*The entire video is based on false premises and is made by someone who's either ignorant so he spreads his ignorance, expecting others to be equally intelectually lazy, won't do their search and swallow his bollocks or he's intentionally spreading misinformation and history revision.* *"Mongols had hard time invading due to the rugged terrain."* *That is most ridiculous statement because anyone versed in geography knows that Asian geography is trillion times more difficult and rugged than any terrain in Europe, especially Asia as The Most Mountainous Continent with largest number of the highest mountains.* *In Eastern Europe flatlands had given some easy access to the Mongols.* *Central Europe with small mountains like Mont Blanc and once they pass the German territory, they are again in flatland France and over slide the Pyrenees into the Spain.* *Since facing even bigger and rugged terrain of Asia, Europe wouldn't be much of a challenge for the Mongols in terms of geography.* *Neither even in terms of technological prowess since the Mongols have faced far technologically superior civilisations than the Europe, namely Middle East, Islamic Empires, China and others.* *So the video is extraordinarily wrong.* .
It is not a coincidence that the Mongols began struggling as soon as they reached heavily forested and mountainous terrain. Their advantage is in open grasslands. The Swiss Alps, mountains of Anatolia, the extensive forests of Germania and dry conditions of the Arabic Peninsula mark the extent of the Mongol empire because this marked the exact geographic positions that created a disadvantage for the Mongols. The Hun's also pushed until they reached similar terrain in Europe.
It's a classic, although I think today it's considered fairly outdated, and not exactly first-rate scholarship. I think it's a good measuring stick for many popular assumptions about the Mongols.
Dear Real Crusades History, What do you think about Kings and Generals saying that the Second Mongol invasion of Hungary was not a success for the Hungarian army ? Their video on "How the Europeans Fought the Mongols" greatly contrasted your video on the second Hungarian invasion, and I just wanted a clarification, did you or them make a mistake ? Or were you just interpreting sources differently ? It just feels weird for one source to make a historical event look like an absolute blunder for the Hungarians, and a glorious victory for the Mongols (besides them getting messed up in ambushes by Vlachs, Székelys, and Transylvanian Saxons) while your video made it look like a grand victory for the Hungarian army, where castles, European knights, hit and run warfare, and starvation utterly decimated the Mongol army and made Hungary stand grand and victorious. I just wanted to know who is right, is all.
I feel that they are incorrect. There is strong evidence to support a Hungarian victory. I normally don't recommend this, but the wikipedia article is a good place to start. Look into the sources listed there and read them for yourself.
The Wikipedia article used only secondary sources, some primary sources like Annals of Jan Dlugosz (Poland), Chronicon Pictum (Hungary) and the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle didn't mention any Hungarian victory at all. The Chronicon Pictum, an official Hungarian royal chronicle and the one source that should mention any Hungarian victory, only mentioned the Mongols "entered Hungary for the second time and spread a terrible devastation of fire throughout the whole country as far as Pest". That's it. The next sentence is "King Ladislas had married the daughter of King Charles of Apulia". The Annals of Jan Dlugosz even described the Mongols leaving only because of disease, not mentioning the Hungarian military in any way. Similarly, it mention the Mongols destroying the whole country that people had to pull plows by themselves, somewhat agreeing with Chronicon Pictum. "the Tatars invade Hungary a fortnight after Epiphany and ravage it unopposed as far as Pest and Buda, and there stay inflicting such damage that there is a shortage of draught animals and people have to harness themselves to their two-wheeled carts and ploughs. The Tatars depart after Easter, but only because of an epidemic that affects many thousands of them and compels them to leave Pannonia." The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, a source of those who fought with the Mongols and one written closest in time to the event, also didn't mention any Hungarian victory when it was fully capable, but it mention the heavy casualties during their withdrawal, again not caused by Hungarians, but from getting lost in the mountains.
K&G was in the wrong. The second Mongol invasion didn't amount to more than a border skirmish for Hungary, a stark contrast to the smaller Mongol army that devastated Hungary all the way to the Adriatic coast where stone forts held them of.
What I feel is more likely to happen is Frederick II and his son Conrad gather an army and would approach a west bound Mongol army via the Danube Basin between Vienna and Bratislava. Additionally Frederick II was allied to John Doukas Vatzetzes III of the Nicean Empire which would force the Mongols to fight a Byzantine army in the Balkans. I think this episode is good because it covers issues of logistics.
I think that's a very likely scenario. I wanted to think more about a deeper campaign into the West though, possibly to consider how this would've prompted a crusade against the Mongols to finally materialize. I think it's also possible that Frederick II, due to his problems with his vassals, might've had trouble raising an effective army against the Mongols. But your points are excellent, and you may very well be right.
@Real Crusades History true and likely Frederick II would supplement his army with Sicilian "Saracen" infantry and horse archers alongside German knights, crossbowmen, and spearmen. He was able to get his Sicilian detachments far north as Northern Italy in Cortenuova in 1237 so I won't be surprised he attempt to relieve a siege of neighboring cities with them.
I believe the biggest battle would be west of Vienna in Bavaria or between Bratislava and Vienna due to enough flat land ideal for horse archery yet close enough to threaten Frederick II.
One reason for withdrawing could be the lack of fodder. Before the regulation in the 19th century the Tisza river and it tributaries were notorious for turining the hungarian plains into marshlands during the autumn and thawning floods. So during the hot and dry months they had no problems, but as soon the cold and wet period started, they simply run out of fresh grass, and could not access the stockpiled hay in the fortified towns and castles.
Mongols don’t use fodder, Mongolian horse can survive the gobi dessert 10x more dangerous logistically than the east terrain in Western Europe just by eating branches of trees
@@01olracman According to the calculation by Rudi Paul Lindner, the Hungarian Plain being 100.000-110.000 km2 in area with 42.400 km2 grassland (the rest were forest or agricultural land) could reliably support 150.000 horses which mean it could support the whole of 30.000 Mongols that entered Russia before they attacked Hungary and Poland, each of the soldiers would had 5 horses and the number already included possibility for non-horse livestock grazing and unusable land like marshes. However, people often didn't know that France and Germany had less forest in the 13th century than today and therefore would had large open grasslands. According to Poschlod, Germany in 1200 was only as forested as in the 21st century (32% forest) and had at up to 240.000 km2 of open land with more than 143.000 km2 of it being grassland (larger area of grassland than 21st century Germany), that's more than twice the size of the Hungarian Plain at its largest size (110.000 km2) and more than 3 times the area of the grassland. In 1250, the forest level fell further to less than 25% and in 1300, less than 20% forest, the grasslands reached over 45% of Germany in both these dates. France in the 13th century had 400.000 km2 of open land. Poland was 50% forested in the 13th century, so would had 160.000 km2 open land. Also grasslands in Europe would be more productive than the steppe because of higher rainfall (and probably more than the Hungarian Plain which is steppe biome), so less land would be needed to feed the same amount of animal. I suspect that Germany would be the base of the Mongols in Europe. This was also the opinion of a master of the Templar, Pons d'Aubon, who said that if Bohemia and Hungary fell, there would be no kingdom strong enough to stop the Mongols until they reached France.
Tbh I don't see a mongol conquest of all of Europe. Too many armies & castles to deal with & who would bog them down in a close quartered fighting unlike the open steppe open warfare.
I kind of disagree. Mongol had no problem attacking mountainous castle. Korea was 70% mountain but mongol just didn't bother to attack the well fortified capital or castle. they just pillaged and destroyed 70% of korean farmland forcing the korean surrender.
@@schneejacques3502 Ya but Korea is Korea while Europe is a whole continent. Europe is too big with too many people and too far away from a steppe of any kind for the Mongols to effectively fight in. Korea was outnumbered and outmatched but Europe would not be. I guess I could imagine them taking Poland, Hungary, and Romania but even then holding onto these territories is more trouble than it’s worth due to the Crusades that would come from them occupying these Christian territories.
i think they can conquered all europe, if they succesfully conquered Poland or Hungary, the Mongols will use Polish or Hungarian armies in their conquest of Europe and after they decimated HRE, the mongols will add the Germans and so on. that's why they are so succesful in their conquest of China
@@widjiro They couldn’t have done that though. You say that like forcefully recruiting foreign populations (that share not a single thing at all with your nation) and sending them to fight against people who do share things like similar culture and religion is such an easy thing. It isn’t easy in fact it’s nearly impossible. There’s no way the Mongol Empire could’ve conquered Germany they would have been crusaded and have had to deal with so many coalitions that they would be annihilated from Europe.
@@getass3290 Mongols had reputation of extreme barbarity, that's how so many islamic kingdoms surrendered to Mongols before the fight even began. with fear alone you could make anybody obey you and i believe these feudal lords will do anything if they can keep their lands. similar culture? in 1200s people think the village next door is alien even if they speak the same language, also there are no patriotism back in 1200s
They absolutely annihilated hungary. Every major city was destroyed, Hungary lost 50% of its population. The hungary’s army was annihilate. The king of france also states that they wouldn’t have won against mongols
Firstly, great job on the doc. Your entire channel is underrated. There seems to be.a growing consensus that the Mongols had expanded as far as possible. Mongols had never encountered a land with numerous Stone Castles like they had in Europe proper. Europe unlike the east, was decentralized, and its many garrisons and hundreds of stone castles stopped Mongols from raiding with much success as demonstrated by their total failure in Hungary. It wouldve been the same story any further into Europe. Again, I cant stress how far ahead Europe was at countering seige technology than was the rest of the world at the time of the Mongols. The Chinese were using castle tech that had been around since the time of Christ.
chinese fortresses were formidable, they were not worse but it is true that their centralisation doomed them, take the big cities and you are done, the farmers don't have to worry much about war as the country is massive so they don't have walls nearby, european farmers could easily be uprooted by the next lord over, centralisation is a strength but in this case also a weakness
@@istoppedcaring6209 I do not agree European fortifications were much more Superior and much more sophisticated than the ones in China, in fact Mongols used Western Siege weapons to demolish Chinese fortification.
Also it's easier to conquer lands with a strong central power and keep the control. Like Persia, China or Parts of India. An invading power basically just wipes out or subdues the rulers and replaces them.
So why did the Mongols needed significantly more time and resources to conquer the Khwarezmian Empire which was calculated to only have 5 million people compared to Eastern Europe (Russia, Poland, Hungary, Balkans) which would had more than 10 million people and located further?
@@Cyricist001 Because the Mongols never intended to conquer Europe or even just Eastern Europe during that time. According to Rashid al Din, the main goal of the forces under Batu and Subotai was only for subjugating the Kipchak and other nomadic people in Russia, nowhere was the Rus or other Eastern European polities mentioned as a target. "He (Ogedei) dispatched Ghormaghun Noyan and a group of emirs with thirty thousand horsemen to deal with him. He dispatched Koketei and Sübedei Bahadur with a like army against the Qipchaq, Saqsin, and Bulghar" - Rashid al-Din The decision to attack Hungary was made after Hungary attacked the Mongols first, this attack was defeated, but the Mongols realized that Hungary was a threat to their newly conquered land. Transylvania in the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century The Rise of the Congregational System by Tudor Sălăgean page 15-16 “In this context, under the year 1239 the chronicle of the Cistercian monk Alberic of Trois-Fontaines mentions a Hungarian attack against the Mongols run by a certain “count of Transylvania” (comes Ultrasilvanus). After some initial success, in a battle “near the Meotid marshes” (the name given since Antiquity to the Sea of Azov), the commander of the Hungarian expedition into the steppe lands was killed." ... "At the same time, the military campaign of the Transylvanian “count” was not just an intolerable offense, but also a proof that Hungary had the means to put its expansionist plans into the steppe lands in practice. This irrefutable evidence warned Batu and Subutai that, unless the Hungarian menace was removed, the conquest of the Cuman steppe could never be complete." Also source for the Chechen repelling Mongol invasion and how large and how equipped were they? I just checked the Wikipedia article and it said that the Mongols destroyed their state and the Chechens were pretty much unable to drive away the Mongols. The article also relied a lot on secondary sources, the primary sources by Carpini and William of Rubruck likely cannot really be verified first hand either. Keep in mind that the sentence where the Chechens supposedly repel 2 Mongol invasion had [citation needed] sign or no sources at all.
Through sheer numbers they might make an initial breakthrough. But in completely different terrain and defense than they are used to it would fail sooner or later.
@@bgcvetan well the Moors were able to be stopped in France. Plus China does certainly have enormous wealth and manpower but they never pushed out further than asia. The reason why I think the mongols would be stopped is that they were limited to conquest of the steppes of Eastern Europe through Asia and down the Levant. Much like how the Romans were excellent in mastering the Mediterranean but struggled to push further north.
@@bgcvetan The Huns and Moors invaded at times when Europe was much weaker than in the 13th century. Very importantly, it was still reliant on heavy infantry rather than heavy cavalry, and lacked extensive fortifications. The Mongols would start off very strong but still run out of steam if they were to commit to a large scale European invasion (and that is assuming they stayed united and well coordinated unlike the late campaigns of the Golden Horde.)
@@worldofdoom995 China "never pushed out" because it already was a state of comparable size to the entirety of Europe. That is like trying to downplay the Romans as big but confined to the Mediterranean. Besides, any further expansion would have needed to go through the same directions the Mongols took, only this time they'd need to push past and occupy that hostile territory from decentralized nomads - which would be much more difficult for their infantry heavy armies.
@@John-pk9rw The Amazigh of North Africa were subjugated by the Arabs and thus incorporated into their ranks. So it could be argued that it was a Barbery/Arabic army that invaded Spain.
@@John-pk9rw you can believe what you want but the conquest of Spain was definitely an Arabic venture. But like all power blocks, they always employ vassals to do much of the heavy lifting. Take the war in Ukraine for example, it is indeed the Ukrainian army fighting Russia, but in reality it's the USA fighting Russia, the Ukrainians are simply holding guns. And yes there are American soldiers on the ground. But make no mistake this is Washington trying to subjugate Russia (and failing). So you see, it's never black and white.
Nah, no way. European warfare at the time centered around sieges. Castle defense was down to a science, and Europe was basically close quarters combat, there wasn’t the wide open plains like in Central Asia.
Except, Europe does not have an advantage at close quarters over the mongols like you seem to imply, do you really think they are only lightly armored horse archers?, By the time they came to Europe 6 out of 8 mongol troops were similar to a Heavy cataphract, very well armored and being equally effective at range as at melee, significant part of their army even had Armored Horses which were rare in Europe / If you take all the knights and heavy cavalry that All of europe Could muster up, Then all The Mongol heavy cavalry would outnumber it at least 10 fold / *That is what a Continental Empire from Korea till Hungary gives you* A lot of Resources Also the Mongols successfully crossed many harsh deserts and conquered Persia & afghanistan despite it's very mountainous landscape, Europe's landscape is a Joke and Attila never had trouble with it either
@@hia5235 Those failed because they were *Raids* conducted by a divided and weakened Golden horde that had nowhere near the intelligence gathering & scouting capabilities of the earlier army under Subutai when the mongols were in there Zenith Nor had that Tatar horde any interest in conquest or crushing any enemy field army, they only cared about loot
@@hia5235 So??? what does that have to do with anything I said ?? / I Said Attila and his Huns had no trouble with European terrain and got all the way to central Gaul with Ease, This simply proves, the Mongols will have no trouble with European terrain either
If only there was some historical example we could judge this buy . You would need a land that was either deep forest or farmland with large areas of hill country. A land of warring factions dominated by castles . A land though nearly constantly at war was United by a common culture & religion . A land dominated by a warrior aristocracy trained from childhood to be superb heavy Calvary and close quarter battle specialists. If only you could an historical example to judge this question. Oh wait the Mongol invasion of Japan.
@@joshg8053 mmmm are you inferring that both the topography and social economic structure of medieval Anatolia & the Caucuses was similar to medieval France?
Complete Nonsense, Europe's terrain is a "walk through the park" Compared to the harsh mountainous Terrain of Persia & Afghanistan and those many Deserts that the mongols successfully crossed & don't forget South China with it's never ending amount of fortifications and lots of rivers I never heard of Attila have problems on European terrain
@@aburoach9268 🤣🤣🤣 You obviously have little idea of history. Look how the invasions of Europe from the mongols failed completely due to starvation of their animals. Atillas army and enemies had been totally different. Poland and Hungary even on the first invasion caused massive causalities to the mongols and they had probably the worst defensive fortifications in Europe at the time. Sorry your argument has failed
@@PoetofHateSpeech Stop lying and making up your own fairy tail history it didn't fail due to starvation of their animals, Mongols have many times successfully crossed deserts to the surprise of their enemies it failed because a divided, weakened Golden horde decided to launch a quick raid against a kingdom that had heavily prepared to counter such raid without doing any proper Intelligence and neglecting the advanced scouting and communication capabilities of the Earlier mongol army during the reign of Ghenghis, Ogodai &Monkhe not only did they underestimate their opponents, they only cared for loot
@@PoetofHateSpeech "Atillas army and enemies had been totally different" / No it was not, Stop Lying, Attila's army consisted mostly of Nomadic cavalry and had similar tactics like the mongols, but were far less organized, nor professional as an army
Dai Viet only consisted of modern day north Vietnam. Forested sure, but not as much as the south people often think of, and I dont think this was as major an issue as often claimed. That said, Dai Viet made good use of scorched earth tactics which would likely work just as well in Germany (assuming the Mongols even get that far.) In its own invasions the Mongols had already adapted and used more Chinese infantry to compensate for terrain, but this turned against them when logistics fell apart due to scorched earth. A very large slow army without adequate supplies cannot use its numbers effectively - ironically this was part of how the Mongols toppled the Jin.
also recall the effectiveness of the small host of knights count robert of flanders brought to bare against the turks for the byzantines as he was returning from the holy land, a medieval knight get's a bad rep nowadays but the truth is that they were warriors of the highest level, there were none more well equiped, however the mongols should always be taken seriously, they were not backwards savages, certainly not when it came to war, they organized their army exceedingly well, they were much more effective in maintaining order and hierarchy within their ranks, knights on the other hand have a disturbing history of arrogance which usually manifests into them charging into foolish situations which doom battles and whole campaigns, I do think that like the hungarians and poles the western armies would first be dealt defeats to mongol feignt retreats and ambush tactics, but later on would effectively counter those
people forget about the mamluk who wouldve been just as well equipped and trained. it was they who defeated the mongols at ain jalut. Their horses would have had chainmail bards. They were covered in head to toe with armor.
If the teams of the channels known as Kings and Generals and Wizards and Warriors see this, I think this will help with their further research about the video about the alternate universe where the Mongols invaded Western Europe that came out 5 days ago. Speaking of which, did you see that video? And what do you think about it? P.S: I do not think it is a coincident that this video came out 5 days after Wizards and Warriors' channel released the video about what if the Mongols attacked Western Europe.
My biggest problem with Kings And Generals was 1) made an entire eastern front with the Mongols 2) Poland capitulated and sides with Mongols 3) main invasion is directed at Prague 4) acted like the dense forests and lack of grasslands would not be a logistical problem.
Honestly, it is a coincidence. I've never even heard of Wizards and Warriors, much less that they just did a video on this topic. This video is the result of the recent Mongol kick I've been on. I'm a little disappointed to hear that everyone is doing this topic right now, I'd thought I'd seized on something not yet explored on RU-vid haha!
Europe wasn't superior but different. China had a few large fortified cities and it was more centralized. Europe had thousands of small but tough castles all over the place, and far more decentralized leadership that was nevertheless well-armed and well-equipped for battle.
The Mongols get waaay too much credit. It's easier fighting peasant or slave armies and raiding defenseless areas than fighting actual trained and armed men.
@@puujeelkhagva8575 what? Sure they had conflicts within their various clans - but under Temujin they were a united and disciplined fighting horde. Unlike the Chinese or the Hungarians or Kievan Rus of the time, whose "armies" consisted of mostly conscripted levies. The Mongols would've been slaughtered in Western Europe by heavily armored and trained warrior elites - arrows cannot penetrate well-made maille - and the warhorses of France, Spain, etc. were chargers - not steppe ponies. Not even to mention the terrain changing from plains to hill-country.
Something to remember. The "slave" Khwarezmian that fled from the Mongols ended up taking Jerusalem and killing all European forces there, including knights from the Hospitaller and Templar orders, and then played a role in defeating numerically superior European army in the Battle of La Forbie.
Personally I don't think of Mongols could have conquered the entirety of Europe because it was too much infighting between them. Also they couldn't keep their lands patrolled because it was too widespread out that's what the Romans had problems with.
It's possible that the Mongol invasion force was the only army between Europe and the heart of the Golden Horde so preserving it could be the reason for the withdraw. Devine intervention is also a good explanation for the halted Mongol advance IMO.
With the major decisions being made thousands of miles away, the speed with which information can travel limits the size of an empire. Most likely, the Mongol empire was getting too big to manage effectively or efficiently.
Yeah, and you got to wonder if they also got English Longbows, Italian Pavisse Crossbowmen and Scottish Pikes moving along for a Crusade in the event they outmanuver the knights in an open pitched battle. Western european bows and infantry were being outfitted deliberately to crack knights and calvary.
Who knows. If we faced in fight. Chinese armored cavalry, crossbow, Persian sword advanced cavalry really did not work. No one expected mongolia can invade whole China, no one expected Mongolia beat India, no one expected Mongols delete Persia. Same here, who know, no one expects Mongolia beat Europe that time. That time Europe was not military developed. Armored peasants fights each other.
The dense population and highly experienced armies just beyond Ploand and Hungary would have chewed the up. Had they broken through further into Mittel Europe on a narrow incursion they would have had an early Stalingrad of their own. Points made in the video and comments about castles, terrain, and logistics are all huge factors. They learned from their experiences and made a good decision.
Who know, we I vade high dense populated China, sickly mountain terrain in north India, desert dry plain in Persia. Everything is possible. That time in Europe, military tech, tactics, long range combat, quick maneuver decision making tactics were no t developed. Had not long range archers like mongols. Europe mass peasants armored fighting each other lack of training. Their cavalry had not enough horses mostly infantry that cannot manuevre well. Too slow to respond Mongols. Only chance is to rely on their stone castles and hide wait Mongols to leave.
Too many europeans and americans are talking nonsense here. Mongolia is a country that has dealt with many great powers, especially China, but at the time, Europe was just a small kingdom compared to china. Claiming terrain is funny. Mongolia has already occupied several mountain ranges, including the Himalayas. Claiming castles and the military is also funny. As mentioned earlier, Mongolia defeated the Chinese army and wiped out Eastern Europe with very few troops. And castles are not a problem. This can be seen from the fact that they occupied many castles and fortresses in Korea, China that had strong resistance without any problems. tbh, if they had just invaded Western Europe with its small military in west, it could have taken over all of Europe. ofc, if there is additional support from the east, conquering Europe is a piece of cake. Don't be mistaken. Europe was only the outskirts of the world, not the center at that time. Europe wasn't that strong back then. Rather, China and its surrounding countries were more powerful. And it is also laughable to say that Mongolia cannot conquer Europe cuz it is so far away from its homeland. For Mongolia, who already occupied the Asian continent and China, how big is europe and how far away is it that mongolia cannot conquer it? Distance can never be a problem for Mongolia. They are quite efficient and their stamina is beyond imagination
There's something going on here. No way every single military history related channel keeps coming out with content on the EXACT same subject within days of each other. There's something afoot.
I can only speak for myself. Honestly, I had no idea other people were doing this topic. It's kind of disappointing, I thought I was being ultra original.
@@RealCrusadesHistory This seems to happen on other topics as well. All at once a number of history channels had videos on the historicity of Viking shield walls. Incidentally Metronon has a video on the Mongol invasion of Europe from several years ago.
@@RealCrusadesHistory I certainly enjoyed the video and it's always cool to see different perspectives. Given the subjects of some of the various channels there will obviously be overlaps. The Kings and Generals spin off channel just put out the first in their series on an what if on this same subject a few days ago so that's what brought it up. However, when multiple channels put out videos on a single rather niche topic it raises flags. If it's just creators talking to each other and deciding to put their own spin on the same subject that's pretty cool actually. My only concern is if it is some company buying multiple channels and dictating topics across channels, eventually strangling creativity and becoming essentially carbon copies of each other with minor differences.
What plagues the Mongols is in general the problem of Steppe Calvary based blitzkrieg forces, they run out of suitable terrain and supply. The Huns faced the same centuries earlier, and their conquests stopped. The Mongols only strategic chance would be if they of knew Alexander The Great. Over time his armies evolved and adapted to the country in which they were fighting, and he won over local lords, prolonging the lifespan of his campaigns. Those factors contributed as much to his conquests as legend and genius. So, like I said, if the Sons of Temujin could have, they would have.
Guess that is why the Yuan Dynasty managed to complete the conquest of China. They adapted by adopting a Chinese style army with native Han and Koreans serving as the infantry while the Mongols served as the cavalry branch
Who knows. No one expected to invade high dense and civilized China. No one expected we in a Persia due to terrain, weather and logistic issues. No one expected we beat North india due to mountains range. No one expected we invade Russia due to cold weather. No one expected us to invade Poland and hu Gary due to stone castles and muddy terrain. So, my conclusion is who knows. Everything is possible. That time by the way, military technology tactics, were not developed I Europe it was just a armored peasants fighting each other. May had not enough horses, lack of adequate training combat tactics heavily relying o their castles.
I say yes. Castles are overrated in that most of them are not the impressive ones tagt survjve today, Europe was divided with even the Emperor and Pope still feuding. Maybe if Toloui became great Khan instead and lived longer it would be different for he was mroe warlike and his holdings were Iran.
Thank you again for a great documentary! Great graphics and detail I assume a lot of people were not familiar. I wouldn’t count on the rulers of Western Europe to form an alliance though to stop them. The bickering of the 1st and 3rd crusades nearly led to disaster. I think the population density, well built castles, and terrain would eventually wear out fast moving armies dependent on living off the land and few reinforcements.
kaifeng was literally the most advanced city in the world...look up fortress city and understand how massive these cities are. population of about 1million and they lost against the mongol hordes. Europeans in their puny castles, think they can last? HAHAHHAHAAHAH. You do realize china was the most advanced civilization in the entire world at that time right?
After the mongol empire inevitably breaks apart, the khanates with a majority christian population would have probably converted to Christianity themselves
Mongols were defeated by the stone castles and knights of a minor force of Europe, I doubt they could have won against the rest of Europe which was wayyy too hard to conquer both for insiders and outsiders. The crusader heavy cavalry was also faster due to its bigger and stronger horses, add the knighty armor to that... yeah I think the only advantage of the Mongol army over that of Europe's core was their numbers.
@@개혁자-k5d They did not, it was recorded that knights took on as many as 3 mongol horsemen at the same time, but there was only 70-ish knights The armor of knights was highly resistent with high quality metals and work. It would block arrows and easily block the Mongols' sabers. Knights, rock castles and crossbows had great success despite the loss, which is why Hungary had them in greater numbers and won in the second invasion, slaughtering the Mongols in tens of thousands. The French heavy horseman was the strongest mounted unit at that time.
@@skp8748 Chinese constructions were thinner, lower in height, allowed easier climbing, weren't placed as strategically and were technologically inferior. European rock castles would take months and sometimes an entire year to fall and in the meanwhile archers would kill thousands of offenders... and that is with the more advanced siege weapons of Europe The culture of castles in Europe was much more advanced.
The Mongols did not abandon the European campaign of 1241-42 because Ogedei died. They didn't even know he was dead. And it is totally wrong that the Mongols had to immediately return to the capital after the death of a khan. The Anatolian campaign continued even after Ogedei's death.
Shhhhhhhh the western history can't have slavic people be victorious in saving west europe EVERY SINGLE TIME while all they were good at is kill rape and enslave millions, in europe and everywhere else they went!! This revisionism has doubled after cold war started and west realized they had no moral ground to stand on...so they started making up their heroics in history.
Not the same but I made genghis Khan immortal in ck3 they took the entirety of the east except for a bit of Asia and took over the entirety of byzantine empire (this was controlled by AI not a player)
There's on the internet Stephen a story about Blanche talking to Louis about the Mongols, and Louis answers that he'd love to take them as winning would be infinite glory to Christendom and death would mean paying for his sins and gaining Eternal life in Heaven. I don't know the origin of this, I mean the source of this story. Regardless the origin, it fits perfectly with Louis's character.
In my opinion, I think if they had dealt with the rest of the Chinese first and then moved west to Europe, they would've been more successful in conquering all of Europe. Due to fighting in to many front have thin out there army's even tho it was relatively huge in numbers. But imagine the full force and might of the Mongol army, that would be devastating and plus just by Batu and Subatai army dealing that much damage to Europe already, man it would be game over for Europe.
The problem with that thinking is that history proves it wrong. The Mongols, with their greatest general, BARELY won the Battle of Mohi. Mohi was almost a disaster for them, period, that's undeniable. Legnica was also a very hard won victory. They were nearly defeated by the Poles and the Hungarians alone. If they'd pushed on into Europe it would've been the biggest defeat ever suffered by the Mongols. China is such a different animal. Its sophistication and centralization worked against it. Europe is a massive patchwork of tough, mountain fortresses. The Mongols would've been powerless to dismantle all those castles.
@@RealCrusadesHistory This is precisely why I think the fall of Rome actually ended up working out for Europe in the long run. If the Roman Empire persisted as a single centralized state (or even two halves with the West rebounding instead of falling), Europe would be much less prepared by the time the Mongols arrived. A central but inefficient government with less need for a lot of internal fortifications would be no different really from China or Persia. Any high profile defections would be a lot more consequential compared to the defection of small kingdoms or principalities which can't affect as large a population. And for what it's worth, we also saw in real life how vulnerable this system was to rapid border incursions such as from the Huns, Arabs, or Moors.
@@RealCrusadesHistoryBARELY 😂😂😂 The first time around, the mongols sent them two small forces that decimated the entire crusader army in Georgia on their way north then easily crushed the combined armies of hungary, Poland and allies 😂
@@RealCrusadesHistory Powerless? Dunno if that's a good argument. Subutai was almost removed from his position by Ghenghis Khan because he kept failing to defeat Jin China; they eventually conquered Jin. The mongols lost many times in their invasion in Asia, but look what happened. The whole "see? they lost in this and that battle, so no-uh" kinda baffles me.
What about Wenceslaus and his army ? The bohemain army was known for heavy cavalry at the time and super well equiped troops, what about them that you didn't count it as possible and by time more mobile in the area of central Europe ?
I think the rest of Europe would had been for them what other places of later failures also were, territories far from their heartlands with difficult terrain and hard to control effectively even in the case of a victory; I think they were wise enough to recognize they were nearing the full extent of the land they could conquer and, more importantly, keep at the moment so they retreated to consolidate their gains and the death of the Khagan was a further obstacle / delay but not the actual cause of their retreat imo.
"territories far from their heartlands with difficult terrain " Europes climate & terrain is nothing special compared to mountainous afghanistan and tropical jungles in burma where Mongols have conquered. Had Subutai been around to further command, the mongols conquering europe doesnt sound too far fetched.
Europe might’ve not been as rich as the Chinese or Arabic kingdoms but they we’re definitely wayy more experienced with warfare and they were also very bloody
@@anyiouo3814 yea my mistakes China actually had lots of wars but most of the battles was peasant farmers with no experience, that’s why so many people died in Chinese wars
We'll never know, of course, but I tend to think No. They could not go much farther west. 1) Each Mongol horseman had between 5 and ten spare horses - all in need of fodder. The vast steppes provided the grasses that the steppe ponies were used to. The lush, rich grasses of western Europe - or even eastern Europe were too rich and would cause bloat, a disabling condition caused by over fermentation in the gut. Like wise, western horses could not get enough nutrients from steppe grasses, and slowly starved - not to death - but to weakness. Thus, a large part of mounted Mongol strength wqould have been dependant upon allied troops with horses that could tolerate changes in feed. SOme of these proved unreliable. 2) The argument that more stone fortifications may be valid. The farther west you go the more formidable the barriers. Fortresses out on the steppes were mostly made of logs. Castle and fortress technology didn't reach those areas. And, they were situated on exposed flat terrain. Easy to besiege. This is not the case in Europe, where forts wee placed stregically intothe face of cliffs, on top of rock hills thatcould not be under mined, at bends in river valleys with guarded approaches, etc. Roads were narrow in those places and an enemy army could be cut to pieces or ambushed from dense forests. The bowmen of the west would have then been able to equal the mounted archers of the Mongols. 3) Western armies were formidable, with much experience in warfare. Properly led, they were a match for the Mongols - even on open terrain. The main tactic of the Mongols was to avoid direct melee and pepper the enemy line with arrows from horses, then turn away and fake a retreat. The European nobles were in competition with eachother and would not obey a single commander. They would rush out after the retreating Mongols, only to have their heavier laden horses become exhausted. Then they would ber slaughtered, leaving the leaderless infantry to then be surrounded and massacred. I have to believe that, if they had gone farther west, they would have encountered much larger armies with stronger alliances - given the examples of failure shown by the Europeans previously. In 1682, this was the case at the Battle of Vienna. Seeing the potential end of Christendom, the nobles put away their petty squabbles and gave command to Jon Sobieski of Poland. In the case of defeat, they could all blame the Poles, not themselves. In case of victory, they could all keep their heads, and plot later. 4) The Mongols were risk averse. They knew the odds, and were senstive to casualties. Their generals also had their heads on the line. INternal rebellion was not unknown to them. Siccess garanteed obediance. Thus, being masterful commanders, they weighed the odds and turned around.
Europeans knights were well armor protected including their face and well armed with long spear and long bow. They have also learned good tactics from the Romans. The mongols rely mostly from their bow and fast horses. This weapon against the knights armor were useless.
Where were the European knights during the first and second invasions of Poland and Hungary? Nowhere. Hungary did not get any help from Europe, for the first time against the Mongols, then later on against the Ottomans. The biggest shame is for the Vatican. Pope Gregory's army remained outside Hungary. Only appr 100 german crusader knights joined the Hungarian army in Mohi. They took off their spurs not to be able to escape from the Mongols. All of them were killed. They and the Hungarian peasants were used as canon balls while western Europe was waiting for good luck.
@@drelek5804 Hungarian nobles refused to answer their own king's call to arms to fight the Mongols. A but hypocritical to blame the rest of Europe when the majority of Hungarian armies refused to help. Also, the knights were one of the reasons that the second larger Mongol invasion was crushed with complete ease.
@@drelek5804 They did that with islamic invasion of balkan too. They have always used east europe as sacrificial lamb. It served two purpose. They didn't have to sacrifice and at the same time the war kept east europe in weaker state so they can be suppressed more easily.
Actually, Thomas of Split recorded that Mongol bow and arrows could penetrate European armor and shields, Roger of Apulia recorded the Mongols luring heavily armored Hungarian cavalry to a marsh and finishing with arrows alone. Hungarian knights was up to date with rest of Europe since early 13th century.
When I play medieval total war 2 and mods of the game and the faction of the kingdom of England I after conquering and annexing France and Germany and Scotland Wales and Ireland I build up and train a very large armies of longbow men, knights and men at arms and fortify my castle's and cities and forts for when the Mongol invasion comes and reaches Poland and Hungry where I then grind the Mongols down with longbowen amd wooden stakes.
I think the casualties were too high, they just tested some castles how fast they fall. Outriders or scouts maybe scouted even Germany and saw only castles and castles.
Barbarossa also had 100000 troops and ten thousand castles across the Holy Roman Empire. The Mongols aren't going through that any more than the Ottomans, Avars, Magyars etc
Given the population and terrain, no way in hell could the Mongol’s administered any type of governance in Eastern Europe. Period. It was what it was. They got their booty and said let’s go somewhere else
If mongols used advanced weapons like when they attacked china and other it might been possible. Mongols had good communication and communication was the key of the war. Mongolian commander was mastermind. But Hungary and poly was hard to deal with. Who knows.. what would happened
Western Europe was in all reality too poor an area to Conquer! The Mongols conquered China, Quarism, Islamic Caliphate and Russia. They were awash in booty , resources and spoils of war. Western Europe was poorer by far.
Yet they did attack Europe, and though they won at first, they also suffered some of their most serious difficulties and withdrew entirely. Then they came back later and were defeated. If it was too poor to bother with, then they would not have. Also, your characterization of Europe isn't accurate. Europe was poorer than some areas of the world at this time, but it had increased dramatically in wealth and population, especially by the 13th century. By this point, a lot of Europe was now as wealthy as many areas of the Muslim world.
so the assertion is that they crossed the entire continent of asia, but they stopped at europe because they were only there to raid. This is not logical.
The problem with mongols trying to conquer Europe is mainly the geography. A lot of nomadic horse archers tried their luck at Europe and all of them failed.
