Stargate Nerd wrote:Sorry for the late reply. Got kinda busy.
Thanas wrote:
They were not deemed impregnable and actually, the Mongol never conquered the best fortress. It surrendered.
Regardless of whether you agree with their reputation, they were proper castles. And the Mongols successfully besieged them with Mangonels and Chinese siege crossbows at high altitudes.
They did not. They conquered a few fortreses, but never managed to defeat a fortress by force of arms that required trebuchets to take it - until they imported trebuchets from the west many years later. Feel free to disagree by presenting evidence that the Mongols did take castles by storm that were deemed to be the best of their day.
If the grazing situation is so bad, how did the Huns put up with it as long as they did?
By living on the grazing plains of the steppe and transitioning to a mass infantry army. You'll also note that the hunnic empire fell apart shortly after that and that they were actually defeated by the Romans and ended their lifes as soldiers of Rome.
More on the grazing situation:
According to John of Plano Carpini the death of Ogedei prompted the Mongols' withdrawal from Hungary. Valuable though the Friar's account may be, it does contain many mistakes, of which this explanation is a prime example. Unfortunately, the mistake has been perpetuated by generations of historians (including the present writer), who, for a long time, never pondered on the inherent weakness of this theory. Ogedei died on December 11, 1241, and it had been argued that when the news reached him, Batu, who might have had personal, imperial ambitions, decided either to return to Mongolia or, at least, to move closer to it. The fact is that Batu showed no signs of any desire to travel to Mongolia, but after the evacuation of Hungary remained on the South Russian steppe, still very far from the center of power. Whether Batu ever harbored ambitions to become the Great Khan is a moot question, but his behavior certainly did not reveal anything of the sort. Available evidence suggests that he was content to be the de facto ruler of the western part of the Mongol empire, and that he showed great loyalty to Ogedei's successor, Guyuk. The reason for the Mongol withdrawal from Hungary must be sought elsewhere; it was caused by logistical imperatives.
It is impossible to give an accurate assessment of the size of the Mongol army, let alone of the strength of the troops invading Hungary. The contemporary Roger speaks of half a million, but this is surely an exaggeration. According to Simon of St. Quentin 35 Batu's army (in 1245) was seven times the size of that of Ogedei, commander in the Near East, whose men numbered 600,000, comprising 160,000 Mongols. The Mongol army was divided into divisions (tumen), ten thousand men strong, and it is hard to imagine that each of the four army corps constituting Batu's right and left wing respectively would have had less than one tumen. Even on the minimal level together they would have had 40,000 men. Bela's army is estimated to have been 65,000 strong, and it is reasonable to reckon that the Mongol center, opposing and defeating it, numbered at least as many. At a very conservative estimate one can set the strength of the Mongol invading forces between 105,000 and 150,000 men, a figure much lower than any of those appearing in our sources.
The military strength of the great nomad empires, and that of the Mongols in particular, rested on their cavalry and on a virtually inexhaustible supply of horses. According to Plano Carpini, the Mongols "have so many horses and mares that I do not believe there are so many in all the rest of the world." There is evidence that each warrior had at least three or four horses, but Marco Polo spoke of about eighteen mounts for each man! Taking into consideration the losses suffered by the Mongols we may count with, say 100,000 men occupying Hungary who would then need, on a conservative estimate at least some 400,000 horses. It has been suggested that about 42,000 square kilometers (10,378,425 acres) can or could be used as grazing land. Estimates of grazing or carrying capacity of ranges vary widely but on the assumption that at that time about 25 acres were needed to support one horse for one year, the carrying capacity of the Hungarian range must be set at 415,136 animal units. On the completely unrealistic condition that no other animals were using these pastures, and counting five horses per Mongol horseman, the Hungarian range could provide for the mounts of 83,027 warriors, clearly far below the strength of the Mongol army. The Mongol high command found itself in a position similar to that of a commander of a modern armored division running short of fuel. Further advance to the west, into Transdanubia, would have made matters worse. It was the habit of the Mongols to stop fighting in the spring and let their horses go free to water and graze, and to multiply, so that they would be ready for war in the autumn. This is the reason why in the spring of 1242 the Mongols withdrew from devastated, overgrazed Hungary to the abundant pastures of the steppe, where they could replenish and strengthen their herds, on which their military power rested
From here.
So want to make the claim again that somehow, the Mongols, will be able to invade Europe? If so, prevent evidence for the abundance of grazing land.
Uh, what stronger empires would stop the Mongols as per your claim.
The Holy Roman Empire. The French. The British. The Mamluks. Any of these empires is to large to be taken down by raids, if largescale raiding is even possible (see above). If Hungary can stand up to them, the HRE certainly can. I mean, have you ever really taken stock of the castles of that time? There were over 20.000 of those in Germany alone. And surprise, surprise, the most heavily fortified area is pretty much the approach the Mongols would have to take - Bohemia. You note how the Mongols never even attempted to take it?
The Teutonic order is speculated to have joined the army at Liegnitz. A proper Mongol victory. Also those low numbers and the troop makeup, there is a wide range of speculation regarding that. Do you automatically assume the low end to be correct because it fits your narrative?
There is no evidence at all for the Teutonic order to be present. None. Stop with your lies and baseless speculations and prevent evidence. Low numbers are usually to be taken more effective due to the logistical situation and the fact that Poland was not the richest of countries to start with.
As for Hungary, they lay in utter ruins the first time. The second invasion they faced was not anything like the one led by Subutai so I don't see the relevance. It's not like I claimed that the Golden Horde could have conquered Europe. I argue that the unified Mongol Empire could have conquered it. Also Nogai Khan still successfully raided Hungary, and as TC Pilot already pointed out, he was caught up in unfavorable weather conditions as well.
Yes, for sure. If only they had magic supplies.
No I would like to read YOUR sources. Because I'd like to confirm your claims of handy victories.
You can read about them in Al-Maqrizi, but he is not available online and I doubt you speak medieval arabic. Other than that, google or wikipedia might help.
What's a more realistic figure then?
For total army supply? I am not comfortable making such a definitive claim as it is not my speciality. However, please note that 200.000 men was more than double of what the Romans, with a supply fleet of 600 ships engaged full time, the advantage of friendly terrains, relatively cheap infantry and comparatively few cavalry could supply.
Which proves what exactly? I could very well bring up the huns, who also failed in their tactics.
Please do.
I assume you concede the point then?
Um isn't that the topic of this thread, why Europe wasn't conquered? It wasn't for a lack of victories against European powers.
They never faced any major European power in the field either.
Maybe not. Doesn't change that the Mongols conquered them all over the world and some in Europe as well.
They conquered very few castles at all and none come to mind which they took through a real siege.
My point is that the old chroniclers did not know that well the separation between Kipchaks and Cumans. That's hard even today. If someone asked you about the differences between the Kipchaks, Cumans and Pechenegs in warfare and lifestyle, what would you answer? So even though the Chroniclers talked about Cumans, those could have been Kipchaks or a mix.
Read the article I linked to in full, please.
You're actually right, the Mongols did have plans to use the Hungarian Plains as a staging ground for an invasion of Europe. But it never came to that because Subutai retreated and the empire fragmented.
No, it never came to that because even Hungary sucked as a staging ground for an army even half the size of the Mongol force. I find it annoying that you act as if neither Hungary, nor any western nation in Europe never once thought of going mass cavalry. What, they were all too stupid, even after centuries of experience in dealing with Steppe people? Just think how utterly arrogant that argument sounds.
