"How much danger was Europe really in from Subotai?" Topic

Granted, the Mongols swept all before them, and they beat the Eastern European armies fairly handily, but…

If Subotai had continued west, he would have been deprived of two elements that the Mongol armies absolutely relied on:

1. Replacement light cavalry: It was pretty standard strategy for the Mongols to defeat other armies of Nomadic cavalry, and then absorb the defeated warriors into the Horde. Such troops simply did not exist in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, etc.

2. Open terrain: Western Europe of the period was still a big gnarly forest, as Attila found out at the Catalaunian Fields. European armies were heavy shock forces, suited for this type of terrain. Mongols were light maneuvering forces, and would have been greatly hampered.

Thoughts?

Perhpas the biggest problem would have been keeping the horses fed?

We should be glad we never found out.

Subotai was not leading an invasion. It was more of a reconnaissance in force. HIs force was merely the tip of the iceberg. There was much more to follow.

mjc

Terminal

Just to point out, much of western Europe had been cleared of forest for farmland even by the Iron Age (and only around 15% of England was woodland by 1066). Much of the woodland that survived was quite intensively managed, largely for firewood and timber, although a proportion (varying from country to country) was livestock-grazed "wood pasture" and so probably fairly open. For the British story, see Oliver Rackham's work e.g. "Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape". Similar work has been or is being done on many western European countries and although many, e.g. France and German, have and had a larger proportion of woodland than Britain, overall most (probably 60-70% minimum) of the land use was agriculture by the Roman period.

So the Mongols might not have found much light cavalry to assimilate but they would have had no trouble travelling through western Europe. The road systems were well developed even by the Roman period, of course!

Cheers,

David
nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.com

Were Mongol horses shoed? If not they wouldnt have been able to use Roman paved roads for long.

The Huns didnt have much trouble running all over France and Italy. I dont know what kind of shape their horses were in after a month or so of this though. Remember even Western Knights had several horses, so not a big difference between them and a nomad horseman with 4 or 5 remounts. Both had to feed a lot of horses. Even Napoleonic cavalry went through alot of horses, and they didnt have any trouble getting around Europe. There is a big difference though in getting around and then having any horse in decent shape after a month on the road.

Doug: the Huns and then the Hungarian invasions taught the Europeans a thing or two. By the time the Mongols arrived the whole continent was covered in castles. I might add that both the Huns and Hungarians were fought off quite quickly.

Subotai was not leading an invasion. It was more of a reconnaissance in force. HIs force was merely the tip of the iceberg.

This is the much quoted story, but it was clearly more than just a "reconnaissance". How many more men could they actually have fielded in an invasion without shifting their political centre westwards? I think it was the whole iceberg, but without any intention of staying.

Realistically, the Mongols could only deal with either China or Europe in any concerted fashion. They chose China and never looked at Europe again.

The received wisdom among wargamers is that the Mongols were nearly invincible, and that they would have run rings around European knights (as they did to the Teutonic Order in one battle).

I beg to differ.

First:
I think they would have had trouble with logistics. There is a reason that the Hungarian plain is the Western-most area that horse armies thrived. After that, Europe just isn't suitable for very large bodies of horse to subsist off the land. The Mongols didn't know how to supply large bodies of horse except by foraging off the land. Napoleonic armies had sophisticated supply trains and greater access to local knowledge. Mongols lacked these advantages.

Also, Europeans had a number of unique strengths that the Mongols hadn't encountered before.

Medieval knights were a force to be reckoned with. They sometimes lacked tactical finesse, and I don't doubt the Mongols would have defeated them in the first encounters, much as the Teutonic knights were outmaneuvered. But one of the worst mistakes you can make in war is to rely on your enemy to continue to make the same mistakes. In time, the knights would have learned to excercise greater caution, just as the Crusader knights adapted to their opponents in the Holy Land.

European infantry, especially missile troops, were much more formidable than the Chinese conscripts and hill tribesmen the Mongols had faced before.

Finally, I don't think the Mongols were that interested. It is precisely because Europe is not condusive to pasturing large numbers of horses that the Mongols just didn't want it. To them, Europe is the back of beyond, and inhospitable and worthless frontier on the edge of the world.

Like said previously the Hungarian plains would have been their main outpost and I suspect that they would have rampaged across Europe for some years until finally they would have fallen back to more open terrain.

I fail to see why the Mongols would have had any major problems outmaneuvering the chivalrous but plodding European knights and shooting them to pieces with their bows. The Knights could only move so fast, and the Mongols were much swifter. Besides, the knights' armor would have corroded quickly after they soiled themselves upon first hearing that the Mongols were approaching. I think that Europe should thank their lucky stars that the Mongols turned back when they did.

None.

Why does everyone forget they suffered some serious losses at Liegnitz?

Plus the logistic thing. No horse army with a string of remounts ever got past the Hungarian area for long.

Not much. Not remotely enough manpower to do anything but win a few field battles. The way the Mongol "empire" was set up, Europe was never in any great danger of being conquered….

Attilla didn't do too badly in central Europe.

What did he have that the Mongols didn't?

mjc

Hi

I really am not happy with these sorts of arguments. Some of your posta above don't consider some basic facts.

The reason western mounts were bigger than mongol "ponies" besides breeding was that they were raised on grain. The problems outlined with nappy and the breaking down were based on the problem of "modern" grain fed horses. The mongols were still riding ponies close to the base stock of horses 4000 years ago. These are small short cannoned (meaning less stressed less likely to break down) and totally raised on grass and random plant life.

Grain fed horses start breaking down without more grain, steppes horses don't. That is why Subotai was able to make some of those dramatic cross country runs of over 100miles a day. These horses don't carry as much, and won't carry a lot of weight as fast. But the logistics are simple.

Rocky

mjc: lots of Germanic allies and auxiliaries. The Hun part of Attila's army was less than half, maybe only 25%, iirc….

Interesting rocky thanks for that.

I think they could have caused europe big problems myself.

100,000 of them would probably be enough but who knows ..

Fair enough Doug.

I don't think the Mongols were above drafting 'allies' -- just like the Huns.

The Mongols were not inflexible nor were they incapable of adapting to the local situation.

As others have noted above, it is entirely possible castles and fortifications would be thrown open to the Mongols rather than risk being exterminated if they lost.

mjc

As observed above, the "center" of Mongol government was just too far away for the level of tech involved. Even when the "empire" broke into Khanates and the Golden Horde was nextdoor to Western Europe nothing of the kind happened. Momentum has a great deal to do with conquest; a lot more than technological/tactical advantages. A changed Mongol horde, with allies fighting in different styles like the Hunnish armies, is no longer a "Mongol army". Anything is possible then, but if conquest is going to occur the momentum has to be there. Look at the Magyars; raiding in very large hordes out of "Hungary", but never getting a grip on the land, even though they laid siege to large towns: even if they had been better at siegework, there was no momentum for conquest there….

Fair enough Doug.

But didn't the Mongols draft locals to help with siege craft in China?

Why would they be above this in Europe?

IMO, that is one of the strengths of the Mongols, they were willing to adopt and adapt local practices -- not just in war but in trade and government as well.

The original poster posed the 'what if' in rather open ended terms. As you noted, just about anything is possible – I'm just saying if they did continue on, I don't see anyone stopping them.

mjc

Well, China stopped them. Sure they claimed lordship over it, but in the end, and very soon at that, the Mongols became Chinese; they got absorbed. On a smaller scale that's what happened to the Normans in England and Sicily too: they were very adaptive, so much so that they became the culture that they had "conquered"….

Hi

And this is a real point. for the mongols, most of the west were just a side show when CIVILIZATION was available…in china.

I also think the issue was Subotai himself. None of the later mongols showed his ability to surprise.

R

China stopped them. Sure they claimed lordship over it, but in the end, and very soon at that, the Mongols became Chinese; they got absorbed.

China has done that to more than just the Mongols, apparently. Its a point of pride to them that China is eternal. Elsewhere in the world, the maxim is that "history is written by the winners". In China, history is written by the Chinese, win or lose.

The other point to make here is that the Mongols who stayed close to Kublai "became Chinese", but Mongols of one horde or another ruled or influenced everything that wasn't jungle from the China Sea to the Black Sea, and made a good showing in India for that matter. Those Mongols "became Persian", or "became Indian", or (for a not insignificant minority) "stayed Mongol".

With Conan at his side it is amazing that Subotai did NOT conquer all of Europe. Or was the invasion before he met Conan?

======================================

Of course, the massed crossbow formations that the mongols found themselves facing proved quite effective against mounted troops.

That works on the gaming table too: crossbow behind armored spearmen: that sees off open order horsearchers swiftly….

Those ponies needed grasslands to graze. Not plentiful in Europe outside of Hungary.

How do you think it got iys name! All the horses were muttering this as they arrived. "hungry…so hungry…"

"I also think the issue was Subotai himself. None of the later mongols showed his ability to surprise."

with respect, no force has ever been able to maintain the whole 'surprise' tactic for long… by its very nature. If your enemy gets wise to the way e.g. Blitzkrieg works & still has resources to resist (e.g. Britain, USSR, in early '40s) you are screwed…

Hi

I do not mean "surprise" as in jumping out and yelling "BOO".

Rather, Subotai starting with his near assination of Ghengis himslef, had a talent for being unexpected. That kind of "surprise" not some sort of rigid tactic.

Rocky