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

Exactly, western methods. Europeans, at this time, had never faced Mongolians, nor have they faced Chinese rocketry and gunpowder. The defenders have the advantage of castles, which are confined and closed spaces, so they also have the disadvantage of disease. Warfare in this era take less tolls than the diseases that resulted from war.

To my understanding Specilist Chinese engineers and pyrotechnics never made it as far as Europe. Chinese enginneers were prodominate in Russia, in breaching there castles and foftifications. It was predomominetly turkish enginneers which were drawn up for use at this time.

I'll point out once again the Mongols had by this time more or less assimilated Chinese Siege technics. Including sapping, earth works, seige towers, rams, mangadels.

Point: A simple example would be fortress capitol SAMAKAND which fell to the mongols in a 10 days.
 
Plan?

hmm... Kill, kill, rape, kill, rape, pillage, drink, enjoy, destroy... :D

All I know is that the mongols could have easly fought their way to the cadiz, if they would have had the will to do it...
 
naziassbandit said:
Plan?

hmm... Kill, kill, rape, kill, rape, pillage, drink, enjoy, destroy... :D

All I know is that the mongols could have easly fought their way to the cadiz, if they would have had the will to do it...

such an ignorant comment. you coudl at least READ the rest of the thread befor posting inanane dribble.
 
Xen said:
such an ignorant comment. you coudl at least READ the rest of the thread befor posting inanane dribble.

Man, calm down it was just a joke...

And, what I meant was that the mongols could have migrated all the way to cadiz, but dissapperen probaly the same way as the huns did...
 
naziassbandit said:
Man, calm down it was just a joke...

And, what I meant was that the mongols could have migrated all the way to cadiz, but dissapperen probaly the same way as the huns did...

A)well, it didnt seem liek a joke, just an ignorent commented that took a giant leek on every one; anti-mogol, and pro-mongols various arguments, and debates alike.

B)the huns did no such thing; the Romans, remakrabley, were able to pull a last great rally of an actual Roman army, and turn back the huns; after which the huins, desperate, tried to invade italy, to be stemmed by disease; after which, Attilla died, and the huns never again became a problem, as they were confined more of less, to the southern Germany and Hunagry areas, accross the Danube river- the never made it close to spain
 
I think naziassbandit's comment while one of the less educating posts and not exquisite in history (I agree with him on Cadiz though) it was the only post that made me chuckle.

*BUMP*

I got here by a sig., a sig. that said the Mongols could never have done it.
Doesn't seem to have been a conclusive discussion though... or?
 
Toteone said:
I think naziassbandit's comment while one of the less educating posts and not exquisite in history (I agree with him on Cadiz though) it was the only post that made me chuckle.

After reading it myself, I was thinking... "what hell was I thinking?";)

Though, after reading what Xen commented, I knew that the Huns never went to Spain but their culture dissappeared, I thought it could have happened to teh Mongols aswell, however after studing the Mongols, I noticed that they were not really tribals but rather imperials.
 
Anyway on the original topic. Mongols could have conquered Europe with ease. The Europeans were utterly defeated, European armies would not stand a chance. Mongol tactics, organization, intelligence operations and logisitics are incredibly effective. European medieval armies were semi-rabble warrior armies compared to the Mongols, their training was based on induvidual combat and there was little discipline and organization in European medieval armies. Also, European armies consisted of poorly trained and poorly disciplined peasantry levies and the small professional core was made of induvidal fighters not group based fighters. Knights were way too disorganized and over-eager. To defeat Knights Mongols would simply need to keep moving, the knight could not catch a light cavalry horse archer, who, while running, could simply shoot the knight down, if the knight was too heavily armoured, the horse archer could just shoot the horse. Mongol bows had longer range than any of the European bows.

The Mongol intelligence operations were so effective that the Mongols were only once ambushed, IIRC.
The Mongol armies could have blitzed through Europe unresisted, since there was no armies between the Mongols and France after the Hungarian-German-Polish defeats.
 
again, the above dosent bear fact; the Mongols hard ly "B;litzed" anywhere in europe, they were bogged down for YEARS in Korea, and the limited actions they took in what was by all means pitiful eastern europe still tooks months to acomplish; when you try to apply this to the logistical nightmare that is fully militarized society in western europe, where a region the size of many counties in the US can have 300 indipendent and fully operating castles, which unlike the great cities of the east, were chosen exculsivlly to be pains in the ass to assult, you have such a logistical nightmare thatthe reason why no one was able to conqoure huge swaths of europe after charlemagne becomes apperent; the logistics of it are just too damn hard; unless you have a clear path of allies, you can and will be outflanked, and your resources cut off. Its not a question of "If" its a question of "when" and considerign the nature of Mongol threat; a pagan society threating the Christian heartlands, its absurd to think that Mongosl woudl make any head way at all in western europe; the fact that Europe was compartivlly poor to the east is immaterial; because what wealth they did have was almost wholly devoted to combat- combat on the steppes, or in the desert is one thing, but in the Alps or Forests Germany is another thing entierlly.
 
Xen said:
again, the above dosent bear fact; the Mongols hard ly "B;litzed" anywhere in europe, they were bogged down for YEARS in Korea, and the limited actions they took in what was by all means pitiful eastern europe still tooks months to acomplish; when you try to apply this to the logistical nightmare that is fully militarized society in western europe, where a region the size of many counties in the US can have 300 indipendent and fully operating castles, which unlike the great cities of the east, were chosen exculsivlly to be pains in the ass to assult, you have such a logistical nightmare thatthe reason why no one was able to conqoure huge swaths of europe after charlemagne becomes apperent; the logistics of it are just too damn hard; unless you have a clear path of allies, you can and will be outflanked, and your resources cut off. Its not a question of "If" its a question of "when" and considerign the nature of Mongol threat; a pagan society threating the Christian heartlands, its absurd to think that Mongosl woudl make any head way at all in western europe; the fact that Europe was compartivlly poor to the east is immaterial; because what wealth they did have was almost wholly devoted to combat- combat on the steppes, or in the desert is one thing, but in the Alps or Forests Germany is another thing entierlly.

You are forgetting the Mongol army didn't have supply lines in the same sense. The Mongols could initiate mobile raid with armies which were logisitically almost independant. The Mongol armies were size of 20 000 effective troops, such cavalry armies were very mobile.

Now, about castles. As I said, Mongol army had incredible intelligence operations, they knew what was in Europe. They would have known that they have these castles. Mongols could have stopped the castles from being made operational with their incredible mobility. If the Mongols would have started to invade Europe or parts of it, they would have been so mobile that none of the kingdoms from Poland to France could have raised anykind of army, before Mongols would be already sacking Paris.

They also were infamous when it came to sieges, otherwise they would have not built such empire.

Some claim that European enviroirment would have proved uh, bad for mongols. Well, no. Mongol bows did not suffer from the damb enviroirment like other composite bows. Mongols were enough organized, and capable in general to fight in mountains and forests even with horse archery.

However, they would have probably not used their own army to conquer Europe, probably first only to sack it. After all, the Mongols were pragmatic, they would bribed the European corrupted nobles to fight for the powerful, for them. The would have hired European mercenaries to keep order and so on.

EDIT: How's the weather in there?
 
Below is an exact account for the battle of Liegnitz


http://www.allempires.com/articles/liegnitz/liegnitz.htm


....On April 9, Prince Henry, in splendid armour, rides out from Legnica to do battle with the Tatars. As he rides past the Church of the Blessed Virgin, a stone falls from the roof narrowly missing his head. This is regarded as a divine warning or, at least, an ill omen. The Prince arrays his army on level ground near the River Nysa in four ranks: the first consists of crusaders and volunteers speaking several languages, and some gold miners from Zlotoryja; the second line is made up of knights from Cracow and Wielkopolska; the third of knights from Opole; the fourth of the Grand Master of the Prussian Knights with his brethren and other chivalry; while the fifth consists of Silesian and Wroclavian barons, the pick of the knights from Wielkopolska and Silesia and a small contingent of mercenaries, all under the command of Prince Henry himself. There are many Tatar units, each more numerous and more experienced in battle; indeed, each consists of more men than the combined Polish force. Battle is joined.

The Poles attack first and their initial charge breaks the first Tatar rank and moves forward, but, when the fighting becomes hand-to-hand, they are surrounded by Tatar archers, who prevent the others coming to their assistance. These then waver and finally fall beneath the hail of arrows, like delicate heads of corn broken by hail-stones, for many of them are wearing no armour, and the survivors retreat. Now two Polish ranks are fighting three Tatar units; indeed, have overcome them, for the Polish crossbowmen protect them from the Tatar archers, but then someone from the Tatar ranks starts running hither and thither between the two armies shouting "Run, run!" to the Poles and encouragement to the Tatars. The Duke of Opole, thinking the shouts come from a friend, not an enemy, withdraws his men. When Prince Henry sees what is happening, he laments aloud, but brings up his fourth rank, which contains the best of his troops and with them is on the point of overcoming the Tatars, when a fourth and even larger Tatar force under Batu comes up and fighting is resumed. The Tatars attack fiercely, but the Poles refuse to retreat, and for a while honours are even.

Among the Tatar standards is a huge one with a giant X painted on it. It is topped with an ugly black head with a chin covered with hair. As the Tatars withdraw some hundred paces, the bearer of this standard begins violently shaking the great head, from which there suddenly bursts a cloud with a foul smell that envelopes the Poles and makes them all but faint, so that they are incapable of fighting. We know that in their wars the Tatars have always used the arts of divination and witch-craft, and this is what they are doing now. Seeing that the all but victorious Poles are daunted by the cloud and its foul smell, the Tatars raise a great shout and return to the fray, scattering the Polish ranks that hitherto have held firm, and a huge slaughter ensues.

Among those who fall are Boleslav the son of the Margrave of Moravia and the Master of the Prussian Order. Prince Henry does not desert his men. Surrounded by Tatars who are attacking him from all sides, he and a handful of others try to force their way through the enemy. Then, when he has almost won through and there are only four knights left with him, the Prince's horse, already wounded, drops dead. The Tatars, recognizing the Prince by his insignia, press after him. For a while he and his companions fight on; then his fourth knight brings him a fresh horse taken from the Prince's chamberlain. The Prince remounts and the five make another attempt to break through the enemy ranks; but once again are surrounded. Nonetheless they fight on. As the Prince is raising his arm to bring his sword down on an enemy, a Tatar thrusts his lance into the Prince's armpit and the Prince slides from his horse. The Tatars pounce on the Prince and, dragging him two bowshots clear, cut off his head with a sword, tear off all his badges and leave his corpse naked. In this great battle a number of the Polish nobility and gentry find honourable martyrdom in defence of their Faith. The saintly Jadwiga, then in Krosno, is informed by the Holy Spirit of the extent of the disaster and of the death of her son in the same hour as it happens, and tells this to a nun, called Adelaide.

Jan Iwanowic, the knight who brought Henry the horse that nearly saved him, joins forces with two of the shield-bearers and another knight, called Lucman, who has two servants with him and himself has twelve wounds. When their pursuers pause for a breather in a village a mile or so from the battlefield, the six turn and attack them, killing two of their number and taking one prisoner. After this, Iwanowic enters a Dominican monastery and lives there piously, grateful that the Good Lord has saved him from so many dangers.

Having collected their booty, the Tatars, wishing to know the exact number of the dead, cut one ear off each corpse, filling nine huge sacks to the brim. Then, impaling Prince Henry's head on a long lance, they approach the castle at Legnica (for the town has already been burned for fear of the Tatars) and display it for those inside to see, calling upon them through an interpreter to open the gates.

The defenders refuse, telling them that they have several other dukes, sons of good duke Henry, besides Henry. The Tatars then move on to Olomouc, where they camp for a fortnight, burning and destroying everything round about. Moving on again, they halt for a week at Bolesisko, and, after slaughtering many of the inhabitants, continue into Moravia......
 
From the Lord of the Rings:

"Move into the city, kill all in your path." Gothmog.

I know Europe wasn't a city, but it accurately portrays what the Mongols would have done.

I believe they would have tried to destroy all of the castles in Eastern Europe (or else just one and pour through the gap they created) and then just ride like, well, hell all the way to Spain.
 
Tank_Guy#3 said:
From the Lord of the Rings:

"Move into the city, kill all in your path." Gothmog.

I know Europe wasn't a city, but it accurately portrays what the Mongols would have done.

I believe they would have tried to destroy all of the castles in Eastern Europe (or else just one and pour through the gap they created) and then just ride like, well, hell all the way to Spain.
Taking a risk by junping into a thread that has already run for a while.

My impression is that the Mongol perception of the conflict would have been that the princes of Europe should all submit to the authority and rule of the Great Khan or face the consequences.

I.e. if they did, they would be spared. That's what the Mongols seem to have done in places like Armenia (lots of castles there as well).
And the Mongols weren't stupid and wouldn't have seen any point in reducing every damn fortification they could find if people just submitted to their rule. Saves time an wear an tear on equipment even if it could be done.

Of course the Europeans were just as ornery and unlikely to submit to any non-Christian authority so the situation was set up for massive conflict.
 
naziassbandit said:
You are forgetting the Mongol army didn't have supply lines in the same sense. The Mongols could initiate mobile raid with armies which were logisitically almost independant. The Mongol armies were size of 20 000 effective troops, such cavalry armies were very mobile.
dosent matter; EVERY army MUST have a way to supply itself; an army that divides itself into smaller compnents for raiding is already dooming itself to failerure, as this readilly invites a tactic that the europeans prooved very effective at, the skirmish.

Now, about castles. As I said, Mongol army had incredible intelligence operations, they knew what was in Europe. They would have known that they have these castles. Mongols could have stopped the castles from being made operational with their incredible mobility. If the Mongols would have started to invade Europe or parts of it, they would have been so mobile that none of the kingdoms from Poland to France could have raised anykind of army, before Mongols would be already sacking Paris.
you think of all war as a tacticle battle feild; this is very much the wrong way to view it, but a common one; manuverability can count for alot; but when you put it into a situation like western europe and you lose almost all of it; the simple fact of the matter is what little development western europe had was all poured into militarzation, and all of that into creating defensive military works; it dosent matter hopw manuverbale your army is, you still have to sleep, you still have to eat, and trying to do so in an area that views you as complete heathens, and more over is perhaps the most militarized land are on the face of the earth at the time isnt a smart move; but the next quote qill really illustrate how impossible a mongol invasion of western europe woudl have been.

They also were infamous when it came to sieges, otherwise they would have not built such empire.
again, simple math comes into play; I will use the region in Italy, Tuscany, as my example.

here is a map of tuscany, in realtion to italy:


Here is a map of europe:


Here is a map of the world:


do you knwo how many castled are contained in tuscany?

1? no... 2? nope, try again 4 mabey? nope, wrong.

the Region of Tuscany contain exactly 152 seperate and distinct foritifactions (thast is to say, castles, chosen only for thier strategic importance, and, more importantlly, for the difficulty they woudl pose to any army attempting to capture it) in it. if this well of, but tiny region of europe can feild this much power, you must ask you yourself how well defended the rest of western europe, just as militarized as Tuscany, was

the simpel fact of the matter is seiges take time, they cost your troops and supplies; the fact of the matter is, if you have to seige every castle inyour way to protect your flanks, or clear a path for you to manuver, it simpel bemcomes impossible for you to wage any effective war; the reason the other areas of the world fell was because while they were rich, whiel they had powerful armies, the logistics of thie rown lands made it possible for a few major battles and seiges to win the day; in europe, it woudl requite not three great vicotiroes, but a thosand small ones, each taking thier own individual toll on any invading army. It why europe is the way it is today, why it was only in the 18th century that region such as Germany and italy began to pull themselves otgether to form nation states, and why the hundred years war lasted over 100 years; the logistics of fighting wars of conquest in europe after AD 1000 are hell bent against any and all agressors until the unified systems of government came about that made several large victories able to win control of nation.


Some claim that European enviroirment would have proved uh, bad for mongols. Well, no. Mongol bows did not suffer from the damb enviroirment like other composite bows. Mongols were enough organized, and capable in general to fight in mountains and forests even with horse archery.
true enough, but history shows that the always faced significant difficulties and were bogged down for months in every case. a clear example is the conquest of korea.

However, they would have probably not used their own army to conquer Europe, probably first only to sack it. After all, the Mongols were pragmatic, they would bribed the European corrupted nobles to fight for the powerful, for them. The would have hired European mercenaries to keep order and so on.
if the Muslims could do as you say, then the thought that the mongols; utter heathens to the christian mind, could do so is laughable.


the simpel fact of the matter is, western europe woudl have found stregth to resist the mongols in what many consider to be its greatest weaknes sof the period; its disunifacation, and rampant militarization of even the smallest principalities; it was this dis unity and militerzation that would have ensured, particrualy in Italy, France and Germany that no matter who the mongols may have conqoured, the next door neighbor not only woudl not be conqoured, but woudl have to be the target of yet another protracted seige, taking up time and troops while the other areas were able to rally thier armies, an dprepare themselves for major battles in which even if the mongols did when, wouldnt have the effect of actually conqoring anythign for them. In this manner, conquest becomes an impossible task, even for an army like that the Mongols commanded.
 
note; Verifcation for the number of castles in Tuscany alone can be found here, where a wonderful scroll down submenue listes them all in alphabetical order. you get to hand count them like I had to if you want to re-check however ;) http://www.castellitoscani.com/
 
I am not saying you are wrong Xen, and i dont really know much about this, but didnt the mongols do somthing where the chopped off all the head of Male female children horse and dog and make huge piles of skulls. and pour molten silver into the eyes and ears of there enemys. If they take there time to sack and massacar a castle in this sense, the next one will just pay tribute and let the mongols in. Wasnt this the case in china and persia. Alteast thats what Age of empires says.
 
Nobody said:
I am not saying you are wrong Xen, and i dont really know much about this, but didnt the mongols do somthing where the chopped off all the head of Male female children horse and dog and make huge piles of skulls. and pour molten silver into the eyes and ears of there enemys. If they take there time to sack and massacar a castle in this sense, the next one will just pay tribute and let the mongols in. Wasnt this the case in china and persia. Alteast thats what Age of empires says.

to be honest with you, I doubt it would matter; as I said earlier, the nation in asia all fell because they large, centralized nations, europe wasnt at all centralized, meaning that just becuase two lords lived in the same kingdom meant that if you defeated one you defeat the other, not at all; and if thiere is one thing that EUrope in the middle ages bears out at every oppertunity, is that they dont surrender ot forign powers, no matter how "smart' the move might seem.
 
just jumping into a thread, "at a risk"

But are you saying Xen, that because Europe was disunited, that was why they won't fall?
That is extremely thin ground there.
Anyway, thanks for the information about the 152, separate and distinct fortification in Tuscany. Do they count all grand castles, or maybe thing like even the archery towers you see in China, which dot the landscape in many cities.

Maybe you could give a round figure of how many fortifications are there in Europe at the time of the Mongol Invasions. Because i mean most of the fortresses and forts could be built after the mongol invasion so it wouldn't translate well into your argument.

I guess a better figure would be amount of fortified cities that could withstand sieges though. I don't think the Mongols really needed to break a castle in order to extract tribute from a town or city.

EUrope in the middle ages...they dont surrender ot forign powers, no matter how "smart' the move might seem

That statement is rather generic isn't it? As though there is something in European genetic makeup that prevents them from doing the smart thing, or feeling fear.
Are you an Europhile? Maybe that might form an understanding of why there is this bias or reluctance to see that the Mongols actually won 2 battles in Eastern Europe, and basing on what "could" have happened in the ensuing 8 month period, declared that actually Poland/Hungary won the war with the Mongols.

*edit*
Just something interesting.Middle Europe changed hands through different lords so fast, that it is hard to see, how these "fortifications" can actually work. I mean logically if the fortifications work, the area would be so stable. I mean, why in the world did the hundred year war take place if neither france nor England could take a single castle (refer to map that is widely available of how much land changed hands between the two)? Quite clearly, either the Europeans had some sort of super siege weaponry that allowed the defenders to be expelled from the castles at will, or the castles aren't as strong as they are made out to be.
 
fastspawn said:
just jumping into a thread, "at a risk"

But are you saying Xen, that because Europe was disunited, that was why they won't fall?
That is extremely thin ground there.
Anyway, thanks for the information about the 152, separate and distinct fortification in Tuscany. Do they count all grand castles, or maybe thing like even the archery towers you see in China, which dot the landscape in many cities.
nope, every single one of them is quite more then "the archery towers you see in China" and if you dont belive me, I invite you to look at everysingle one of them, all one hundred and fifty two of them in full colour witha nice description, here- http://www.castellitoscani.com/ :smug:


Maybe you could give a round figure of how many fortifications are there in Europe at the time of the Mongol Invasions. Because i mean most of the fortresses and forts could be built after the mongol invasion so it wouldn't translate well into your argument.
as it happens, I've been questing for the specific information, but its very hard to come by, but by the 13th century, not many new fortifacations were being built in europe, because the status quo had been estbalished in the west.


I guess a better figure would be amount of fortified cities that could withstand sieges though. I don't think the Mongols really needed to break a castle in order to extract tribute from a town or city.
its a great deal easier to take a city or town then it is a castle, which is why the orient states fell, because the centerpoint sof command, control and adminstration were all centered not on well guarded keeps places onyl for thier tactical dominace, but in centers and areas where it was naturally easy to traverse. that is the difference; its a great deal hard to take that fort on the mountian top then it is to take that town in the valley down below it. but to conqore europe, you have to take oput that fort; not that town.


That statement is rather generic isn't it? As though there is something in European genetic makeup that prevents them from doing the smart thing, or feeling fear.
not for not feelign fear, but more along the line sof making bold, ill thought and irrational choices. seems they bred out that part by sending all of those types to America however. ;)

Are you an Europhile? Maybe that might form an understanding of why there is this bias or reluctance to see that the Mongols actually won 2 battles in Eastern Europe, and basing on what "could" have happened in the ensuing 8 month period, declared that actually Poland/Hungary won the war with the Mongols.
most certinally a europhile, and damned proud of the fact; while its easy to see that the Mongols won thier fair share of battles, you, liek so many other refuse to see that the second the mongols step off the north european plain, si the second they enter a whole new ballgame, the game fo logistics somthign they didnt really have to worry about out on the steppe

*edit*
Just something interesting.Middle Europe changed hands through different lords so fast, that it is hard to see, how these "fortifications" can actually work. I mean logically if the fortifications work, the area would be so stable. I mean, why in the world did the hundred year war take place if neither france nor England could take a single castle (refer to map that is widely available of how much land changed hands between the two)? Quite clearly, either the Europeans had some sort of super siege weaponry that allowed the defenders to be expelled from the castles at will, or the castles aren't as strong as they are made out to be.
you miss the point entierlly; 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; but this smahing will TAKE TIME< AND RESOURCES to acomplish, and I dont care who you are a long distnace war of attrition is always unwinnable.
 
About the European "castle saturation":

The Mongol's problem would have been to find a bit of common political ground with the Europeans.
If that could be done &#8212; say a timely conversion to western Christianity (some Mongols were christians of sorts anyway) &#8212; in which case they might get massive amounts of garrisons subjecting themselves to the Mongols in order to avoid being besieged. (But likely to betray the Mongols as soon as they were out of sight.)
This was by far the most common way large tracts of land changed hands between European kings. Castles often just surrenderd to last the guy to turn up with an army. Once he was gone, they went back to their original lord. But that only applied between Christian princes.

Now if the Mongols failed to play this game, they might have to invest every damn fortification one at a time. And they better do it properly, since it was quite common for beseiged garrisons in a hopless position to just sneak away (lots of prepared routes for such eventualities) and pop up in another of the absurd amount of castles dotting the landscape in France, Italy and Germany.
It's not just Tuscany. On damn near every spot with a crossroads and a bit of elevated ground you got a fortification

European wars were like that. During a long life a knight would likely fight one or two battles but take part in hundreds of seiges, just as an army might fight a battle in the field for 100 sieges.
 
Top Bottom