Mongols conquered Europe

[bill_bruno]

Originally posted by Ian Montgomerie
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.

If I were making the argument for a long-term Mongol conquest, I'd agree. I don't believe the Mongols intended that. The original casus belli was King Bela of Hungary's allowing the Cumans who fled from Mongol domination sanctuary. The campaigns of 1241 were aimed at taking Hungary. Any subsequent campaigns would have been to deal with the armies of Germany and France that were coming to deal with them. I can see Batu's armies beating them, sacking some N. German cities (Lubeck, etc.). After 1242-43 the Mongols settle down, using Hungary as a western outpost of the Golden Horde and levying tribute from German and Polish principalities. My thought is that the Hungarian sub-khanate is smashed by the Europeans after 50-200 years. The main point of this TL isn't a Mongol conquest of Europe but how this Europe develops.

As to the terrain of this, the only thing I've been able to find is a line in the Cambridge Illustrated Medieval History that from 1100-1250, German land under settlement increased 40%. I found an online map that shows a large number of towns being founded in the 12th and early 13th centuries:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/german_settlements_800_1400.jpg
I don't see the substantiation for a Germany "totally covered by dense forest."
and the European armies will have to look for open terrain...

Originally posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha
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.

Yes, I am fully aware of that. You can use the Battle of Bouvines as a good example of the organization of the armies. The German army had 11,000 heavy cavalry and 60,000 infantry while the French army had 11,000 heavy cavalry and 25,000 infantry. Note that the infantry were mainly pikemen which are close-order units, not at their best in a forest, and that the armies still use heavy armored cavalry, still not at their best in a forest.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

If I were making the argument for a long-term Mongol conquest, I'd agree. I don't believe the Mongols intended that. The original casus belli was King Bela of Hungary's allowing the Cumans who fled from Mongol domination sanctuary. The campaigns of 1241 were aimed at taking Hungary. Any subsequent campaigns would have been to deal with the armies of Germany and France that were coming to deal with them. I can see Batu's armies beating them, sacking some N. German cities (Lubeck, etc.). After 1242-43 the Mongols settle down, using Hungary as a western outpost of the Golden Horde and levying tribute from German and Polish principalities. My thought is that the Hungarian sub-khanate is smashed by the Europeans after 50-200 years. The main point of this TL isn't a Mongol conquest of Europe but how this Europe develops.

As to the terrain of this, the only thing I've been able to find is a line in the Cambridge Illustrated Medieval History that from 1100-1250, German land under settlement increased 40%. I found an online map that shows a large number of towns being founded in the 12th and early 13th centuries:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/german_settlements_800_1400.jpg
I don't see the substantiation for a Germany "totally covered by dense forest."
and the European armies will have to look for open terrain...



Yes, I am fully aware of that. You can use the Battle of Bouvines as a good example of the organization of the armies. The German army had 11,000 heavy cavalry and 60,000 infantry while the French army had 11,000 heavy cavalry and 25,000 infantry. Note that the infantry were mainly pikemen which are close-order units, not at their best in a forest, and that the armies still use heavy armored cavalry, still not at their best in a forest.

I don't think anyone was talking about dense forest, just that Germany is not mostly cleared as it is today. The nature of Germany simply makes it unsuited to large horse armies. I and others have spelled out 89,458 times why this is so, and I'm not going to waste any more time doing so.

However, I agree with you that it was possible for the the Mongols to stay in Hungary and extract tribute from the German principalities. While they are not going to sack Lubeck, which is fairly invulnerable to the Mongols, who were not exactly known for their seapower, other cities are more vulnerable, and the Mongols would likely have a window of 100 years or so before European militaries outmatch them.

The effect of this is hard to gauge. Operating out of Hungary they would be in a position to prevent any powers developing in the Balkans, which could be good news for the Byzantines, but could facilitate conquest by later Turkic powers. This would likely butterly away the Ottomans, and it's hard to predict what might develop elsewhere. It could also retard the development of an Ottoman-like power, if Europe is directly confronted earlier on by horse nomad armies and has longer time to develop tactical and strategic responses.

 

[Faeelin]

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??

Don't worry, the kings know how to respond.

"Let's all be friends until I get enough heavy cavalry to turn you into paste".

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Don't worry, the kings know how to respond.

"Let's all be friends until I get enough heavy cavalry to turn you into paste".

I don't believe that democracy is possible without the philosophical underpinnings that support it, nor the undermining of the concept of divine right of kings, plus the need for the death throes of Universal Monarchy to subside.

Also, resistance to the Mongols would likely have required strengthening central authority, vested in the person of the Monarch.

 

[Faeelin]

I don't believe that democracy is possible without the philosophical underpinnings that support it, nor the undermining of the concept of divine right of kings, plus the need for the death throes of Universal Monarchy to subside.

And I, surprise surprise, disagree. I think the ability to let lots of people fight effectively is all that's needed; witness the success of the Swiss before the abolishment of the divine right of kings. (Which, judging by some of the actions by towns against emperors in germany and italy, and kings in France, was never that divine).

 

[Matthew Craw]

There's also the point that European peasant revolts tended to be overtly pro-royal in tone, urban oppostion to royal authority wasn't fundamentally different from similar noble opposition to the same process, and no more inherently democratic.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Asiatic-looking Europeans

I recall very vageuly reading an article some yrs back which stated that had the Mongols somehow established a permanent rule over eastern and central Europe, the local ppl would've started to look very Asiatic in appearance (ie slanted eyes, although blond/e and blue-eyed).

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I recall very vageuly reading an article some yrs back which stated that had the Mongols somehow established a permanent rule over eastern and central Europe, the local ppl would've started to look very Asiatic in appearance (ie slanted eyes, although blond/e and blue-eyed).

Ummm, no. The opposite was the case. The Golden Horde, later becoming the Crimean Khanate, as well as the Turks themselves, lost their Mongoloid physical cahracteristics until they became indistinguishable from Europeans. The Slavs of the east DID adopt more oriental looking dress; perhaps that's what your're thinking of.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

And I, surprise surprise, disagree. I think the ability to let lots of people fight effectively is all that's needed; witness the success of the Swiss before the abolishment of the divine right of kings. (Which, judging by some of the actions by towns against emperors in germany and italy, and kings in France, was never that divine).

As Matthew pointed out, almost every single revolution or revolt in European history was on behalf of the Monarch against the nobility. This includes the French Revolution, and even the Serbian Revolt in 1804, during which the Serbian peasants actually revolted on behalf of their Muslim monarch against the oppression of Janissary notables.

The Swiss are an unusual case born of unique geographic circumstances, and we might note that if they had had a strong monarchy they would have become a huge European power.

 

[MerryPrankster]

"I recall very vageuly reading an article some yrs back which stated that had the Mongols somehow established a permanent rule over eastern and central Europe, the local ppl would've started to look very Asiatic in appearance (ie slanted eyes, although blond/e and blue-eyed)."

There's a book called Inside the Delta Force where the writer meets a Polish emigre who joined the Delta Force who has some Asiatic physical features...he (the writer) describes these as being the results of "armies of the Great Khans."

 

[Flocculencio]

"I recall very vageuly reading an article some yrs back which stated that had the Mongols somehow established a permanent rule over eastern and central Europe, the local ppl would've started to look very Asiatic in appearance (ie slanted eyes, although blond/e and blue-eyed)."

There's a book called Inside the Delta Force where the writer meets a Polish emigre who joined the Delta Force who has some Asiatic physical features...he (the writer) describes these as being the results of "armies of the Great Khans."

You do realise we could argue this either way. Is someone with slanted eyes, albeit blue eyed and blond/e predominantly Oriental with some Caucasian feautres or predominantly Caucasian with some Oriental features?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Judging from the description, the Pole was Caucasian with some Oriental features.

 

[MerryPrankster]

"Ummm, no. The opposite was the case. The Golden Horde, later becoming the Crimean Khanate, as well as the Turks themselves, lost their Mongoloid physical cahracteristics until they became indistinguishable from Europeans"

The Bulgarians are another example. The Bulgars, a Turkic people, came in and conquered some Slavs in present-day Bulgaria. They ended up totally assimilating into the Slavic populace--all that's left is the name.

 

[Flocculencio]

Judging from the description, the Pole was Caucasian with some Oriental features.

Yes, but if we had, say a Kahzak with light eyes and hair but with slanted eyes we might call him an oriental with caucasian features. It's just a matter of perspective is all I wanted to point out

 

[bill_bruno]

German consolidation?

Germany was fragmented into an incredible plethora of states, under the ostensible unity of the Holy Roman Empire. Much of this was due to the practice of partitioning inhertances and much was feudal particularism. Might a Mongol overlordship have forced a consolidation of polities (to centralize collection of tribute). Would those states that escaped tribute tend to not partition lands given the security status? Perhaps once the Mongols are overthrown (c.1320?) you end up with a politically more consolidated Germany.

 

[LDoc]

I would say that yeah Germany would have centralized faster and Russia is a good example of this. Moscovy was declared as the tribute collecter and was quickly able to become dominate in Russian politics and was used this power to help kick the Mongols out.

 

[Faeelin]

As Matthew pointed out, almost every single revolution or revolt in European history was on behalf of the Monarch against the nobility. This includes the French Revolution, and even the Serbian Revolt in 1804, during which the Serbian peasants actually revolted on behalf of their Muslim monarch against the oppression of Janissary notables.

The Swiss are an unusual case born of unique geographic circumstances, and we might note that if they had had a strong monarchy they would have become a huge European power.

Curse you! I know exactly how to respond, but, having broken my right wrist yesterday, can't.

One counterpoint: Lombard league, which held that the italians owed the emperor nothing.