I’ve read a variety of analyses of why the Mongols couldn’t complete their conquest. Like others, I used to believe that Europe got “lucky” when the great Khan died and the hordes abandoned the endeavor because that was the consensus narrative. I’ve since read some more detailed studies, however, that strongly suggest two other critical …
I’ve read a variety of analyses of why the Mongols couldn’t complete their conquest. Like others, I used to believe that Europe got “lucky” when the great Khan died and the hordes abandoned the endeavor because that was the consensus narrative. I’ve since read some more detailed studies, however, that strongly suggest two other critical factors were at play: the castle system and the muddy terrain due to Spring rains. Both of those bogged the Mongols down and rendered their tactics all but useless. Could they have besieged all of those thousands of castles and starved Europe to its knees? Maybe. But maybe not. The soft, muddy, and forested terrain of western Europe isn’t the steppes of the East. It may well be that the abandonment of the effort to return to matters back home provided a convenient excuse to not get into siege warfare with the Euros.
That sounds quite plausible. The Saxon system of burhs, which ultimately developed into castles, was an adaptation to Viking raids that proved very successful. The Dane did not enjoy siege warfare. It makes perfect sense that the Mongols would be equally unenthusiastic upon finding that the Eurasian peninsula they intended to conquer was wet, mountainous, difficult to traverse by horse, covered in castles, and populated by a professional warrior aristocracy that had been sharpening its teeth on itself for several centuries.
Europe is also laced with rivers which add a dimension to warfare that would have been largely foreign to the hordes. i.e. How many boats did the Mongols have? How well prepared were they to defend against those kinds of tactics? Were they going to put their own horses on captured boats and float them in response? Who would pilot the boats? etc, etc.
They got as far as Vienna and the March River IIRC, but that's it. The Croatian mountains caused a lot of problems for the Horde en route. They captured Poland, and made a mess in Croatia, but by then they had started taking heavier losses as they moved westward into Austria. I think the narrative that Europe was "lucky" that the Horde turned back voluntarily is largely some self-loathing, ahistorical, academic bullshit. The Mongols were not Super Warriors - they were simply ruthless in a way that Christendom no longer was because chivalry had by then taken hold. Hell - the Chinese kept them at bay for centuries with the Great Wall. (Which, when one sees it up close, isn't hard to understand. It's like a giant long castle wall set at the top of steep, massive ridgelines that today uses ski lifts to take tourists up to the top of.) Indeed, the Great Wall is exactly why the Horde went west into Russia, rather than sacking China. The Great Wall is likely the first ever large-scale immigration restriction to preserve the Han culture and keep out those "icky" Mongols.
Certainly the Mongols were not seafarers. Their two disastrous invasions of Japan demonstrated that. To be fair, the second was wiped out by the Kamikaze. But the first did make landfall ... and they got cut to pieces in the mountains of Honshu by the samurai.
Another factor is weapons technology. Light horse cavalry armed with small compound bows are deadly against conscript peasant armies lacking discipline and armor. Against European heavy cavalry in armored plate? In an environment where withdrawing is made difficult by rivers and forests? I'm skeptical. A similar story with the samurai, for that matter.
Another aspect is physique. The Mongols were larger and stronger than the Han, and probably most other peoples they encountered. The European knight, raised on a diet of meat and milk and trained from boyhood in weapons and tactics, was a different story altogether.
There was also a "great storm" which supported the Japanese in the first Mongol invasion. I don't know if the storm qualified for "kamikaze" but it certainly was a good roll of the dice. Regarding the European knight against the Mongols, the problem as I understand it was ambush, archers and swarming. The multiple European fortresses as strategic knight strongholds would have been another matter for the Mongols.
Good points. Relatedly, the crusader castle system was a major problem for the Saracens. Had the crusaders played the hand differently at key campaigns and time points, they may have succeeded.
Indeed. From what I've read, the crusaders' main enemy were themselves. Much of what led to their ultimate defeat were a series of unforced errors, infighting, etc.
They took back quite a bit of what they had lost, e.g. all of the Iberian peninsula, and parts of the Holy Land. It wasn't entirely successful, but had it not been for the Reconquista, the world would look very different today.
Wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that 10,000 Mongols arrive, have a battle, and 9800 remain. Next battle, a great Mongol victory, but 9600 remain. And so on. At some point, the maimed remainder say ‘am I the only one not having any fun?’ Plus, can you imagine being on the road for many years?
I’ve read a variety of analyses of why the Mongols couldn’t complete their conquest. Like others, I used to believe that Europe got “lucky” when the great Khan died and the hordes abandoned the endeavor because that was the consensus narrative. I’ve since read some more detailed studies, however, that strongly suggest two other critical factors were at play: the castle system and the muddy terrain due to Spring rains. Both of those bogged the Mongols down and rendered their tactics all but useless. Could they have besieged all of those thousands of castles and starved Europe to its knees? Maybe. But maybe not. The soft, muddy, and forested terrain of western Europe isn’t the steppes of the East. It may well be that the abandonment of the effort to return to matters back home provided a convenient excuse to not get into siege warfare with the Euros.
That sounds quite plausible. The Saxon system of burhs, which ultimately developed into castles, was an adaptation to Viking raids that proved very successful. The Dane did not enjoy siege warfare. It makes perfect sense that the Mongols would be equally unenthusiastic upon finding that the Eurasian peninsula they intended to conquer was wet, mountainous, difficult to traverse by horse, covered in castles, and populated by a professional warrior aristocracy that had been sharpening its teeth on itself for several centuries.
Europe is also laced with rivers which add a dimension to warfare that would have been largely foreign to the hordes. i.e. How many boats did the Mongols have? How well prepared were they to defend against those kinds of tactics? Were they going to put their own horses on captured boats and float them in response? Who would pilot the boats? etc, etc.
They got as far as Vienna and the March River IIRC, but that's it. The Croatian mountains caused a lot of problems for the Horde en route. They captured Poland, and made a mess in Croatia, but by then they had started taking heavier losses as they moved westward into Austria. I think the narrative that Europe was "lucky" that the Horde turned back voluntarily is largely some self-loathing, ahistorical, academic bullshit. The Mongols were not Super Warriors - they were simply ruthless in a way that Christendom no longer was because chivalry had by then taken hold. Hell - the Chinese kept them at bay for centuries with the Great Wall. (Which, when one sees it up close, isn't hard to understand. It's like a giant long castle wall set at the top of steep, massive ridgelines that today uses ski lifts to take tourists up to the top of.) Indeed, the Great Wall is exactly why the Horde went west into Russia, rather than sacking China. The Great Wall is likely the first ever large-scale immigration restriction to preserve the Han culture and keep out those "icky" Mongols.
Certainly the Mongols were not seafarers. Their two disastrous invasions of Japan demonstrated that. To be fair, the second was wiped out by the Kamikaze. But the first did make landfall ... and they got cut to pieces in the mountains of Honshu by the samurai.
Another factor is weapons technology. Light horse cavalry armed with small compound bows are deadly against conscript peasant armies lacking discipline and armor. Against European heavy cavalry in armored plate? In an environment where withdrawing is made difficult by rivers and forests? I'm skeptical. A similar story with the samurai, for that matter.
Another aspect is physique. The Mongols were larger and stronger than the Han, and probably most other peoples they encountered. The European knight, raised on a diet of meat and milk and trained from boyhood in weapons and tactics, was a different story altogether.
There was also a "great storm" which supported the Japanese in the first Mongol invasion. I don't know if the storm qualified for "kamikaze" but it certainly was a good roll of the dice. Regarding the European knight against the Mongols, the problem as I understand it was ambush, archers and swarming. The multiple European fortresses as strategic knight strongholds would have been another matter for the Mongols.
The storm was called the Kamikaze - lit., "divine wind".
Good points. Relatedly, the crusader castle system was a major problem for the Saracens. Had the crusaders played the hand differently at key campaigns and time points, they may have succeeded.
Indeed. From what I've read, the crusaders' main enemy were themselves. Much of what led to their ultimate defeat were a series of unforced errors, infighting, etc.
They took back quite a bit of what they had lost, e.g. all of the Iberian peninsula, and parts of the Holy Land. It wasn't entirely successful, but had it not been for the Reconquista, the world would look very different today.
Wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that 10,000 Mongols arrive, have a battle, and 9800 remain. Next battle, a great Mongol victory, but 9600 remain. And so on. At some point, the maimed remainder say ‘am I the only one not having any fun?’ Plus, can you imagine being on the road for many years?