15 ms·

The Mongolians did great on fields and plains until they reached mountains and tougher terrain. Their tactics were great for open terrain where you could maneu

The Mongolians did great on fields and plains until they reached mountains and tougher terrain. Their tactics were great for open terrain where you could maneuver with horses. Not so great when you have to deal with mountains. They did great up until they hit Poland and the Balkans, where they faced harsher terrain. They had to abandon their Central European campaign for political reasons, but even If they kept going, I don’t think they would have been that successful in Europe. It took the Ottomans one century to conquer the Balkans and they were still stopped in Poland.

CyanBird 5y ago
> They did great up until they hit Poland and the Balkans, where they faced harsher terrain I keep seeing these historic revisionist takes and it just leaves me... Empty inside, do these people believe that modern Tajikistan is flat? That China is an endless grassland? That Afghanistan, Georgia, the Koreas and East Manchuria, or heck even northern India and Pakistan, are all these places just empty plains? The entirety of you know.... Iran??? Hungary is no more mountainous than the places I mentioned above, I suppose arguing makes no sense here as I feel that these supposed lines or argument are somehow inherently related to a broader sense of "Western excepcionalism"
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Thanks. And it’s not like western Europe was the prize. More an easy target. China was the real deal.
  - ardit33 5y ago
    No, he is wrong. Europe was a much harder target. They did well on cities on the Paeonian plains, where it was their natural terrain, but did not do well on European mountainous terrain. They couldn't even take Dubrovnik, let alone Constantinople. (it took the Ottomans half a century, and the advent of the cannons to finally conquer it).
    - dopidopHN 5y ago
      Was not Constantinople in a pretty bad position, so they had to ask Blanche de Castille and whoever was ruling France for help around 1240 ? Constantinople ruler at the time, Baldwin II was either killed or captured Sources agree that the city started paying tribute to the mongol. ( one is a document excommunicating Baldwin for accepting overloadship from the mongols ) So the city was not taken but the situation was pretty bad. Similarly, Bulgaria and Hungary were taken too if I’m remember correctly.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      While they didn't "take" Constantinople, they vassalized the nearby Trebizond Empire and beat the Latin Empire's leader in battle, potentially capturing him leading to unknown concessions. Then the re-emergent Byzantines bought an alliance rather than battle them.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Constantinople was conquered, and pillaged, by Crusaders diverted there by the Doge of Venice as ways to repay their debts to him. Those crusaders just didn't stay, that's all.
      - JetAlone 5y ago
        https://roman-empire.net/army/the-sack-of-constantinople/ https://roman-empire.net/army/the-sack-of-constantinople/ Yes. Western crusaders smashed altars and raped nuns. The first Latin Pope to officially apologize to us for this was John Paul II, in Anno Domini 2001, almost eight hundred years after the atrocity took place. This apology was rendered just 2 years after he controversially kissed a Koran. >"What a beautiful scripture, containing teachings nigh-incompatible with our dogmas!! ちゅ〜 <3" >"Ohhhhhhhh that one is for year 2099. Okay. I see what happened, I started a century too far into the Novus Ordo playbook. Sorry. Sorry. The pages got stuck together. What was on the start of this page? 2001? Apologizing for the atrocity? Ohhhhkay, right. Back on track." 2001 a Grace Odyssey.
        hef19898 5y ago
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Revisionist geography?
- ardit33 5y ago
  Yeah... the whole region is dotted with castles. They did really well on ravaging and ransacking cities that were on plains, or close to larger fields. Hungary and Serbia are part of the the Panioan Plane, which is open terrain and perfect for them. They couldn't take Dubrovnik (the first well fortified western European city), and also were defeated on mountainous terrain by the Bulgarians. They wouldn't been able to take something more fortified like Constantinople. They actually had clashes at the time, but it was mostly raids by the Mongols. So, it is pretty clear. In Europe, the Mongolians did great on open terrain, planes, and cities that didn't have great natural defenses. They didn't do that well on cities that were better fortified, and with natural defenses (mountains). They raided and ransacked the areas, and moved on as they couldn't sustain a siege in such terrains. "The Bulgarian victory can likely be attributed to the mountainous terrain, to which the Mongols were not accustomed.[16]"
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    In Chechnya, Mongols maintained a siege for more than a decade, and finally won.
  - dopidopHN 5y ago
    Let’s remember that at its height the mongol empire was spanning from the Sea of Japan to modern day Ukraine. That include the mountainous region of Nepal and Tibet. From what we know of their administration, their focus was on maintaining control of the rich region around Beijing, Xanadu and Cheng du. Not so much the Eastern Europe.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > That include the mountainous region of Nepal and Tibet. I don't believe the Mongols ever dominated Tibet. They may have made inroads into grassy northern regions such as Kham. In fact I believe that Genghis as Emperor of China paid tribute to Tibetan rulers. I'd like to see a source for Mongols crossing the Himalaya and impacting Nepal.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
dopidopHN 5y ago
We know they fared pretty well against traditional European knights in Georgia. ( around 1222 ) Those were prepping for a crusade, and got surprised by the mongols arrival. They lost pretty badly. When the mongols did setup shop and administration, it sound like their focus was China. And not the backwater of Western Europe.
- qwytw 5y ago
  They didn't fare to well against European knights during the second invasion of Hungary. They did much better during the first invasion ~40 years earlier but seemed to had struggled quite a bit against heavily armored cavalry evne then (the problem was that Hungary didn't really have enough of them earlier)
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > When the mongols did setup shop and administration, it sound like their focus was China. And not the backwater of Western Europe. Not really. Genghis Khan's grandsons split the empire apart; only the part of it that was in China was focused in China. Everyone focused on the territory they controlled, for the obvious reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_the_Mongol_Empire The reason they paid no attention to Western Europe is very straightforward; the Mongols never reached Western Europe. But they reached Eastern Europe and they stayed there for centuries.
  - dopidopHN 5y ago
    We know they had maps reaching as far as britany, France. And they were aware of the Pyrenees. But what I wanted to highlight was that the most prized territory were in the east. For instance in the division you linked the supposed ruler on the empire after Gengis Khan dead was a Yuan, sitting in Beijing and holding the Title or khan of khan. ( even if that did not worked out so well ) Anyway; I’m not an expert ,by far. I mostly regurgitate bits from the Dan Carlin show on the subject. I remember him putting a emphase on how the Mongols were turned East first, culturally and in intends, and only eventually west. ( great in depth série, 10h or so long, even if I can’t stand his bombastic style )
trzy 5y ago
It was not due to terrain but to Europe's encastellation. The first two invasions of Poland were devastating because the country's villages lacked stone fortifications and were instead still based around traditional Slavic wooden forts. This was not the case further West and while the Mongols could conduct siege warfare, being so far afield and having to besiege the vast number of castles that dotted the Western European landscape would have completely reversed their momentum. When the Mongols returned to Poland a third time, in 1287-1288, with an even larger force than before, the invasion completely failed because the country's fortifications had been upgraded. The Mongols suffered significant losses and were turned back. During the first two invasions, Western Europe was significantly better fortified than Poland of 1287, so they would almost certainly have been smashed.

CyanBird 5y ago

> They did great up until they hit Poland and the Balkans, where they faced harsher terrain I keep seeing these historic revisionist takes and it just leaves me... Empty inside, do these people believe that modern Tajikistan is flat? That China is an endless grassland? That Afghanistan, Georgia, the Koreas and East Manchuria, or heck even northern India and Pakistan, are all these places just empty plains? The entirety of you know.... Iran??? Hungary is no more mountainous than the places I mentioned above, I suppose arguing makes no sense here as I feel that these supposed lines or argument are somehow inherently related to a broader sense of "Western excepcionalism"

dopidopHN 5y ago
Thanks. And it’s not like western Europe was the prize. More an easy target. China was the real deal.
- ardit33 5y ago
  No, he is wrong. Europe was a much harder target. They did well on cities on the Paeonian plains, where it was their natural terrain, but did not do well on European mountainous terrain. They couldn't even take Dubrovnik, let alone Constantinople. (it took the Ottomans half a century, and the advent of the cannons to finally conquer it).
  - dopidopHN 5y ago
    Was not Constantinople in a pretty bad position, so they had to ask Blanche de Castille and whoever was ruling France for help around 1240 ? Constantinople ruler at the time, Baldwin II was either killed or captured Sources agree that the city started paying tribute to the mongol. ( one is a document excommunicating Baldwin for accepting overloadship from the mongols ) So the city was not taken but the situation was pretty bad. Similarly, Bulgaria and Hungary were taken too if I’m remember correctly.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    While they didn't "take" Constantinople, they vassalized the nearby Trebizond Empire and beat the Latin Empire's leader in battle, potentially capturing him leading to unknown concessions. Then the re-emergent Byzantines bought an alliance rather than battle them.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Constantinople was conquered, and pillaged, by Crusaders diverted there by the Doge of Venice as ways to repay their debts to him. Those crusaders just didn't stay, that's all.
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      https://roman-empire.net/army/the-sack-of-constantinople/ https://roman-empire.net/army/the-sack-of-constantinople/ Yes. Western crusaders smashed altars and raped nuns. The first Latin Pope to officially apologize to us for this was John Paul II, in Anno Domini 2001, almost eight hundred years after the atrocity took place. This apology was rendered just 2 years after he controversially kissed a Koran. >"What a beautiful scripture, containing teachings nigh-incompatible with our dogmas!! ちゅ〜 <3" >"Ohhhhhhhh that one is for year 2099. Okay. I see what happened, I started a century too far into the Novus Ordo playbook. Sorry. Sorry. The pages got stuck together. What was on the start of this page? 2001? Apologizing for the atrocity? Ohhhhkay, right. Back on track." 2001 a Grace Odyssey.
      - hef19898 5y ago
whatshisface 5y ago
Revisionist geography?
ardit33 5y ago
Yeah... the whole region is dotted with castles. They did really well on ravaging and ransacking cities that were on plains, or close to larger fields. Hungary and Serbia are part of the the Panioan Plane, which is open terrain and perfect for them. They couldn't take Dubrovnik (the first well fortified western European city), and also were defeated on mountainous terrain by the Bulgarians. They wouldn't been able to take something more fortified like Constantinople. They actually had clashes at the time, but it was mostly raids by the Mongols. So, it is pretty clear. In Europe, the Mongolians did great on open terrain, planes, and cities that didn't have great natural defenses. They didn't do that well on cities that were better fortified, and with natural defenses (mountains). They raided and ransacked the areas, and moved on as they couldn't sustain a siege in such terrains. "The Bulgarian victory can likely be attributed to the mountainous terrain, to which the Mongols were not accustomed.[16]"
- ncmncm 5y ago
  In Chechnya, Mongols maintained a siege for more than a decade, and finally won.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Let’s remember that at its height the mongol empire was spanning from the Sea of Japan to modern day Ukraine. That include the mountainous region of Nepal and Tibet. From what we know of their administration, their focus was on maintaining control of the rich region around Beijing, Xanadu and Cheng du. Not so much the Eastern Europe.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > That include the mountainous region of Nepal and Tibet. I don't believe the Mongols ever dominated Tibet. They may have made inroads into grassy northern regions such as Kham. In fact I believe that Genghis as Emperor of China paid tribute to Tibetan rulers. I'd like to see a source for Mongols crossing the Himalaya and impacting Nepal.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago

dopidopHN 5y ago

We know they fared pretty well against traditional European knights in Georgia. ( around 1222 ) Those were prepping for a crusade, and got surprised by the mongols arrival. They lost pretty badly. When the mongols did setup shop and administration, it sound like their focus was China. And not the backwater of Western Europe.

qwytw 5y ago
They didn't fare to well against European knights during the second invasion of Hungary. They did much better during the first invasion ~40 years earlier but seemed to had struggled quite a bit against heavily armored cavalry evne then (the problem was that Hungary didn't really have enough of them earlier)
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> When the mongols did setup shop and administration, it sound like their focus was China. And not the backwater of Western Europe. Not really. Genghis Khan's grandsons split the empire apart; only the part of it that was in China was focused in China. Everyone focused on the territory they controlled, for the obvious reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_the_Mongol_Empire The reason they paid no attention to Western Europe is very straightforward; the Mongols never reached Western Europe. But they reached Eastern Europe and they stayed there for centuries.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  We know they had maps reaching as far as britany, France. And they were aware of the Pyrenees. But what I wanted to highlight was that the most prized territory were in the east. For instance in the division you linked the supposed ruler on the empire after Gengis Khan dead was a Yuan, sitting in Beijing and holding the Title or khan of khan. ( even if that did not worked out so well ) Anyway; I’m not an expert ,by far. I mostly regurgitate bits from the Dan Carlin show on the subject. I remember him putting a emphase on how the Mongols were turned East first, culturally and in intends, and only eventually west. ( great in depth série, 10h or so long, even if I can’t stand his bombastic style )

trzy 5y ago

It was not due to terrain but to Europe's encastellation. The first two invasions of Poland were devastating because the country's villages lacked stone fortifications and were instead still based around traditional Slavic wooden forts. This was not the case further West and while the Mongols could conduct siege warfare, being so far afield and having to besiege the vast number of castles that dotted the Western European landscape would have completely reversed their momentum. When the Mongols returned to Poland a third time, in 1287-1288, with an even larger force than before, the invasion completely failed because the country's fortifications had been upgraded. The Mongols suffered significant losses and were turned back. During the first two invasions, Western Europe was significantly better fortified than Poland of 1287, so they would almost certainly have been smashed.