Single most important battle in History?

[aryann]

Salamis for the ancient world and the battle of Moscow (WW2,) for the modern world. A battle that almost happened was also key, the battle for Vienna against the Mongols; it may have marked the beginning of more conquests of Europe or the end of European conquests by the Mongols.

Does anyone know the Mongol population around 1200-1300AD? The killed 30-60 million people and they have like 6 million right now, so how many did they used to have?

 

[BCLG100]

Salamis for the ancient world and the battle of Moscow (WW2,) for the modern world. A battle that almost happened was also key, the battle for Vienna against the Mongols; it may have marked the beginning of more conquests of Europe or the end of European conquests by the Mongols.

Does anyone know the Mongol population around 1200-1300AD? The killed 30-60 million people and they have like 6 million right now, so how many did they used to have?

Like actually born and bred Mongols? less than that by a lot. They conquered by initially subduing a country and then using the men from that country to conquer elsewhere, e.g. China was conquered by the Chinese really.

I dont think they could have got much further as the 'Mongol Empire', they were really reaching the end of their operational limits, perhaps they had a greater chance when they split into factions but even then its questionable.

 

[Tee Kay]

Like actually born and bred Mongols? less than that by a lot. They conquered by initially subduing a country and then using the men from that country to conquer elsewhere, e.g. China was conquered by the Chinese really.

I dont think they could have got much further as the 'Mongol Empire', they were really reaching the end of their operational limits, perhaps they had a greater chance when they split into factions but even then its questionable.

If the Mongols ever invaded Europe, they will find that their tactics will not work so well in the wet, forested regions.

They will probably prevail over Europe, but with difficulty. Most states will probably just become vassals rather than annexed out right. European civilisation will suffer a set back, but it won't be destroyed. History would nevertheless turn out rather differently of course. Perhaps a Mongol lord might set himself up in Europe, convert to Christianity and break away from the Great Khan to set up his own empire, one that, for a while at least, united most of continental Europe under his rule. Now that would be an interesting scenario.

To answer aryann, the Mongol Empire at its height (in the 1270s - 1280s) ruled around 100 million people. It's important to note though that at this stage the western Khanates are starting to breaking away from central control, paying only lip service to Kublai in Khanbaliq

 

[BCLG100]

If the Mongols ever invaded Europe, they will find that their tactics will not work so well in the wet, forested regions.

They will probably prevail over Europe, but with difficulty. Most states will probably just become vassals rather than annexed out right. European civilisation will suffer a set back, but it won't be destroyed. History would nevertheless turn out rather differently of course. Perhaps a Mongol lord might set himself up in Europe, convert to Christianity and break away from the Great Khan to set up his own empire, one that, for a while at least, united most of continental Europe under his rule. Now that would be an interesting scenario.

To answer aryann, the Mongol Empire at its height (in the 1270s - 1280s) ruled around 100 million people. It's important to note though that at this stage the western Khanates are starting to breaking away from central control, paying only lip service to Kublai in Khanbaliq

That reason of why they would have run into trouble is wrong imo, they had more than enough water being poured down on them when they were invading Russia.

 

[Tee Kay]

That reason of why they would have run into trouble is wrong imo, they had more than enough water being poured down on them when they were invading Russia.

The terrain is different however. Russia is mostly plains, Europe is forested, which can be tough for Mongol horsemen. Although, the Mongols have shown that they're able to fight in various terrains (eg mountains). Nevertheless they did ran into some trouble when trying to invade south China, and later the rainforests of South East Asia.

Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but western Europe is wetter than Russia, and IIRC wet climates make Mongol bows less effectively.

 

[BCLG100]

The terrain is different however. Russia is mostly plains, Europe is forested, which can be tough for Mongol horsemen. Although, the Mongols have shown that they're able to fight in various terrains (eg mountains). Nevertheless they did ran into some trouble when trying to invade south China, and later the rainforests of South East Asia.

Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but western Europe is wetter than Russia, and IIRC wet climates make Mongol bows less effectively.

Oh i agree that the water would hinder all bows, just i do think that one difference in climate would not have really been able to halt the mongols. Also im not sure if the forests would have made that much difference- how often do you hear of a battle happening in a forest? It must have just come down to being beyond their operational limits/not such a huge desire to press forward anymore.

 

[Dachs]

They will probably prevail over Europe, but with difficulty.

Screw climate, and look at the people they would be fighting. England and its vast holdings in France would be a huge enemy, not because of England's inherent resources (of which there are relatively few at this juncture) but because of their style of war. By the time the Mongols would get into far western Europe they would be running into the English longbowmen (adopted from the Welsh) at the beginning of their introduction. Edward Longshanks would be a freaking genius. The crummy, broken terrain of Western Europe favors a tactical defensive, at which the longbowmen were perfect...Agincourt 1275 anyone? Besides, while the Mongols did have success against similar terrain (southern China's Sung Empire) that was much closer to their heartland and lines of supply. It would be difficult at best to fight and win against numerically superior enemies with tactical and geographical superiority on the other side of the Eurasian supercontinent for anyone, especially the Mongols. So no, I can't see a "prevailing over Europe" for the Mongols by any stretch; if they want to take it and hold it, it will become a black hole of death and a waste of men and material to hold.

Side effect for alternate history geeks: increase in power of the far western Powers of England, Castile, and Aragon; they may become more enmeshed in Continental affairs (for example, it wouldn't be as difficult for England to subjugate France by military means after a Mongol invasion, especially with Eleanor's head start of half the land in the country) and thus slow naval development; why look for America when you can screw around in Europe instead? An earlier Mongol collapse due to the resource strain in Europe could allow the earlier rise of a maritime Chinese empire along the lines of the early Ming and spur development of East Asian colonialism as opposed to that of Europe. Granted, by 1500 or so this will definitely begin to go away on both parts, as England just doesn't have the population to hold France and Castile doesn't care about the Mediterranean, while East Asia really isn't built for colonialism; however, this head start could hurt Europe in the long run.

Just some unconnected musing, not really associated with anything in particular.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh i agree that the water would hinder all bows, just i do think that one difference in climate would not have really been able to halt the mongols. Also im not sure if the forests would have made that much difference- how often do you hear of a battle happening in a forest? It must have just come down to being beyond their operational limits/not such a huge desire to press forward anymore.

The reason the Mongols were halted in Vietnam was because of forests. Jungles, to be precise. The Vietnamese engaged in hit-an-run attacks and guerilla warfare, striking from the jungles and retreating jsut as fast, before they could get organized. They never fought the Mongols in open, on even terms, and because of this, the Mongols never got far into Vietnam.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the forests of Western Europe would have proved a serious hinderance to further Mongol expansion.

Another example we might look at is the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) in 732. The Frankish force was severely outnumbered, and posessed no cavalry, but because of their easily defended spot on a wooded hillside, they were able to resist successive assaults by the primarily mounted Arab army. A mixture of height, which slowed the charge of the horses, and the trees, which broke up their formations combined to effectively stifle the tremendous advantage that the cavalry force would've had over infantry had they engaged on level or open terrain.

Given the hilly, wooded nature of Western Europe, it would be quite possible to stage such an event anywhere from Germany to France, Italy, or Austria.

Another thing to take into account is rivers, which can seriously hinder the mobility of an armed force. In the steppes, there are rivers every few hundred miles; between Paris and Berlin, I can count at least seven, a distance of maybe 500 miles.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

As mentioned by others here, I think some people really underestimate how hard it is to conquer Europe in general. The Romans mostly succeeded (and there were still large portions of the continent that they didn't get), but that is it in the entire history of mankind. The Huns failed, Justinian failed, the Muslims failed, the Mongols failed, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed... It is a ridiculously tough nut to crack and I feel that is assuming too much that even if the outcome of a single battle was reversed that all of Europe would crumble.

As for this thread, I think it might be interesting to find out what the posters here think is the most important battle in their own country's history in addition to simply world history. For Canada, I would have to go with the Battle of the Plains of Abraham which although it came over a hundred years before Confederation did more to shape Canada than any other conflict, and is famous these days for being referred to in the opening verse of "Maple Leaf Forever". 250 years later and there is still a large Quebec population that is quite resentful over the outcome.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As mentioned by others here, I think some people really underestimate how hard it is to conquer Europe in general. The Romans mostly succeeded (and there were still large portions of the continent that they didn't get), but that is it in the entire history of mankind. The Huns failed, Justinian failed, the Muslims failed, the Mongols failed, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed... It is a ridiculously tough nut to crack and I feel that is assuming too much that even if the outcome of a single battle was reversed that all of Europe would crumble.

There are some cases where I think a good part of Europe would have been changed considerably were the outcome of a battle reversed. Operation Mars immediately comes to mind, followed closely by Stalingrad. Had the Germans emerged victorious out of the Rzhev Meat Grinder, Russia would have surely fallen to at least the Urals. Another example would be the Second Ardennes Offensive (Operation Wacht am Rhein).

As for this thread, I think it might be interesting to find out what the posters here think is the most important battle in their own country's history in addition to simply world history. For Canada, I would have to go with the Battle of the Plains of Abraham which although it came over a hundred years before Confederation did more to shape Canada than any other conflict, and is famous these days for being referred to in the opening verse of "Maple Leaf Forever". 250 years later and there is still a large Quebec population that is quite resentful over the outcome.

Feel free to start a new thread! I would surely post in it.

 

[MilesGregarius]

Screw climate, and look at the people they would be fighting. England and its vast holdings in France would be a huge enemy, not because of England's inherent resources (of which there are relatively few at this juncture) but because of their style of war. By the time the Mongols would get into far western Europe they would be running into the English longbowmen (adopted from the Welsh) at the beginning of their introduction. Edward Longshanks would be a freaking genius. The crummy, broken terrain of Western Europe favors a tactical defensive, at which the longbowmen were perfect...Agincourt 1275 anyone?

At this point in history the English hadn't adopted the longbow as their main weapon yet. They still fought in the same style - heavy mounted knights supported by crap infantry - as their continental cousins. We all know how well that worked out for the Hungarians at Mohi and the Poles and Germans at Liegnitz. Besides, Longshanks was briefly allied with the Mongols against the Mamluks in 1271.

As for terrain, significant portions of Europe aren't that heavily forested. Nothing along the North German Plain, through the Low Countries, across France to the Pyrenees, and into the Iberian Peninsula would have posed a serious obstacle to standard Mongol tactics. Neither would a drive into the Po Valley towards the rich Italian city-states have been much different from what they were familiar with.

That said, I doubt that the Mongols would have bothered, even had Ögedei's death not recalled the leadership to choose a new Great Khan. Europe at this point was an economic backwater. Large-scale raiding for fun and profit may have gone deeper into Europe, but the manpower needed for conquest would have been reserved for China, India, and the Middle East where the rewards were much greater.

Once Ögedei did die, their was no chance that the Mongols would have proceeded farther west. They had bigger fish to fry, such as taking real prizes like Baghdad, and were too busy fighting each other (i.e., the Golden Horde-Ilkhanate War). The Hungarians under Bela IV had started fortifying their lands so that a simple raiding party of one or two tumen (10,000 horsmen) couldn't waltz through without a significant siege train. And the initial generation of genius Mongol conquerors had given way to the "merely" solidly competent.

 

[MilesGregarius]

As mentioned by others here, I think some people really underestimate how hard it is to conquer Europe in general. The Romans mostly succeeded (and there were still large portions of the continent that they didn't get), but that is it in the entire history of mankind. The Huns failed, Justinian failed, the Muslims failed, the Mongols failed, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed... It is a ridiculously tough nut to crack and I feel that is assuming too much that even if the outcome of a single battle was reversed that all of Europe would crumble.

I think you're overstating your case here. The Mongols never actually tried to conquer Europe. Mohi and Liegnitz were essentially just large-scale raids. Had Ögedei not died when he did, they might have tried, but no one will ever be able to say whether they could have driven to the Atlantic or not.

As for Napoleon, he did in fact hold all of continental Europe at one point. He just couldn't hold it. As densely populated and as fractious a place as Europe will always be harder to hold than to conquer, not that that's easily done.

 

[aronnax]

Although the mongols were stopped in the thick Vietnamese Rainforest, Theres a difference bewteen thick Vietnamese Rainforest and forest of Europe.

A rainforest was really thick, really tall and really confusing. It was like a fog, you cant see anything but green for more than 50metres.

But a temperate forest is more "open". It was easier to maneover with horses.

Also the rainforest brought a second question, disease.

Climate would not be a factor as the Mongols were the only force on the planet to sucessfully invade Russia during Winter.

The Mongols would have crossed flat Poland and into North Germany. They would have easily entered France through the LOW Lands of Benelux. And if they cross the mountains sucessfully, Spains terrain is similar to that of Iran or Turkey.

Mongols would have crossed the very flat Poland

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Although the mongols were stopped in the thick Vietnamese Rainforest, Theres a difference bewteen thick Vietnamese Rainforest and forest of Europe.

A rainforest was really thick, really tall and really confusing. It was like a fog, you cant see anything but green for more than 50metres.

But a temperate forest is more "open". It was easier to maneover with horses.

Forests still break up cavalry formations, and allow hit and run tactics.

Also the rainforest brought a second question, disease.

Very true, but I don't know the effect that disease had on the Vietnamese campaign.

Climate would not be a factor as the Mongols were the only force on the planet to sucessfully invade Russia during Winter.

Nonsense. Russia fell so easily because it was unorganized and weak. At that point it was a small principality around Moscow and Novgorod. A good snowstorm or a cold hard winter can ruin and campaign, if there is a force worth a damn to take advantage of it.

The Mongols would have crossed flat Poland and into North Germany. They would have easily entered France through the LOW Lands of Benelux. And if they cross the mountains sucessfully, Spains terrain is similar to that of Iran or Turkey.

Ah, but to take that path, you have to know that it exists. They don't have Schieffen to look to for answers.

Keep in mind that, in the 13th Century, there were a great many more forests in Europe than there are today.

They could have just as easily tried to enter Austria and had the snot beat out of them. Hell, there are plenty of hills and what not in Northern Germany and NE France.

Mongols would have crossed the very flat Poland

And they did. I'm talking about France, Germany, Italy, and Austria.

 

[privatehudson]

As for Napoleon, he did in fact hold all of continental Europe at one point. He just couldn't hold it. As densely populated and as fractious a place as Europe will always be harder to hold than to conquer, not that that's easily done.

Assuming you mean mainland europe the claim is wrong since the mainland includes places like the Balkans (under Ottoman control), the Austrian Empire, Portugal, the Scandanavian countries and those parts of the Russian empire in europe. Even allowing for the fact that some of these countries were at times allied to Napoleon's empire or temporarily occupied by it still doesn't mean he controlled the entire mainland in any meaningful sense.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think you're overstating your case here. The Mongols never actually tried to conquer Europe. Mohi and Liegnitz were essentially just large-scale raids. Had Ögedei not died when he did, they might have tried, but no one will ever be able to say whether they could have driven to the Atlantic or not.

No, we don't know whether they could have or not. I said it was difficult not impossible. Unfortunately many people seem to think it would have been inevitable, where in reality even had the Mongols succeeded it would have likely been the hardest campaign that they ever fought.

As for Napoleon, he did in fact hold all of continental Europe at one point. He just couldn't hold it. As densely populated and as fractious a place as Europe will always be harder to hold than to conquer, not that that's easily done.

That's what I meant. Napoleon failed in that he couldn't hold it and his vassals together for more than a few months at a time, and even then he never had the whole thing. When I say Rome was the only empire to have conquered the majority of Europe, I mean that they were the only ones to successfully capture and hold those territories for any significant length of time.

 

[Archbob]

As mentioned by others here, I think some people really underestimate how hard it is to conquer Europe in general.

Nonsense, I conquered it in 4 turns once.

 

[Dachs]

At this point in history the English hadn't adopted the longbow as their main weapon yet.

Nope. While versions of longbows were being used by the Welsh and English as far back as the third millennium BC, the English did adopt the longbow via Welsh mercenaries due to the Norman pacification of Wales over the two hundred years between the Norman Conquest and the reign of Longshanks. Longbowmen won the Battle of the Standard for the English in 1138, and Ed I had longbowmen with him when he trounced Wallace and the Scots at Falkirk in 1298.

Besides, Longshanks was briefly allied with the Mongols against the Mamluks in 1271.

This is irrelevant if the Mongols are invading English territory in Western Europe...

As for terrain, significant portions of Europe aren't that heavily forested. Nothing along the North German Plain, through the Low Countries, across France to the Pyrenees, and into the Iberian Peninsula would have posed a serious obstacle to standard Mongol tactics.

Not so; most of Europe was forested at this time, during the great clearing of Europe's forests. The situation really hadn't changed much in the 1,300 years since Julius Caesar's Romans characterized Gaul as a land of deep, dark, dank forests in which partisans could hide where war was hell and almost nothing was like fighting on the plains of Numidia or the mountains of Italy and Greece. Europe's forests were not really begun to be cleared until this period, and much of France, Germany, and the Low Countries (except the coastal regions, natch) were forested.

That said, I doubt that the Mongols would have bothered, even had Ögedei's death not recalled the leadership to choose a new Great Khan. Europe at this point was an economic backwater. Large-scale raiding for fun and profit may have gone deeper into Europe, but the manpower needed for conquest would have been reserved for China, India, and the Middle East where the rewards were much greater.

Once Ögedei did die, their was no chance that the Mongols would have proceeded farther west. They had bigger fish to fry, such as taking real prizes like Baghdad, and were too busy fighting each other (i.e., the Golden Horde-Ilkhanate War). The Hungarians under Bela IV had started fortifying their lands so that a simple raiding party of one or two tumen (10,000 horsmen) couldn't waltz through without a significant siege train. And the initial generation of genius Mongol conquerors had given way to the "merely" solidly competent.

Why did the Mongols bother with Russia and Vietnam, then? Europe in the thirteenth century wasn't particularly poor; the Sung may have been richer, and Khwarezm was probably much richer, and Baghdad probably still had some money left despite the decline of the Abbasids, but there was definitely wealth in the Italian cities, in Iberia, and in the Rhine Valley and the Low Countries (the former of which served as a power base for the Holy Roman Emperors in their incessant struggles with the northern Italian leagues and the Pope; the Hohenstaufens never could have done what they did for so long had all of Germany been an "economic backwater"). As for the inability to conquer Europe later on, I agree, because they couldn't have done it in the first place.

Nonsense, I conquered it in 4 turns once.

Aw definitely!

 

[Tee Kay]

Why did the Mongols bother with Russia and Vietnam, then? Europe in the thirteenth century wasn't particularly poor; the Sung may have been richer, and Khwarezm was probably much richer, and Baghdad probably still had some money left despite the decline of the Abbasids, but there was definitely wealth in the Italian cities, in Iberia, and in the Rhine Valley and the Low Countries (the former of which served as a power base for the Holy Roman Emperors in their incessant struggles with the northern Italian leagues and the Pope; the Hohenstaufens never could have done what they did for so long had all of Germany been an "economic backwater"). As for the inability to conquer Europe later on, I agree, because they couldn't have done it in the first place.

I think the Mongols may have viewed Europe as a potential ally. During the Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe, the Mongols made contact with the Venetians in the Crimea, who gave them information in exchange for the Mongols not pillaging their trade routes. Much later, the Ilkhanate sent an envoy (Rabban Bar Sauma, who had the distinction of being the first person to travel from China to Western Europe) to Europe to negotiate an alliance against the Golden Horde and the Mamluks.

The Mongols were actually quite serious about attacking Europe in the 1230s and 1240s, as their commander Subotai had heard that it was a rich land. When they beat Bela of Hungary, they sent assassins to hunt him down, like they did with the Shah of Khwarizm. But then Ogodei Khan died, and the invasion force had to withdraw to elect a new khan.

The other Mongol leaders weren't as enthusiastic of conquering Europe as Subotai, not because it was an "economic backwater" as such, but probably more because it was too far from home. Remember, Sung China and much of the Middle East is not yet conquered, so the Mongols might have thought it would be better to deal with threats (and treasures) closer to home first. An additional reason could be that the new Khan, Guyuk, doesn't trust Batu Khan ruling the Golden Horde in the west. He recalled Subutai from Europe and sent him to China. Batu Khan, meanwhile, had no interest in invading Europe as long as he was unsure that his eastern frontier (with Guyuk) will be safe.

By the time of Batu's deaths, the Mongol Empire was seriously fragmented. Kublai Khan only have nominal control over his "Il-Khans" in the west, who began fighting each other. As MilesGregarius said, with the Golden Horde and Il-Khanate busy trying to destroy each other, neither had the time nor resources to launch a serious attack against Europe, and Kublai was crippled by the various campaigns against his neighbours and also by the "tyranny of distance". By the time of his death, the now completely-fragmented Mongol Empire had effectively ceased to be a serious threat to Europe.

Had Subotai had more time back in 1241, when his forces are at the gates of Vienna, central Europe might've well fallen to the Mongols. Europe at the time was anything but united. The Mongols have already shown that it can easily annihilate apparantly well-armed, well-organised European armies, at Legnica and again at Mohi. The failure to conquer Europe after the 1240s was not because of military inferiority, nor because Europe was an "economic backwater" (although at the time China and the Muslim world were indeed much richer and technologically advanced), but because, as you said, the Mongols never got the chance. Their empire had grown too large, and fragmentation was inevitable. Even if Subotai had conquered Europe, Mongol Europe would've broken away from central control soon after. In the end, for all the glorious conquests, the Mongol Empire in the end proved unsustainable and it went the way of Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire, to be carved up and fought over by competing lords, generals and governors.

 

[Swedishguy]

Seeds sown.

If Rex Chance didn't win, Upton Julius would have armies of cloned humans and supremacy over the world.