posted 01-18-2002 07:34 PM               

I do know that in 1238 a Saracen embassy appeared in the English court, asking for help against the Mongols. It was of course rejected, the general opinion being that they should be left to kill each other off, and then Christianity could take over after they had destroyed each other.

In fact, when news originally filtered through about the appearance of the Mongols to the east of the Saracens, there had been talk of forming an alliance with them against the Muslims. And the Armenians in fact did so, though the relationship was a rather awkward one.

England was at peace in 1241, apart from some minor squabbles with the King of France over some of the English King's possessions there.

There were no crusades going on at the time.

But what were the other realms involved in at the time? Was France at war with anyone? or Germany? Or any of the Baltic or Scandinavian states? or Spain?

Would it have been possible to take advantage of a period of peace (if such existed) to put together an army capable of opposing the Mongols?

BTW, the Mongols seem to have bypassed their first two opportunities to confront the Western style of fighting. the Saracens were between them and the Crusader realm of Outremer, and they passed to the north of the Crusader "Empire" of Byzantium. Probably just as well - neither was in a fit state to fight them.

posted 01-21-2002 08:55 PM               

Henry III of England was getting set to attack Louis IX of France (St Louis).

Frederick II Hohenstauffen was fighting Pope Gregory IX (no surprise). Fighting in Italy, and the Pope (next one) will stir up civil war in Germany.

Scandinavia seems to have been relatively quiet.

posted 02-02-2002 06:22 AM               

Teyr swords , though not as sharp as the japanese were much harder and heavier

The weights of swords varied tremendously depending upon type and personal choice so I think it more realistic to accept that warriors of any nationality would choose a sword, or any weapon for that matter, which they could handle easily and speedily. As for sharpness, you will find historical accounts galore proving that European swords were every bit as sharp as those of Japan. For example, heads being cut in half from the crown to the jaw. Bodies being cut in half, limbs completely severed, helmets being cut completely through.
However, I understand your belief because it is a myth perpetuated to this day that European swords were crude clubbing weapons.

posted 02-03-2002 03:07 AM               

so in out right battle I feel that Europe woud have had the upper hand, if they desided to hole up idividualy in their little castles perhaps not

posted 02-03-2002 06:26 PM               

As far as the unity of Europe goes, there is no reason to think that the rulers would show a united front to the Mongols: why not use them to attack your enemy first (i.e. England vs France, HRE vs Pope)? After all, if crusading was self-serving, defending one's territory is most decidely self-serving. As noted in my last post, there were at least a couple of major conflicts brewing or in progress at the time of the Mongol incursion.

posted 02-03-2002 11:21 PM               

Secondly I have read that the composite bow used by the Mongols might actually have been as powerful or close to as powerful as the longbow.

posted 02-04-2002 01:02 PM               

1. The Mongols, with the death of Ogedei, completely pulled out of Europe. Did the Mongols pull all their troops out of China or the middle east when a Great Khan died? If not, why Europe?

2. They never came back. If Europe was a pushover, and only the death of Ogedai saved them the first time, why did they never come back? They had a presence in Russia for hundereds of years, surely they could have found the time.

3. After Mohi (a battle which the Hungarians came very close to winning), the Hungarian king was reported to say that European fortifications, like those in the west, were the only sure defence against the "devil's horsemen". This statement implies Hungary wasn't as up to date as the west in this aspect. I believe this is a crucial factor.

4. The Huns. By the time they fought at Chalons, it's been widely accpeted they were no longer predominately cavalry. Why would they stop when on a roll? Perhaps central and western Europe could not support masses of horses? If so, this goes a long, long way to evening up the battlefield.

5. Seige warfare is costly, in both time and blood. Not to mention disease. If he was to keep going west, Subotei would need reenforcements, and plenty of them. Also, wasn't the Black Death not too far away?

posted 02-04-2002 01:47 PM               

The Mongols, with the death of Ogedei, completely pulled out of Europe. Did the Mongols pull all their troops out of China or the middle east when a Great Khan died? If not, why Europe?

I think the situation was a little different in this case because by the time Chingiz died the Mongols were already firmly ensconsed as the rulers of both the middle east and China. Subotei was on a sort of quasi-raiding expedition when the Khan died, i.e. the Mongols weren't running the place yet.

They never came back. If Europe was a pushover, and only the death of Ogedai saved them the first time, why did they never come back? They had a presence in Russia for hundereds of years, surely they could have found the time.

I think that the political climate had changed after the death of Ogedai the Khanate had gotten significantly more fragmented, there was no longer a single Khan who had all of the Mongols as a power base.

After Mohi (a battle which the Hungarians came very close to winning), the Hungarian king was reported to say that European fortifications, like those in the west, were the only sure defence against the "devil's horsemen". This statement implies Hungary wasn't as up to date as the west in this aspect. I believe this is a crucial factor.

I couldn't say for sure not knowing what the differences in fortifications were at the time. I suspect however that fortifications were fortifications, powerful castles and towns were the exception in Europe as a whole rather then the rule.

Seige warfare is costly, in both time and blood. Not to mention disease. If he was to keep going west, Subotei would need reenforcements, and plenty of them. Also, wasn't the Black Death not too far away?

It seems like he would have had them, all he would have had to do was get a few Europeans to decide that they might prosper under the Khanate. As for the Black Death, who can say? It seems like it would affect both sides.

My own opinion is somewhat similar to the English and French experience of the 100 Years War. Great field victories for the Mongols, balanced with the inability to completely plant themselves as rulers, and an eventual withdrawl, possibly with the usual "saviour" type leader that seems to get involved in these things.

I think you probably have something here, in fact you can see that the Mongols virtually disappeared despite the scope of their victories. They simply could not win the cultural battle and were pretty much completely assimilated.

posted 02-04-2002 10:33 PM               

------------------
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards

posted 02-04-2002 10:55 PM               

quote:

---

Must be those Ellis genetics

---

posted 02-05-2002 03:48 AM               

"I think that the political climate had changed after the death of Ogedai the Khanate had gotten significantly more fragmented, there was no longer a single Khan who had all of the Mongols as a power base."

In fact, no khan except Genghis ever exercised anywhere near complete control over the Mongol empire. The distances were too great, the territories too huge. The situation did not deteriorate considerably with Ogadai's death either. You seem to be under the false impression that the Mongol raids in Europe were some sort of a coordinated all-Mongol expedition. In reality, they were solely an effort of the Golden Horde which was at the time basically acting independently. Ogadai's death changed nothing as far as Eastern Europe is concerned. The Golden Horde ruled southern Russia well into the 15th c., yet it never dared invade Europe again. Why not if Europe was indeed so helpless and fragmented?

"I couldn't say for sure not knowing what the differences in fortifications were at the time. I suspect however that fortifications were fortifications, powerful castles and towns were the exception in Europe as a whole rather then the rule."

I'm afraid this is simply incorrect. Europe was a highly militarized entity. With the big wave during the 12th c. fortifications were springing up at an astonishing pace. The Crusades added further stimulus, not just because the Europeans learned more about the advanced Byzantine and Arab military architecture but also thanks to the thriving economy. Within several generations, much of the countryside was dominated by castles and fortified towns.

This process began in Western Europe and gradually expanded to the east. So it is true that Eastern Europe was lagging behind somewhat. But perhaps more important is that Hungary was far more vulnerable to the Mongol attack than any other region in Europe. The Hungarian plain was the westernmost extension of the steppe and as such perfect to serve as a staging area for further Mongol invasions. Yet despite these advantages the Mongols were unable to overrun Hungary and were forced to retreat after the battle of Mohi.

Do not let the overenthusiasm of certain historians basing their bombastic theories on poor research lead you astray. I have no intention to reiterate all the arguments from the afforementioned thread, but just to sum up - for all their excellence in planning and logistics, the Mongols were no superhuman beings. And it wasn't just their failure in the cultural battle that destroyed them. Pound for pound, their equipment was inferior. Their tactics may have worked wonders against those unfamiliar with it, but it was ultimately inflexible and incapable of adapting itself to countermeasures. The Mongols never had enough armor to come up with anything like the rightly famed European knightly cavalry. And while their horse archers were a great nusiance, European soldiers did come up with efficient tactics to counter this threat during the Crusades. It's too bad the Mongols never met any European force of comparable quality on their lightning raid in Europe. The only time it came close to that - the battle of Mohi - they were very nearly beaten and the casualties they took were too heavy to permit any further major operation in Europe. Not to mention that the Egyptian Mamelukes managed to contain the Mongol expansion in the Middle East at roughly the same time. So the truth isn't all that black-and-white as some scholars would have us believe.

posted 02-06-2002 12:11 AM               

The fact that the Mongols didn't return to Europe doesn't prove they were militarily impressed with the Europeans; the Mongols could have decided it was too poor to be worth the effort, too unsuited to the nomadic lifestyle, or been distracted by other considerations (internal squabling, which is what Genghis Khan had to overcome in order to make the Mongols a Power in the first place).

The Mongols were quite accustomed to storming fortifications, in China and Persia, and Baghdad. The Hungarian king's impression that fortifications would stop the Mongols was possibly based on his limited experience: the Mongol incursion into Europe seems to have been basically a "recon in force" to move through and test the defense. As such, the Mongols didn't try to crack any major fortified places, and the locals may have thought the Mongols couldn't take such places.

posted 02-06-2002 12:15 AM               

Well certainly one can't rule out other factors, however I believe it's pretty widely accepted that Europe caught a big break when Ogedai died.

You seem to be under the false impression that the Mongol raids in Europe were some sort of a coordinated all-Mongol expedition.

I'm sorry if that is the impression I gave. I think if it would have been an all Mongol expedition instead of a rather limited raid in force by Subodei the history of the Western world would be considerably different.

The Golden Horde ruled southern Russia well into the 15th c., yet it never dared invade Europe again. Why not if Europe was indeed so helpless and fragmented?

I couldn't say for sure but I suspect it was because the drive to conquer was gradually swallowed up in the more mundane "hold on to what I've got" policy typically adopted by successful conquerors. After the deaths of Chingiz's immediate generals and successors I think impetus to conquer new lands was for the most part quenched. This was probably due to the increased interest in the Far East as witnessed by Kublais attempts to conquer Japan, Thailand and so forth.

I'm afraid this is simply incorrect. Europe was a highly militarized entity. With the big wave during the 12th c. fortifications were springing up at an astonishing pace. The Crusades added further stimulus, not just because the Europeans learned more about the advanced Byzantine and Arab military architecture but also thanks to the thriving economy. Within several generations, much of the countryside was dominated by castles and fortified towns.

Sure but how many of these fortifications were really up to a Mongol assault backed by Chinese seige engineers? I doubt that most of them were able to rival some place like Baghdad which the Mongols took handily.

for all their excellence in planning and logistics, the Mongols were no superhuman beings.

Of course not, I don't believe that anyone was suggesting that, what they were was probably the most potent military force of their time as witnessed by their huge string of successes.

Pound for pound, their equipment was inferior.

Inferior to what? To the gear carried by the average 13th-14th century militiaman?

The Mongols never had enough armor to come up with anything like the rightly famed European knightly cavalry.

Certainly, but the parity was not enough to make a difference in the long run.

I can't say for sure what would have happened if the Mongols would have decide they wanted to be overlords of Western Europe. Maybe all of Europe would have risen up to stand against them, but more likely on one side you would have had Europeans and on the other side you would have had Mongols and other Europeans. The only record we do have is record of the remarkable string of successes the Mongols had against all opponents the notable exception being against the Mameluke Baybars.

I think I need to reiterate that I'm not a big proponent of "Eastern Superiority" but I have to admit that the Mongols had a remarkable record.

posted 02-06-2002 06:22 AM               

Widely accepted by whom? The same people who still think European swords weighed 10kg? Even among serious, respected, hard-working scholars like Nicolle and our dear friend Oakeshott it's still easy to encounter latent prejudice, misinformation and poorly based conclusions. This is especially true for anything that involves the Far East. It's either a love or hate relationship, or so it seems. Some scholars automatically scoff at anything Eastern while others (and these are currently in a majority) are blindly fascinated by it. Very few have managed to stay objective in their reasoning.

That the Golden Horde never tried to invade Europe again may of course not conclusively prove that the Mongols were impressed by the European military capabilities, but it definitely strongly suggests that Batu's raid was no walkover. Whenever the Mongols encountered weak opposition on their raids, they made their best to exploit the enemy's weaknesses. Why didn't they do the same with the feeble Europeans? And the argument that Europe was such a terribly poor continent unworthy of plundering is ridiculous. The Mongols captured large territories which were extremely poor by any standards. On the other hand, Europe was experiencing a major revival during the high middle ages and it's economy was constantly growing.

"...the drive to conquer was gradually swallowed up in the more mundane "hold on to what I've got" policy typically adopted by successful conquerors. After the deaths of Chingiz's immediate generals and successors I think impetus to conquer new lands was for the most part quenched."

Yes, it was - and for a very god reason, actually. The Mongol empire was much to large to control efficiently and began to fragment as soon as Genghis died (much the same as with Alexander's conquest). By the mid-13th c. the Mongols reached about as far west as they could. Further west were the two great blocs, Christian Europe and the Mameluke Egypt. These were infinitely stronger adversaries than any of the nations the Mongols had encountered before.

"This was probably due to the increased interest in the Far East as witnessed by Kublais attempts to conquer Japan, Thailand and so forth."

I don't think Kublai's actions were of any relevance at all. The Golden Horde was essentially an independent Mongol entity and could certainly launch new raids on its own. But it did not.

"Sure but how many of these fortifications were really up to a Mongol assault backed by Chinese seige engineers? I doubt that most of them were able to rival some place like Baghdad which the Mongols took handily."

I believe most larger fortifications in Europe could withstand any siege, be it Mongol or European. By the mid-13th c. the art of masonry reached great perfection in Europe. European siege engineers were basically using the same machinery as their Saracen and even Mongol counterparts - mangonels, trebuchets, mining and so forth. Similarly, European fortifications were designed with all these threats in mind. The only exception may have been gunpowder which the Mongols seem to have used to a very limited extent. But it was primarily a psychological weapon at that time and the Mongols made no use of gunpowder artillery whatsoever.

The concentration of fortifications was much higher in Europe than in the Middle East, even if most European fortifications were smaller. To subdue Europe, the Mongols would need to destroy castle after castle, town after town, all that probably against fierce resistance.

More importantly, even the best fortification is worthless without determined troops to defend it. Baghdad may have been a huge city with an excellent system of walls. But the Abbasid caliphate had been in decline since the 9th c. And the Seljuks who took Baghdad in 1055 and effectively ruled it since then had lost much of their power during the 12th c. (particularly with the Crusades). They were in no position to resist the Mongol invasion. So while Baghdad may have been very heavily fortified indeed, it was poorly defended and its capture was no great feat.

"Inferior to what? To the gear carried by the average 13th-14th century militiaman?"

Yes, the equipment of an average Mongol was inferior to that of his European and Mameluke counterparts. It was inferior to the gear of a militiaman, it was inferior to the gear of a knight, it was inferior to the gear of a Mameluke soldier.

We know from reports of European travellers than even on its heyday the Mongols never had much armor. Most troops were not armored at all, some had only limited torso protection and helmets. This does not compare favorably to the standard outfit worn by 13th and 14th c. European or Mameluke cavalry and infantry.

By the way, J. M. Smith has written an interesting article in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (XLIV/2, 1984) titled "Ayn Jalut: Mamluk success or Mongol failure?. It helps dispell a good number of myths regarding the Mongols.

"The Mongols never had enough armor to come up with anything like the rightly famed European knightly cavalry."

Certainly, but the parity was not enough to make a difference in the long run."

Really? In the long run, Europe became a global superpower. Mongolia was reduced to its original size and is now a third-world country. I'd say that makes a world of difference...

"The only record we do have is record of the remarkable string of successes the Mongols had against all opponents the notable exception being against the Mameluke Baybars."

A string of successes, indeed - but remarkable, not. I must emphasize this once again: none of the nations subdued by the Mongols was particularly strong at the time. All were involved in bitter rivalries, some were badly fragmented. Moreover, none was strong enough either economically or militarily to defend itself against a foreign invasion. The Mongols, while not a particularly powerful force, conquered these frail states by carefully projecting their relatively limited power against the weakest spots in the enemy's line of defense.

It was an excellent strategy by all means, entirely comparable to Napoleon or the German blitzkrieg. But just like these two more modern examples, it could not make up entirely for the fundamental weakness of the Mongols themselves. Against strong enemies it just couldn't work. The Mamelukes demonstrated that very clearly but the outcome of Mongol raids in 1240/1 indicates that Europe was a similarly hard nut to crack. The Mongols may have easily reatined the upper hand during the initial engagements, but once their advantage of surprise had worn off thery weren't doing that well any more. Mohi nearly ended in a disaster, but the resistance would've become ever stiffer had they attempted to push further west.

Any speculation as to what would have happened in case of a Mongol invasion of Europe is largely moot. However, given the general characteristics of European military development I don't think the Mongols ever stood a realistic chance of conquering and holding any larger territories in the West. Whenever steppe horsemen came from the east they took Europe by surprise. There were several such waves - Huns, Avars, Magyars and finally Mongols. All of them had great impact initially, yet all were ultimately defeated.

posted 02-06-2002 06:24 AM               

I think if the monguls hadn't had to go back to deal with other things all of us anglos would be abit more olive skinned, to say the least.

Yes, there was far too much pride and squabbling in Europe for a united front against such an invasion. I mean look at what happened on Crusade when Richard bickered with the other rulers. Ego baby, thta's what they were all about. I got mine you get yours would hardly have been the attitude to drive back the monguls yet that was the prevailing attitude in Europe then, much like it is here in the US today.

posted 02-06-2002 09:52 AM               

I'll have to dig up the names of the authors of the books I read, but in pretty much every history I have ever read they at least flirt with the idea that Europe was very fortunate indeed. Does that mean that they are "all" right. Well, maybe not, but since I'm not a archeologist myself you'll have to forgive me if I sometimes have to take their word for it. If you have any hard evidence to the contrary by all means present it (in fact you might want to write a book yourself) and see if it stands up to the scrutiny of your historical peers.

That the Golden Horde never tried to invade Europe again may of course not conclusively prove that the Mongols were impressed by the European military capabilities

Agreed.

but it definitely strongly suggests that Batu's raid was no walkover. Whenever the Mongols encountered weak opposition on their raids, they made their best to exploit the enemy's weaknesses. Why didn't they do the same with the feeble Europeans?

The fragmentation of power that you mention among the Mongols themselves and Batu's wariness of his fellow Mongols coupled with the desire to hold onto what he had could explain this. That of course doesn't mean that it is the only possible explanation, but is probably a more realistic one then a fear of Western European armies that may or may not have materialized and in any respect had never decisively defeated the Mongols.

And the argument that Europe was such a terribly poor continent unworthy of plundering is ridiculous.

I agree but I don't know that anyone on this thread has made that arguement.

Christian Europe and the Mameluke Egypt. These were infinitely stronger adversaries than any of the nations the Mongols had encountered before.

Let's look at that from a sligtly different perspective. I'm wondering if Christian Europe was such an infinitely strong bloc why did it not decisively defeat Islam, destroy the Caliphate and conquer the middle east? On the other hand the Mongols in fact did decisively defeat Islam and destroy the Caliphate and it was only Babyars success that kept them from overrunning the middle east.

I believe most larger fortifications in Europe could withstand any siege, be it Mongol or European.

You may be right, we will never really know, however my point was that these "larger fortifications" were the exceptions rather then the rule.

Yes, the equipment of an average Mongol was inferior to that of his European and Mameluke counterparts. It was inferior to the gear of a militiaman, it was inferior to the gear of a knight, it was inferior to the gear of a Mameluke soldier.

I guess I'm going to have to go dig out those books again (not necessarily a bad thing) so that I can lay out standard Mongol armament. I don't remember all the particulars, but I do remember being surprised by the amount of armor and armament that even the light Mongol cavalry carried. These guys had evolved into something far more then just horse archer's off the steppe. Considering that your average medieval infantryman of the period was probably armed with a pole arm of some sort and very little if any armor I think the comparison would probably be favorable.

A string of successes, indeed - but remarkable, not.

Since no one else managed to accomplish the same record it seems rather remarkable. If just anyone could do it then it seems that someone would have.

I must emphasize this once again: none of the nations subdued by the Mongols was particularly strong at the time. All were involved in bitter rivalries, some were badly fragmented.

Sounds alost like a description of Western Europe at the time.

Julie - The monguls had great manuverabiliity and could live off of very little resources.

True

The European knights had that bulky cumbersome armour and required great supply trains.

Not true, although the Europeans were not as mobile as the Mongols in a strategic sense in a tactical sense their armor was not an encumberance and it was not bulky. There are historical references to knights leaping on their horses and turning cartwheels while in full harness.

posted 02-06-2002 06:41 PM            

quote:

---

I'm wondering if Christian Europe was such an infinitely strong bloc why did it not decisively defeat Islam, destroy the Caliphate and conquer the middle east?

---

I am out of my depth when it comes to the Mongols, but on firmer ground when it comes to Europe vs. the Saracen.

The answer to your question is twofold ( at least ). The first part, and the less critical, was distance. It was a long way to the Middle East, and a difficult, expensive journey for a large army especially, even did it not also rely upon such debateable allies as the Byzantines and the Venetians. Historically there has always been a greater onus on an invader than on the invaded; lines of supply and communication---and retreat---are greatly stretched for the former and vulnerable to the latter. The Mongols did not have the barrier of an ocean to consider when invading Europe, and in any case were much less dependent upon rear-echelon support, baggage trains, etc.

posted 02-07-2002 12:13 AM               

I'm afraid Tomaz overestimates the state of European fortification. The same Mamelukes who won at Ain Jalut swept out the remnants of the Crusaders from their very well fortified enclaves on the coast of Outremer; Acre fell in 1291. These enclaves had first-rate defenses, many had been rebuilt in the mid-century by St Louis. Against a well-organized, relentless assault, Acre could not be held - and Tyre and several other cities surrendered after Acre fell to the Mamelukes. That is exactly the Mongol pattern: destroy one target completely as an example to the others, and the others don't resist very hard. (see Keen's Medieval Warfare).

I must say that Tomaz is hard to impress: neither the Mongols, nor the Grand Armee, nor the Wehrmacht is remarkable. All of them eventually lost. Of course, so did everyone else, so by that standard all armies are mediocre.

posted 02-07-2002 02:46 AM               

Pretty much any history book dealing with arms and armor dating from the 19th or early 20th c. claims that European swords were heavy and armor cumbersome. Some scholars still think so. And just because the prevalent theory among most historians right now says Europe was helpless and the Mongols unstoppable doesn't make that true. It wouldn't be the first time mainstream science was wrong.

"If you have any hard evidence to the contrary by all means present it (in fact you might want to write a book yourself) and see if it stands up to the scrutiny of your historical peers."

I refer you to that article mentioned in my previous post. You should also consider reading Ann Hyland's The Medieval Warhorse and Nicolle's Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era. None of these two books focuses entirely on the Mongols, but both contain excellent material and proven evidence instead of dubious theories of some "venerable" scholars. As for writing a book myself one day - inshallah!

"The fragmentation of power that you mention among the Mongols themselves and Batu's wariness of his fellow Mongols coupled with the desire to hold onto what he had could explain this. That of course doesn't mean that it is the only possible explanation, but is probably a more realistic one then a fear of Western European armies that may or may not have materialized and in any respect had never decisively defeated the Mongols."

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. I'm afraid you got your facts wrong. The Mongol empire began to fragment immediately after Genghis' death in 1227, more than a decade before Batu's campaign. Yet it had no immediate negative effect on the Mongol expansionism whatsoever. I'm afraid you still don't quite realize that there was no united Mongol empire as such after Genghis' death, at least not anything in the sense of the (early) Roman empire. With Genghis gone, several large Mongol groups emerged, each under their own dynasty.

Events in Central Asia had little direct influence on the Mongol groups on the periphery. The conquest of the Middle East took place at the same time as Batu's raid - apparently the fragmentation of the empire and Ogadai's death were no obstacle but rather a boost! Iran, Armenia and Mesopotamia were taken by 1231, Baghdad itself was captured in 1258. Even a whole generation later, Kublai was busy conquering the rest of China and trying to invade Japan and Java.

So what we have here tells us the Mongols were still conquering neigbouring territories throughout the 13th c. wherever opportunity persisted. Only the Golden Horde was stuck in southern Russia after the raid of 1240/1. Why on Earth would they have satisfied themselves with the comparatively poor regions of Eastern Europe when much wealthier areas of Western Europe were within their range? The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that Western Europe was too well defended to permit any further easy victories.

Also, your last statement shows considerable ignorance. No large Western European army had ever faced the Mongols in battle. Liegnitz was a mess (in all respects much like Nicopolis in 1396) destined to be a failure because the mixed Christian force (largely Polish light cavalry, some infantry and a small contingent of heavy cavalry) knew nothing about their enemy and fought without a clear chain of command.

But Mohi and the accompanying skirmishes in Hungary really present an entirely different picture. The Hungarian army, while still relatively poorly equipped by Western standards and commited to battle under unfavorable conditions, inflicted very heavy casualties on the Mongols before collapsing. The Mongols seem to have won only because of their extreme determination and only at a very high cost. To stress this again: it was probably the losses suffered at Mohi that effectively hindered the Mongol expansion and reduced the power of the Golden Horde.

Another fact which you don't seem to be aware of is that Europe strenghtened its defense on the eastern border considerably as a result of the Mongol raid. It triggered a massive building program of fortifications, particularly in Central Europe and the Balkans. Even the backward Balkan states like Bosnia that suffered during Batu's raid began fortifying their borders and reforming their military. This indicates that Europe was aware of the Mongol threat and rallied quickly to respond to it.

"Let's look at that from a sligtly different perspective. I'm wondering if Christian Europe was such an infinitely strong bloc why did it not decisively defeat Islam, destroy the Caliphate and conquer the middle east? On the other hand the Mongols in fact did decisively defeat Islam and destroy the Caliphate and it was only Babyars success that kept them from overrunning the middle east."

First, I never said Europe was an infinitely strong bloc. But infinitely stronger than any other Mongol enemy except the Mamelukes it most certainly was. Second, the Mamelukes had the strongest military during the 2nd half of the 13th c. - even stronger than Europe. This should answer the rest of your rhetorical question.

By the way, the caliphate had lost every political significance during the 10th c. and was already "destroyed" in 1055 with the Seljuk capture of Baghdad - there just wasn't much left for the Mongols to destroy. So I can't see any point in your statement.

"You may be right, we will never really know, however my point was that these "larger fortifications" were the exceptions rather then the rule."

By "larger fortifications" I meant any fortified town or castle of some size. The number of such fortifications in Europe was enormous, not to mention that they were often built in extremely difficult terrain where the Mongols would have been at a distinct disadvantage, being forced to fight on foot.

"I guess I'm going to have to go dig out those books again (not necessarily a bad thing) so that I can lay out standard Mongol armament. I don't remember all the particulars, but I do remember being surprised by the amount of armor and armament that even the light Mongol cavalry carried. These guys had evolved into something far more then just horse archer's off the steppe. Considering that your average medieval infantryman of the period was probably armed with a pole arm of some sort and very little if any armor I think the comparison would probably be favorable."

The Mongols were definitely no naked horsemen. They were familiar with all sorts of armor, some of it highly advanced. But the bulk of Mongol troops was nevertheless poorly armed and equipped. Evidence for this is twofold, namely, travel diaries written by European observers and archaeological evidence. It's pretty clear that the proportion of unarmored troops was dangerously high and that very few combatants wore full suits of armor. That was no major hindrance as long as the Mongols were only fighting inferior adversaries. But against the Mamelukes and potentially Europeans their lack of armor was far more serious.

On the other hand, armor was becoming more and more easily available in Europe. By the mid-13th c., knights were universally wearing long-sleeved hauberks, chausses and great helms. Coats-of-plates were gradually introduced and scale saw something of a revival. Professional infantry and town militias were very well equipped by contemporary stanbdards, too - mail hauberk was generally the norm, usually with long sleeves, plus a kettle hat or a round helmet. Chausses were also getting popular. The assortment of crossbows and polearms made European infantry an effective force. Only the poorest combatants or peasant levies (very rarely summoned by that time) had just gambesons and helmets.

If we compare the Europeans to the Mongols - the richest to the richest, the average to the average and the poorest to the poorest - it's pretty obvious that the Europeans generally had superior equipment.

"Since no one else managed to accomplish the same record it seems rather remarkable. If just anyone could do it then it seems that someone would have."

Let me see: Alexander managed to take over Greece, destroy the mighty Persia, travel through the snowy passes of Hindu Kush, seize Egypt and the entire Middle East and wreak havoc on the Indian border. All that with an army made up mostly of infantry. During the 16th c. it took ridiculously small warbands of Spaniards only a few decades to destroy huge empires in South America. Then the tiny insular nation of English conquered vast territories in America, Africa, Asia and Australia, all that despite fierce opposition of the contemporary superpowers, most notably France and Spain. What about Napoleon? He terrorized Europe for several decades, fighting all the major powers of the day (today's equivalent of fighting China, Russia and the USA simultaneously).

Compared to that, the Mongol expansion doesn't seem all that remarkable anymore. From a point of purely territorial expansion it was indeed incredible. However, conquering the thinly populated steppe, destroying a few weak, crumbling states and plundering poorly protected lands is not a particularly great feat when compared to defeating a superpower. After all, the Russian expansion and conquest of Siberia was an achievement that involved territories of similar size as the Mongol empire. Yet nobody hails it as a great feat of any kind.

"Julie - The monguls had great manuverabiliity and could live off of very little resources."

True"

Indeed, except that the Mongols had the nasty habit to bring along at several remounts for every horseman, requiring far more grazing than any European force of similar size - more grazing in fact that entire Europe could provide. So much about living off very little resources.

Felix - Outremer is a poor example. By the late 13th c. it was nothing more than a tiny enclave held by a handful of soldiers while the disinterested Europe had no intent whatsoever to come to assistance. No fortress can be held against a coordinated attack without outside support - history is full of such examples, Antioch during the First Crusade or Baghdad in 1258 to mention just two of them that are more relevant to this discussion.

Am I hard to impress? Perhaps. I have no problem giving the Mongols credit where it's due. But I really get tired of hearing all this ivory tower nonsense about the supposedly unstoppable Mongols on the one hand and helpless primitive onion-eating Europeans on the other. After all, had the Mongols been half as powerful as some scholars would have us believe, we'd be speaking either Mongol or Arab right now, not English.