The castle offers only protection for a troops, and they can't exactly harry supply lines since the Mongols didn't have any.
The Mongols did have a supply line and a rather vulnerable one at that, just different from that of the settled peoples. Waggons. Big ones. That's what their children, elderly, sick, wounded, families, craftsmen, stores etc. etc. traveled in. As you can imagine methods of defending these moving towns from other, hostile nomads had been honed to near perfection on the steppes long ago, but how well those techniques would have worked in completely different terrain is a whole another thing. The warriors could and certainly did range far and wide from these mobile bases, but substantial numbers were at all times left behind to guard them.
The Mongols didn't; they simply bypassed fortifications as necessary, and destroyed the cities and countryside instead.
What is exactly what Hannibal had done. Bypass fortified areas and destroy the countryside, in hopes that your opponent will be
shamed into coming out and facing you in the field. However, things were quite different in Medieval Europe. The thing is that when confronted with an army in the area and without having an army to oppose it, the people usually went into the castles and fortified towns. Of course that would leave the countryside for looting and the likes, but would keep any invading army from gaining a real foothold if they didnt invest the time to siege. But if the Mongols want to go into the countryside and butcher the peasantry and undefended villages an towns (which they'd have to do by hand because there aren't any irrigation canals) then they'd have to split up into small bands... which would then be vulnerable to local bands of defenders and incapable of taking castles, no matter how small. A single great horde cannot do this for supply reasons and reasons of expedience and practicality. It would be a futile extermination campaign. Besides, the main population would not hole up in the castles (there are plenty of woods and high mountains west and north of the Hungarian plain to hide in), castles are military strongpoints. One way or another, it comes back to siege warfare. You simply can't ignore castles. Why do you think European lords built them to begin with?
In the end, the lords and his knights might still be alive, but no one else will be and they'll have no economic base for building and supplying an army.
If they all go into walled cities, how long will the food and provisions hold out?
Doesn't make a diff. Peasants aren't continuously making food. You harvest only once a year. If the Mongols come after the harvest, you've got enough stores for at least a year, usually much longer. If they come before the harvest, doesn't matter whether those serfs live or die -- you won't be able to collect it anyways (indeed, that is when you scorch the fields). Usually defenders know when a large attacker is coming well ahead of time. Most castles were routinely prepared for sieges to last awhile--meaning that the local lord and his men and some of the populace can wait there for a long time. They'd gather all the food from the region beforehand and lock themselves in. Meanwhile, the Mongols outside are the ones whose horses are dying from lack of fodder. By the time the Mongols arrive, all the stocks in the surrounding countryside (and indeed, from farther afield) have already been taken into the castle. Stores only run out during sieges if your country's been having some rather poor harvests lately and so does not have much stores to begin with. And if your castle adjoins a river or a coast, it can be endlessly resupplied. Mongols were hopeless at blocking waterways.
As for fighting to the death, that only very rarely happened in Medieval sieges.
What Christian would not give their life, to oppose the hosts of hell? If he wins, he will drive the infidel back from whence he cames. if he loses, he shall go to heaven.
The Mongols would simply go about slaughtering the undefended cities and the countryside.
If the Mongols decided that the way to go in Europe was widespread genocide, AND get away with it, then what would be the point? Ruling over a desert isn't really any fun. And how would they get away with it? There were several fortified castles in Europe. And they were filled with either part-time or full-time soldiers. You can't just go rampaging everywhere and avoid all of them no matter if your army is all mounted or not. You have to eat, you get ambushed, you have to rest, you have to plunder. Third, there are only a few thousand Mongols doing all this. It's not like there is a Mongol for every European. How do they kill all the peasants anyhow? The way they depopulated Iraq was not by slaughtering everyone but by destroying the irrigation system. Europe relies on rainfall agriculture meaning that the Mongols have to win the hard way--seizing castles.
Disunity is a key point in the Mongol's favor. The "Holy Roman Empire" was composed piecemeal of a hundred different duchies, electorates, palantinates, free cities, bishopries, and so on, many without armies other than ceremonial guards.
I'm aware of the inner conflicts in the German empire. But it would be incorrect to overemphasize their importance. Some parts of the huge German empire were only formally under the emperor's control. However, this does not change the fact that Frederick was an extremely capable ruler with a powerful army at his disposal. France and the German empire were often involved in conflicts, but there were times when they could cooperate if necessary. The papal authority couldn't have ignored a serious threat of an all-out Mongol invasion, either. The conflict between the popes and emperors had a long history but in Frederick II's time, most of Germany was still under the emperor's control. Even during the interregnum after 1250 some of Germany's most prominent noblemen signed mutual pacts and alliances to tackle common problems together. I don't see any reason why similar actions couldn't have taken place against a serious Mongol threat if it ever materialized.
The HRE wasn't a united entity, nor was it fortified across the entire land, as you seem to be getting at. It had a population of maybe 20 million at the time. How many can you fit into the fortresses?
Do you know how many castles are in Europe??? In the early 13th century the Count of Provence controlled 40 castles, and the King of France had over 100, including 45 in Normandy. The Duke of Burgundy owned 70. In 1216 King Henry III had inherited from his father 93 royal castles in England, and had secured 10 more in Guyenne by 1220, while for their part the English barons held 179. So even assuming Batu had crushed the leagued Italian, German and French armies on the plains of Italy, and struck off the heads of Gregory IX, Frederick II, Louis IX, and Conrad the Crusader, and then proceeded to rape and pillage the city of Rome, everybody else would have retreated to safety behind these unassailable walls of their castles and cities. And those who do not can seek refuge in forests and mountain areas.
Ha. The Pope called for Christians ally with the Mongols against the Muslims
Can you provide a link to this comment. I seriously doubt the pope said such a thing. Such a alliance signed between Italy and the Mongols would've been an extremely unlikely move. The prospects of one Christian state signing an alliance with infidel invaders would've been extremely slim and would surely have provoked nation-wide outrage. This alliance would also have contradicted common sense. The Pope surely wouldn't have wanted to replace one great opponent -- with an even more dangerous one - a Mongol empire stretching from southern Russia to the Rhine. It is in strategic interests of any nation to choose the lesser evil.
France will soon be engaged in the Hundred Years War, and in any case was far from a nation, but a scattered mess of Duchies like Burgundy, Aquitaine, Brittany, Bourbonais, and so on, some of which the King of France had limited control over at best. And they were certainly of doubtful loyalty. Look at how faithful the Normans and Burgundians end up being. Hell, even in Hungary, the Hungarian nobles bickered over what priviledges and rights they would recieve in return for fighitng against the Mongols.
I'm not saying I know what
would have happened in case of a Mongol invasion of Western Europe. Take for instance, the Crusades. When you have French, German and English armies all marching together over the great distances necessary for a Crusade, even if the national forces kept to themselves and their leaders were often at odds, this is still a remarkable thing. When they then live together in a far foreign land that they have conquered, even though separated into the feudal states they were accustomed to in Europe, and still come together in self-defense when necessary, this is even more remarkable...and shows I think that self-preservation is a powerful incentive to
"hanging together to avoid hanging separately". Could they have repeated this feat in the face of the Mongol threat? Perhaps, perhaps not---but I do not think we can dismiss the idea as an impossibility. Consequently, I can't tell whether France, Italy, and the German empire would've united their strength. However, I don't think any such coalition would've been necessary to halt the Mongols. The resources and military potential available to Frederick II were great and when employed correctly, they should've sufficed to stop a steppe army the size of the Golden Horde. We'll never know, of course, but there's nothing to make squabbling rivals unite like a common outside threat. The Greeks were notorious for their constant internecine bickering, but just let the Persians dare to invade the homeland...and there were precedents for the medieval period as well, viz. the Crusades, in which multiethnic armies joined together. And throughout the MA there were always alliances; who can say that an incursion by "godless" Mongols would not have pulled Christendom together, at least temporarily? And yes, there was a lot of squabbling on the Crusades---there's a lot of squabbling among supposed "allies" even today---but what you did not get was any contingent of the Frankish armies siding with the Saracens against fellow Christians. ( There were a few isolated instances of minor barons engaging in this practice occasionally for political advantage, but never to the extent of threatening the Kingdom or the Frankish tenure as a whole. ) Btw, you don't seem to be aware of is that Europe strenghtened its defense on the eastern border considerably as a result of the Mongol raid. It triggered a massive building program of fortifications, particularly in Central Europe and the Balkans. Even the backward Balkan states like Bosnia that suffered during Batu's raid began fortifying their borders and reforming their military. This indicates that Europe was aware of the Mongol threat and rallied quickly to respond to it. Europeans historically have always been willing to band together against a mutual threat especially if it is seen as distinctly non-European.
The Mongols did have artillery in Europe. They utilized artillery against the Hungarians across the river at Mohi, and used gunpowder bombs upon the army as well.
We know that Batu had brought a train of minghan engineers, since he was able to field seven ho pao catapults to hurl firebombs against the unfortunate Hungarians at the Sajo bridge, teaching them a deadly lesson in the tactical use of artillery. But events showed that these werent heavy enough to breach the high stone walls of the Hungarian castles, which Batu had to skirt.
The lack of a strong, centralized rule is what will make it possible for defectors to join the Mongols.
This is extremely doubtful. Down on the lowest level, some forms of cooperation between petty Christian nobles and their Muslim neighbors did take place in Outremer for instance. But there was no instance of one crusader state allying with Muslims against another crusader state. Cooperation between Christians and Muslims could be tolerated only to a certain extent. But on the whole, Christians and Muslims considered themselves common enemies. While the Mongols of the Golden Horde were not Muslims but pagans, they were infidels from the European perspective nevertheless.
Uhmmm, no. The Mongols faced some difficulties crossing the bridge, but they withdrew, and then they completed a double envelopment, the wet dream of generals throughout history. The Hungarians certainly didn't even try to fight to the death; they all ran for it and got slaughtered while fleeing. King Bela didn't stop running till he reached an island
70,000 dead Hungarians, double the size of the Mongol force, says that Mohi was most certainly not a Hungarian victory. The Mongols withdrew and retreated not for logistical or strategic reasons, but as anyone who learned history knows: Ogedai died, and Batu was rushing back to Mongolia to secure his place in the succession.
I'll try to address this issue once again. What we're told is that the Mongols split their force in two parts. One part (probably the larger one, albeit this is by no means sure; my sources implies it comprised two thirds of the entire force) was sent to cross the river some distance to the north. For one reason or another, the Mongols decided to build an improvised bridge there (maybe the river didn't permit safe fording?), which may have slowed down their advance considerably. The second part (probably the smaller one - one third?) remained near the bridge on the east bank. At this point, the Hungarians were encamped on the west bank but appear to have taken control of the bridge and a small bridgehead on the east bank. On the next morning, the remainder of the Mongol force overran the Hungarian bridgehead on the east bank, crossed the bridge and attacked the Hungarian camp on the west bank. In the battle the Hungarians were initially victorious until the second part of the Mongol force arrived with some 2-hour delay. I'm not at all implying that the Mongol force was "totally destroyed". It's clear the Mongols won the battle tactically. They inflicted very heavy casualties on the Hungarian army and eventually routed it. However, it's also apparent that the Mongol plan wasn't executed properly. The timing was incorrect. The smaller part of the Mongol force was committed to battle too quickly and was very hard-pressed by the Hungarians. It must've taken heavy casualties as it was caught between the river and the Hungarian army (perhaps the least desirable situation a medieval commander could think of). The only route of escape was the bridge - but it's very difficult for a large army, even if just light cavalry, to escape through such a narrow corridor in time. The arrival of the second part of the Mongol army was of course decisive. However, I believe the evidence at hand makes it quite clear that the victory was hard-won. We don't have the exact bodycount and any attempts to estimate the number of losses on the Mongol side are inevitably speculative. It was the smaller Mongol contingent that took most casualties - it seems it was almost destroyed in the fighting. If we accept that this contingent formed about one third of the entire force, the overall Mongol losses may have approached one third of the army. This is a very substantial figure for an army so far from home, with little chance to receive reinforcements quickly. But if you allow me, let's just analyze the several key facts that seem to be universally accepted:
- the Mongols arrive to Central Europe in February 1241; several skirmishes
- March 1, Mongol army group under Baidar and Kaidu travels north to Poland, sack Sandomir on the following day and win the battle of Krakow on March 3
- March 12, the main force under Batu enters Hungary while a smaller contingent is sent to Transylvania
- March 18, the Mongols win the battle of Chmielnik
- March 24, Krakow is taken
- March 27, the Mongols attack Wroclaw but their assault fails; the Mongols retreat
- April 9, Liegnitz; the largest Mongol victory in Europe
- April 11, Batu's force engages the Hungarians at Mohi; Mongol victory, Bela flees
- December 11, Ogadai's death
Now, let's take a deep breath and think about all this. No need to go into the details, just consider the immense Mongol activity within March 1 and April 11
which is barely 40 days or less than a month and a half. Within this short period of time, the Mongols took much of Eastern Europe and fought a number of battles. But in sharp contrast to that period of activity are the
eight months spent uselessly in Hungary and the poor regions of the Balkans - and that's
8 months before Ogadai's death! Not to mention that Batu didn't learn about it right away. It must've taken several weeks at least for the news to arrive to the Balkans. How can you or any other proponents of the commonly accepted hypothesis sensibly explain that? Eight months of pointless waiting with the riches of Italy just a two days' ride away? Ogadai's death was obviously not the issue because the old khan was still alive at that time. I'm afraid this changes the whole scope of things quite drastically. Clearly the string of Mongol successes wasn't rapidly broken by the death of Ogadai as the prevalent hypothesis would have us believe. So if you're not willing to concede that the losses suffered at Mohi and elsewhere were the deciding factor - just what happened in mid-April 1241 that the Mongols got stuck in Hungary? If reconaissance was the main goal (which it probably was), there was plenty of ground left to explore. In fact, the key routes to Western Europe lay within easy reach of the Mongol force stationed in Hungary. If conquest of Europe was the ultimate goal, the Mongols would've needed to at least locate those routes in order to make a full-scale invasion of Western Europe possible. But they didn't. In fact, they were stuck in Hungary for 8 months, made a quick tour through the Balkans and retreated in early 1242. These are facts. And in my humble opinion, the commonly accepted interpretation to which you're sticking fails to explain them in a believable and satisfactory manner. So we're back to the argument. The only reasonable explanation that I can think of - and also the one that seems in accordance with a careful analysis of the evidence at hand - is that the fighting in Hungary had put too much strain on the Mongol force to continue the conquest. Also not to be dismissed was the role of fortifications. And they never even tried to oppose Friedrich nor raid Italy, which is extremely difficult to explain unless we accept that the battle of Mohi and the failed sieges of Hungarian fortresses indeed bleeded the Mongol force.