[Alexander39]

Daniel, on Jun 8 2005, 05:06 AM, said:

Can you feed horses on grain fields?  I've heard references to such things, like Kipling's "they will feed their horse on the standing crop" and Doug Hoff's mention that peasantry could be force to bring fodder in to the Mongol horses.  But I've no idea if this could be done in real history.

You can, but the grain dont replant itself like grasses normally does, and it can be rather hazardous to feed horses or cattle directly from a grain field, since some off the fungi that thrives on grain in humid/wet envioments can course madnees and death in cattle and horses, it is not healthy for humans either but we normally kill off the fungi by drying out the grain.

[Alexander39]

Daniel, on Jun 8 2005, 03:18 AM, said:

That isn't even what you said above.  You said above that Austria alone could support 72,000 horses.  That's 24,000 men at 3 remounts per person.

but you have to eliminate each and every other grazers in the area incl horses/oxen used for farming, not that the Mongols wouldn't do it if nessesary.

Quote

Anyway, since you insist on acting as if Austria alone had to support the entire invasion, I'm looking for hard numbers on how many horses Germany could support logistically.  All I've found so far is that Germany in Sept. 1939, could support 600,000 horses, although the actual figure was presumably higher since some must still have been in civilian use.  Napoleon raised 187,000 horses, but this was from France as well as Germany.

Austria didn't have to support the whole horde, but it makes logistically sence to have your main forces concentratet in one spot where you could reach your main targets whitout to much trouble, and Austria is well placed for that.
I mentioned earlier that the central german plain only became a true farm land and pastuate from the 17' hundres and onward. And most of the feed that Horses and cattle gets in Europe is based on grains that have been harvestet. it is ekstremly energy rich food a main reasons why horses and cattle could be grown into so prodigious sizes like they did. The knights Destier warhorses had in the late 14' hundres reach a size off around 550kg+. and that is a size you cannot get from normal pastuage. setting the horses for pastuage is mainly to keep them fit, not becourse they live of the land.

Quote

Forests are not good for horses to fight in, but they do not prevent the passage of horses.  You can even put tanks through forests, as the Germans proved in the Ardennes.  Napoleon moved susbtantial cavalry forces through the Black Forest.
The European plain stretches along the whole northern seaboard of Europe clear to the Pyrenees.  Some of it is forested, but so is some of Russia, especially around the Pripyet.

No forests is not good at fighting in but they have two main liabillities seen from a normad warriors wiewpoint, even throu they dont impead the mobillity that much, it removed the advantáge of the recurved bows since the engagement ranges were much smaller, + it would come down too more one on one or small unit against each other in the forest, and last but not least, even for steppe ponies it would be difficoult to get food there, they could take the bark off the trees and leaves too, but they are not really minded for it conterary to deers fks.
The pripyet forest is/was also at the same time home to the Eurasian continents (That incl Asia) largest swamp. NOBODY want to fight in a swamp, the losses to natural courses like accident and sickness is pr definition always much higher in swamplands than any losses due to enemy action.

Quote

What is your source for that number?  The Mongols killed 800,000 people in the sack of Baghdad, so by your figure about one third of the population of Iraq lived in Baghdad alone.

I don't agree whit Warhead about everything by a long shot, but there is one area were he is right wether the populations numbers he has given is right or not, that is that the relative size of population to area in countries like Russia and Persia were ridiculously low compared to southern china and europe proper at the time + the river civilisations like Nile, Indus & Eufrat and Tigris always have had a far larger % of their populations in the cities than anywere else, so saying that a 1/3 of the population in modern day Iraq were inside Baghdad is not that much of a strech. but probably only ½ of that number were there under normal circumstances. which a time of war is not.

[Alexander39]

Liang Jieming, on Jun 8 2005, 05:47 AM, said:

You have to be careful in drawing the distinction here.  Europe had torsion catapults since Roman times.  While these are also catapults, they are very different from the lever principle catapults we are talking about.

Quite right but the siege weapons that Saxo describet used in 1131 were counterweight trebuchets, NOT torsion catapults.
The first dokumentet (Whit drawings) large scale use of counterweight trebuchets (11) were by Saladin in 1187 in his siege of Jerusalem.

Quote

The first documented mention of levered catapults were traction catapults in A.D. 587 from Byzantium and were used in by the Avar in a seige in what is now northern Bulgaria.  Then in A.D. 597, the Byzantium city of Thessaloniki was besieged again using traction catapults.

True, traction trebuchets/catapults had been known in China back around 300BC.
BUT the first TRUE counterweight were describet in Europe around 1100'.
A hybrid form (part traction part counterweight) were even used by the Vikings in their siege of Paris in 841'.

Quote

Ayyûbid Sultanate (A.D. 1169-1250), Kurds who rose to power in the area around Mosul developed the Counterweight and Hinged Counterweight Catapult.  It was this technical innovation that the Mongols took and used to great advantage in their campaigns.

could have been develope independently from northern Europe, but were certaintly not exclusive too the area at the time, Hybid forms were in use in frequently from at least the siege off Paris an onwards

Quote

The first documented use of Hinged Counterweight Catapults (trebuchets) in China was in A.D. 1251 during the Mongol siege of Xiangyang.  No one has been able to find the first documented instance of when Hinged Counterweight Catapults (trebuchets) were first introduced into Europe but it is generally agreed to be in the 1200s, the exact same time as it's destructive introduction into the Far East from Persia.

Normaly it would be the siege of Dover in 1216, but as mentioned before, it was already desribet in good details as in use by 1131'.
Largescale fortress building, first developed in Europe duing the Viking age and after, and of course siege technology followed after. by the time off the Norman invasion off England in 1066 Fiefdoms more or less totally independant from central powers like the King were more the norm than the ekseption on the mainland, and their independence were upheld by greater and more elaborate fortrees building. sieges as such became common only after the Kings on the mainland began too reaccert themself, from the crusades and onwards.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"That isn't even what you said above. You said above that Austria alone could support 72,000 horses. That's 24,000 men at 3 remounts per person."

Yes, I did, which would not be enough to sustain the conquest of any sizable portion of Western Europe. Especially when infantry is not of any sufficient quantity. And Austria been the most pasturage ground for Germany would be the major field of opperation for the Mongols, any other territory would provide even less pasturage.


"Anyway, since you insist on acting as if Austria alone had to support the entire invasion, I'm looking for hard numbers on how many horses Germany could support logistically. All I've found so far is that Germany in Sept. 1939, could support 600,000 horses, although the actual figure was presumably higher since some must still have been in civilian use. Napoleon raised 187,000 horses, but this was from France as well as Germany.
"

All of Western Europe combined even today only have 159,771 square miles of pasture. Less than half that of Mongolia's in the 13th century. Yet
in the thirteenth century that area would be far smaller, since most of Europe was still forest and extensive conversion of open-field arable to pasture didn’t really get underway until the agricultural revolution in the nineteenth century. Add to this is that its broken up into little village lots between great expanses of woodland filled with grazing cattles which make any large concentration of cavalry forces impossble.






"Forests are not good for horses to fight in, but they do not prevent the passage of horses. You can even put tanks through forests, as the Germans proved in the Ardennes. Napoleon moved susbtantial cavalry forces through the Black Forest."

They would have to fight in the forest. Which they do not control. Even the Eastern European pasturage is only a small fraction of that available in Northern China, in addition to which northern China has a far greater logistic base and supply support that Eastern Europe pale in comparison to the West. Napoleon has a base in France and Germany, where hundreds of thousands of INFANTRY could be supported, and cavalry only makes up a fraction of his army, and again this is 19th century pasturage, after the agricultural revolution. The Mongols need a base of operation further west and would again have ro rely on infantry which mean they loose their superiority in mobility and they simply would not have enough manpower and resource to conquer all of western Europe.





"The European plain stretches along the whole northern seaboard of Europe clear to the Pyrenees. Some of it is forested, but so is some of Russia, especially around the Pripyet."

Again, the German part is filled with forests, and not suitable for any large cavalry operation. The element of defense is on every part at the advantage of the Western Euroepan armies, which would have no problem ambushing in the forest and annihilating the advancing or retreating horde.




"What is your source for that number? The Mongols killed 800,000 people in the sack of Baghdad, so by your figure about one third of the population of Iraq lived in Baghdad alone."

J.N. Biraben: “Essai sur l’évolution du nombre des hommes”, Population, 34, 1979

[Liang Jieming]

Alexander39, on Jun 8 2005, 10:13 PM, said:

Quite right but the siege weapons that Saxo describet used in 1131 were counterweight trebuchets, NOT torsion catapults.

Interesting! I've not heard of this account. This would be the earliest account of the CW treb in Europe I've heard so far (but not necessarily the HCW treb). Anymore details?

Quote

The first dokumentet (Whit drawings) large scale use of counterweight trebuchets (11) were by Saladin in 1187 in his siege of Jerusalem.

Hmm... I'll have to seach more on this. From what I understand, there is some confusion on this and that many of the perceived counterweight trebuchets were actually more weighted traction catapults or just sketches that made the rope pulling end look larger than usual.

Any pictures?

Quote

True, traction trebuchets/catapults had been known in China back around 300BC.

Yes.

The account of treb from Byzantium in the 6th century I was talking about are the first accounts of the traction treb in Europe.

Quote

A hybrid form (part traction part counterweight) were even used by the Vikings in their siege of Paris in 841'.

Any details? Again, it's probably the weighted traction treb, not a true CW treb.



I"m not surprised that Europe would have had the CW treb fairly early. The diffusion of technology between Europe and the Middle East was rampant because of the crusades. Even in Needham's book, he states that the HCW treb's introduction into China was later than it's introduction into the West.

[Alexander39]

Take a look at

http://sunsite3.berk.../DanishHistory/

it is only the first 9 books, but they are public domain, the other 7 books is at the Royal libary homepage at.

http://www.kb.dk/eli...axo/lat/or.dsr/

Saxo Grammaticus made 16 books about Gesta Danorum, or 'History of the Danes' in a 20 year period from around 1200 to his death in 1220. the first 9 books are in public domain in english, since they were translatet in 1905 from Latin, if there is any hardcore Latin readers they can find the rest of the books for free on the Royal Libary homepage.

By the way the story about the siege of Haraldsborg is in book 12 -.9.8.

The original books by the way is demmed 'World cultural heritage' by the way, and is priceless to say the least, but the Royal Libary has on micro film both the original books, and the later edition made in 1303 which is the one whit the best pictures. Only 2 completet editions of that is in excistence in the world today, and is value (For insurance purposes) at 180million$ (If you have a rich uncle whit WAYYYYY..... to much money, you might be able to buy the one eksample NOT in the Royal libary for around 3 times that amount)

[kaixin]

What if the Mongols decided to transport 500,000 infantry foot soldiers from northern China into the Eastern European campaigns? Chinese fire rockets were actually used in the Battle of Sajo in Hungary.

Mongke Khan gave Hulegu about 1,000 northern Chinese infantry and they were highly successful in the invasions of the Middle East.

And, much of Batu and Subedei's forces in the Golden Horder weren't just Mongols. Mongols mostly served as officers and vanguard cavalry. Most were recruited from the Kipchak Turkic peoples (ie nomadic Kazakhs, Udmurts, Bashkirs, Nogai, etc.).

[Liang Jieming]

Hmm... now I wish I could read Danish.

Could you give a translation of the relevant parts?

Quote

The Danish historian Saxo writes that King Erik Emune used trebuchets at the siege of Haraldsborg near Roskilde in the year of 1131. At this time the Danes had no knowledge of the finer arts of warfare and several Saxons were summoned to build and handle the engines.

Is this a true HCW or FCW treb? Or just a traction catapult or at best a weighted traction catapult?

Quote

The chronicler Olaus Magnus writes of another trebuchet used at Kalmar. An old woman happened to sit down on the sling pouch and by mistake triggered the trebuchet with her walking stick. As a result she was hurled through the air across the streets of the town, apparently without suffering any damage.

This definitely sounds more like a HCW or CW treb as you can't self trigger a traction catapult. However, this could also be a Mangonel (Onager) instead. Which one is it? The Olaus Magnus I know was born in A.D. 1490 and died A.D. 1558 which would put him not just into the HCW era but into the gunpowder era though he may have been writing of an earlier time. So the question is, what year was this account in?

Quote

Another story about trebuchets is told by Froissart in connection with the siege of Auberoche in 1334 by the French. In this case an English messenger was captured and sent flying back to the castle with his letters tied around his neck.

This is obvious. 1334 is well into the era of the HCW treb everywhere!

Hope you don't mind me nit-picking. This is the first I've heard of HCW trebs that early in Europe despite reading loads of accounts to the contrary.

Thanks!

This post has been edited by Liang Jieming: 09 June 2005 - 01:31 AM

[Alexander39]

Liang Jieming, on Jun 9 2005, 08:15 AM, said:

Hmm... now I wish I could read Danish.

year it might help but he wrote it in Latin, so that would be more relevant. I havent found other public domain in english than the one mentioned above. but the books is available throu Amazon in rather good english translations also throu several of the larger US universities and British too.

Quote

Could you give a translation of the relevant parts?
Is this a true HCW or FCW treb?  Or just a traction catapult or at best a weighted traction catapult?

The difficulty is that the word used by Saxo to describe the Trebuchets 'blide' can mean all of the above. BUT the reason that SERIOUS historians gives credit to the notion that they are true counterweight Trebuchets is the amunt of damage describet given to the fortress, and archeological research off the same, not least the range they were fired from (150-200m).

Quote

This definitely sounds more like a HCW or CW treb as you can't self trigger a traction catapult.  However, this could also be a Mangonel (Onager) instead.  Which one is it?    The Olaus Magnus I know was born in A.D. 1490 and died A.D. 1558 which would put him not just into the HCW era but into the gunpowder era though he may have been writing of an earlier time.  So the question is, what year was this account in?

It was an CWT. but the story is probably more a 'Urban legend' from the times, trying to give a sence of humor into the other part of the *Is it a bird... No it is a poor negotiator... * use of the Trebuchets.

Quote

This is obvious.  1334 is well into the era of the HCW treb everywhere! 

Hope you don't mind me nit-picking.  This is the first I've heard of HCW trebs that early in Europe despite reading loads of accounts to the contrary.

Thanks!

I know but it was a describtion to good to miss
But if you want factual, then the siege off Dover in 1216 is by all definitions the latest that CWT's came into use in Europe.

[Liang Jieming]

Hahaha I like that medieval urban legend!

Ok, so we are still with the baseline of A.D. 1216 Dover as far as conclusive facts are concerned. This fits with what I've read to date though you're right about the 1131 account. 200m is a stretch for traction trebs but weighted traction trebs might be able to make that range. I need to do more digging along this path and see where it leads me!

[Alexander39]

kaixin, on Jun 9 2005, 08:13 AM, said:

What if the Mongols decided to transport 500,000 infantry foot soldiers from northern China into the Eastern European campaigns?  Chinese fire rockets were actually used in the Battle of Sajo in Hungary.

Logistic is in the way, even under the best of circumstances it would take at least a year or more to transport that infantry army across the continent, and only if everything is going well.
Distance to travel : 9000km (at least)
Average speed of a regular infantry army : about 30 km pr day. equals 300days travel on the road. come winter the army either have to biuvack over several waystations/fortresses or try the route down throu Persia and along the coast up to the twin rivers (Eufrat & Tigris).
And no they could'nt just sail to the middleeast. the knowledge and knowhow wernt there at the time. (we are talking about ½ million men + provisions +equipment). It would equal a fleet off 2500 large ships, whit 200 soldiers and their provisions besides the crews.

Quote

Mongke Khan gave Hulegu about 1,000 northern Chinese infantry and they were highly successful in the invasions of the Middle East.

They were specialist troops and engineers, not your run of the mill infantry.

Quote

And, much of Batu and Subedei's forces in the Golden Horder weren't just Mongols.  Mongols mostly served as officers and vanguard cavalry.  Most were recruited from the Kipchak Turkic peoples (ie nomadic Kazakhs, Udmurts, Bashkirs, Nogai, etc.).

Yes off course, otherwise the Mongols would have the manpower to conquer the ares they did.

[Daniel]

warhead, on Jun 8 2005, 11:42 AM, said:

All of Western Europe combined even today only have 159,771 square miles of pasture. Less than half that of Mongolia's in the 13th century. Yet
in the thirteenth century that area would be far smaller,

Thank you for the data.

I take it, based on what you said about Austria, that you are using a figure of about 9.1 horses per square mile carrying capacity?

If that is correct, 159,771 square miles would support 1,453,916 horses. Enough for 5 remounts for 290,783 Mongol warriors. I think that might be enough to give the Europeans a problem. Indeed the shortage at that point would be of Mongols, not of carrying capacity.

So I guess the question is, how much smaller is "far smaller?" Certainly only some of that reduced pasturage is in Germany and Austria, where the initial campaigns have to be fought. Are we talking 25% of that figure (72,695 warriors)? 10% (29,078 warriors)? 5% (14,539 warriors?) Only the last figure is a number lower than the Mongols had at Liegnitz.

Also, how much cropland is there that the Mongols can use instead of pasturage to feed their horses, forcing the peasants under torture or threat of death to dry out the grain and use it as fodder?

Quote

They would have to fight in the forest. Which they do not control.  . . . Again, the German part is filled with forests, and not suitable for any large cavalry operation. The element of defense is on every part at the advantage of the Western Euroepan armies, which would have no problem ambushing in the forest and annihilating the advancing or retreating horde.

I am not certain of this. Unless you are saying that Germany was one solid forest, which cannot be the case since there was agriculture there, the Mongols would have the opportunity to do what they did so well, lure the enemy onto a killing ground of their choice outside of the forest. Also the vast superiority of Mongol military intelligence would give them a good chance of stealing a march on their enemy or feinting, leaving the would-be ambushers chasing a phantom Mongol force while the real army crosses the forest at an unanticipated location.

Quote

J.N. Biraben: “Essai sur l’évolution du nombre des hommes”, Population, 34, 1979

Cannot find this one on the Web. I did find this essay, which lists Biraben in the bibliography. But its estimate of Iraq's population in 750 is 5 to 6 million (p. 6), and estimates a 25% population increase through the end of the 11th century, for a total of perhaps 6.25 to 7.5 million. Interestingly, it lists Iran's population as lower than Iraq's at that time.

By comparison, Germany's population in 1340, basically the instant before the Black Death hit, was about 11.1 million. Basically comparable to Iran and Iraq combined by the source I found.

By that Fordham U estimate, the whole population of Europe rose from 38.5 million in 1000 to 73.5 million by 1340. At a wild guess, maybe 60 million in 1241. A formidable figure if it had been united, which it wasn't.

[Alexander39]

Daniel, on Jun 9 2005, 02:47 PM, said:

Thank you for the data.

I take it, based on what you said about Austria, that you are using a figure of about 9.1 horses per square mile carrying capacity?

If that is correct, 159,771 square miles would support 1,453,916 horses.  Enough for 5 remounts for 290,783 Mongol warriors.  I think that might be enough to give the Europeans a problem.  Indeed the shortage at that point would be of Mongols, not of carrying capacity.

Dont forget that most of that pastuage is occupied by cattle and horses owned by opponents that would not like it if the Mongols tried to take over.

Quote

So I guess the question is, how much smaller is "far smaller?"  Certainly only some of that reduced pasturage is in Germany and Austria, where the initial campaigns have to be fought.  Are we talking 25% of that figure (72,695 warriors)?  10% (29,078 warriors)?  5% (14,539 warriors?)  Only the last figure is a number lower than the Mongols had at Liegnitz.

After the 30years war (1618-1648) the reclamation projekts slowly expanded the pastuage available in central germany to about twice what is was before, and the area for farming almost 3 times, (Fredrich der Grosse was a great beleiver in statistics and paperwork, that is why we know this) at the end of the Napoleonic wars forest had virtually gone, due to the great demands for ever larger pastuage and fields for the increasing number of horses used in the wars.
25 - 30% sounds about right.

Quote

Also, how much cropland is there that the Mongols can use instead of pasturage to feed their horses, forcing the peasants under torture or threat of death to dry out the grain and use it as fodder?

A good quailified guess would say that the acreage for pastured and farming is about equal.but the grain has a much higher energy and protein value so they could in theory feed three or four times as many horses as the equlivant grasses.
By the way the german peasant were at this time not downtrodden and meek, more castels and towns fell too ornery peasants rebellions than too rival lords. at this time period.

Quote

I am not certain of this.  Unless you are saying that Germany was one solid forest, which cannot be the case since there was agriculture there, the Mongols would have the opportunity to do what they did so well, lure the enemy onto a killing ground of their choice outside of the forest.  Also the vast superiority of Mongol military intelligence would give them a good chance of stealing a march on their enemy or feinting, leaving the would-be ambushers chasing a phantom Mongol force while the real army crosses the forest at an unanticipated location.

True but the unanswerd quistion would be how good the Mongol Humint intelingence were compared to their superior scouting abillities. it could be taken as a fact that their spies were not nearly as thick on the ground as the they were in China and not as well placed either. So they would still be hit whit ambushes even throu not nearly as often as other invaders.

Quote

Cannot find this one on the Web.  I did find this essay, which lists Biraben in the bibliography.  But its estimate of Iraq's population in 750 is 5 to 6 million (p. 6), and estimates a 25% population increase through the end of the 11th century, for a total of perhaps 6.25 to 7.5 million.  Interestingly, it lists Iran's population as lower than Iraq's at that time.

Bagdad and Iraq were in a economic depression at this time partly becourse of the Crusades,+ internal unrest and also becourse of the Mongol invasions from the east that had greatly disruptet trade on the silkroad at this point, so between 1150 - 1240 the population actually fell. Both in Bagdad and in Iraq as a whole.

Quote

By comparison, Germany's population in 1340, basically the instant before the Black Death hit, was about 11.1 million.  Basically comparable to Iran and Iraq combined by the source I found.

By that Fordham U estimate, the whole population of Europe rose from 38.5 million in 1000 to 73.5 million by 1340.  At a wild guess, maybe 60 million in 1241.  A formidable figure if it had been united, which it wasn't.

Quite true they were not unitet, and that is the only chance the Mongols has to make it. but the great unknown is wether the invasion of heathens would raise western Europe up into a crusade like the first.

[Yue Fei]

Daniel, on Jun 6 2005, 01:51 AM, said:

I'm not sure about the relative toughness of Chinese and European walls, but I'm quite sure the Mongols could breach them both, given adequate time.

Interesting thoughts.
If they could overcome the mountainous terrain of the Great Wall and breach it, I would presume that European walls would be breached as well.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"Thank you for the data.

I take it, based on what you said about Austria, that you are using a figure of about 9.1 horses per square mile carrying capacity?

If that is correct, 159,771 square miles would support 1,453,916 horses. Enough for 5 remounts for 290,783 Mongol warriors. I think that might be enough to give the Europeans a problem. Indeed the shortage at that point would be of Mongols, not of carrying capacity.

So I guess the question is, how much smaller is "far smaller?" Certainly only some of that reduced pasturage is in Germany and Austria, where the initial campaigns have to be fought. Are we talking 25% of that figure (72,695 warriors)? 10% (29,078 warriors)? 5% (14,539 warriors?) Only the last figure is a number lower than the Mongols had at Liegnitz."


The figure is for ALL of Western Europe today, we do not have any reliable data on 13th century figures, but the forest area at the time should reduce the pasture to many times less. And again, these are spread out, with large tracks of forest in between, we should restrict ourselfs only in Germany, because they would have to cross it to get to the other portions of Western Europe, and Germany is the most forested area of any other place in Western Europe. Tümens were specifically organised on a regional basis to maximise grazing potential. The horse herd in Mongolia numbered over three million and their presence had a huge environmental impact, obliging the tribes to move from lowland winter pastures to summer highlands, and in fact imposing on them their nomadic lifestyle. A force of 20,000 would need at least 100,000 sq mile of pasture. While no place in Germany or Italy could sustain. All the Mongols could do is raid, cause destruction, and withdraw, under the threat of a counterattack. But a coordinated campaign to conquer is a virtual impossibility, since castles alone will take decades to take down, and the pastures and weather would not be able to sustain any pronlonged campaigns, and they would meed infantry just like the conquest of Song China yet unlike China where the North had abundant resource and Manpower, the Mongol could muster huge infantry that match, if not exceed the strength of the Song armies and over power their defenses. Eastern Europe's population at the time is a pygmy compared to west which had roughly 70 million people.



"Also, how much cropland is there that the Mongols can use instead of pasturage to feed their horses, forcing the peasants under torture or threat of death to dry out the grain and use it as fodder?"





"I am not certain of this. Unless you are saying that Germany was one solid forest, which cannot be the case since there was agriculture there, the Mongols would have the opportunity to do what they did so well, lure the enemy onto a killing ground of their choice outside of the forest. "


No, its just that the pasture are not connected and are scattered around with forests in between, no large amount of horde can consentrate anywhere in a single place, Austria been the best place that they can cross and can support no more than 20,000 if they plan to make any progress.



"Also the vast superiority of Mongol military intelligence would give them a good chance of stealing a march on their enemy or feinting, leaving the would-be ambushers chasing a phantom Mongol force while the real army crosses the forest at an unanticipated location."

As trial and error amounts, all Europe have to do is retreat back behind the walls, and there would be nothing the Mongols could do.







"I did find this essay, which lists Biraben in the bibliography. But its estimate of Iraq's population in 750 is 5 to 6 million (p. 6), and estimates a 25% population increase through the end of the 11th century, for a total of perhaps 6.25 to 7.5 million. Interestingly, it lists Iran's population as lower than Iraq's at that time."

the figure I gave for Iraq was after the Mongol invasion, sorry that I wasn't clear, Persia's however was before the invasion. The devastation of the Mongol conquest seem to have reduced Persia's population to no more than 3 million.



"By comparison, Germany's population in 1340, basically the instant before the Black Death hit, was about 11.1 million. Basically comparable to Iran and Iraq combined by the source I found."

Yet the difference is that the Middle east is much moer suitable for cavalry then Germany. It took the Mongols more than half a century to conquer China. They would not have taken Western Europe in one sweeping offensive, which is what they needed to do in order to avoid having to refeed their animals. With this in mind , prolonged siege would be uneconomical and unsustainable, not to mention Europe was divided, that actually possess a greater difficulty for conquers, since many cities of Song simply surrendered, a divided Europe would take much longer to subdue, city by city. And with the limited population Mongols have, they would not be able to hold on to the cities in any prolonged period. If anything, Western Europe is a much more difficult task even taking out the factor of distance.