Mongolian conquests (split from Civ4 Stories thread)

[W|M]

There was only ONE big battle? So the sieges of Buda, Peca and a few other major cities don't count as battles? When you capital gets burned to the ground, it generally means you lost a battle...

tlk was talking about field battles, and sieges are not generally considered to be battles. They're sieges.

However your forgetting a fact, if Ogedei never died, the hordes never would have split, so we would have an adaptable Mongolian empire already controlling most of Asia and now trying to get into Europe, and succeeding before the death of the Khan.

Ogodei wasn't immortal, nor was he stupid.

However now Imagine that the Golden Horde owned all of Asia except Siam, India and Southern China. With no instability problems (As they all started after Ogies death) they could field a massive army within months, and army better trained and larger then all of Europe's combined. Now imagine that army tried to invade Europe. Mongolians, who had better tactics, better training and more numbers would win for sure. The victory would come slowly, but until Ogedei's death, I can't image anything stopping the Horde from conquering Germany and Italy.

One big battle which happened to be a great Mongol victory does not constitute better tactics. The Euros would eventually figure out how to beat the Mongols, especially with so many fortresses and cities in the way, not to mention countless natural barriers such as the Alps.

Was Hungary part of the NGC? (I actually don't know)
Were they the most powerful member of the HRE (YES!)

Why would Hungary be part of a Confederation made specifically up of German states?

Anyway, assuming you are correct about Hungary being the most powerful nation in the HRE, that still doesn't change the fact that the Mongols would have to capture countless different fortresses and cities to conquer any sizeable part of Europe.

 

[North King]

However now Imagine that the Golden Horde owned all of Asia except Siam, India and Southern China. With no instability problems (As they all started after Ogies death) they could field a massive army within months, and army better trained and larger then all of Europe's combined. Now imagine that army tried to invade Europe. Mongolians, who had better tactics, better training and more numbers would win for sure. The victory would come slowly, but until Ogedei's death, I can't image anything stopping the Horde from conquering Germany and Italy.

Okay, imagined.

Now, how are Mongol armies in China going to get to Germany?

...

...

Yeah, just because you have contiguous land borders doesn't mean it's a cinch to get soldiers from all over your empire and send them into one of your most peripheral regions. How are you going to supply that army? How are you going to keep it together?

etc.

There are good arguments to say the Mongols had a chance to make a serious dent in Europe. Saying "they could raise an army of a million!" is not one of them.

 

[ilduce349]

tlk was talking about field battles, and sieges are not generally considered to be battles. They're sieges.

Then why the Hungarians would allow there 4 largest cities to be destroyed by the Mongols?
Then answer: there armies were annihilated. Also according to my history textbook there were three large battles and many minor skirmishes.

Ogodei wasn't immortal, nor was he stupid.

I never said he was, but he died at the age of 55, while his brothers lived till they were 70. Had he lived for another 15 years he could have destroyed the HRE

One big battle which happened to be a great Mongol victory does not constitute better tactics. The Euros would eventually figure out how to beat the Mongols, especially with so many fortresses and cities in the way, not to mention countless natural barriers such as the Alps.

Just like the Chinese were able to figure out how to beat the Mongols.
Just like the Khwarezmian were able to figure out how to beat the Mongols.
Just like the Russians were able to figure out how to beat the Mongols.

Given that for the last 40 years, Mongolia had annexed quite a few nations to become the largest continental empire of all time (and only just smaller then the British Empire), and nobody before Hungary was able to contemplate let alone counter Mongolian tactics, why would the Hungarians be able to do so so quickly?

Why would Hungary be part of a Confederation made specifically up of German states?

Other then the fact that the largest ethnic group in the Hungarian Empire at the time was German...

Anyway, assuming you are correct about Hungary being the most powerful nation in the HRE, that still doesn't change the fact that the Mongols would have to capture countless different fortresses and cities to conquer any sizeable part of Europe.

In the first 5 years of Mongolia's invasion of China 88 Chinese (walled) cities and forts were burned to the ground. And in the first year of their invasion of Hungary, 3 of the largest (again walled) cities were burned to the ground (not sure of the # of forts). The speed in which the Mongols were able to siege cities was impressive, so once they got past the main armies in Hungary (which they did), they were home free.

Okay, imagined.

Now, how are Mongol armies in China going to get to Germany?

May I ask why they would be in China? Mongolia generally had no city garrisons, as they believed that the best defense was a good offense, they also didn't need to worry about results due to the fear factor. They would have most of their forces just behind the front lines and were place them were they were needed. Given that they weren't at war with anyone in Asia, they would either be in the Middle East or Europe...

Yeah, just because you have contiguous land borders doesn't mean it's a cinch to get soldiers from all over your empire and send them into one of your most peripheral regions. How are you going to supply that army? How are you going to keep it together?

The Mongols were very good at supplying armies, and had a very good organization system to determine their numbers and decentralize command to reliable field officers. They were able to supply a camp of 120,000 soldiers during their invasion of Khwarezmian (sources say 100-150, so that is the median)

Why couldn't they do that in Europe, which actually has a more suitable climate for that?

There are good arguments to say the Mongols had a chance to make a serious dent in Europe. Saying "they could raise an army of a million!" is not one of them.

When did I say a million? An army of 200,000 is all they'd need...

 

[North King]

May I ask why they would be in China? Mongolia generally had no city garrisons, as they believed that the best defense was a good offense, they also didn't need to worry about results due to the fear factor. They would have most of their forces just behind the front lines and were place them were they were needed. Given that they weren't at war with anyone in Asia, they would either be in the Middle East or Europe...

Yeah they don't send all their forces to one side of the empire. Nice try, champ. Given that it takes months to get from one side to the other, you're not going to do it.

The Mongols were very good at supplying armies, and had a very good organization system to determine their numbers and decentralize command to reliable field officers. They were able to supply a camp of 120,000 soldiers during their invasion of Khwarezmian (sources say 100-150, so that is the median)

Why couldn't they do that in Europe, which actually has a more suitable climate for that?

Well, for one thing, Khwarezm is a rather nice climate for a horse-borne campaign. Europe is rather less nice, leastaways for sustained action. The Hungarian Plain is as far west as the steppe goes -- hence why the [insert every European steppe tribe] stopped there.

When did I say a million? An army of 200,000 is all they'd need...

Well, if you're talking about their massive population, you're heavily implying that they're gonna be using a large army. Yea, if you shave it down to 200,000, then a lot of the problems I talked about don't apply as much.

But then you have a whole host of other problems. The way you've been talking you seem to think the whole 200,000 is going to be the cream of the Mongol horde. The actual horsemen, the warriors of the steppe. In which case, 200,000 is a bloody massive portion of their supply of armed men, which they'd be throwing off to the other side of the world. Doesn't make much sense, and still wouldn't be a cakewalk.

 

[sophie]

And I'd just like to point again, that the thought of 200,000 Mongolian cavalry moving through the forests of "Germany" is hilarious. Where are they going to graze their horses again?

 

[ilduce349]

Yeah they don't send all their forces to one side of the empire. Nice try, champ. Given that it takes months to get from one side to the other, you're not going to do it.

They did with Khwarezmian... (which actually did lead to a revolt in Northern China, but that was put back as soon as Genghis returned from the middle east)

Well, for one thing, Khwarezm is a rather nice climate for a horse-borne campaign. Europe is rather less nice, leastaways for sustained action. The Hungarian Plain is as far west as the steppe goes -- hence why the [insert every European steppe tribe] stopped there.

Once again this comes down to adaptability. Mongolia had won many battles against Rus. Which is also a Forest, granted that campaign only had 10,000 soldiers.

Well, if you're talking about their massive population, you're heavily implying that they're gonna be using a large army. Yea, if you shave it down to 200,000, then a lot of the problems I talked about don't apply as much.

200,000 is a massive army. I'd like you to name the list of countries of the day that had an army of that many fielded. It would probably be this:
Jin- annexed by Mongolia
Khwarezm- annexed by Mongolia
Hungary- lost most of their army to Mongolia
Song- at the time yes, but soon to be annexed by Mongolia (in like 20-30 years)
Mongolia- Duh!
maybe France and England, but probably not.

Right then and there you see that I wouldn't be surprised if Mongolia had an army almost as large as the rest of the world combined.

But then you have a whole host of other problems. The way you've been talking you seem to think the whole 200,000 is going to be the cream of the Mongol horde. The actual horsemen, the warriors of the steppe. In which case, 200,000 is a bloody massive portion of their supply of armed men, which they'd be throwing off to the other side of the world. Doesn't make much sense, and still wouldn't be a cakewalk.

Adaptability was a Mongol specialty. And Tsubodai proved against Russia, Horses aren't 100% obsolete in Forrest.

And I'd just like to point again, that the thought of 200,000 Mongolian cavalry moving through the forests of "Germany" is hilarious. Where are they going to graze their horses again?

Thats right, they ONLY had horses. They had no archers, no pikemen, no swordsman...

there were some campaigns were the Mongols didn't use horses, and they would do it again...

 

[W|M]

200 000 man army in France or England in the 13th Century?

The Mongol army was mainly made up of cavalry.

 

[ilduce349]

as in the total size of their army...

 

[sophie]

as in the total size of their army...

Yeah, England and France weren't even putting up numbers like that in 1745, let alone in the 13th century.

 

[Dachs]

Thats right, they ONLY had horses. They had no archers, no pikemen, no swordsman...

there were some campaigns were the Mongols didn't use horses, and they would do it again...

Thus erasing all of their alleged tactical and operational advantages. We done here?

 

[W|M]

2x X-Post.

In the 13th Century, France and England had NO permanent standing army and when they recruited an army, it was never anywhere near 200 000, considering the population at the time, and the proportion of people who fought in the army.

 

[ilduce349]

Yeah, England and France weren't even putting up numbers like that in 1745, let alone in the 13th century.

Oh yes they were, at least they were post 7 years war.

edit: 2x xpost.

Thus erasing all of their alleged tactical and operational advantages. We done here?

But they would still have the numbers, and sieging a city, which they were pros at, requires no cavalry, and that was what the bulk of the Mongol army was trained for. So it wasn't erasing their tactical and operational advantages.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, England and France weren't even putting up numbers like that in 1745, let alone in the 13th century.

Uh, never read about the armies of Louis XIV? Admittedly, those are theoretical bureaucratic figures, not campaign figures, but they far outstrip 200k at any rate.

Regardless, yes, the French couldn't get that many men together in the thirteenth century.

 

[W|M]

X-Post.

Although there WERE 200 000 man armies in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars, no way was there that amount of soldiers in France or England half a millenium before.

 

[ilduce349]

For some strange reason I thought the hundred years was was in the 13th century, I appoligize, I am rather tired right now.

 

[Dachs]

X-Post.

Although there WERE 200 000 man armies in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars, no way was there that amount of soldiers in France or England half a century before.

There were armies of that size a century before. Helluva crosspost.

But they would still have the numbers, and sieging a city, which they were pros at, requires no cavalry, and that was what the bulk of the Mongol army was trained for. So it wasn't erasing their tactical and operational advantages.

But they didn't have advantages in those areas over European states. Besides, if they're not using horses, they can't project that power all the way to Europe anyway.

 

[W|M]

X-Post again...

@ilduce: What has that got to do with anything?

 

[ilduce349]

I am going to leave for a bit, as I am tired of all the x-posts

 

[Dachs]

Delete me.

 

[W|M]

@Dachs, I made a mistake, I was meaning to say half a millenium before.