Does anyone know the details for the Mongols invasion plan of Europe?

i thought Byzantium circa 1261 was an inch from death. if it wasn't so, how come they kept losing?
 
you should remember that when the ottomans besiged them(they defending with ~5-7k against... I don't know against what, I doubt it could've been 100k under mehmet, but anyway, serious numbers) they were "an inch" away from repulsing. And by 1453 the siegin' eq. made some pretty decent advancements from the time we're talking about.

Ok, they were doomed anyway, but the balance of forces was so disproportionate and yet the ottomans didn't have a field day.

That's the main point against the invasion of W. Europe too: I doubt they could've pulled it out, but, anyway, even if they could... the cost would've been great for so little gains(W. Europe of that time wasn't famous for "good booty", but for stone walls which aren't exactly the wet dream of a pillager... much like Constantinopole after the 4th crusade).
 
you should remember that when the ottomans besiged them(they defending with ~5-7k against... I don't know against what, I doubt it could've been 100k under mehmet, but anyway, serious numbers) they were "an inch" away from repulsing. And by 1453 the siegin' eq. made some pretty decent advancements from the time we're talking about.

Ok, they were doomed anyway, but the balance of forces was so disproportionate and yet the ottomans didn't have a field day.

That's the main point against the invasion of W. Europe too: I doubt they could've pulled it out but anyway, even if they could... the cost would've been great for so little gains(W. Europe of that time wasn't famous for "good booty", but for stone walls which aren't exactly the wet dream of a pillager... much like Constantinopole after the 4th crusade).

the minimum number was 80,000, the maximum number was 200,000. i don't they they were an inch from repulsing the ottoman invasions.. do you think that if they lose.. say a third of their force they woudl retreat?
 
I know the figures, however, that was one of the battles where everyone had interest in bolstering those figures: the turks, because, "look how many we can muster", the christians, because, "look how long we lasted against so many". That being said, as a rock concerts promoter at some time of my life, was funny to see the figures for attendance advanced by various press ppl. at different concerts and compare them with how many spectators were actually there(you knew how many tickets you sold). They were usually off and by solid %(that while everyone was sitting there in relative order and the observer wasn't on a battlefield). 80k seems a damn lot for that time. I don't know exactly how chronics from that time came with those figures, but logistics for 80k at that time are major pain.

Regardless, I think the ottomans would've withdrawn if they didn't take the city another 1-2 months due to attrition and morale, not losses. The losses per se were probably irrelevant; even if you assume a mere 50-60k on ottoman side, 1/3rd is 20k - unless the byzantines had machine guns, I don't know how they could've inflict those casualties given the scenario. Any army, even a modern one, withdraws way earlier then 1/3rd deaths anyway(there's no pursuit in this kinda scenario - usually battles were lost with way less then 1/3rd dead and that including the pursuit which normally accounted for most of the kills).

However, the point still stands; with better sieging, with a very determined leader(Mehmet II seemed poised to take that city no matter what), with no danger anywhere else in their empire, against a shadow of even what ERE was 200 years ago it took them 2 months. If I would've been a mongol, would've chewed bubble gum and kick middle east/china for better gains with less pain too and consider ERE my ally for PR purposes :p
 
- unless the byzantines had machine guns, I don't know how they could've inflict those casualties given the scenario
Most likely disease do to a huge amount of men crammed into a relatively small space with inadequate sanitation, and possibly lack of supplies do to difficult logistical position and staying in one location preventing good foraging. Along with two months of attrition. I don't know about that time to be exact, but that seems pretty common up to (and for much of the world including) modern times. 80,000 doesn't seem too unreasonable.
 
they lasted this long because their enemies suck. including the ottomans.
I'm certain the Byzantines themselves had something to do with it, too. The Ottomans weren't the real threat until the 1350s anyway.
 
I'm certain the Byzantines themselves had something to do with it, too. The Ottomans weren't the real threat until the 1350s anyway.

before or after the civil war?
 
they lasted this long because their enemies suck. including the ottomans.
:rolleyes:

Yep, every single enemy that the Byzantines were arrayed against "sucked." If their enemies sucked so much, why didn't Byzantium conquer them, hmm? As the most powerful state in the region, if its enemies "sucked" it would have been able to pursue a stable expansionist policy at its leisure, yes?
 
no it couldn't. Constantinople was trashed, they had few if any troops, and a bunch of civil wars just sapped everything.

Byzantium could have survived indefinitely as a vassal state, but no.. manual II had to retire and put a really immature leader in charge. real smart.
 
no it couldn't. Constantinople was trashed, they had few if any troops, and a bunch of civil wars just sapped everything.

Byzantium could have survived indefinitely as a vassal state, but no.. manual II had to retire and put a really immature leader in charge. real smart.
Exactly, it was "trashed," yet still survived for 200 years. Therefore, it's neighbours must have been more "trashed," yes?

Seriously, if you're going to be a Byzantine fanboy, at least learn some Byzantine history. I'm not even a Byzantine guy - our most prominent one is probably Dachs - and I know considerably more about its history than you do. Byzantium was in its best shape in a century during this time period.

Also, you're aware of what happens to vassal states in precarious positions? They get outright annexed, like Crimea did when Catherine the Great decided she wanted it outright.
 
Exactly, it was "trashed," yet still survived for 200 years. Therefore, it's neighbours must have been more "trashed," yes?

Seriously, if you're going to be a Byzantine fanboy, at least learn some Byzantine history. I'm not even a Byzantine guy - our most prominent one is probably Dachs - and I know considerably more about its history than you do. Byzantium was in its best shape in a century during this time period.

Also, you're aware of what happens to vassal states in precarious positions? They get outright annexed, like Crimea did when Catherine the Great decided she wanted it outright.

the enemies on the Anatolian side were definitely trashed. i don't know about those on the European side.

in all honestly a peaceful annexation woudl be better than outright conquest. Constantine XI woudl have been a governor of a Byzantine Province.
 
the enemies on the Anatolian side were definitely trashed. i don't know about those on the European side.

in all honestly a peaceful annexation woudl be better than outright conquest. Constantine XI woudl have been a governor of a Byzantine Province.
They were not, I assure you.

Better by what standards? You are aware that Constantine XI very nearly pulled this one out of the bag, are you not? The Byzantines humiliated the Turks during the seige of Constantinople, and only lost the city because some idiot left a gate unlocked. Surely victory and continued existence as an independent state would be better than either conquest or peaceful annexation?

And what makes you think Constantine XI would have been left in power? Mehmet II made Constantinople his capital, with good reason I might add. It would be in his best interests to simply kill Constantine XI and forcibly take the city even if they reached a peaceful arrangement.
 
They were not, I assure you.

ok.. then explain how the Seljuk aren't trashed when half their empire was destroyed by the mongols?

Better by what standards? You are aware that Constantine XI very nearly pulled this one out of the bag, are you not? The Byzantines humiliated the Turks during the seige of Constantinople, and only lost the city because some idiot left a gate unlocked. Surely victory and continued existence as an independent state would be better than either conquest or peaceful annexation?

i was aware that the Byzantines were winning the siege, but if they won that one, mehmed woudl just come back again and again until they lost.

And what makes you think Constantine XI would have been left in power? Mehmet II made Constantinople his capital, with good reason I might add. It would be in his best interests to simply kill Constantine XI and forcibly take the city even if they reached a peaceful arrangement.

yeah and destroy the culture while your at it.
 
i was aware that the Byzantines were winning the siege, but if they won that one, mehmed woudl just come back again and again until they lost.

I'd say he'd have tops 2 more tries; that if his reign would've last as long as it did if he failed to capture the city(questionable - not everyone shared his dream of taking that place). Remember that capturing the city was a very good way of paying the troops; without pillage money, you'd have to pull out the payment out of your own purse. Or outright not pay them(which happened many times), but then usually ppl. aren't to happy if you forget to pay them.

My money is also on turks inventing a reason to pillage the city. Look at what happened to the rights granted to local greeks after the fall of the city: they kept on finding reasons for cutting those rights many times. Anyway, his army wanted booty and common sense says he should grant them that one way or another.
 
there are much better targets for pillage money than Constantinople at 1453. how about Rome? ( i know the ottomans did in fact try, but they failed)
 
The Ottoman attack on Italy, while massively overblown by Ottoman fanboys and the Italian states at the time, never threatened to be an attack on Rome. I think I talked with silver about this earlier; rest assured that Mehmed's troops' occupation of southern Apulia in 1481 was merely a show of force and a raid; anything more would have been disastrously defeated, and he probably knew it, because Fatih Sultan Mehmed was not a stupid guy.
 
Top Bottom