Talk:Mongol invasion of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Ethnocentrism

The last sentence:

Had the Great Khan Ogodei not died, and Batu had decided to proceed westward, the French King would have found Paradise.

what does finding paradise mean?

sounds like an ethnocentric taunt... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.221 (talk • contribs) 17:23, August 18, 2005

It's a well known fact that the Mongols were the most powerful force in Eurasia at the time. Statements about the Mongolians destroying Europe have been echoed in many other related articles in Wikipedia. -unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengis (talk • contribs) 03:14, January 31, 2006
It is a bookend to the statement in the introduction �The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused.� So perhaps it is a little too wry and mischevious for an encyclopedia entry, but it is not an �ethnocentric taunt�. -- LamontCranston, 0:36 UTC, 25 Sep 2005

The statement is indeed a bookend to the The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused -- this can be found in Saunders, J.J. -- The History of the Mongol Conquests, among other works. The article does need referencing and cleaning up, but the blunt fact is that the Mongols destroyed the armies of Poland Humgry in a 2 day period with relatively no casalties on their part! Every military historian who has studied the era believes they would have destroyed Europe with ease, and only internal family infighting after Ogedei's death halted that invasion.old windy bear 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Poland and Hungary were the easy parts of Europe so to speak. Further West there were more woods, rivers, a wetter climate and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles. The Hungarians were rather successful against the Mongols until the catastrophic battle and similar tactics combined with better external circumstances in Germany, Italy and France would have seriously hampered the Mongols. Religious fanaticism could've been problematic, too. Not to mention the fact that with an enemy that had a supply line of 5000 miles through enemy territory (the Russian regions remained unruly) the Europeans could afford loss ratios of 3:1 or more.
In other words I'd say that the Soviet Unions outlook in 1941 was significantly worse than Europe's chances in 1241, jm2c
(btw. I removed the quintuple posting below) (82.135.66.208 19:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Poland was fragmented at the time however, do not forget that the Mongols launched an unsuccessful raid in 1287, led by Talabuga and Nogai Khan. Lublin, Mazovia, Sandomierz and Sieradz were successfully raided, but the Mongols were defeated at Kraków. The force sent was not sufficient to meet the full Polish army. It burned a few small towns, and fled when the Polish army was mustered. The Poles stopped the advance of The Golden Horde at Krakow and the Turks under General Sobieski in 1643 at the Battle of Vienna. That is twice the Poles stopped the west from being overrun by Barbarians...and don't you forget it! OG from LA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


How was that statement an indication of fear?

The statement is indeed a bookend to the The famous remark of the French King that he was going to fight the Tartars and would either send them back to hell or be himself sent to paradise was a sign of the fear the Mongol invasions aroused

Do you think people that are prepared to fight to the death are "fearful" people? and its hardly like people in times of war don't say such things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.97 (talk • contribs) 00:42, February 15, 2006

" Yes, but Poland and Hungary were the easy parts of Europe so to speak. Further West there were more woods, rivers, a wetter climate and most importantly lots of fortified towns and castles. The Hungarians were rather successful against the Mongols until the catastrophic battle and similar tactics combined with better external circumstances in Germany, Italy and France would have seriously hampered the Mongols. Religious fanaticism could've been problematic, too. Not to mention the fact that with an enemy that had a supply line of 5000 miles through enemy territory (the Russian regions remained unruly) the Europeans could afford loss ratios of 3:1 or more."

In response to the wooded areas and wetter climate, i don't see why this would negatively affect the Mongols calvary based armies at all. Medieval Europe at the time was DOMINATED ENTIRELY by the use of heavy calvary for another hundred years. It is ridiculous to think that they wouldn't do well just because they were from Mongolia, which has a wet climate, although is more of valleys/plains. The other piece to note, is that they had, except for possibly England, the best bows you could get, and were adept at firing while riding, the heavy infantry advantage here is thus negated for the most part. Really the only thing I would think that would maybe screw up their advantages would be if they were unfamiliar in dealing with pikes, in which they would have to invade England to really see their popular use until another 50 years or more later.

But, you must remember the mongol war machine WAS built for steppe warfare were heavy cavalry would be ineffective vs. horse archers but the in dense forests of europe it's the other way around for instance, if knights were ineffective as a military unit then how did german heavy cavalry crush the mygar(spelling) light cavalry and horse archers at the battle of lechfied(spelling again)? I believe the khan would have found the holy roman empire not worth the trouble of wasting mongol lives on germany while more imminent threats lay waiting but i'm not denying that the mongols could have conquered europe i'm just saying it would'nt be easy and might end in disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.243.4 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs cleanup and wikifying

This article is speculative, it misses references and it seems to me that it contains a lot of material present in other articles. It also needs categories. GhePeU 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have begun the clean up -- references and sourcing are in place, with an external link to a great article on the Polish defeat by the Mongols -- anyone with any doubt the Europeans could have resisted a Mongol invasion in force should read it. Categories will be added also.old windy bear 13:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
In the section about the third invasion of Europe, it attempts to explain that the reason for the Mongols being unsuccssful was due to the fact that there was only 20,000 of them sent to raid Eastern Europe, but this doesn't add up considering the fact that the exact same number of Mongols claimed to have won the Battle of Legnica.
This whole area needs reexamination I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.231 (talk • contribs) 00:38, March 12, 2006

[edit] Introduction -- Get Real!!!

Had the Mongols sent the forces which devastated Poland and Hungary on into the German states and France, they probably would have destroyed them as easily as they had the Rus principalities.

This states that the Mongols would have destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and France, at the height of Imperial and Frankish power! WTF? IP Address 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither was at the height of their power and the common consensus amongst historians - whether specializing in the Mongols, the Middle East or Europe - is that the Mongols would most likely have conquered Europe or at least made significant inroads had events not prevented this invasion. siarach 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say that this is the common consensus among historians. It is clear that they had no trouble dealing with Poland and Hungary, but further east the Mongols would have encountered mountainous terrain, poor pastureland, and extensive fortification. The extent to which they would have been able to conquer and establish control is not clear. siafu 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Yes, the Holy Roman Emperor would have been taken down by the Khan. The Crusades were not the most highly organised event in Christendom, ever?! I wonder what Genghis Khan would do in the case of Charles Martel or Charlemagne--it appears that the old Romans were ineffective at stopping the Hunnish onslaught. IP Address 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well for the sake of argument i dont think either Charles Martel or his grandson would have been able to stand in the way of Chingiz Khan - far more powerful and advanced princes and empires than them/theirs had fallen to the Mongols. Of course with alternate history there can never be a right answer and who knows what would have happened - im sure few would have predicted anything other than the continuation of Mongol conquests in the build up to Ayn Jalut but obviously they were halted permanently against the odds. siarach 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the vast lands of Russia did not have a powerful government at the time. [But, it was stronger than under the Goths before them--which is why the Mongols could not repeat the Hunnish conquest, besides the fact that the Huns and Mongols focused on two separate areas] Everything was spaced out, with a thin infrastructure and enormous amounts of peasantry. That is why the Khans destroyed the Kievan Rus. There was no shortage of wealth and power in the West during this time, which is why the West was able to afford the continual Crusading for centuries. As always, the vastness of the Steppes only swallowed up her enemies. I believe that this is a moot point and that eventually, even the Ottoman relic known as Turkey will be no more. IP Address 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, historians generally avoid counterfactuals. There's no way to know what could have happened.Fokion (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Hungary

The whole paragraph should be reformulated. The outcome of the campaign is somehow mixed with the outcome of the battle of Sajo/Muhi. The battle was lost but the war won. According to chinese sources the Hungarian campaign was the blodiest for the Mongols. The King was not caught, the resistance in the strongholds wasn't broken and the occupation was a great failure for the Mongols. However the Mongols killed 25% of the population the Kingdom strenghten in the next 100 year (2 month after the Mongol invasion Hungarian army reached Wienna and reconquered 3 counties). The Mongol army were withdrawn, no garissions were left behind (contrary to Russia) the ellection was just a pretext: Batu was not recognised as legal heir of the Great Khan. Moreover after the battle in 1241 they stopped at Danube. Why? Was a river obstacle for a light cavalry army?? --fz22 11:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

your comment is absolutely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.152.49 (talk • contribs) 03:42, December 5, 2006

feel free to share your arguments. BTW the story with the Hungarians' laager doesn't go togehter either. This technique was invented by the Hussites two century later. --fz22 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to know where it is stated that Hungarian campaign was particularly bloody for Mongols compared to Khwarezmian one (where they actually lost at least one major battle), or campaign against Song Empire (which took 40 years). It seems dubious anyway that Batu - weakest of the Mongol Khans - would plan another major invasion just one year after he had conquered his own - still unconsolitated - realm (ie. Russia). As for why Mongols stopped for summer - likely to prepare for winter, which was their preferred campaign season. Lets not forget that Batu's own Mongol contingent numbered only around 4000 troops, of which he is said to have lost around 30 in Battle of Mohi. Extrapolating from there, Mongol casualties in that battle were perhaps 1%. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Mongol Invasion of Hungary (1284)

What the hell is this?

"the Mongols losing much of their invading force due to the use of combat trained moon rats, from the moon. "

Combat trained moon rats, from the moon? I'm no history buff, but I don't think that happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.110.166 (talk • contribs) 16:10, September 6, 2006

You clearly don't know very much about history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.0.110 (talk • contribs) 13:10, March 25, 2007

[edit] image source

What is the source of the image accompanying this article? It does not seem very authentic.

It would be better to use a historic image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txensen (talk • contribs) 15:49, August 23, 2006

[edit] Prayer

I read somewhere that the Christians of the time added to some prayer (Paternoster?) "and deliver us fromthe warth of the Mongols". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 05:16, September 25, 2006

It may be that they added it to a prayer, but I am pretty sure it wasn't the Pater Noster (the Lord's Prayer). --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction

Has a reversal of this piece of history been the basis of some relevant piece of alternate history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 05:18, September 25, 2006

[edit] Strong concerns

This entire article is a pile of crap. How do we get this whole thing completly rewritten? Its a disgrace to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyjimjam (talk • contribs) 00:13, June 18, 2007

[edit] Disputed

Parts of this article appear to be quite good, but I have tagged the article as disputed, since it's not clear if the above concerns have been addressed. I also agree that the article needs to do a much better job of sourcing. Parts are also very confusing. I haven't gone through it in detail myself, but I did notice right off that the lead section doesn't even make a clear distinction that the attacks were being made by the Golden Horde as opposed to just "the Mongols". I think that this article can eventually be quite good, but enough concerns have been raised that I think we need to flag it as disputed until it gets a thorough going-over. --Elonka 04:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, those concerns that were actionable have been fixed. Obviously, "concerns" of the form put forward in the last two headings above this one can't be addressed, because they don't name any specific problems. So which specific issues were it that made you add the disputed tag? Not saying it's necessarily wrong, just that at a first glance, I can't find any real dispute. Note that in that region, the Golden Horde during its time pretty much were "the Mongols". Maybe a "cleanup" tag would be more appropriate? --Latebird 06:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory

At the beginning, there is a sourced statement that Subutai wanted to attack Austria but his plans were interrupted by Ogedei Khan. After an unsourced claim in the part about the invasion of Hungary that the Hungarian resistance counted for nothing, it states that the Mongols were never interested in expanding Westward. This is not sourced while the statement to the contrary is. I also believe this has a strong anti-Hungarian POV, without sourcing the statements that support this sentiment.Shield2 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)