Sullla said:
thier was extensive discussion fo thsi exact topic soem time ago in the history sub forum of thsi website, and the over all conclusion puts the traditional assumption that the Mongols woudl have bowled over western europe on its head
1)unlike the rest of the world, Western europe had a highlly militarized society; in the area od Tuscany, thier are several Hundred Castles; this may not seem important at firs,t but bear in mind, the majority of western europe was similerlly fortified
2)fortifacatiosn are important because even in relitivlly empty eastern euopre, devoid compared to the west of any major fortifacations, it took the mongols months to Subdue a handful of Polish castles, from which reisistence to the Mongols was lead from; unlike the fortresses of the far east, which were centerd on towns, and towns being in area convient for large scale congragations of people (and armies), and ar easilly traveld to, and ironically, broken off fromt he rest of the world, castles were pure military installations, chosen exclusivlly for both thier strategic placement to command the surroundign countryside, and to be the maximum defensive strong point in that area
3)these two factors are quite important; if the mongols had ever launched a campaign agianst western europe. in a fashion similer to the resistence agianst the Turks, one could expect co-operations amoungst the powers to defeat them; however, more pressinglly, any attack on western europe woudl have to go agianst Hundreds of castles in the region, and all of them woudl have to be subdued why dop they have to be subdued? if they arnt, it leads handilly to the mongolians being massivlly outflanked, and more pressinglly, thier supply and re-inforcment routes being totally cut off; niether of which can occure for a successful military campaign to be conducted, and using the conquest of poland as an example, its takes a huge amount of time, effort, blood, sweat and tears ot subdue even a handful of them, spread over broad areas, and this is only in empty eastern europe; westner europe by contrast, is highlly militarized, filled with defensive positions where ever a lord happend to occupy an area; and considerign thatt all of europe was divdid into fuedal kingdoms (wit the notable exception of Venice, and a few other Italian republics, all of which still contained castles for thier strategic purposes anyway) this meant westenr euopre in its enititry; thiers no way the Mongols could have won; thier power base was simply to far away to get reinforcments in a timelly manner, the conquests in europe, unlike many areas, were actvilly unstable, and the simple fact that the hard conquest of eastenr european foprtresses woudl increse 10 fold in number, and in difficulty, as each castle was of a different design, thier were so many europeans coudl use as strategic strong holds, and reserves, and to top it off, western europe had a far better infastructure inwhich to finance wars, and thier basic supply was of a better quality then that in whgich eastern europe could muster.
thiers no way the mongols coudl have sacked all, most, or a goo dportian of westnern europe; its likelly thier nose woudl be too bloody to contiue after trying to lay siege to Germany and austria, and if not turned back thier, the even more fortified areas of Northern Italy and France certinally would
