If you'd like to see the rest of the theories, and an overview of the entire topic in a more manageable size, check out the links before: Mongol Retreat #1: Overview kzread.info/dash/bejne/foWt1Menipqfj7w.html Mongol Retreat #2: Political Theories kzread.info/dash/bejne/eKmfrtajZpzLYdY.html Mongol Retreat #3: Environmental Theories kzread.info/dash/bejne/fnl8s61uf6W0aZc.html

Great series of videos! Overall, I agree with this analysis, though I would like to add that there remains a lot of archeological work to be done in regards to the prevalence of small scale stone walled fortifications in China. It is certainly true that the city wall was the primary form of fortification in China, but there were also many walls and smaller fortresses in higher elevation mountainous regions. These also gave the mongols some trouble in China. The fortress of Diaoyucheng being the best example. Additionally, Chinese traction trebuchets were not as powerful as counter-weight ones, but this is largely because Chinese city walls were much thicker and lower than those in other regions like Europe which reduced the effectiveness of trebuchets to the point that they were more useful for shooting at targets on or over walls rather than actually blast through them. In my own reading of the primary sources at the pivotal siege of Xiangyang, the counterweight trebuchet brought in from the west did not break though the walls but relied on its greater range to go over the city walls from across the river. I think that many supporters of European military supremacy don’t really understand the way that the mongols adapted to lands which they spent decades conquering. By the time a Mongol khan took France, he would likely be Christian and have excellent Latin. The famed heavy cavalry would be effectively employed by the mongols themselves as a part of their many armies spread across Eurasia.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Great points; Stephen actually goes into the difficultly of these Chinese fortifications more in his dissertations and recent research which highlights this. The other day he actually shared with me a translation he had done of a Mongol general from the Yuan Shi which is full of details of how much trouble Chinese fortresses gave the Mongol in China. In fact, it's very much similar to what we see in Europe as we argue here; the need to withdraw to reassess approaches and call up reinforcements. One thing I've tried to stress in a lot of my own recent writing is how difficult the fighting in China was, even though the popular depiction reduces Chinese resistance to almost nothing. The Song Dynasty, for all the slag thrown at it in modern commentary, puts up 40 odd years of resistance against the Mongols. Not many states at the time could have hoped to do something comparable.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Only a few years before the Western campaign, Sübe'etei and Ögedai fail to take the Jin fortress of Tongguan; an effort to bypass it through the mountains results in Sübe'etei being defeated and nearly removed from his post. The Mongol army withdraws to reassess (this is when you get Tolui's force being stationed in the Qinling mountains, as we mention in one of these videos), and finally by passes Tongguan, by passing all the way around the mountain range entirely and through Song territory to essentially come up behind the fort. If that was not an indication of the difficultly of a well entrenched, well defended and well built fort, then I don't know what is.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Stephen actually takes about Diaoyucheng in this effective anti-Mongol role specifically in his article "Fortresses that Shatter Empires: A Look at Möngke Khan's Failed Campaign against the Song Dynasty," which you can read on his academia.edu page.

Excellent series Hope to see more collaborations with Stephen Pow, as well as more specialists (I recommend Ahmet Taşağıl)

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I do have more planned with Stephen in future (though not unlikely to be as large a project as this turned out to be). I would definitely enjoy having other specialists who are interested in "being on the show."

So now you have had a chance to hear everything in detail: did you find the argument convincing? Why or why not? Could you even understand us despite these outrageously thick Canadian accents?

A masterpiece of historical analysis.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you! To Dr. Pow goes the credit, as this was largely his research on display here.

I can't believe this gets no views... You two are amazing.

these are excellent discussions, thank you for taking the time to make and share them

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

My pleasure, thank you for listening to them!

@archivesoffantasy5560

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory whilst I don’t really believe many European knights would stand a chance against a mongol army led by Subutai (as proven by Hungary and the Ruse kingdoms) I’ve heard some people claim/speculate that in Western Europe it wasn’t really pasture, and the area wouldn’t support all of their horses. So with that in mind, If Ogedi didn’t die, do you believe the mongols could have taken the HRE, Rome and France?

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

@@archivesoffantasy5560 I don't really buy the pasture argument in regards to Central and Western Europe. Firstly, it doesn't seem anyone has actually done a study into the actual pasture coverage of the region in 1242, so most of these rely on assumptions rather than anything. Secondly, for earlier nomadic incursions such as the Huns and Magyars (when Europe's tree coverage was likely greater than it was in thirteenth century) don't seem to be restricted by pasture, or considerations for pasture. Thirdly, to me no one has made a convincing reason why Europe's access to pasture alone makes it unconquerable compared to Afghanistan, southern China, Tibet, even the Rus' principalities and Volga Bulghars (the last two being in quite thickly forested regions). Let alone in capability to operate there, only in rare times does access to pasture itself seem a consideration when it came to undertaking a campaign (i.e, Japan's pasture resources never seem to be considered when it comes to campaigning there). Had the Mongols attacked Europe in force again, then they would have done the same things they did anywhere else to mitigate pasture restrictions. Send raids over the years before the main attack to force abandonment of farmland (so it turns over into pasture); clear pastures along the advance route of other nomads, to maximize amount available for their own army; other subject peoples have to supply foodstuffs and supplies along the route for the army's use; attack is launched in the fall, and thus the Mongols also feed their men and animals off of the grains collected in the harvest (the Mongol CAN feed their horses off of these things, but their preference is grass due to lack of baggage needed for it); divide army into multiple units so less stress on a given pasture zone; rely more on local and other subject troops, who fight in different means from the Mongols and don't rely on same pasture requirements. I don't see Europe being possibly desolate enough to for that alone to dissuade or hamper a Mongol attack. Certainly crossing the alps would not be an easy feat, but that kind of geography was dealt with in China and Tibet and the Caucasus. It's slow going, but surpassable.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

@@archivesoffantasy5560 I do think the Mongols would have conquered Europe. I don't think it would be as easy or quick as some people imagine (i.e, they were not going to complete it in 1242; Subedei and Batu simply did not have sufficient forces for the task). But I don't see any feature or aspect of Europe that made it inherently unconquerable compared to anywhere else they fought. Given the proper time and resources (it might take forty years, for instance, and perhaps huge losses) I think they would have done it. I personally don't think it would have been completed in Ögedai's lifetime. As we emphasis in the video, the Mongols spent 70 years to complete the conquest of China; these conquests, to them, are inevitable, there is no deadline for them to get it done before, say, 1250. My guess it, after the death of Güyük, Möngke Khaan basically decided to leave Europe to the end. Complete the conquest fo China, secure that border and resources, and then an army could be sent to the comparatively superfluous campaign in Europe. So in the "Mongol ideal world," we might have seen a huge, multi-pronged army full of infantry and siege weapons from China and the Islamic world (they know the castle and fortresses are going to be a tough-nut to crack, and they'll need footmen for it). The idea of sending a bunch of an entire Chinese army to Europe was considered in the preparations for the first campaign, but was shut down on account of the difficulty of providing for it. Had they been able to levied the supplies of all China, then they may have been more comfortable building massive supply depots all along the route for such a task. Those kind of far-reaching, hugely complex campaigns which leveraged the manpower of the entire empire were the hallmark of Möngke's reign. Had he lived another 10-15 years, perhaps we may have seen something like that. His death probably did more to save Europe, than Ögedai's did; Ögedai's demise simply prevented an earlier return.

@archivesoffantasy5560

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory thank you for this detailed reply. Interesting Mongkes death saved Europe more than Ogedeis

Great mental gymnastics on the withdrawal 👌

Great discussion, thanks a lot. Any attempt to answer this question "Why didn't the mongols conquer Europe?" of course implies: "And why *did* they conquer China and the Middle East?" I personally find the hypothesis that stone-walled cities and castles are the decisive factor most convincing. Then again, I do't know much about Chinese fortress-building and whether or not Europe's was in any way superior. Europe had a long tradition of siege warfare due to decentralized power distribution and feudalism. Hungary had mostly wood-and-earth fortifications, but the stone defenses it had held (such as the keep of Esztergom). Maybe China as a more centralized state didn't have garrisons that would keep on withstanding after the emperor was ousted? Central Asia had fortified cities, but more distant from one another. Maybe the mongols needed operational space to succesfully conduct a siege, with fewer potential relief forces nearby? Anyway, this is was interests me most: What was different compared to central Asia, the Middle East and China?

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Stephen discusses this a bit in his PhD and MA dissertations. A distinction is that the fortified sites the Mongols had the most success against (in North China, Rus', Central Iran, and Baghdad for example) tended to be larger sites situated in flood plains. That is, cities which the Mongols could easily surround and attack from multiple points to spread out defenders. More significantly perhaps though, these sorts of cities in level ground appear to simply have been easier for siege machines to hit. One of shared features of the individual cities and castles that best resisted the Mongols (in Rus', south China, Iran, especially the Assassin fortresses, and in Hungary) are that the fortifications were on the top of major inclines or much of the route inaccessible. That is, negating the Mongols' ability to strike multiple positions at once, but also seemingly reducing the effectiveness of the type of catapults (Chinese traction catapults) that the Mongols used. It looks like to an extent these struggle to accommodate changes in elevation. Having the fortified site then made of stone furthered reduced the damage that could be done to it; hence, Esztergom's citadel resisting the Mongols even though the rest of the city was destroyed, and certain Nizari Isma'ili fortresses holding out against the Mongols for over a decade. Not coincidently, most of the Isma'ili fortresses fell to the Mongols through negotiation/political capitulation rather than assault. In comparison, the stamped earth or mud brick walls of Central Asian, all situated in flood-plains, made them particularly susceptible to the massed bombardments the Mongols employed (Dozens and dozens of siege machines firing continuously day and night). When coupled with poor morale of the defenders, who felt the central government (the Khwarezm-Shah) had left them to die, it was a poisonous mixture for any defense. Now that's just one thing; on campaigns of this size across so many frontiers it's not going to be a hard and fast, unbreakable rule. And we shouldn't think of these as impenetrable barriers; rather, they were ones which slowed the Mongols down and prevented quicker conquests. These kinds of sieges are immense investments of time and resources, and if those aren't available to the army then they must be bypassed. In China, with greater proximity, resources and political will to complete the conquest, the most formidable defenses were worn down by the Mongols, even if took years (Xiangyang, for example). But Europe on the edge of the empire doesn't get this follow-up assault, and hence the European fortresses seemed particularly impenetrable. Had a second attack by a united Mongol empire occurred, we might have a different opinion on the matter.

@martinivers489

2 жыл бұрын

I have heard in some instances they Mongols also dammed up rivers and flooded the entire city, when they could not penetrate the walls (in Northern China). Possibly it was on this channel.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, though that's actually less common. It was employed, for instance, against the Tangut capital before the Mongols had really picked up much siege experience, and against the Khwarezmian capital of Gurganj after a lengthy resistance. Basically a last resort thing in both occasions where their other tactics had failed.

@Vijay-1111

2 жыл бұрын

Google Alamut. It's an impregnable fortress on a mountain top in Iran. Hulagu took it in like a couple of days lol. There is no way that European fortifications were any better than Alamut, for the simple fact that Alamut's defence was built around its one-of-a-kind geography. You'd need to recreate that geography to even attempt building a better fort, it's not a question of masonry or architecture

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Alamut fell quickly, because it was convinced to surrender. Hülegü by that point had gotten the new Isma'ili leader, Rukn ad-Dīn Khurshah, to submit to him after putting Khurshah's fortress (Maymundiz) under a siege. With Khurshah in his company, Hülegü was able to gain the submission of almost all of the Isma'ili fortresses, who were then ordered to tear down their walls. Only a handful refused, including Alamut and Lammasar. Alamut was put under siege and bombardment for a week or so, until Khurshah was finally able to convince the garrison to surrender. After that, Hülegü had the fortresses demolished. Those fortresses which did resist and refuse to surrender, Lammasar and Gird-koh, were so well built they proved great trouble to take. Lammasar held out for a year, and Gird-koh took until 1271 to finally surrender. So these Assassin fortresses are actually a great example for this argument. The Mongols could take even these ones; but it was very much to their preference if they did not have to commit to lengthy sieges and just have the places submit. A well designed, inaccessible fortress, was a huge investment to actually take by force; and still, the Assassins fortresses that held out didn't fall through assault, but because the defenders faced starvation.

Excellent discussion. I think the main problem for the Mongols in conquering Europe was the logistics. They had hundreds of thousands of horses and it was simply impossible to feed them in Western Europe, wich , at that time, was a densely forested area.

Great job!

Can you do a video on how the mongols conquered Tibet? It's still mystery to me how they were able to conquer such hostile environment.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

I would be interested in doing so, though I would be wary of attempting a pronunciation of any Tibetan words and phrases. However it is a geographical blindspot in the sense that it's generally overlooked in most overviews. The short answer I can give is that it was a gradual process, and Mongol control needed to be reasserted continually until the end of the thirteenth century, as even when the main powers in Tibet submitted there was periodic, and quite large, revolts.

Don't want to disappoint Jackmeister: Mongol arrows can't melt European steel armor.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

1241 was an inside job. Béla IV organized the Mongol attack to reduce the freedoms of the brave, hardworking Hungarian nobility.

@ZahidKhan-vy8yu

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory that’s why Batu took his Bela golden tent

I mean the 1240's Mongol invasion did neither get the submission of the Europeans nor seems to have resulted in considerable loot, so we can safely conclude that it was at most a Pyrrhic victory or that they outright lost the war in Europe. The begging of the Hungarian king to submit is telling that the war effort wasn't going well. The question is why? It seems to me that the Mongols underestimated the European resistance and didn't commit the means necessary to accomplish the task. The next question is if they ever had these necessary means to accomplish the goal and if they had them why didn't they employ them. At this point I'm not even sure the Mongols ever had the necessary means to conquer Europe.

Great video! I can ask You a question about thé Ottoman and Spanish empire if Its possible?

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

You can and I will be happy to answer if I am able to, but I am afraid I'm not an expert on the Ottomans.

@Letnistonwandif

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thank you, I wanted to ask who was stronger or more powerfull empire in Europe the Spanish empire or the Ottoman empire. I have seen on the internet that the Spanish empire was the strongest in Europe from 1500 to 1700 but other sources say that the ottomans were the strongest during 1500 and 1683 so, who says the truth,

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

Hmm, I guess it depends on what precisely the measurement is for strongest here. Financial power? Military(tactical, strategic, logistical, who won more battles, fielded more troops)? Political/diplomatic influence? Controls more territory? Who comes back from defeats better? I think depending on what you measure, and what time frame you focus on, you will get very different answers. Also, a lot of people will just choose their favourite side (due to religious/cultural/ethnic/nationalist reasons; obviously most Spaniards will pick Spanish Empire, most Turks will say Ottomans). And since a lot of history is taught from western European perspective, people will rate automatically stuff in Western Europe first. I'm not really that familiar with Spanish activities in Europe itself over this period, so I won't say I can make a fair assessment of Spanish capabilities. I know the Ottomans better than Spain but I'm not Ottoman historian by any means. So keep that in mind. Right now I would say Spain had more political influence in Europe, and I am under the impression there was always worry in Europe over Spanish potential (i.e, the worry over Habsburgs ruling the Holy Roman Empire and Spain). But my opinion is that the Ottomans were the always the stronger military in Europe; they control more territory within Europe, they recover from defeats more readibly that the Spanish and their armies seemed more adaptable to the terrain and capable of moving through it. The reason victories over the Ottomans are so famous, is because it was a BIG DEAL to actually defeat the Ottomans. For all the fame the Battle of Lepanto has, it wasn't an end to Ottoman naval presence and the Ottomans bounced back from it relatively well. And they were doing this while also expanding east in lands no easier to conquer. So these reasons make me choose Ottomans.

@Letnistonwandif

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Fait enough. Thanks!

@Letnistonwandif

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistoryI just want to Say That thé Spanish empire had an stronger Navy and had more Money in terms of GDP, also if We comparé thé numbers of thé armes We can Say That thé Ottomans had more Manpower but i think thé Spanish had better trained soldiers a Its shows in thé battle of castlenuovo. But of course this is just my opinion i respect yours too of course, i had asked many historias and each one have différent opinions, quite interesting.

Is this the same for Poland and the Teutonic order? The Mongols successfully raided Poland area in the 1260s, why wasn't it taken completely?

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

As far as we can tell, the 1260 attack of Boroldai/Burundai was not intended for conquest. But it's actual purpose or goal is not stated in any source that I am aware of. It appears simply to have been a raid and an extension of a campaign to secure control over Halychyna-Volhynia. I've not seen any source, or modern writer, claim the 1260 attack hoped to conquer Poland, and the recorded actions of the Mongols during the campaign don't indicate an effort to occupy or hold onto territory. According to the sources the Mongols suffered no military reversals during the 1260 attack and overcame all the fortifications they assaulted. It appears this contributed to a great sense of Mongol over-confidence regarding Poland, as in Mongols expected an easy victory in 1287 and went in woefully unprepared for stiff Polish resistance.

The logistics was the biggest challenge for the Mongols and infighting the second. Batu Khan knew once Ogedia died if Guyuk was to become Khan everything he is fighting for would be redundant. The battle of Hungary was a tough fight but keep in mind this was the climax of the Western Europe campaign after 5 years after hundred of battles with soldiers lost , some soldiers recalled to Mongolia and training new soldiers from locals. Batu and Sabutia wanted to invade Rome they were looking at Maps trying to strategise when they heard of Ogedia Deaths. Batu knew once Ogedia died Guyuk will be his biggest threat and both came close to clashing until Guyuk died. The fact that Poland and Hungary standing army was destroyed by the Mongols which left Germany , Italy and France wide open for the taking. Hungary and Poland had some of the best European knights of the time factor that with Mongols were not even at there full strength when they fought in Hungary and Poland. As a comparison for strength China and Iraq were the two strongest and advanced empires at the time. Both empires were fully decimated by the Mongols. Hualuagu who destroyed Baghdad beat the Berke Khan army who in turn sacked Poland , Lithuania and forced Hungary to pay tribute in 1259. If Ogedia Khan lived longer western Europe and the Whole Muslim world most likely would of been conquered. In terms of wealth as well would you invade the resource rich countries of China and Baghdad which are close to home or travel thousands of miles to France for less loot 💰

@Letnistonwandif

Жыл бұрын

Some of the best knights, Nope thats false the best knights were in France and Germany not in poland or Hungrary

@Letnistonwandif

Жыл бұрын

And the holy roman empire was extremely wealthy even if not as much as china

@lassim3111

Жыл бұрын

​@@Letnistonwandifgerman knights fought the mongols

Please do not repeat cliché about nobody invaded russia in winter. First of all Rus did that. Steppe peoples did since the times of Scythians. Post Napoleonic phenomenon is something different. Frustration in my expression comes from the fact that this is a rather high quality historical discussion, it raises my expectations)

@ProfessorOFanthropology979

10 ай бұрын

Rus? I believe the actual founding story goes more among the lines of the Slavic chieftains choosing the Scandinavians to rule over them as there was strife and conflict among the Slavic tribes. It was a confederacy and relatively loose, I think it’s equally a massive cliche to summarise these two loose confederacies as empires who waged war and were united under one ruler, because the historiography of the time says otherwise.

👍👍👍

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

You said it

Why do I feel a little offended when he mentions the "gamers" part? My former self comes back to haunt me, I guess :)). That's a very good take of you about "win no matter what", there is no such thing as "certain victory", until the outcome is clear, both side has the same probability to win, that is 50/50, war is supposed to be nonlinear, unpredictable, you are fighting with human beings, not AIs, war is more of an art than a science, there is no formular for victory, so it's kind of pointless to discuss such thing like "what if the Mongol could overun Europe?", because it's impossible to get the right answer. I am a military theory nerd, and it irritates me when someone using gaming knowledge to discuss real war, and really, some may not even know how the cavalry actually fought in reality, as a result we have things like the debate about Mongol-Mamluk tactics between Profs J.M. Smith Jr (God bless him) and Reuven Amitai, their debate is not without merit and I don't mean to disrespect but it's so painful to read the tactics part because neither has the sufficient knowledge about how the cavalry fought, how they charged, how they got into melee, which is understandable because they are not military theorist or have a deep interest in it, and then here comes the "steppe pony cannot carry heavy weight" part. Oh my, let's just hope that some light maybe shed into this matter in the future.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

2 жыл бұрын

I agree very much on JM Smith Jr. A very knowledgeable man, clearly enough; but one who suggests things too exactly to be usable. I always have the feeling with Smith's work, that if Chinggis Khan had not/had failed to crossed the Qizilqum desert when attacking Khwarezm in winter 1219/1220, then JM Smith would have argued this was because it was an impassable barrier, for steppe horses need xyz supplies and the desert, at abc km wide could only have supplied an army of XXX numbers. It's a sort of retroactive way of looking at history, I felt, an effort to make everything nice and precise. The thing is, impassable barriers are impassable right up until someone crosses them with an army. History is not neat and tidy and cinematic, but messy, and nothing gets messier than war.