Would it have been feasible?

If you say yes, how is it possible?

If you say no, why not?

http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index....topic=3451&st=0
from our sister forum, a discussion rages over Mongol vs Europe



with the power of these twins in a clamshell, I'd like to summon the mighty Warhead from Monster Island to smite the nay sayers.

My thought is that the Mongols could surely have taken all of Central and Eastern Europe, and probably France also, had Ogdei not died. The Europeans simply were not able or willing to unite against them, and the Mongols were just too superior in command, control, discipline, mobility, and military intelligence, for even the substantial military power of France to resist. Probably they would have taken Spain also, assuming they could find a passage over the Pyrenees, which they probably would either by their superb scouts or through treachery; the Christians and Arabs were badly divided, exhausted from fighting each other, and could have been gobbled up piecemeal.

I think the Italian states would have had a fair chance to resist the Mongol onslaught, if they could just avoid the Mongols' talent for getting their enemies to fight each other. If they could have gotten a league together like the Lombard League that fought off Barbarossa, get a whole freakin' bunch of Genoese crossbowmen organized, preferably with some Welsh or English longbowmen mercenaries added, then they would have had several advantages. The mountainous terrain of central Italy would have impeded the mobility of the Mongol cavalry, and the Mongol horses would be more vulnerable to the crossbowmen and longbowmen than the smaller, better armored archers would have been to the Mongol horse bowmen. Italy was also extremely heavily fortified, and while the Mongols could certainly do siege warfare, they weren't nearly as superior at it as they were at open maneuver warfare. Even so, it would have been a real nail-biter who would win. You don't get to make many mistakes when you're fighting the Mongols.

I think Britain would almost certainly have stayed out of Mongol hands; I would envision a repeat of the failed Mongol invasion of Japan. That's assuming that Scotland or Wales doesn't pull something stupid and let the Mongols in to fight their hated English enemies.

Scandinavia I really don't know about. The mountainous terrain would not have been good for cavalry, but militarily Scandinavia was not strong, and I'll bet the Mongols would have got the Livonians fighting on their side. The Scandinavians might revert to Viking tactics and send longships up river to cut the Mongol supply lines. But even though Scandinavia is a hard place in which to live off the land, will that work against people who can live for weeks off the blood and milk of their own horses? I'm guessing the Mongols win in Scandinavia.

If you're really interested in "what-if" history, here's a site you'll want to see: Doug Hoff's Empty America, a history of the world as it might have been if there had been no people in America; one of the butterfly effects is no death of Ogdei and a Mongol conquest of Eastern Europe and Germany, though the French get extraordinarily lucky and stop them.

generally what I hear most that goes against Mongols.. (this I don't always agree with, but for arguments sake...)

Terrain- Swampy and mountainous areas would be difficult to conquor, Mongol cavalry superiority nullified

fortresses- Apparantly some of the European cities were super-well armored and would've been 'impossible' to breach with Mongol technology


Both, I say, look at CHina, it's not all flat and dry. And...
Chinese fortresses compared to European ones, weren't Chinese walls built to withstand siege engines better, while European models were more on preventing scaling? I've heard that European walls, though taller, did not take impact as well.


hahah, this is very interesting.

The Song fell when the Mongols started bringing in the Persian HCW trebs. The same would have happened in Europe. If you look at the history of European fortresses/castles, they fell into irrelevance not long after the adoption of the monster treb (and cannon).

This talk about Europe being non-calvary country is nonsense. 18th-19th century european armies always had a large calvary component. Charge of the Light Brigade and all that. Europe has always been perfect calvary/tank country which was why the Warsaw Pact and Nato had tens of thousands of tanks facing each other across the iron curtain.

If European terrain negated calvary, we would be talking about European humanwave tactics and not the other way around.

I basically agree with that. Mountains aren't a magic bullet, but they would be difficult to conquer.

I certainly wouldn't agree with that. The Mongols would have had at least man-powered trebuchets, and I'm pretty sure they knew how to dig mines, which were quite capable of destroying walls. European walls could have been breached, it just would have been very hard, slow going.

I'm not sure when the Mongols got their hands on Chinese counterweight trebuchets and cannon, which would have made wall-breaching a lot easier. But moving 13th-century cannon in mountainous terrain is pretty tough in any case.



True, but note that the mountainous terrain in China was where the Mongols tended to have the hardest time. A lot of Sichuan is mountainous, and the Chinese managed to give the Mongols a very tough time of it there, killing Mangu Khan and retaking many areas the Mongols had conquered.

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.

That rather depends on which part of Europe you're talking about. The north European plain has always been great cavalry country. Italy and Scandinavia aren't.

Well yes but Italy and Scandinavia are peripherals. Much of Europe is filled with rolling hills.

A more significant barrier would be the great rivers of Europe.

Peripherals, yes, but peripherals that threaten the flanks of the Mongol advance. There's also the Swiss and French Alps to contend with.

The rivers would indeed be the only significant barrier to cavalry on the north European plain. Look for the Mongols to adopt their traditional solution: campaign in winter when the rivers are frozen.

True. The Iberian, Italian and Greek peninsula are heavily populated too so could probably hold off the Mongols for a long time though Scandinavia because of the lower population base wouldn't be a credible threat.

But if the peripherals become threats, that would mean the Mongols would have swept down through the flat Rhineland, through the lowland countries into France and split Iberia from the Italian boot. The Greeks have always been isolated as a peninsula and with Byzantium as a Mongol ally, no help there. The mongols, holding the centre could then take these fairly isolated peninsulas one at a time though with the southern European traditional strength in sea travel it would be a long and costly affair for the mongols though not impossible judging from the number of times Rome was sacked by the visgoths, the huns etc.

More likely than not, the mongols would have stopped at just holding the centre. They were already overextended by then.

hmm.. they probably could have..

On the terrain debate, it only become important if someone's gonna take the terrain and use it. But the mentality of war at that time was to decide it all in one battle, so given that mindset the mongol could've beaten everyone. Riding on horses gives you the option of picking your battle.

When you've killed 40,000 men in one day, it dishearthen the rest...

Then your castle got bombarded by heads, it would have been shocking, and dirty. Attacking the enemy's morale seems to be one of the Mongol's greatest weapon.

Europe at that time didn't have a 'centralized state' system yet, the invasion would drive them to unit together, but the Mongols would have delt with one by one before they would unite...

Besides, the Mongols were also led by Subotai, a military genius..



Very likely was to turn the center into a mass-grassland and to loot the rich Italians cities with mercenaries! Then take those walls down one by one and murder the citizens... every last one, venice will be red, with Blood!!!!

The Huns never sack't Rome the goth's and Vandals did do, but the Vandals came from the sea from their base in north Africa on a large fleet, landed at Ostia Romes harbor city and went inland versus an undefended city. The Goths didn't have to fight their way down throu the Peninsular since they were already there! They had to make siege on the city but they already had control over most of Italy at that time,
By the way one of the best books you can read about the last days of the Roman empire in the west, is Le Spaque du Champs little novel *Lest Darkness falls* it is a altenate history novel but throuly factual as too the life of the common people at the time. and the bickering that took place between the various fractions of the Christian church's.

Scandinavia were not well populatet and was a terrible horse country, you could invaded but hardly feed your horses, especially large numbers,
On the other hand the scandinavians were ekstremly good at making war (And piracy) from the sea, together whit the pre-Hanseatic cities they could (and did) make life miserable for those they disfavored!
A few of the Castles and Fortresses were more or less immune to direct assault either becourse of their placement on high rocky cliffs or by sheer size (Like Konstantinoble). the counter weight Trebuchet were NOT a millitary secret, it had been in use for more than a hundred years in Europe at the time of the Mongols, so of course those that could affort it did their best to build to whitstand the onslaught of the Trebuchet either indirectly by building were it couldn't reach you or by making room for ones own Trebuchets to make counter artilley fire.

A note about the Trebuchets, they are VERY large pieces of artillery and demands both speciallized builders and engineers and very good and sturdy timber, something that was not always at hand so you had to bring the machinery whit you. All in all it was the very expence and specialization that doomed the Trebuchet in the end. A cannon like a crossbow is fairly easy to learn to use, and much harder to hit whit counterfire.

The rivers in western Europe at the time didn't always froze over, the 'little iceage' hadn't occured yet. and even throu there were large cavalry armies at the time off Napoleon, that was made possible by a far better infrastructure and distribution networks to feed the horses GRAIN, grass were still a fairly scares commodity at the time, compared to the numbers of horses we are talking about.

The large woodlands of central Europe wernt removed at the time even throu it was well underway, but that is not as much a disadvantaged for the Mongols since they were organized at a much better level. and could use the same forest to move and concentratet were they pleased. whitout anybody knowing anything before it is to late.

The relative anarchy that were prevalent over much off Europe, would be the single thing that could course the Mongols the biggest headache, simply becourse it would be like figthing a hydra whit many heads and you had to kill them all since there is not heart (Central administration) to pierce to slay the beast, they would have to use ekstreme amonut of time compared to what they had been used too, to bribe, blackmail, threaten, ambush and outright besiege the various strongholds all over the western part of the continent.
In effect, there usuall tacticts had to be modified heavily to make an invasion succesful over time.

Europes heavy cavalry IE knights wernt the biggest threat to the Mongols, the common use of crossbows and the heavier versions like arbalest were, this in connection whit each citys fortifications and own artillery, is the primary course why siege warfare mostly were a matter of famine and sickness to desided who won, if you didn't have a traitor to open the gates for you that is. and also the reason why an invasion would turn out to be something totally different from what have been tried before by the great khans.

IF Europe were in the possesion of something that the Mongols would dearly want to have, they could and would invaded, death of Ogodei or not. but how succesful would depend how they could adapt to the way of war in Europe.

Where was this from? There are reports where sappers dug away/blew away entire chuncks of earth underneath the castle walls, and yet, the walls still remain standing.

Not necessarily. The leading textbook of war in medieval Europe was Vegetius's De Re Militari, which counseled strongly against risking everything on a pitched battle, and instead recommended a Fabian strategy. Not everyone followed Vegetius (not everyone could read), but the appearance of the Mongols would tend to, erm, select strongly in favor of Vegetian commanders.

The difficulty was that a feudal king wasn't always able to follow Vegetius, with his knights only bound to serve for a limited term, he had to win or go home fairly quickly. But by the 13th century a lot of kings were using scutage to hire mercenary armies that they could keep in the field a lot longer, and just left the knights at home.

True. The Mongols always had an edge in military talent over their opponents, because they picked commanders on merit. Even the Khan's sons had to prove themselves before they would be given command.



Yes, but was Scandinavia worse for feeding horses than Russia in winter? The Mongols managed to keep their horses alive through the Russian winter, and proceeded to beat the Russians to a pulp. They remain the only army in history to have invaded Russia in winter and win.

Constantinople? Taken by direct assault during the Fourth Crusade, and again by the Turks in 1453.

Even Chateau Gaillard, probably the toughest castle built in its day, and built on formidable natural terrain, was taken by direct assault in the end.



Really? I hadn't heard of trebuchets in Europe until the Albigensian Crusade's malvoisin.

No arguments there about the sacking of Rome. You're right about the Goths already being in Italy. I forgot about that. They were mercenaries who turned on their masters. Another good "historical" fiction you could read is "The Last Legion" which depicts the time of the collapse fairly accurately.

You're right about Rome being hard to take. My point is that it could be. Hannibal almost did it too and via the alps to boot. Anyway, I don't know enough about Roman history to argue the point.

And ah... I've not read of HCW trebs in Europe before the mongols. Like the Chinese, they only had traction trebs.

Personally, I thought if the Mongols had not withdrawn, most of the European cities and states would have surrendered and be spared destruction.

As to how and how long the Mongols could maintain its overlordship is another question, depending a lot of how their Khan choose to go about it.

very true, but never underestimate the stupidity of man

Again correct, but the one great unanswerable quistion is wether it would be possible to gather enough forces in time, mercenary or not, and if they would be called for new crusade in time



Correct, only when ekseptional individuals made their way to the top among the Mongols opponents did they have a hard time.

Also true, but i was describing Scandinavia in the SUMMER, winter you dont want to know. remember that in most of the year Russia was the perfect horse country over wide areas. and the tartar horses were used to scrape for food beneath the snow, the climate is not eksakly forgiving on the Mongolian steppes in the winter.
The problem whit Scandinavia as a whole is that it is lousy pastuage even in the best of times in the time period we are talking about.



they wouldn't have gotten a chance if it was not for inside help, try reading up on the Fourth crusade, it is a tale off deciet and betrayal like few others in the history off man. And i'm not only talking about the sack off Constantinople.

will read up on it later



Trebuchets were fairly complicated engines, dependent on very heavy timber constructions for their proper functioning. The weight box might accommodate up to 20 tons of ballast consisting of stones, sand, or lead, and the pieces of ammunition might weigh as much as 300 kg. Various types of ammunition were used with the trebuchets. Stone shots have already been mentioned, but they also used beehives, small stones burned into clay balls which would explode on impact like grapeshot bullets, casks of tar and oil on fire, dead animals for introducing plagues and diseases, and finally prisoners of war and spies. It was said that one knew when they had landed - when the cries stopped!!
A fair number of medieval sources report the use of trebuchets. 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.
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. 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.
.
Apart from such incidents the trebuchet was generally considered a very reliable weapon and many cities or principalities had their own stock of dismantled trebuchets awaiting use in an engine store house. The "magister tormentorum" (master of trebuchets) was the official in charge of constructing, maintaining and handling the huge engines.

down below is a link to Middelaldercenter in Denmark, it is both in Danish, German & English, there you can see several replicas of various siege engines in action, incl a large counterweight Trebuchet. Theres several links for those interestet in engines of war and their history. Theres also movies of some of the engines in action. So enjoy

http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/


By the way Saxo Grammaticus lived from around 1150-1220. so he had his knowledge about the use of siege euipment from some of the persons involved.

No, they would not. The furthest they might penetrate is Eastern Germany.

And this is more than just walls, terrains and weapons.


"Both, I say, look at CHina, it's not all flat and dry. And...
Chinese fortresses compared to European ones,"

The crucial difference here is distance and logistic. As well as the amount of field for grazing
There are some 5,000 miles between the Mongolian plateu and Western Europe, much more burdensome than merely a few hundred between China and Mongolia. Where Mongol armies can invade the central Plains in hordes of up to 200,000. Their invasion of Poland and Austria had no more than 20,000 forces. Logistics alone is unbearable even for nomadic armies, and we aretalking about transfering large amount of siege equipments by that much distance las well as the limit of horsepower. North China have lare field of pasture due to the fact that Northern Chinese armies extensively use cavalry as well. Yet because of this, it also enabled the Mongols to overran it with gerater ease than the South. Mongols could only conquer South China by conquering the North first, and more importantly secure a permanent base in the North so hundreds of thousands of armies of infantry , siege equipment and most importantly the navy could be despatched.
Yet in Europe, the conquered Russian states could only give Mongol's strking power up to Eastern Germany anything further would require a foothold in Eastern central Europe.
The annualised estimate for the modern pasturage of Austria is only 7,933 square miles, giving Austria carrying capacity of about 72,706 steppe horses, enough to sustain 5 remounts(which average mongols need) for a military force of only 14,541 riders. Even if Mongols break their usual rule and use only 2 remounts per person which is quite uneconomical, they would still sustain no more than 30,000 cavalry in Eastern Europe. This mean control would be loose and not as direct as in China. It also mean that the Mongols, like the Huns before them require local auxiliars and adopt infantry cored army were the cavalry is only a small portion of their striking power, And the Huns only achieved their supremacy after decades of settlement in Europe. Add to the difficulty is that the armies of Western Europe is stronger than those of Eastern Europe and the same goes for the navies. So there is little hope for the Mongols to conquer Western Euroep in a brief span of one war or series of campaigns, rather they'll need to wait for many decades. And this is made impossible by the weakeness of the Mongol government which is never highly centralized. And already broke up in 1260, the Golden horde alone did not have the manpower, resoure, or military to topple all of Western Europe.

Good point. The Mongols will get cut off from behind, leaving the few thousand men stranded. It will only be a matter of time then. 14,000 men, chances are, can't fight their way back to China through Europeans and Muslims, and Central Asians

There's a big difference between the Huns and the Mongols - the bunch who invaded Europe were part of a larger force still united under a commonly recognised Khan.

Even if the Europeans got their act together and united against the Mongols, a questionable prospect, anyone trying to cut off the retreat of the Mongols might find themselves between two powerful Mongol forces instead.

Which was the smaller part of their invading army. The force attacking Hungary, which had to cross the Carpathians and was therefore more logistically difficult, was 50,000 strong. But Hungary was where the Cumans were, so it was the chief target.

Altogether, that makes a force of 70,000 (and no, it didn't have to stay dispersed to survive; Baidar rejoined Subotai shortly after Liegnitz). This force, as the Mongols proved time and again, was capable of beating armies much larger than itself.

Are you under the impression that siege equipment had to be transported all the way from Mongolia? Not at all. Standard practice for all medieval armies, not just Mongols, was just to bring engineers along and construct siege engines from timber on the spot.



From Bulgaria, which was the western border of the Kipchak Khanate, to East Germany is a much lesser distance than from Karakorum to Bulgaria.

But, in any eventAnd how are the Europeans going to stop the Mongols from getting that foothold in eastern Europe? How exactly are the Europeans going to stop 70,000 Mongols on the north German plain?

Why would the Mongols have to invade via Austria, rather than the much better cavalry country of the north German plain?



I agree it could not be done in one war. A series of campaigns would be necessary, as in Russia, Persia, and Iraq.

The north german plain as you describe it, is not a pasture as you might think, it was covered whit openforest and fields for grains, + the lower parts of the plains around the Fulda gap. was at the time very swampy and wet, and in spring and autuum a moskito heaven. to think that there was a open space for tens of thousend of horses is fairly optimistic. you will have too remove the trees and farmers fields (as historically happend much later in the 17' century) before you would be able to make good use of the central plains.
The Hungarian plains on the otherhand, is very good pasture indeed, and could (and did) have room for more than 200000 horses for shorter periods of time, around 50-60000 on a permanent basis.
At the time, common pratctise for the time when encountering massivly superior numbers, were to go inside your fortress/keep and hunker down. waiting for disease to either kill you or the besieging army (Sometimes both).
By the way, to construct something like the Trebuchets that would be neeeded to bring down some of the harder targets were neither easy or fast, you have to have access to first class timber, that you have to bring in from forests that could be rather far away.
70 000 mongols would beat evey army on the European continent in open battle, but that would be the ekseption, most of the time it would be a see-saw battle between raiding parties and one siege after another, all of which would demand their toll on all parties. but the Europeans were in a far better position too take the losses than the Mongols even if they were losing one for every ten european soldier/peasant.

"Even if the Europeans got their act together and united against the Mongols, a questionable prospect, anyone trying to cut off the retreat of the Mongols might find themselves between two powerful Mongol forces instead. "

As already pointed out, you underestimate the weakness of the Mongol government, already in the 1250s, the Khans of the Golden Horde were already minting their own coins, a definence to the great Khan Meng Ge in Mongolia, so no, because of the natural loose organization of the nomadic empires, the Golden horde is mostly on its own. Any larger troops supplied by the Great Khan would jeopardize his own power in Mongolia especially since the distance was so large.
Its the paradox of nomadic conquests, due to their loose organization and mobility they could conquer large areas that sedentary armies could not, yet with this advantage comes sacrifice in centralization and effective control where a sedentarty bureucratic organization could maintain.
Ther wasn't any instance of the Great khans supporting another subbordinate khanate to any great extent in history, you can see that from the Gokturks down to the Mongols, the separate khanates are on their own as long as they acquire even something of a large force that threaten the dominance of the Gerat khan.

"Which was the smaller part of their invading army. The force attacking Hungary, which had to cross the Carpathians and was therefore more logistically difficult, was 50,000 strong. But Hungary was where the Cumans were, so it was the chief target."


Hungary is a steppe land not a forest. And this is done when there was a base of operation in Russia, invasion of further states in the Holy Roman empire and France is logistically impossible, since that would requrie a establishment in Austria full of forests and as already stated, could only sustain no more than 20,000 Mongol forces even with a strech of the imagination assuming only 3 remounts are required per person.



"Altogether, that makes a force of 70,000 (and no, it didn't have to stay dispersed to survive; Baidar rejoined Subotai shortly after Liegnitz). This force, as the Mongols proved time and again, was capable of beating armies much larger than itself."

Which is quite irrelevant, since we are talking about logistic difficulties not those on the battlefield.





"Are you under the impression that siege equipment had to be transported all the way from Mongolia? Not at all. Standard practice for all medieval armies, not just Mongols, was just to bring engineers along and construct siege engines from timber on the spot."

Which would restrict their ability to take Europe as opposed to China, Only after years of construction would any quantity be even remotely enough to disperse the walls of the Balkans alone and thats where the real problem begins.





"From Bulgaria, which was the western border of the Kipchak Khanate, to East Germany is a much lesser distance than from Karakorum to Bulgaria. "

Which took careful planning in the first place. We are talking about countries such in Western Europe, where the forests of Germany prevent any sizable horde to cross and maintain compared to 5,000 mile of barren steppe.


"But, in any eventAnd how are the Europeans going to stop the Mongols from getting that foothold in eastern Europe? How exactly are the Europeans going to stop 70,000 Mongols on the north German plain?"


Its NOT preventing them from getting a foot hold there thats the problem, its assuming that they did get a foothold there, which is when the real problem begins; the lack of pasture ground for horses.
Assuming 3 remounts per person, building up the logistical base from Hungary and Poland would require the forced migration of subject races from settled areas further east (like Russians, Lithuanians, Bashjirts, and Ossetians), the aim being to rapidly expand the sedentary society and develop its economic base on a mixture of agriculture, stockbreeding and pastoralism, with the Mongols lording over the rest as a landed elite. The army itself would be restructured around a semi-regular infantry core recruited largely from the peasantry, with cavalry support.


Any invasion of Middle Europe through Hungary would have to involve continuous raiding, followed by consolidation. And to stress the fact again that Eastern Europe was devoid of the strategic resources necessary to mount a sustained offensive westward, and forced settlement of sedentary peoples would probably still be too limited in scale to close the disadvantageous of human resource in regard to the West. Even the systematic raids does not garuntee success, we can see example from the Magyars, who lacked remounts due to their sedentary status, were annihilated by Otto in the battle of Leichfield. Whats more, in Medieval ages, the strength of fortifications was such that hope for a speedy advance would be unrealistic, and we could already see that from decades of attack against Southern China, which stood out the longest against the Mongols and might even have suceeded had not certain turncoats handed the Mongols a few straetgic locations and trained the Mongol navies. To reduce the incidence of counterattack the infantry would be used defensively and emphasis would be placed on armed raids. With the assistance of Muslim and Chinese engineers the Balkans might be taken as a precondition for achieving a maritime presence on the northern Mediterranean sea, perhaps menacing the coast of Italy, but the siege would be a problematic operation without sufficient naval support.








"Why would the Mongols have to invade via Austria, rather than the much better cavalry country of the north German plain?"



The Great East European Plain only stretches from Poland to the Urals. Poland and Hungary are open steppe lands favouring mobile warfare and the inhabitants were defeated because they were applying sedentary tactics unsuited to a steppe environment. Germany is filled with forests and any invasion through it require a sizeable infantry which in turn require a foothold in Eastern centtral Europe.








"I agree it could not be done in one war. A series of campaigns would be necessary, as in Russia, Persia, and Iraq. "

This overlook the fact that the entire population of the Iran that the Mongols took had little more than 5 million inhabitants and Iraq less than half of that. all of the Rusian Princep only have around 3.5 million inhabitants, all of these places were vulnerable for steppe attacks, whereupon the European fields were always only suitable for large infantry forces with a small cavalry backbone from the time of classical age down to the last days of cavalry warfare.

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.

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.

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.



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.

Dang...Geography, History and economics combined. Warhead is a true scholar about the nomadic armies.

He's good if not a bit abrasive at times but then again, his nick is Warhead! No insult intended.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Wow warhead, do have a PhD in military planning or something?

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.

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.



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.

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.



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.

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.

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'.



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



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.

"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

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?

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?


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.


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.

Take a look at

http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/OMACL/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/elib/lit/dan/saxo/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)

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.).

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

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?



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?



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!

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.

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).



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.



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.

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!

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.


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




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

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?

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.



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.

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.

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.



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.


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.



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.



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.

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.

"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.

The Great wall is a very impressive engineering marvel, and the greatest in sheer size of the ancient wonders of the world, but as a fortress/ defensive wall it is *Only* a little over average compared to many fortresses already in excistence at the time, but they had that advantage that they only had to protect a relative small area compared to the great wall, so there is numerous of fortresses in Europe alone that is far harder and more formidable to overcome than the great wall.

The Great Wall is unrepaired sine the Tang, it was not an obstacle at all, there was not Jin garrisons guarding any portions of it, if the Jin was better prepared, maybe they could of contained the M<ongol menace, they should have lent support to Xi Xia when it was first attacked. At that time the Mongols still feared the Jin and the common saying on the steppe goes: "The forces of the Jin would disperse the hordes of the khans like the leaves before the autumn wind." The Jin should have taken the initiative, attacked Temujin before he took Xia and the tribes of the North.

I've heard that the Great Wall is for preventing small raids, but not much against a dedicated army. How true is that?

If you look at the great walls construction you will be quite right. another but just as important function the wall had, was as a early warning system in case of large scale incursions, for that the wall was excellent.
Small scale raids can be just as devastating as large invasions if they happend frequently enough, destroying the economic foundations of large areas and coursing the area raided to be depopulatet. + large invasions could quite possible get underway whitout sufficient warning if the wall haddend been there.

The walls before Ming was only against raids, the walls constructed by the Ming was for full scale invasion.