The Mongols could have conquered Europe?

[sophie]

Those things could have happened if variables in factors in each scenario was different, but they weren't.

Yes, if you change this and change that about the circumstances, then yes, perhaps the Mongols could have invaded Europe.

But they didn't. The Mongol empire collapsed anyway,

Historical determinism. How unimaginative.

 

[Lord Baal]

Those things could have happened if variables in factors in each scenario was different, but they weren't.

Yes, if you change this and change that about the circumstances, then yes, perhaps the Mongols could have invaded Europe.

But they didn't. The Mongol empire collapsed anyway,

But your argument isn't that contingent events prevented a Mongol conquest of Europe. It was that "if they could have done it, they would have." That is incredibly simplistic, not to mention based on faulty reasoning. The Mongols never really tried to conquer Europe, so it would be like saying that the Russians couldn't have maintained their grip on Eastern Europe in 1989-91. Maybe they could have, but since they made no attempt to, we'll never know.

 

[Winner]

I doubt the mongols could have conquered Europe. I mean mean if they could have, they probably would have.

Not that I disagree- I don't know nearly enough about the topic to judge- but what's your reasoning for that?

There is another thread here where the question of the Mongol invasion of Europe and its theoretical inclusion into the Mongol Empire was thoroughly discussed. If I remember correctly, there was one guy there who totally thrashed the "unbeatable Mongols spared Europe in the nick of time" meme that's circulating on the internet.

There were different reasons why they didn't do it.
But the question is whether they had technical possibilities to invade Europe - I think most likely yes.
They had all required military technologies, resources and manpower to do it. Their experience of capturing castles and successful defeating of European knights confirm their superior military tactics.
Mongol Empire was definitely a superpower of XIII and part of XIV centuries.

Mongols were like the other steppe nomads, only better organized. Whenever they reached the limits of their logistical support, their progress ground to a halt. They literally *could not* conquer Europe, it was logistically impossible for them to support their huge cavalry armies in the Hungarian plain. Furthermore, the terrain in most of Europe was absolutely not conducive to their way of waging war and Europe's political fragmentation made it impossible to achieve quick gains by defeating a single weak ruler of a centralized kingdom. It was absolutely not feasible for the Mongol "Empire" to send the required amount of troops to Europe and maintain it there for decades, laying siege to thousands upon thousands of well-built and well-defended forts that were ubiquitous in the medieval landscape.

They could have, probably, stage a few more raids in Central Europe and wreak some more havoc, but they'd suffer further losses (much more difficult to replace the elite Mongol cavalry compared to Europe's men-at-arms and levies) and achieve no lasting gains.

Oldschooler's "logic" is of course flawed, but the truth is, after the first "invasion attempt" (I use the term loosely), they never tried to pull that off again. If Europe had been so pathetic and weak and ripe for conquest as some people claim, why wouldn't they? The answer is, they knew they couldn't.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Historical determinism. How unimaginative.

I'm sympathetic to historical determinism to an extent, but I think you can only do this in the very big picture. The exact extent of the Mongol conquest is never inevitable and you certainly can't claim that, just because something didn't happen, it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Leoreth]

Mongol Empire was definitely a superpower of XIII and part of XIV centuries.

Ugh, the term superpower is already annoying enough when applied to the 20th century.

 

[Phrossack]

I think the whole "Mongols need pasture" argument is a bit overblown. After all, Southern China was full of mountains, hills, rivers, and rice paddies, as well as fortifications well-garrisoned by professional and well-armed troops with plenty of supplies, as at Xianyang. These are exactly the sorts of things that hampered cavalry armies. This did not stop them. Cavalry was not always the main Mongol element; foreign infantry auxilia could be used in such cases, and were.

Ultimately, the main obstacles were manpower and the will to conquer Europe.

 

[red_elk]

Mongols were like the other steppe nomads, only better organized. Whenever they reached the limits of their logistical support, their progress ground to a halt.

This makes sense. I just don't see why limits of their logistical support must end on the border of Western Europe. Medieval Rus was even worse in terms of logistics, it was also politically fragmented (it was actually a big advantage for invaders, they were able to destroy many defending armies separately). Bad logistics didn't prevent invasion - Mongols simply invaded in winter time, using frozen rivers as roads, robbing supplies from locals.

Fortresses are another thing, but Khwarezm and China also had lots of well fortified cities. By the way, I'm not sure about thousands upon thousands of strong fortresses in Europe, in mid XIII century. Middle-Asian states were probably even more serious opponent from this point of view.

They could have, probably, stage a few more raids in Central Europe and wreak some more havoc, but they'd suffer further losses (much more difficult to replace the elite Mongol cavalry compared to Europe's men-at-arms and levies) and achieve no lasting gains.

By the time when they reached Europe, elite Mongol cavalry was only a small part of their forces. So-called "Mongol hordes" consisted mostly of Kipchaks, Tatars and other steppe nomads who joined Mongol army. Another thing is that the division which wreaked havok in Poland and Hungary was a small part of their entire army. Majority of forces turned back after taking Kiev, because of some dynastical brawl which was about to start (if I remember correctly).

And about maintaining control of Europe, this is a separate question. Empire of that size apparently could not last long, so here you are probably right. But the question here is whether they could invade Europe and I simply don't see a force which could prevent them from doing that. After they went thousands of kilometers from Pacific coast, territories of modern Germany and France don't seem to be that big obstacle.

Ugh, the term superpower is already annoying enough when applied to the 20th century.

Ok, we can say dominant military force of that time. Well-organized nomads.

 

[Winner]

I think the whole "Mongols need pasture" argument is a bit overblown. After all, Southern China was full of mountains, hills, rivers, and rice paddies, as well as fortifications well-garrisoned by professional and well-armed troops with plenty of supplies, as at Xianyang. These are exactly the sorts of things that hampered cavalry armies. This did not stop them. Cavalry was not always the main Mongol element; foreign infantry auxilia could be used in such cases, and were.

And that's why the conquest of otherwise militarily weak southern China took the Mongols so long to accomplish (and it was only accomplished using the resources and manpower of northern China).

Europe was far more distant from the "core" of the Mongol power, far less centralized, and far more militarized. That's why the Mongols never stood a realistic chance of conquering it, much less holding it for any significant period of time. They couldn't even hold to Hungary and parts of Poland, exactly because it was so far from the steppe and the resistance was determined and strong.

Ultimately, the main obstacles were manpower and the will to conquer Europe.

The will was there, the ability was not.

This makes sense. I just don't see why limits of their logistical support must end on the border of Western Europe.

Please, look for the link to the thread I mentioned. This matter is discussed there at length.

Mongols needed the steppe to maintain their horse-based military power. Their "empire" closely follows the general outline of the Eurasian steppe:

 

[Phrossack]

The Song weren't in any way pushovers. I really can't see how a wealthy state with large professional armies, a navy that dominated the waterways, and extensive fortifications qualifies as "militarily weak".

Furthermore, the Qamuq Monggol Ulus never really tried to conquer Europe, nor did the Golden Horde. After tearing through the Hungarians and Poles, they simply left. Hungary was hit for harboring Cumans, and Poland because the Poles might have aided the Hungarians. Conquest was not the objective.

The lack of adequate pasture in Europe, again, would not have prevented conquest; Southern China is at least as hostile to cavalry armies as anything Europe can offer. Travel also required the crossing of rivers, which were defended by a powerful navy that could evacuate, deploy, or resupply troops. There were extensive mountain fortresses guarded by massed crossbowmen and gunners. I really can't see how Europe was somehow stronger than this, or willing to fight for 70 years. The Mongols could have won European allies like they did everywhere else.

 

[Dachs]

The Mongols could have won European allies like they did everywhere else.

From where? Only in China did the Mongols have the ability to easily conquer a large manpower base for the purpose of spamming infantry to overcome this awful terrain. Mongol polities lacked the ability to do the same in India and in Eastern Europe. And, notably, the Mongols lost control of southern China within a century.

I really dislike saying that something could unequivocally not have happened, because I don't have a crystal ball and I don't like people who think they do, but I just don't think that a Mongol polity could have done more than short-term occupation of Eastern European states like Poland and Hungary.

 

[red_elk]

Mongols needed the steppe to maintain their horse-based military power. Their "empire" closely follows the general outline of the Eurasian steppe:

If you look at the maps which you provided, their empire spread in some directions by thousands of kilometers farther than steppe regions, which were indeed the base terrain to maintain their cavalry. Southern China, mountains of contemporary Afghanistan, Caucasus, deserts of Middle and Near East, forests and rivers of Russia. Remote location could have saved Western Europe (and probably did), but assertion that Mongols had no ability to invade it whatsoever, seems pretty weak to me.

 

[Cutlass]

If you look at the maps which you provided, their empire spread in some directions by thousands of kilometers farther than steppe regions, which were indeed the base terrain to maintain their cavalry. Southern China, mountains of contemporary Afghanistan, Caucasus, deserts of Middle and Near East, forests and rivers of Russia. Remote location could have saved Western Europe (and probably did), but assertion that Mongols had no ability to invade it whatsoever, seems pretty weak to me.

It's not so much that they had no ability to invade as that in doing so they leave their primary native strength behind. The Russian forests had very little people to fight. Dachs pointed out that they used Chinese people in China. In India, their gains were limited. Eastern Europe did not have enough people to spam the conquering of Western Europe. And for them to do it themselves meant trying to do so without their primary advantage. Their advantage was not horses, but a freakin ton of horses which granted them unprecedented mobility and allowed them to switch to fresh mounts when the enemy was already exhausted. Having 2-3 horses per man does not do that. Having 10-20 horses per man does. But 10 horses a man requires vast grazing areas for an army. And where the Mongols did not have that, their advantage in war was largely lost.

 

[Phrossack]

From where? Only in China did the Mongols have the ability to easily conquer a large manpower base for the purpose of spamming infantry to overcome this awful terrain. Mongol polities lacked the ability to do the same in India and in Eastern Europe. And, notably, the Mongols lost control of southern China within a century.

I really dislike saying that something could unequivocally not have happened, because I don't have a crystal ball and I don't like people who think they do, but I just don't think that a Mongol polity could have done more than short-term occupation of Eastern European states like Poland and Hungary.

They needn't conquer them-- not right away, at least. Europe at the time had hundreds if not thousands of often-competing kingdoms, duchies, estates, and so on, and the Mongols could probably have played some against each other, gained local allies who could supply some infantry, and made some headway if they really tried.

I agree that it's very unlikely that the Mongols could have conquered all of Europe; it might have been as tough as southern China, but further away and not as rewarding. What I'm arguing against is the notion that because Europe had a lot of castles and terrain unsuitable for large-scale cavalry operations, it was immune to Mongol invasion. Southern China had awful terrain, plenty of fortifications, etc., etc., etc., but that didn't save it. Other factors would have to stop a Mongol advance, like a lack of manpower, distance, a lack of political will, and conflict with other hordes (unless we're assuming a somehow unified empire attacking Europe).

That's my gist- terrain and fortifications alone aren't enough. Just because an area's poor for cavalry doesn't mean the Mongols couldn't take it; other factors are needed as well. These other factors were most likely present, making conquest highly unlikely.

 

[red_elk]

The Russian forests had very little people to fight.

Just did a little research. Hard to compare, but it doesn't look like there was a big gap between populations of Eastern and Western Europe at that period:

Large cities
London, 1086 - population 18.000
London, 1300 - 45-80k
Paris, 1200 - 25-110k (estimates vary)
Paris, XIV century - 80k

Kiev, 1240 (when was captured by Mongols) - 40-50k
Other large cities of Rus (Novgorod, Smolensk, Ryazan, etc. ~10 cities) - 20-30k each
Plus Polish and Hungarian cities.

In comparison, population of Constantinople was ~400k in the end of XII century

 

[Verbose]

They needn't conquer them-- not right away, at least. Europe at the time had hundreds if not thousands of often-competing kingdoms, duchies, estates, and so on, and the Mongols could probably have played some against each other, gained local allies who could supply some infantry, and made some headway if they really tried.

That would require the Europeans accepting the Mongols into their own brand of politics. That woould require Christianity for starters. It would be a key to integrating themselves sufficiently in European politics to play like an insider. They could rule China as Chinese emperors. Nothing says they couldn't rule Europe as Christian kings or emperors. But like in the Chinese situation, it would have to be a two-way street,.

I agree that it's very unlikely that the Mongols could have conquered all of Europe; it might have been as tough as southern China, but further away and not as rewarding. What I'm arguing against is the notion that because Europe had a lot of castles and terrain unsuitable for large-scale cavalry operations, it was immune to Mongol invasion. Southern China had awful terrain, plenty of fortifications, etc., etc., etc., but that didn't save it. Other factors would have to stop a Mongol advance, like a lack of manpower, distance, a lack of political will, and conflict with other hordes (unless we're assuming a somehow unified empire attacking Europe).

Invasion? Sure. No specific European fortification(s) would mount any insurmountable problem, should the Mongols have been able/willing to throw enough resources at the problem of European conquest long enough. (The problem really is in their ubiquitousness, in how to make any local resistance stop shifting between them, which we know tended to happen when European fought.) Also how power in Europe was devolved and localised, so no taking out if the Head Person that would see the whole edifice fall to the Mongols in one fell swoop — i.e. they certainly could take any part of western Europe, but there wouldn't be much in the form of dominoes falling, and they likely would end up having to forcibly take the majority piecemeal. Then the trick would still be holding it. Was it Khubilai who is ascribed the phrase: "You can conquer the world on horse-back, but you cannot rule it from horseback"? The Mongol problem is that Europe is very bad steppe pony land. So that's the Mongols either building the Mother Of All Supply Chains to be able to keep going as traditional horse-nomads, or it's the Mongols retooling to another kind of warfare, remaking themselves as a fighting force, which logically would end up looking more like the Europeans themselves, preferably shorn of certain European disadvantages. With the resources of their empire to call on, certainly they could have tried it. The cost-benefit analysis might look weird, but provided the Mongols themselves decided controlling western Europe was necessary to be able to claim ruling the world (likewise unconquered India might seem a more profitable venture, but what the hell) perhaps they should?

That's my gist- terrain and fortifications alone aren't enough. Just because an area's poor for cavalry doesn't mean the Mongols couldn't take it; other factors are needed as well. These other factors were most likely present, making conquest highly unlikely.

Again. Taking is one thing, holding on to it is something else here.

 

[red_elk]

That woould require Christianity for starters. It would be a key to integrating themselves sufficiently in European politics to play like an insider.

They didn't need that, they were simply creating vassal states with local rulers, without much further intervention in internal affairs. Some vassal states used Mongols' military power to their advantage, against neighbors. Especially when they didn't have much choice, the alternative was to be invaded and robbed.

 

[Winner]

Right, before I continue, anyone reading this is required to read a few pages of THIS THREAD. Especially the posts by BOTP. Do it, it's worth it Basically everything we talk about here has already been discussed/debunked/explained.

Furthermore, the Qamuq Monggol Ulus never really tried to conquer Europe, nor did the Golden Horde. After tearing through the Hungarians and Poles, they simply left.

They did no "simply leave". The evidence (read about it in the other thread) suggests that they a) suffered pretty substantial losses; b) failed to completely defeat the Poles and the Hungarians; c) lacked fodder for their horses; d) left themselves in a vulnerable position with the rest of Europe alarmed and preparing a response. Retreat was pretty much the only rational choice, no matter the political situation concerning the greater Mongol world.

You are correct that it wasn't a full scale invasion of Europe, that's why I put the term in quotation marks. It is likely, however, that had they been more successful, they'd have tried to hold on to their gains. They didn't and they retreated back to the steppe.

Hungary was hit for harboring Cumans, and Poland because the Poles might have aided the Hungarians. Conquest was not the objective.

Not an *initial* objective, maybe.

The lack of adequate pasture in Europe, again, would not have prevented conquest;

Of course not, but it would have prevented a conquest by the Mongols

Southern China is at least as hostile to cavalry armies as anything Europe can offer. Travel also required the crossing of rivers, which were defended by a powerful navy that could evacuate, deploy, or resupply troops. There were extensive mountain fortresses guarded by massed crossbowmen and gunners. I really can't see how Europe was somehow stronger than this, or willing to fight for 70 years. The Mongols could have won European allies like they did everywhere else.

And again, Southern China was conquered by Northern China, which happened to be under the control of a Mongol ruler. It had happened before, and it happened later. On the other hand, there is hardly any such precedent in Europe, for good reasons.

As in the other thread, a good answer to this general argument is as follows: yes, the Mongols could have conquered Europe if they had stopped being Mongols and adopted European culture, religion, ways of warfare, and somehow managed to mobilize the resources of all corners of their empire and persevere in the effort for decades, maybe centuries without any other problems distracting them during that period. Now, how likely was that to happen?

A quote from the other thread:

And, history shows that the Mongols were never to good on unfovorable terrain, the sole exception being China. However, China was neither heavily militarized nor covered with a concentration of fortifications anywhere near comparable to medieval Europe. Still, its conquest was a feat which took decades and many campaigns on a huge scale. It was far from anything like a quick victory. To dwell some more on your comments, I believe the key to the ultimate fall of China was its geographical position. China may not have been ideal for horses, but the relative proximity to the steppe made it possible for the Mongols to easily retire back to safety at the end of the campaign. Reinforcements could also arrive much faster. In any case, it was the eastern orientation which seems to have suited the Mongols best. On the other hand, the distance between Mongolia and Western Europe is much longer. The real steppe ends on the Dnester in Western Ukraine. The Hungarian plain, without doubt the best springboard for an invasion of Europe for nomadic horsemen, is not a direct continuation of the steppe. It's separated from it by the Carpathian mountain chain. Russia was newly conquered territory by 1241 it was far from safe. The already inadequate number of Mongol warriors was scattered over a wide area. Any full-scale invasion of Europe must have been risky business from Batu's perspective. Even once Hungary had fallen the situation did not improve in any way. The Mongols found themselves on the Hungarian plain, which in itself could almost certainly not provide sufficient grazing for an extended period. They had suffered heavy losses and were unable to subdue the remaining strongholds. In addition, the Germans began mustering troops in close proximity. To make things worse, there was no easy route to the safety of the steppe, either a tiresome climb over the heavily wooded Carpathian mountains or a long detour through the equally difficult, but at least weakly defended Balkans. Geography dictated that there were only a few routes the Mongols could take into the West, and geography also made a rapid advance impossible. The Balkans are not easily passable - far from that. The combination of hills, mountains, woods and the hot, dry climate near the Adriatic and Mediterranean coast are a serious obstacle to any army, particularly if as reliant on horses as the Mongols.

If you look at the maps which you provided, their empire spread in some directions by thousands of kilometers farther than steppe regions, which were indeed the base terrain to maintain their cavalry. Southern China, mountains of contemporary Afghanistan, Caucasus, deserts of Middle and Near East, forests and rivers of Russia. Remote location could have saved Western Europe (and probably did), but assertion that Mongols had no ability to invade it whatsoever, seems pretty weak to me.

I didn't say they had no ability to invade it, I said they had no ability to conquer and to hold it. That's two different things.

Most Mongol victories were swift and decisive, because they fought against centralized states. Once they scored a few victories (killed/captured the ruler, or made him look impotent), the rest simply submitted to them (hence the use of Mongol terror tactics to facilitate a quicker surrendering of their enemies). Using the steppe as their base, they staged quick campaigns against states that were within reach. Once they got too far from the steppe, their progress was either substantially slowed down (southern China) or ground to a halt (Europe, India, Levant, south-east Asia, even northern parts of Russia).

Europe lacked any central political authority to be quickly overthrown and replaced by the Mongols, was densely furnished with fortifications (not fortified towns, but real fortresses), had inexhaustible reserves of manpower literally on the spot, was united in religious hatred of pagans and infidels (so much for the use of "local allies"), and its natural environment largely negated the greatest strength of the Mongols, their supremely effective light cavalry.

Any conquest of Europe at that time would have to consist of painstakingly slow series of sieges; Europe would have to be conquered castle by castle, and it would take huge amounts of infantry* and time. This is actually probably the most direct opposite of how Mongols liked to fight wars. (*So unless the Mongols had discovered a way to breed Orcs from mud, I don't see where they'd get it.)

Another quote from the other thread:

Unlike China or Persia or Arabia, Europe was a highly militarized entity, whose defense relied on a huge number of comparatively small fortifications scattered throughout the land. With the big wave during the 12th century fortifications were springing up at an astonishing pace. The Europeans had learned much during the Crusades, in regards to both siege warfare and fortification. The Crusades added further stimulus, not just because the Europeans learned more about the advanced Byzantine and Arab military architecture but also thanks to the thriving economy. Medieval Europe was also more commonly furnished with castles and walled cities than were the other areas the Mongols roamed. The European fortifications were also far different than those of other places the Mongols razed, and could withstand long protracted sieges, with enough food and fresh water to stay bottled up for months even with almost the entire local population inside. Fortifications often utilized well-thought-out traps and murder holes, several gates and escape routes, a vast array of secret underground tunnels, and not to mention the high, strategic placement of such castles which would make them virtually immune to conventional siege. The number of such fortifications in Europe was enormous. In the early 13th century the Count of Provence controlled 40 castles, and the King of France had over 100, including 45 in Normandy. The Duke of Burgundy owned 70. In 1216 King Henry III had inherited from his father 93 royal castles in England, and had secured 10 more in Guyenne by 1220, while for their part the English barons held 179. Within several generations, castles and fortified towns dominated much of the countryside.

 

[Verbose]

They didn't need that, they were simply creating vassal states with local rulers, without much further intervention in internal affairs. Some vassal states used Mongols' military power to their advantage, against neighbors. Especially when they didn't have much choice, the alternative was to be invaded and robbed.

Oh, vassals...

Like the Duke of Toulouse was a vassal of the king of France, where the 13th c. political trobadour Peir Cardenal could publicly exhort the good Duke to take up arms against the Occitans' traditional enemies, "li frances e li masmut", the French and the Mohammedans? They did too...

Not to mention the kind of utter mess that was the HRE. Sure, the Mongols might get the Lombard League as vassals. It would likely profit them about as much as they did the Emperor — i.e. constant state of war against the citzen-soldiery of the aggresively independent north Italian city states led by Milan. If the Khan wants compliance, he needs to go and seriously enforce it... For as long is the bloody example of his latest effort would last...

Besides, for instance, try telling Ecclesiastical Potentates like the German warrior-bishops of affluent, fortified, trade centers places like the bishoprics of Mainz, Paderborn, Minden etc., that the Khan had replaced the Emperor, and just watch the non-compliance manifest itself. (Now try it with the Khan having replaced the Pope, which would be a lot more interesting, but begs the question how that would happen?)

Venice was a vassal of Constantinopolis. Didn't bother the Venetians any when invading the Byzantines. Half the time the Venetians were also excommunicated by the Pope for repeated shenanigans, which typically engendered a classic respose by one of its diplomats: "We're just as good Catholics as the Pope."

So, if the Mongols would be content with that kind of symbolic-de-facto-independent-vassals, sure...

The impression is however that the Mongols had something rather more compliant and hands-on in mind. In which case western Europe would likely provide an endless source of trouble, renewed conquest and re-pacification, probably for very little gain. You need to be on site, in charge, and on top to actully control local conditions in most of Medieval western Europe. Fail to do that, and overlordship was likely as not to quite often be stunningly symbolical in nature.

At least it requires the Mongols recruiting very considerable numbers of local clients, whom they need to offer very tangible incentives, and from which they likely can expect very little in return beyond lip-service. Nothing personal re. the Mongols, it's just Medieval western Europe being a bit of a mess with respect to autocratic chains of command, where even Mongols looking for subservience might have to resort to acknowledging the rights and privileges of their vassals as per traditional specifications. (The oath taken by the reps of the city of Barcelona when accepting a new king as overlord is a classic — it's along the lines of we who are no worse than you, accept you, who is no better than we, as king, provided you respect ALL our freedoms and privileges, and if you don't, we won't.)

What the Mongols likely could not do would be to use such clients to transform the European political landscape. Done like that the Mongols might perhaps add some kind of symbolic overlayer, but it wouldn't touch fundamentals. It could be something along the lines of Europeans formally recognising Mongol overlordship, on the premise that the Mongols just leave it the hell alone. It would work on the premise that a Mongol Khan somewhere could be the symbolic overlord just as well as any locally absent king.

If the Mongols would dream of actually controlling things, it's invasion and endless sieges of inumerable small fortfied strongpoints that needed to go on the agenda. They would have to bludgeon western Europe into submission locally on a case-by-case basis. That could force a radical change in western European societies and polities for sure, but it would most likely need precisely something as radical as that to make it stick.

It seems to me what's at stake is the meaning we put into concepts like "conquest" and "control"?

So, vassal states? Sure. Provided the Mongols play by the European book. Should they harbour any great hopes of the western European polities realising they should be just generally subject and subservient in a less peculiar fashion — at least without requiring Mongol presence, and repeated breaking of heads — then they would likely be disappointed.

Which amounts to saying that in order to create these vassals, the Mongols would need to invade, and then confront the state of devolved, local political power that most of western Europe ran on. I'm really not saying they absolutely couldn't do it. I do however think some of the realties of European politics might cause a bit of consternation. They could of course go for just literally slicing through it to achieve some other state. But while it would require considerable effort to just defeat western Europe militarily, it would likely take even more effort to confront, and substantially change, the social and political realities of the place.

Which brings us back to the problem of "holding". Certainly some Mongol ruler could set himself up with a bunch of typically relatively unruly western European vassals, should said Mongol decide to deal with the Europeans like Europeans — conversion to Christianity and a position as another Christian prince would help. A Mongol Khan ruling western Europe as undisputed Khan, with no concession to the western way of doing things, at least as far as his comportment in that part of his realm was concerned? Now that would likely take some very serious effort.

 

[red_elk]

It could be something along the lines of Europeans formally recognising Mongol overlordship, on the premise that the Mongols just leave it the hell alone. It would work on the premise that a Mongol Khan somewhere could be the symbolic overlord just as well as any locally absent king.

Just the same what they did to the other states which they invaded. Local dukes and kings needed to get allowance from khan to rule, and to pay tribute. In terms of political landscape, Western Europe was not that different from Rus at that time and neither Rus needed to switch from Christianity nor Mongols to accept it, nor khan needed to replace grand duke or patriarch of Konstantinople. Another example of quasi-vassal state is Novgorod - it was never invaded by Mongols, but prince Alexander had to sign some sort of alliance with the Horde, repelling continuous invasion attempts from Europe. Apparently he feared fellow Christians even more than Asian barbarians.

 

[Domen]

Just did a little research. Hard to compare, but it doesn't look like there was a big gap between populations of Eastern and Western Europe at that period:

Large cities
London, 1086 - population 18.000
London, 1300 - 45-80k
Paris, 1200 - 25-110k (estimates vary)
Paris, XIV century - 80k

Kiev, 1240 (when was captured by Mongols) - 40-50k
Other large cities of Rus (Novgorod, Smolensk, Ryazan, etc. ~10 cities) - 20-30k each
Plus Polish and Hungarian cities.

In comparison, population of Constantinople was ~400k in the end of XII century

Minority of population lived in large city centers both in the West and in the East. Comparing population of major cities is thus pointless since majority (over 90%) lived in the countryside in villages or in small towns. Overall density of population was much bigger in Italy or France than it was in Russia.

When it comes to large cities - they were most numerous in Italy. In France and England there were only a few large cities at that time.

Another thing is that the division which wreaked havok in Poland and Hungary was a small part of their entire army. Majority of forces turned back after taking Kiev, because of some dynastical brawl which was about to start (if I remember correctly).

You do not remember correctly - forces which invaded Hungary and Poland were exactly the same forces which had invaded Rus before (minus casualties and plus reinforcements from conquered areas). With majority of those forces invading Hungary and a smaller part - Poland.

The Mongol invasion of Poland in 1241 was not aimed at conquest or even occupation of that area - the Mongols attacked Poland in order to eliminate potential reinforcements of Polish duchies for Hungary, which was Poland's ally. Pannonian Plain was the main target of the Mongols.

Just to mention that the proper Mongol invasion of Poland started in early March 1241 and ended in late April 1241. Before that was the series of smaller, reconnaisance incursions into Polish territory lasting from early January to 2nd half of February 1241 and resulting in some battles.

After the battle of Legnica on 9 April 1241 the Mongols besieged the castle for several days (without success) and then invaded Moravia.