China didn't. China had black plague, and that killed off a third of the population of Europe after the Mongols opened the silk road. What diseases went East?

Interesting, what if the Mongols come and go quickly, but leave an armed and blooded populace of peasants with decidedly different ideas from those of Mother Church on their place in God's scheme of things. Earlier beginnings of Democracy??

My understanding is that the Black Death, coming in the 1340's, originated in the plains of Asia and may have been a final nail in the Mongol coffin. Then again, I saw a reference on the History Channel that said the BD may have originated from Mongol germ warfare.

 

[Peter]

And what precisely was the Mongol presence in Siberia? Take a look at a map and you will see that the Mongols stuck to the open plains of the South part of Russia, where the weather was more temperate and there was abundant grassland. The Golden Horde was around for a long time, and was militarily overwhelmingly superior to any of the Russian statelets to the north, but never made the slightest attempt to move into them.

Read this.

Yeah, the Mongols could handle very cold winters. Remember that Mongolia is just to the south of Siberia and has winters that are almost as harsh. They actually did invade the Russian principalities in the winter - steppe horses were tough and they would break through ice and snow to munch on the vegetation that was left underneath it. What actually stopped them was when spring came and the thaws and melting snow and ice turned the ground into a thick mass of mud. This gave Prince Alexander Nevski of Novgorod time which he prudently used to offer his submission to the Mongols.

Cold winters weren't the kind of thing to stop or slow down the Mongols. Dense forests, barren deserts, mountains, and swamps were better, although the Mongols could still cross those if they were willing to lose a lot of horses and probably some men as well.

 

[bill_bruno]

A big incursion, followed by levying tribute

The original Mongol invasion of Europe was halted because of the death of Ogadai Khan, not a consideration of its viability. The Mongols did plan to go into Western Europe the following campaign season. The non-appearance had more to do with continuting succession issues. Batu aspired to Ogadai's position. He was beaten out by Ogadai's son Guyuk five years after Ogadai's death (Ogadai's widow served as Regent in the intervening period). Guyuk died after a few years. As you can see, Batu's attention was drawn eastward and that probably had a lot to do with his not returning to Europe.

The Mongols would probably have won their field battles (I see a victory of a composite German army followed by a victory over a French army under Louis IX). Question, if the area wasn't one horses could live off of, what did the mounted knights of the European feed their horses with. I wonder why Mongol horses couldn't eat the same thing. Likewise, mountains didn't stop the Mongols from conquering Azerbaijan or Persia.

As to the profusion of castles, I'm not sure that the Mongols couldn't have just bypassed many of them and concentrated on sacking the cities.

I do believe that the smallness of the Hungarian steppe and their distance from the Ukranian steppe would make a permanent conquest difficult. They'd presumably settle in land in Poland and Hungary and levy tribute on kingdoms further west. Bear in mind that Subotai was the real military mind here and he died around 1250.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The original Mongol invasion of Europe was halted because of the death of Ogadai Khan, not a consideration of its viability. The Mongols did plan to go into Western Europe the following campaign season. The non-appearance had more to do with continuting succession issues. Batu aspired to Ogadai's position. He was beaten out by Ogadai's son Guyuk five years after Ogadai's death (Ogadai's widow served as Regent in the intervening period). Guyuk died after a few years. As you can see, Batu's attention was drawn eastward and that probably had a lot to do with his not returning to Europe.

The Mongols would probably have won their field battles (I see a victory of a composite German army followed by a victory over a French army under Louis IX). Question, if the area wasn't one horses could live off of, what did the mounted knights of the European feed their horses with. I wonder why Mongol horses couldn't eat the same thing. Likewise, mountains didn't stop the Mongols from conquering Azerbaijan or Persia.

As to the profusion of castles, I'm not sure that the Mongols couldn't have just bypassed many of them and concentrated on sacking the cities.

I do believe that the smallness of the Hungarian steppe and their distance from the Ukranian steppe would make a permanent conquest difficult. They'd presumably settle in land in Poland and Hungary and levy tribute on kingdoms further west. Bear in mind that Subotai was the real military mind here and he died around 1250.

Is it so hard to understand that Germany is almost totally covered by dense forest? There has NEVER, and I mean NEVER, been a successful nomad invasion of anything West of Poland, ever. Attilla had no succession issues, and he did not even try it. A horse army, no matter how magical, will not due well against troops whose tactics are optomized for fighting in forests. You will note that the Germans whomped even the Romans more than once when Rome was at its military peak.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Read this.

I did read it, I just don't agree. Mongolia is covered with grassland, northern Russia is not. One more time, the Mongols also did not have unlimited manpower, and this made their hold over land that WERE well suited to their armies tenuous at best.

I don't understand why so many of you are so invested in the idea of Super Mongols.

 

[bill_bruno]

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha
A horse army, no matter how magical, will not due well against troops whose tactics are optomized for fighting in forests. You will note that the Germans whomped even the Romans more than once when Rome was at its military peak.

Well, Teutoberger Wald had more to do with Arminius' plotting and Varus' incompetence than anything else. As I recall, Drusus Germanicus and his father Drusus Nero didn't do badly. Also, can you explain to me how a feudal army relying on heavy armored cavalry is "optimized for fighting in forests"?

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha
Is it so hard to understand that Germany is almost totally covered by dense forest?

There had been substantial internal colonization in the prior couple of centuries. Also, there clearly must have been enough open land to support the agricultural economy that the German feudal system was based on?

Can anyone out there lead us to specific reference material on German forestation?

 

[Hierophant]

I would be interested as to where the invading armies would settle and intermarry. By thye time the Mongols reach eastern europe the majority of their troops were of one Turkish tribe or another. They also seem to pick up troops from every corner of their empire (chinese engineers ex.) How would this effect Central and western europe. Who would the monglos recruit in europe to supplement casualties. Finno-Magyar? Hadnt the Bulgars already arrive in europe? Could they be a possiblity?

 

[Ian the Admin]

Is it so hard to understand that Germany is almost totally covered by dense forest? There has NEVER, and I mean NEVER, been a successful nomad invasion of anything West of Poland, ever. Attilla had no succession issues, and he did not even try it. A horse army, no matter how magical, will not due well against troops whose tactics are optomized for fighting in forests. You will note that the Germans whomped even the Romans more than once when Rome was at its military peak.

It's more than a tactical issue of mobility - cavalry does have uses in western Europe. But the Mongols (and probably others) had issues with strategic mobility. Basically you need a lot of grassy plain type areas to breed and maintain a horse-based nomadic army over long periods. When the Mongols came to eastern Europe, they weren't going all-out to conquer Europe only to be turned back by a succession crisis. For them, Europe was verging on the ass end of nowhere. It's geographically disconnected from the main Eurasian steppe regions where they had the best mobility and the best environment for their horses. Logistically, it wasn't easy for them to mount operations into Europe, and even the parts that they did conquer were pretty far off from the main Mongol empire.

It wasn't just one chance succession crisis that saved Europe. The Mongols in Eastern Europe were quite far off from the power centers of their own empire. Every time something happened back at the imperial court, whoever was tooling around Europe had to either take so much time travelling back that all their campaigns would stop, or be left out of the loop. And the experienced generals with the biggest armies, the sort that could make a serious effort to conquer Europe, weren't the type to accept being out of the loop.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It's more than a tactical issue of mobility - cavalry does have uses in western Europe. But the Mongols (and probably others) had issues with strategic mobility. Basically you need a lot of grassy plain type areas to breed and maintain a horse-based nomadic army over long periods. When the Mongols came to eastern Europe, they weren't going all-out to conquer Europe only to be turned back by a succession crisis. For them, Europe was verging on the ass end of nowhere. It's geographically disconnected from the main Eurasian steppe regions where they had the best mobility and the best environment for their horses. Logistically, it wasn't easy for them to mount operations into Europe, and even the parts that they did conquer were pretty far off from the main Mongol empire.

It wasn't just one chance succession crisis that saved Europe. The Mongols in Eastern Europe were quite far off from the power centers of their own empire. Every time something happened back at the imperial court, whoever was tooling around Europe had to either take so much time travelling back that all their campaigns would stop, or be left out of the loop. And the experienced generals with the biggest armies, the sort that could make a serious effort to conquer Europe, weren't the type to accept being out of the loop.

Ian, that's exactly what I've been saying ad nauseum for this entire thread, and the last 83 threads where we've covered this issue.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, Teutoberger Wald had more to do with Arminius' plotting and Varus' incompetence than anything else. As I recall, Drusus Germanicus and his father Drusus Nero didn't do badly. Also, can you explain to me how a feudal army relying on heavy armored cavalry is "optimized for fighting in forests"?



There had been substantial internal colonization in the prior couple of centuries. Also, there clearly must have been enough open land to support the agricultural economy that the German feudal system was based on?

Can anyone out there lead us to specific reference material on German forestation?

Yes, I can. We're talking about the 13th c, not the 15th, and contrary to how it looks in movies, the armies of the time had considerable foot components. In any case, irregular formations of anything are better suited to forests than ordered units.