The Mongols could have conquered Europe?

[Mouthwash]

Please give me detailed explanations of how they could have beaten the castles, gone without supply lines (horse blood can't last forever), stopped the Europeans from uniting under Christianity to fight the "Tartars" (sounded like Tartarus- hell), taken Venice, gone on after the Po River valley (where they should have been trapped), defeated the Holy Roman Empire, and finished off the rest of Europe. Until then I refuse to believe that they could have done so, especially since they would have killed their own horses by the command of the Pope.

I need details though.

[Owen Glyndwr]

Uhhhhhhhhh...what?

[bombshoo]

There was actually an exceptionally long thread on this a while back. For some reason this particular question gets brought up multiple times per year.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110109

[Mouthwash]

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

Uhhhhhhhhh...what?

Everything I have stated has been used in arguments before. The Po river valley is below the Alps in Italy, and the Italian states, the HRE, and France could have trapped them in there.

I want to know if the Europeans would have united under Christianity (like in the Crusades) to fight the Mongols, whom they called "Tartars," sounding like Tartarus, the Latin word for hell.

I also want to know about the situation in Europe, if the Mongols could have survived had the Europeans cut off supply lines, how much chance they would stand against European castles, and the state of the Holy Roman Empire (which is very important as it would have been their biggest obstacle).

I heard that given the religious fanaticism of the day, the farmers might have killed their horses rather than let the Mongols have them.

Sorry for not making my initial post clear.

[Phrossack]

The Mongols invaded southern China. Mind you, that's NOT horse country. It's very mountainous, humid, and covered in rivers and rice paddies. Furthermore, the Song had large and well-armed professional armies and advanced technology, large portions of their troops being armed with crossbows, and which were experienced in fighting cavalry armies. Their navy controlled the rivers and could prevent crossings as well as resupply, deploy, and evacuate troops.

The city of Xiangyang was a strong fortess with five-foot-thick walls, and was close to the fortress of Fancheng. The two fortresses could resupply and defend one another by means of the river. Each had enough supplies to last years, and again, they could get resupplied anyway. Each had large garrisons of infantry. The Mongols besieged them, but they held out. The siege dragged on for five years until the Mongols acquired counterweight trebuchets. They then pounded Fancheng into submission and got the governor of Xiangyang to surrender by promising him control of Fancheng as well.

I don't know if the HRE would be as formidable as you think. It was a pretty loose confederation of princes, bishops, and counts who were at each other's throats as often as by their side. Besides, when the Mongols launched a punitive invasion of Hungary (and Poland), it ended poorly for the Europeans. And, of course, most Russian states fell quickly to the Mongols.

If decades of warfare and a five-year siege of strongholds in hostile terrain against a numerous, powerful, well-equipped, and well-supplied enemy couldn't stop them, and if Europeans had fallen to Mongols before, I'm not sure if Europe would have stopped them had the Mongols hit it as hard as they hit Khwarezm or the Song.

[Owen Glyndwr]

Originally Posted by Mouthwash

Everything I have stated has been used in arguments before. The Po river valley is below the Alps in Italy, and the Italian states, the HRE, and France could have trapped them in there.

I want to know if the Europeans would have united under Christianity (like in the Crusades) to fight the Mongols, whom they called "Tartars," sounding like Tartarus, the Latin word for hell.

I also want to know about the situation in Europe, if the Mongols could have survived had the Europeans cut off supply lines, how much chance they would stand against European castles, and the state of the Holy Roman Empire (which is very important as it would have been their biggest obstacle).

I heard that given the religious fanaticism of the day, the farmers might have killed their horses rather than let the Mongols have them.

Sorry for not making my initial post clear.

I had no problem vis-à-vis the content of your statement. My remark was in response to the overall argument of the post, and, frankly, the impetus for the thread in the first place.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by Mouthwash

...especially since they would have killed their own horses by the command of the Pope.

Could you elaborate on this? I've never encountered whatever it is you're referring to before.

[Masada]

I think he might be talking about the meeting of Leo I and Attila.

Originally Posted by Phrossack

Furthermore, the Song had large and well-armed professional armies and advanced technology, large portions of their troops being armed with crossbows, and which were experienced in fighting cavalry armies.

The Southern Song's performance on the field was awful; the far better explanation for the Song surviving was opportune Mongol civil wars. And when Kublai did turn his undivided attention to the Song the whole thing fell apart in about a decade. That's more a testament to Song weakness than Mongol strength though.

[Joecoolyo]

Originally Posted by Phrossack

The Mongols invaded southern China. Mind you, that's NOT horse country. It's very mountainous, humid, and covered in rivers and rice paddies. Furthermore, the Song had large and well-armed professional armies and advanced technology, large portions of their troops being armed with crossbows, and which were experienced in fighting cavalry armies. Their navy controlled the rivers and could prevent crossings as well as resupply, deploy, and evacuate troops.

The city of Xiangyang was a strong fortess with five-foot-thick walls, and was close to the fortress of Fancheng. The two fortresses could resupply and defend one another by means of the river. Each had enough supplies to last years, and again, they could get resupplied anyway. Each had large garrisons of infantry. The Mongols besieged them, but they held out. The siege dragged on for five years until the Mongols acquired counterweight trebuchets. They then pounded Fancheng into submission and got the governor of Xiangyang to surrender by promising him control of Fancheng as well.

I don't know if the HRE would be as formidable as you think. It was a pretty loose confederation of princes, bishops, and counts who were at each other's throats as often as by their side. Besides, when the Mongols launched a punitive invasion of Hungary (and Poland), it ended poorly for the Europeans. And, of course, most Russian states fell quickly to the Mongols.

If decades of warfare and a five-year siege of strongholds in hostile terrain against a numerous, powerful, well-equipped, and well-supplied enemy couldn't stop them, and if Europeans had fallen to Mongols before, I'm not sure if Europe would have stopped them had the Mongols hit it as hard as they hit Khwarezm or the Song.

I guess the best counter-argument to this is that Song China was not that far from the Mongol base of operations, while Europe was an entire world away. Convincing the Mongol court to send a massive army the likes of which used to finish the Song to conquer Europe would have been a feat in itself.

EDIT: But then again if the hypothetical is that the Mongols have already decided to invade Europe with a Song style invasion army, then I got nothing.

[Masada]

Originally Posted by Joecoolyo

I guess the best counter-argument to this is that Song China was not that far from the Mongol base of operations, while Europe was an entire world away. Convincing the Mongol court to send a massive army the likes of which used to finish the Song to conquer Europe would have been a feat in itself.

It did happen. See: Poland, Hungary. (Granted, it was like two tumen. But even that was a formidable force).

[Joecoolyo]

Originally Posted by Masada

It did happen. See: Poland, Hungary. (Granted, it was like two tumen. But even that was a formidable force).

From what I gather those were less invasions there to conquer and more just giant raiding parties.

[Masada]

That's what most Mongol incursions started as. See, Russia/China/Khwarezm. The trick was figuring out when the raid had done enough damage, that it might be profitable to change over to conquest.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Masada

That's what most Mongol incursions started as. See, Russia/China/Khwarezm. The trick was figuring out when the raid had done enough damage, that it might be profitable to change over to conquest.

Not southern China.

The claim that the conquest of Europe would be in practical terms as difficult as the conquest of China ignores that two entirely different groups of Mongols with entirely different resource bases operated in the two theaters. The Mongols with the resources of northern China and the geopolitical imperatives of northern China could reasonably have planned and executed the conquest of the south, and could reasonably have possessed the opportunity to conquer the south, and they did. The Mongols with the resources of European Russia and their various vassal states there could not have reasonably planned and executed the conquest of Europe, and no reasonable opportunity can realistically have arisen for them to have done so.

I understand the general desire here, to say that the OP was wrong about everything because he went about his point in a generally vapid way. But ignoring the garbage about pan-European resistance, Christianity, the Bishop of Rome, and "supply lines", the basic point is more or less sound: a "Mongol conquest of Europe" was effectively out of the question.

[Masada]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Not southern China.

It was in Northern China

Originally Posted by Dachs

I understand the general desire here, to say that the OP was wrong about everything because he went about his point in a generally vapid way. But ignoring the garbage about pan-European resistance, Christianity, the Bishop of Rome, and "supply lines", the basic point is more or less sound: a "Mongol conquest of Europe" was effectively out of the question.

Guilty as charged.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Masada

It was in Northern China

Which was just being run by other steppe groups at the time, anyway.

[Mouthwash]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Could you elaborate on this? I've never encountered whatever it is you're referring to before.

If the Church could convince the children of the children's crusade that they could take Jerusalem, then they could convince people to kill their horses rather than allow the Mongols to capture them. If the Mongls had all the horses they needed there wouldn't be a need for supply lines.

And the Europeans would have burned their crops as well.

[Yui108]

Originally Posted by Mouthwash

If the Church could convince the children of the children's crusade that they could take Jerusalem, then they could convince people to kill their horses rather than allow the Mongols to capture them. If the Mongls had all the horses they needed there wouldn't be a need for supply lines.

And the Europeans would have burned their crops as well.

The "Church" didn't convince them of that. The Pope tried to stop that actually. Religious fervor isn't like a hose with an on/off switch. Persuading all of Europe to pursue Fabian resistance to the Mongols on Papal prerogative is... tough.

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, it's an entirely different thing to preach sacrifice as opposed to glory and gain.

[Mouthwash]

Originally Posted by Yui108

The "Church" didn't convince them of that. The Pope tried to stop that actually. Religious fervor isn't like a hose with an on/off switch. Persuading all of Europe to pursue Fabian resistance to the Mongols on Papal prerogative is... tough.

Sources please?

[Verbose]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Not southern China.

The claim that the conquest of Europe would be in practical terms as difficult as the conquest of China ignores that two entirely different groups of Mongols with entirely different resource bases operated in the two theaters. The Mongols with the resources of northern China and the geopolitical imperatives of northern China could reasonably have planned and executed the conquest of the south, and could reasonably have possessed the opportunity to conquer the south, and they did. The Mongols with the resources of European Russia and their various vassal states there could not have reasonably planned and executed the conquest of Europe, and no reasonable opportunity can realistically have arisen for them to have done so.

I understand the general desire here, to say that the OP was wrong about everything because he went about his point in a generally vapid way. But ignoring the garbage about pan-European resistance, Christianity, the Bishop of Rome, and "supply lines", the basic point is more or less sound: a "Mongol conquest of Europe" was effectively out of the question.

As I recall last time we did this, I ended up somewhere in the vicinity of thinking that, sure the Mongols could possibly have conquered western Europe, on the condition that they had adapted and intregrated themselves into European society, and into how European politics were played at the time, with some mutual adaptation. Which I believe is not that far off from how they did it in China? If the Mongols sizeing Europe up for a fit convert to Christianity in the process maybe we might have a different ball-game...?