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

Xen,

I for one do not see the logistic problems associated with the fighting past the Danube, vs fighting in the Danube.

Is there an associated reason why, despite the fact that the Mongol Invasion, up to then, had no problems with Logistics, in fact shone in that area? Is the plains really so arid, so devoid of life, so harsh to survival that only Western Europeans could live there?

Secondly, On archery towers that i am referring to, please refer to Jeff Yu's original posting on castle designs. While i agree there are some impressive castles in Europe, but I notice that most of them have just as single "thin" layer, as shown by the pictures in the Tuscany Website. How does it compare to multiple 14m layer thick walls found in many cities in China?

Anyway, i note that now you say that the castles won't be able to stand to Mongol attack.
never did I once say that the castles of europe woudl prove to be able to stand up tot he mongol assult; not once, in all likellyness they would be smashed;
I thank you for saying that, so it will take time, of course i agree with you on that, all castle sieges take time. This is now a question of patience then.
I still haven't a clue, why Mongols once carrying of Eastern Europe, let's say if Ogadai didn't pass on, couldn't have settled and made a base. This would of course mean that attrition and supply lines would be less of a worry
wouldn't it?
Do you really assume that in battles deep in interior China, the supply line extends from Samarkand and not the nearest captured city?
 
Very interesting thread, I enjoyed reading everyone's posts. I just want to post some of my thoughts

After reading the past posts, I think it is not a stretch to conclude that the Mongols would likely be able to defeat any European force on the field of battle. Don’t worry Europeans, this is not a hit to your pride, no country in the world at the time was able to reliably defeat the Mongols on the field. The most success anyone has gotten was the Mamelukes (great cavalry) and the Koreans (guerilla warfare that made Mongolian occupation hell).

Thus, it seems that the crux of arguments so far lie in whether or not the Mongols would be able to supply their armies and whether or not they could siege European castles. I would like to offer my thoughts on both.

Regarding logistics, one point of underestimation is the Mongolian horse. It is a remarkable creature. Born and bred in the desert, where temperatures even during the summer can drop 60 degrees below celcius, these horses have extreme stamina and endurance. The Gobi desert is an extremely harsh place. In practical terms, it is not a true desert. It gets minimal rainfall, but more than most deserts. Most of it is covered in short stony grass and small shrubs. During the winter, it is covered by heavy snow and frost. The Mongols bred their horses by letting them out during the winter to survive on their own. The ones that would survive would have even greater stamina, and thus create even better breeds in the future. Thus, Mongolian horses have the capacity to survive in any temperature in any climate on any food source (as long as it was green). Shrubs were a PRIMARY food source for these horses. Any thoughts of there being logistical problems in Europe are due to the misconception that European and even Russian horses are the same as Mongolian horses. They are not. If Europe could sustain 2 million humans, then it could easily have sustained 2 million Mongolian horses for an extended period of time. Moreover, as previous posters have pointed out, the Mongols fed their horses in the steppe during the summer, rotated them with horses currently in campaigns, and launched campaigns in the winter. They are probably the only ones to have launched a successful winter campaign against Russia. In terms of supplying men, the Mongols survived off of mobile supply centers of goats WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES PERMITTED. Other times, they lived off the land (harvests unpicked by peasants fleeing into castles) and their horses. Mongolian mares can be milked 4-5 times a day, providing 0.11 lbs each time. Yearly production is 662 lbs. Being a nomadic tribe originating in Siberia, I doubt the Mongols would have much trouble surviving in the relatively opulent forests of Europe. I hope this lays to rest any misconceptions of there being logistical problems for the Mongols.

The fact that the Mongolian horses didn’t need significant pasture land makes the point that Western Europe didn’t have much pasture land irrelevant. In addition, I would like to point out that Afghanistan and the deserts of the Middle East are both far from the Mongolian steppe and have little pasture land as well, consisting mainly of mountains and desert plains respectively, yet the Mongols were able to conquer both. Southern China as said previously, consisted mainly of hills, marshes, and lakes, forcing the Mongols to adapt to naval warfare, which they did quite well.

My second point is one about time. The early 13th century was not the height of European castles. Many of the larger, grandeur castles we see in Europe were built later. Yes, there are currently 170 castles in Tuscany now, but there were not that many back in the early 13th century. What there were plenty of were the precursors to later European castles, smaller versions, some not even made of stone. Even the later European castles pale in size to some the Mongols faced. Most were ten feet thick, very few (I don’t know any) were even ten meters thick, not to mention the fifteen that the Mongols faced. Mongolian siege abilities were such that against smaller castles a siege wasn’t needed. When sieges were needed, such as with the monstrosities of Chinese fortresses, the Mongols had the patience and stamina for multi-year sieges, of course not with their entire army. The rest of the army could go elsewhere, either to pillage or lay siege to other cities. Very few European castles at the time could withstand a siege of even one year. Considering the relative small size (the largest castle in England other than Windsor, was only 3.5 km in circumference, Xi’an in China is 13km), an invading force of 150,000 Mongolians could lay siege to a lot of castles.

The rest of my argument is pure speculation. Given that there were much more cities in China (and yes, every city had a wall thicker than most European castles) than castles in Europe at the time, and that it took 40 years to conquer China, I would assume that a full Mongolian assault on Europe would take half a century, but I have to conclude that they would succeed. No force was able to reliably defeat the Mongols on the field of battle, thus, siege was the only reliable form of defenses, and siege was something the Mongols were getting extremely adept at.

Now I want to offer my speculations on why the Mongols did not continue their attack on Europe or they did not launch a concentrated attack on Europe. I think the answer is one of time. The Mongols are a short-lived phenomenon in history. Genghis Khan and his immediate successor Ogedai (and to some effect Mongke) were able to accomplish amazing things, but success was limited to these three generations. I believe the Mongol phenomenon is one of a few great leaders more than the entire race itself, Genghis, his general Subedai, and his sucessors Ogedai and Mongke. The Mongol as a people were just the same humans as everyone else, but its leaders were spectacular generals who knew how to use what they have and learn what they did not have, unmatched by anyone else in the world at the time.

Upon the death of Genghis, Subedai was forced to return to Mongolia as per custom to approve the election of the new Khan, Ogedei. During Ogedai’s reign, he turned his attention not to Europe, but the richer lands of the middle east. The advance east would not end until 1260 when the Mongols were stopped in Egypt. Unfortunately for Ogedai, he did not live long and died in 1246, after only five years. After Ogedai, Mongolia was plagued with succession problems. Also, no more great generals emerged that had the vision and ability comparable to Genghis or Subotai. It is my opinion that neither of them would have lost to the Mamelukes. Effectively, after the direct successor to Ogedai, Mongke (who were more concerned with the Middle East and China), all Mongolian advances. Not just towards Europe, but everywhere. So I believe that the question of why the Mongols didn’t attack Europe is the same as why they didn’t attack any country after Mongke’s reign. Had Genghis lived ten more years, then the Mongols probably would have conquered much more of Europe. After the death of Genghis, his two immediate able successors turned their attentions elsewhere, thus sparing Europe. After their death, the Mongols had no more great leaders to lead them to advance ANYWHERE, much less Europe. Kublai’s entity was the only group that had any major campaigns, as he finished consolidating China. However, Kublai was under such heavy Chinese influence that personally I consider him more of a Chinese emperor than a Mongolian one. In addition, Kublai had no authority over the Golden Horde in Russia.

Regarding previous comments that the Mongols were too heavily battered in the battle at Mohi to be effective, I believe it is only partly true. On the first day of battle, the Mongols were indeed pushed back to the river, and thus they probably did sustain heavy casualties, but overall, their actions after the battle clearly indicates that they did not just sit idly. Mohi was just one battle, they still had to consolidate Hungary before crossing the Danube during winter (because they always launched assaults during winter). Thus I believe, and there is evidence to support this, that they consolidated control over Hungary and regrouped strength (allowing horses to fatten) to prepare for a winter assault across the Danube. The fact that Bela abandoned Hungary is a sign that he felt further resistance was futile. As luck would have it, Ogedai died that winter and no assault across the Danube into Austria would take place.

I want to also point out that the Mongols DID use infantry, mostly conscripted from local peoples. Mongke radically transformed Mongol society. He incorporated many of the local troops into his armies. He always an elite Mongol infantry but plentiful other infantry as well. The infantry was used to hold the middle of the line while the cavalry outflanked the enemy (pretty standard military tactics). Whether or not infantry was used in Europe, I have no clue. Regarding other issues such as European division I do not have any knowledge so I can’t offer any. But personally, considering the wide variety of enemies the Mongols faced, I believe they could have overcome the Europeans. Perhaps it would have taken 20-50 years, but they would have done it. The only thing that prevented it was the death of Genghis and the lack of able successors.

Even today, Mongolians are expert horseman that start riding at age 4 or 5. During Genghis’ time, Mongolian horse archers could hit moving targets while moving extremely accurately. They were professional soldiers that were born to fight, not unlike Spartans. This combined with great leadership was why they were so successful. In conclusions, I don’t think the Europeans would have fared any different from any foes that Genghis and his generals faced. However, past the immediate successors of Genghis, I do not believe the Mongols had the leadership or the capacity to conquer anyone, including Europe. Don’t get too riled up, these are just my thoughts.
 
A damned interesting thread, and happy to see that we, europeans, have some kind of "patriotism" inside our old and decadent soul. :D

Btw, to the matter, the undeafetable and victorius mongol army stands up at the gates of europe, then they thought....hmmmm....this europeans arent a threat for us, we can easily plunder and slauther every damned square meter (or wathever they use for distances), lets move all this horses, people, siege machines and all the stuff to the other side of the world, and lets conquer china. Hmmmm..a bright idea, Genghis would be proud of it.

Seriously, there wasnt much to plunder in XIIIth century europe,they had been fighting since the fall of the Roman Empire, i think they saw China was a lot richer and more suited for their kind of fighting that all the mountains, woods, castles and poor lands that were in europe at that time and went for the easy conquest and the more plunder.

IMHO.
 
A damned interesting thread, and happy to see that we, europeans, have some kind of "patriotism" inside our old and decadent soul. :D

Btw, to the matter, the undeafetable and victorius mongol army stands up at the gates of europe, then they thought....hmmmm....this europeans arent a threat for us, we can easily plunder and slauther every damned square meter (or wathever they use for distances), lets move all this horses, people, siege machines and all the stuff to the other side of the world, and lets conquer china. Hmmmm..a bright idea, Genghis would be proud of it.

Seriously, there wasnt much to plunder in XIIIth century europe,they had been fighting since the fall of the Roman Empire, i think they saw China was a lot richer and more suited for their kind of fighting that all the mountains, woods, castles and poor lands that were in europe at that time and went for the easy conquest and the more plunder.

IMHO.

Bump. No, it wasn't because of that. The Mongolians returned to Eastern Asia because of Ogedei's death in 1241. Batu was already on the gates of Vienna and was advancing into northern Albania.
 
Why would the Mongols have wanted too? Also looking at Ain Jalud, and its consequences by the 1250's/60's the Mongols were too tied down by their own internal problems and civil wars created by their massive empire to pursue too many new conquests.
 
Why would the Mongols have wanted too? Also looking at Ain Jalud, and its consequences by the 1250's/60's the Mongols were too tied down by their own internal problems and civil wars created by their massive empire to pursue too many new conquests.

Muhi was way before Ain Jalut. By 1260, of course, the Empire was already falling apart, but things were less serious in 1242.
 
if the mongols had conquered Europe, the last city to fall woudl be... naturally, Constantinople. they were allied with the mongols..sort of.. and could last the longest.
 
Muhi was way before Ain Jalut. By 1260, of course, the Empire was already falling apart, but things were less serious in 1242.

I know, I'm just showing what happens when you have these huge areas you need to move armies over.
 
if the mongols had conquered Europe, the last city to fall woudl be... naturally, Constantinople. they were allied with the mongols..sort of.. and could last the longest.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Dublin would last a while longer, assuming this impossible scenario happened. What with being on an island and all. And that's assuming Reykjavic (yes, I know I have horribly mangled that name) capitulates without a fight. ;)
 
even they had an invasion plan. without it your just barbarians doing a human wave attack.
 
Mathalamus said:
even they had an invasion plan. without it your just barbarians doing a human wave attack.

Which never happened? *shrug*
 
well they stayed way from Constantinople, even when the alliance was over. they know that they couldn't take the city. they certainty had the logistical ability to do so.
 
well they stayed way from Constantinople, even when the alliance was over. they know that they couldn't take the city. they certainty had the logistical ability to do so.
The Mongols stayed away from Constantinople because they had easier pickings. Why execute a long campaign against Byzantium when you can take on the weaker Mamelukes - admittedly this backfired on them pretty damn badly - or fight the other Khanates to take their land?
 
Constantinople was not an easy picking? at 1261 their empire was pretty much a ruin. even though they still had a lot of soldiers left, they wouldn't last long under a mongol army.

can 100,000 mongols have a chance against.. say 10,000 Defenders at Constantinople?
 
There's a lot of under estimation in this topic of European capabilities. Maybe a normal foot archer would lose to the mongols, but the ENglish longbow wuld not only pierce the sik armour easily, but simply kill the one using it. It's range would out shoot the Mongols, and no mattter how good a horse rider you are, you simply can't "dodge" an arrow. That being siad, the nglish were a fair bit away from the action in Hungary.
 
Constantinople was not an easy picking? at 1261 their empire was pretty much a ruin. even though they still had a lot of soldiers left, they wouldn't last long under a mongol army.

can 100,000 mongols have a chance against.. say 10,000 Defenders at Constantinople?
You're severely underestimating the fighting capabilities of the empire of Michael VIII Palaiologos. Of course, the fact that he was engaged in a marriage alliance with Nogai made a Mongol attack less likely from the start. EDIT: Whoops, screwed that up - the alliance wasn't contracted yet in 1261. :crazyeye:
There's a lot of under estimation in this topic of European capabilities. Maybe a normal foot archer would lose to the mongols, but the ENglish longbow wuld not only pierce the sik armour easily, but simply kill the one using it. It's range would out shoot the Mongols, and no mattter how good a horse rider you are, you simply can't "dodge" an arrow. That being siad, the nglish were a fair bit away from the action in Hungary.
Quite. Hell, the Mongols were far from finishing off Hungary itself before they left.
 
plus they were supposed to pick the worst target(W. Europe) of all that were presented to them out of some masochistic reasons or because they somehow should've known that 300 years later Europeans would start rockin'... :p

but hey, ppl. love thinkin' of mongols as mini super warriors of doom :p
 
plus they were supposed to pick the worst target(W. Europe) of all that were presented to them out of some masochistic reasons or because they somehow should've known that 300 years later Europeans would start rockin'... :p

but hey, ppl. love thinkin' of mongols as mini super warriors of doom :p
Dear god, let's hope no-one reads this and decides to start a "Mongols vs Spartans" thread.

@Mathalamus: Firstly, Byzantium was not nearly as weak at the time as you claim. Secondly, it wasn't the easiest - or most valuable - picking available for the Mongols to go after. Thirdly, while the Mongols knew how to beseige a city extremely well, so did Michael VIII Palaeologus. He was surely knowledgeable enough about Mongol tricks to hold his city longer than most, on the off-chance the Mongols even went after him.
 
Top Bottom