"The Mongols were over rated"

[The Minsky Moment]

There is some truth to this, but it can easily be overstated. The Mongols campaigned successfully in many cavalry-unfriendly places, such as when they overcame the Sung in southern China.

One of the achievements of the Mongol empire at its height was its willingness to incorporate non-Mongol elements into its war machine to make it more balanced. It is a mistake to think of it as a horde of steppe nomads and nothing else.
. . .
This is of course not a unique characteristic of the Mongols - for example, it is well known that the Turks took Constantiople with the help of Hungarian cannon experts.

The same was also true of the Huns, who operated quite effectively throughout Europe for a time.

[Malthus]

You are missing the point about fortifications.  It's not the quality of the fortifications, it's the quantity.  That and the lack of any real gain from taking a castle.  Most the castles were
still probably wood in the 13th century (though stone ones were increasingly common).  The Mongols can't bypass the castles without risking their foragers being attacked.  They are to many
to take all of them and the castles themselves have no intrinsic worth.  The fortification around the city of Xi'an are protecting something valuable.  Castles protect money poor but mean spirited
guys with with metal clothes and pointy bits of steel.  The Mongols were likely badly outnumbered in Europe, so they really can't risk sieges or assaults on petty castles.  One outbreak of disease will
devastate them.  They need to move quickly to prevent spread of disease and running out of food in any given area.  When they siege something it needs to be worth the
risk.  A fat target like a major city.

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true and what evidence there is, tends to disprove it.

For example, take the Mongol campagin against the Ismalis of Alamut (known as the "Assassins") by the Mongols. The Ismalis, a hated minority that ruled the majority by what we would now call terrorism, had carefully defended themselves by building what amounts to castles in very inaccessible mountanous locations, specifically to avoid being rooted out by military campaigns (hence the leader of the Ismailis was sometimes mythologized as the "Old Man of the Mountain").

This did not prevent the Mongols from, essentially, wiping them out - even though their castle strongholds were relatively small, numerous, inaccessible and poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamut

What they did to the Assassins, presumably they could do to Europeans.

[Martinus]

I think the biggest obstacle to Mongols conquering Europe is the fact that there wasn't a lot of stuff worth conquering here. Unlike the rich Middle East, Europe was a poor backwater for at least two centuries more.

Incidentally, I thought the most common theory was that the battle of Legnica wasn't even a proper attempt at a conquest but more of a small exploratory expedition that just happened to wipe the flower of chivalry in the area. Was this theory disproved?

[Malthus]

I think the biggest obstacle to Mongols conquering Europe is the fact that there wasn't a lot of stuff worth conquering here. Unlike the rich Middle East, Europe was a poor backwater for at least two centuries more.

The biggest obstacle to the Mongols conquering Europe was the fact that Europe was comparatively distant from the centre of Mongol power, and the Mongols could not keep their empire from fragmenting before they got around to it. They were definitely considering it at one point, though. Odegai's untimely death from booze poisioning screwed up their plans.

The battle of Legnica was a consequence of the Mongol plan to prevent anyone comming to the aid of Hungary while it was being invaded. No-one knows whether the Mongols would have gone further had Odegai not drunk himself to death (though of course, historians are full of theories). One historian seriously suggests they stopped because Germany was too wet for Mongol bows! (It must be a surprise to him to learn that the Mongols seemed to have no trouble with their bows in south China).

Another theory is that they lacked grazing for horses. This fellow discounts the notion that the death of Odegai had anything to do with it:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/sinor1.htm

According to John of Plano Carpini the death of Ogedei prompted the Mongols' withdrawal from Hungary. Valuable though the Friar's account may be, it does contain many mistakes, of which this explanation is a prime example. Unfortunately, the mistake has been perpetuated by generations of historians (including the present writer), who, for a long time, never pondered on the inherent weakness of this theory. Ogedei died on December 11, 1241, and it had been argued that when the news reached him, Batu, who might have had personal, imperial ambitions, decided either to return to Mongolia or, at least, to move closer to it. The fact is that Batu showed no signs of any desire to travel to Mongolia, but after the evacuation of Hungary remained on the South Russian steppe, still very far from the center of power. Whether Batu ever harbored ambitions to become the Great Khan is a moot question, but his behavior certainly did not reveal anything of the sort. Available evidence suggests that he was content to be the de facto ruler of the western part of the Mongol empire, and that he showed great loyalty to Ogedei's successor, Guyuk. The reason for the Mongol withdrawal from Hungary must be sought elsewhere; it was caused by logistical imperatives.

To which the reply is: the significance of Ogedei's death is not limited to the desire to become great Khan on the part of Batu, but on the fact that Batu became as it were more interested in intra-Mongol affairs than on expanding the overal Mongol imperium. This culminated in the de facto, and then de jure, carving up of the Mongol territory into personal fiefdoms (Batu's became known as the "Golden Horde"). Only a united and centralized Mongol empire could pursue the conquest of whole continents and the uncertainty at the centre put paid to these ambitious plans.

[Malthus]

The same was also true of the Huns, who operated quite effectively throughout Europe for a time.

True enough, though you get the same sorts of arguments about their wandering style having to do with lack of grazing etc.

[Razgovory]

You are missing the point about fortifications.  It's not the quality of the fortifications, it's the quantity.  That and the lack of any real gain from taking a castle.  Most the castles were
still probably wood in the 13th century (though stone ones were increasingly common).  The Mongols can't bypass the castles without risking their foragers being attacked.  They are to many
to take all of them and the castles themselves have no intrinsic worth.  The fortification around the city of Xi'an are protecting something valuable.  Castles protect money poor but mean spirited
guys with with metal clothes and pointy bits of steel.  The Mongols were likely badly outnumbered in Europe, so they really can't risk sieges or assaults on petty castles.  One outbreak of disease will
devastate them.  They need to move quickly to prevent spread of disease and running out of food in any given area.  When they siege something it needs to be worth the
risk.  A fat target like a major city.

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true and what evidence there is, tends to disprove it.

For example, take the Mongol campagin against the Ismalis of Alamut (known as the "Assassins") by the Mongols. The Ismalis, a hated minority that ruled the majority by what we would now call terrorism, had carefully defended themselves by building what amounts to castles in very inaccessible mountanous locations, specifically to avoid being rooted out by military campaigns (hence the leader of the Ismailis was sometimes mythologized as the "Old Man of the Mountain").

This did not prevent the Mongols from, essentially, wiping them out - even though their castle strongholds were relatively small, numerous, inaccessible and poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamut

What they did to the Assassins, presumably they could do to Europeans.

My evidence is the subsequent raids into Eastern Europe some of which were disasters for the Mongols.  The Invasion of Hungary a few decades after the initial one resulted in the Mongols being pretty badly beaten up.  In fact the first invasion was a failure.  Despite appointing a governor for Hungary, and badly defeating the Hungarian army, they could not subdue it due to numerous fortified strongholds.  There were similar incidents in Serbia, Croatia and Poland.  The failed assault on Klis is indicative of the Mongols difficulty with European siege warfare.  They may have had more success if Europe was closer to their base of operations, but they were fighting in an unknown land, against unknown peoples far, far from home.

[Malthus]

My evidence is the subsequent raids into Eastern Europe some of which were disasters for the Mongols.  The Invasion of Hungary a few decades after the initial one resulted in the Mongols being pretty badly beaten up.  In fact the first invasion was a failure.  Despite appointing a governor for Hungary, and badly defeating the Hungarian army, they could not subdue it due to numerous fortified strongholds.  There were similar incidents in Serbia, Croatia and Poland.  The failed assault on Klis is indicative of the Mongols difficulty with European siege warfare.  They may have had more success if Europe was closer to their base of operations, but they were fighting in an unknown land, against unknown peoples far, far from home.

The first raid was a failure because the Mongols did not stay - for political reasons having to do with events in Mongolia. They effectively destroyed the Hungarian army and its potential allies, but reducing fortifications takes time. However, fortifications are really *only* good for buying time, they must eventually be relieved by a field army. None such existed.

Subsequent Mongol raids into eastern Europe were of a very different character. The unity which had fueled the Mongols explosive expansion was gone, and with it went the Chinese and Middle Eastern siege experts that had been attached to the Mongol army. No longer were the Mongols really interested in or capable of creating a universal empire - now the Golden Horde was more concerned with enriching itself through predation on settled kingdoms. In fact, they reverted to more resemble the typical nomad state.

The question, though, is whether at their height the Mongols in their unified empire could take territory they coveted that was heavily covered by castle-like fortifications. There is no question about it - they could and did, as the example of their destruction of the Ismaili "state" demonstrates. The reason they could is that, contrary to their rep., they were *not* simply a horde of predatory steppe nomads - they had adopted many ideas from the settled states they preyed on, which is exactly what made them so very dangerous.

It was simply Europe's luck, luck that they were far away from the Mongol heartlands and so were late on their list, luck that Mongol unity did not last, that saved 'em. Not any inherent superiority of arms (Mongols handily defeated every Euro army sent against them), not some supposed inhospitality to horses, not some inability to take castles. The Mongols in Europe were at the limits of overstreach and when their unity came into question, they simply lacked the resources for further expansion.

[Faeelin]

But they didn't defeat every European army, no? They lost in their subsequent invasion of Hungary, they didn't defeat Lithuania....

And it's not like the Mongols didn't continue to expand elsewhere. Ayn Jalut wasn't until 1260; the Song didn't fall entirely for decades.

[Malthus]

But they didn't defeat every European army, no? They lost in their subsequent invasion of Hungary, they didn't defeat Lithuania....

And it's not like the Mongols didn't continue to expand elsewhere. Ayn Jalut wasn't until 1260; the Song didn't fall entirely for decades.

I'm speaking of at their height as an empire, which lasted a fairly short time and came to an end in different places at slightly different times. Obviously the Mongols existed past their height, but split between different territories - the Golden Horde, the Yuan, the Il-Khans, etc. These factions fought against each other as well as against outsiders, and often lost to outsiders - for example, Ain Jalut was a Mongol defeat, and the Yuan suffered many defeats in its attempts to expand beyond China (famously against Japan, but also against Vietnam and Java).

Past their height, the successor "Golden Horde" Mongols fairly often re-invaded into Eastern Europe, but they were not the same and their goals were not the same - they were more interested in plunder than expansion.

Ain Jalut is instructive - once again, the enemies of the Mongols were saved by the death of a great Khan (in this case, Möngke). While the golden horde had gained more or less autonomy on the death of Ögedei, the Il-Khans of Persia gained more or less autonomy on the death of Möngke. The effect was startlingly similar: it put an immediate end to Mongol expansion in the middle east.

At the battle of Ain Jalut, the Mongols were decisively defeated because they were only a part of the Mongol army - the main part had retreated to contest the election of a new Khan.

In summary, as the Mongol empire gradually broke up, the bits that broke away became incapable of the massive, explosive expansion that had characterized them at their height. This happened first with the Golden Horde, saving Europe, then with the Il-Khans, saving the ME. Last was the Yuan, which remained powerful for a long time - but which suffered a series of defeats when attempting further expansion.  Mongols post-peak could invade and defeat armies, but could not take over whole continents, and largely did not try.

[Razgovory]

My evidence is the subsequent raids into Eastern Europe some of which were disasters for the Mongols.  The Invasion of Hungary a few decades after the initial one resulted in the Mongols being pretty badly beaten up.  In fact the first invasion was a failure.  Despite appointing a governor for Hungary, and badly defeating the Hungarian army, they could not subdue it due to numerous fortified strongholds.  There were similar incidents in Serbia, Croatia and Poland.  The failed assault on Klis is indicative of the Mongols difficulty with European siege warfare.  They may have had more success if Europe was closer to their base of operations, but they were fighting in an unknown land, against unknown peoples far, far from home.

The first raid was a failure because the Mongols did not stay - for political reasons having to do with events in Mongolia. They effectively destroyed the Hungarian army and its potential allies, but reducing fortifications takes time. However, fortifications are really *only* good for buying time, they must eventually be relieved by a field army. None such existed.

Subsequent Mongol raids into eastern Europe were of a very different character. The unity which had fueled the Mongols explosive expansion was gone, and with it went the Chinese and Middle Eastern siege experts that had been attached to the Mongol army. No longer were the Mongols really interested in or capable of creating a universal empire - now the Golden Horde was more concerned with enriching itself through predation on settled kingdoms. In fact, they reverted to more resemble the typical nomad state.

The question, though, is whether at their height the Mongols in their unified empire could take territory they coveted that was heavily covered by castle-like fortifications. There is no question about it - they could and did, as the example of their destruction of the Ismaili "state" demonstrates. The reason they could is that, contrary to their rep., they were *not* simply a horde of predatory steppe nomads - they had adopted many ideas from the settled states they preyed on, which is exactly what made them so very dangerous.

It was simply Europe's luck, luck that they were far away from the Mongol heartlands and so were late on their list, luck that Mongol unity did not last, that saved 'em. Not any inherent superiority of arms (Mongols handily defeated every Euro army sent against them), not some supposed inhospitality to horses, not some inability to take castles. The Mongols in Europe were at the limits of overstreach and when their unity came into question, they simply lacked the resources for further expansion.

Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

[Malthus]

Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

Alamut much larger than any castle? I beg to disagree. What are you basing that on?

The reason they could not hold territory has been explained: it was because their "expansion phase" came to an end during the invasion itself with the death of their khan. Had he lived another year, Hungary would have been Mongolified.

[Valmy]

And since Hungary is named after the Huns it just would have been logical to do so.

[Solmyr]

Mongolary?

[Razgovory]

Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

Alamut much larger than any castle? I beg to disagree. What are you basing that on?

The reason they could not hold territory has been explained: it was because their "expansion phase" came to an end during the invasion itself with the death of their khan. Had he lived another year, Hungary would have been Mongolified.

I base it on the fact that records show it have a garrison of several thousand.  Possibly much more.  And no, the "expansion phase" did not come to an end in that period.  The Mongols went on to conquer southern China.

[Malthus]

Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

Alamut much larger than any castle? I beg to disagree. What are you basing that on?

The reason they could not hold territory has been explained: it was because their "expansion phase" came to an end during the invasion itself with the death of their khan. Had he lived another year, Hungary would have been Mongolified.

I base it on the fact that records show it have a garrison of several thousand.  Possibly much more.  And no, the "expansion phase" did not come to an end in that period.  The Mongols went on to conquer southern China.

Have a look at pictures of the actual site. If it held "several thousand", they must have been packed in like subway commuters. 

This account, by someone who visited the site, comments on how tiny the place was:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RTyTn4ErwRIC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=alamut+castle+garrison&source=bl&ots=OJSSgHIXOb&sig=7Wp7RMyjQaTH35qAy2yezHAWaHo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=69UqT4u-IOeIsQLs8rGSDg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alamut%20castle%20garrison&f=false

As noted above, different bits of the Mongol empire gained de facto independance from the great khananate at different times. First to go was what became the Golden Horde. Then came the Il-Khans. That left the Yuan plus the Mongol homelands as the 'core'.