None of the fortified towns in Hungary fell to the Mongols. This was a lesson not lost on King Bela, and he embarked on a massive fort construction project which made enough progress in time for the second Mongol invasion of Hungary, which the Hungarian kingdom much more thoroughly repulsed.
I'm going to butt in here with an observation that might be 'uncool', but it needs to be voiced.
Mongols didn't just 'withdraw' and leave Europe alone. The article mentions they brought Chinese gunpowder - so they left behind a valuable technological legacy.
They killed one million Hungarians, but that was just one nation. The overall conquest(s) effected a vast death toll across Europe and near Asia.
What else did they leave behind? Not mentioned: a genetic legacy. This was a living legacy as impactful as anything else, arguable even more so...
And what's involved in that? Conquering armies tend to kill men and boys, and rape women and girls. (The most comprehensive recent record of similar events is from post-war Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_...) A significant proportion of those rapes resulted in pregnancies. In medieval Europe, we can assume that abortion was mostly unavailable.
So actually, in one sense Mongols remained in Europe, spreading their genes through the most vile and traumatic acts inflicted on the hidden victims of conflict: women.
Women are half of humanity. It's wrong to neglect that aspect of invasion.
> The article mentions they brought Chinese gunpowder - so they left behind a valuable technological legacy.
Looking at the history of artillery in Europe, and the fact that it first developed in the West, it's far more likely that gunpowder technology was introduced from the Islamic world in the context of the Crusades and the Latin Kingdoms.
Women represent at most 2% of the victim of every war that we have data on. Trying to reframe the suffering of men, and only men, as a women problem is one the most vile things done by the modern zeitgeist. Shame on everyone who doesn't remember who really fights in war, and that is not women.
Right? The conclusion is quite suspect because the Mongols eventually did conquer southern China where it is perpetually warm and humid. What they ended up doing was solidifying their control of northern China and then adopting infantry based tactics and riverine warfare in addition to adopting trebuchets from the Middle East/Europeans. The Mongols were quite adaptable. I doubt warmer weather would be enough to stop them on its own.
> This wooden chronicle revealed that a cold and wet period set in for years, leading "to reduced pastureland and decreased mobility, as well as hampering the military effectiveness of the Mongol cavalry", according to a press release.
Currently reading the Mongoliad book series (Neal Stephenson, Greg Bear and star cast of other contemporary sci-fi writers). Recommended if this kind of history is interesting to you.
"Horde" - a term long used to deflect the sophisticated tactical, strategic, technological, and governmental methods of the Mongols. Their accomplishments are not lost on the war colleges of the west (at the the US for sure, especially the US Marines), but no one else seems to know this.
> a term long used to deflect the sophisticated tactical, strategic, technological, and governmental methods of the Mongols
Setting aside the fact that the term refers to the Mongols using their own word, why are we describing their governmental methods as sophisticated? How do they perform relative to comparators?
In China, they're not impressive at all; the government before them lasted for about 300 years (traditionally dated 960-1276, though it lost control of the north of China for the last 100 or so years), and the one after them also lasted about 300 years (1368-1644).
If you were paying attention to the dates, that leaves just under 100 years for the Mongols' "sophisticated" government to survive. [In reality, they almost certainly deserve credit for a bit more than that -- transitions of power take place over multi-year periods, not instantaneously.] I tend to make the assumption that the brevity of their rule is related to the fact that they had no administrative tradition -- perhaps you know better?
(I've also read that Mongol rule was extremely beneficial to the economy of Europe -- where they weren't in charge -- [because the pax Mongolica made overland trade economically viable] while being a step backward for China, where they were.)
> technological
This is even weirder. What technological methods? The Mongols couldn't even make metal objects.
The title is a bit clickbaity and, as usual, makes a much stronger claim than the research suggests. Sure maybe it was the climate, or maybe it was just regression to the mean.
There were roughly 100x as many Europeans as Mongolians in the 13th century. It seems unlikely they could have ever conquered all of Europe with supply lines stretching back to Asia. All while maintaining a grip on 100 million subjugated non-Mongolians who probably weren’t keen to send and supply troops across the world.
Conquering they much territory is an extremely unusual event, it seems reasonable that the Mongols would just eventually run out of steam.
Is it out of the question that they could have done in Europe what they did in China?
On the other hand, it seems likely that the resulting empire would fracture into a collection of Khanates, as that is what happened to the actual empire.
> There were roughly 100x as many Europeans as Mongolians in the 13th century
Well by the time their armies arrived in Europe 'true' Mongols were a minority. Just like the Huns and other stepped empires they included many Turkish, Cuman, Finno-Ugric and other nomadic tribes.
> Conquering they much territory is an extremely unusual event
Steppe empires weren't that rare though we just don't have that much information on those preceding the Mongols. Obviously they were much more successful than their predecessors but not necessarily that exceptional.
Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN. You may not owe Putin better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Correlation doesn’t imply causation. I’m not sure how more water seen in tree bark thickness quickly correlates to the Mongols not conquering Europe.. That horses don’t do well in watery land seems like a poor theory to me. Although that one movie that I saw where horses got stuck in the UK battle seems to collaborate that theory... Like all science it’s a theory offered and it’s to other historians to prove it wrong. I find it all fascinating.
[+] [-] ETH_start|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twelve40|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fractallyte|3 years ago|reply
Mongols didn't just 'withdraw' and leave Europe alone. The article mentions they brought Chinese gunpowder - so they left behind a valuable technological legacy.
They killed one million Hungarians, but that was just one nation. The overall conquest(s) effected a vast death toll across Europe and near Asia.
What else did they leave behind? Not mentioned: a genetic legacy. This was a living legacy as impactful as anything else, arguable even more so...
And what's involved in that? Conquering armies tend to kill men and boys, and rape women and girls. (The most comprehensive recent record of similar events is from post-war Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_...) A significant proportion of those rapes resulted in pregnancies. In medieval Europe, we can assume that abortion was mostly unavailable.
So actually, in one sense Mongols remained in Europe, spreading their genes through the most vile and traumatic acts inflicted on the hidden victims of conflict: women.
Women are half of humanity. It's wrong to neglect that aspect of invasion.
[+] [-] Bayart|3 years ago|reply
Looking at the history of artillery in Europe, and the fact that it first developed in the West, it's far more likely that gunpowder technology was introduced from the Islamic world in the context of the Crusades and the Latin Kingdoms.
[+] [-] tarasglek|3 years ago|reply
https://theins.ru/confession/257790 https://theins.ru/en/confession/258330
[+] [-] annyeonghada|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] l-|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subroutine|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hangonhn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkwater|3 years ago|reply
> This wooden chronicle revealed that a cold and wet period set in for years, leading "to reduced pastureland and decreased mobility, as well as hampering the military effectiveness of the Mongol cavalry", according to a press release.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mprime1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddmma|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mickdeek86|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raydiatian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] banku_brougham|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LarsDu88|3 years ago|reply
The negative connotations of a horde as being disorderly and cruel is a direct reflection of western European perceptions of "Tartar Barbarism"
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|3 years ago|reply
Setting aside the fact that the term refers to the Mongols using their own word, why are we describing their governmental methods as sophisticated? How do they perform relative to comparators?
In China, they're not impressive at all; the government before them lasted for about 300 years (traditionally dated 960-1276, though it lost control of the north of China for the last 100 or so years), and the one after them also lasted about 300 years (1368-1644).
If you were paying attention to the dates, that leaves just under 100 years for the Mongols' "sophisticated" government to survive. [In reality, they almost certainly deserve credit for a bit more than that -- transitions of power take place over multi-year periods, not instantaneously.] I tend to make the assumption that the brevity of their rule is related to the fact that they had no administrative tradition -- perhaps you know better?
(I've also read that Mongol rule was extremely beneficial to the economy of Europe -- where they weren't in charge -- [because the pax Mongolica made overland trade economically viable] while being a step backward for China, where they were.)
> technological
This is even weirder. What technological methods? The Mongols couldn't even make metal objects.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sarchertech|3 years ago|reply
There were roughly 100x as many Europeans as Mongolians in the 13th century. It seems unlikely they could have ever conquered all of Europe with supply lines stretching back to Asia. All while maintaining a grip on 100 million subjugated non-Mongolians who probably weren’t keen to send and supply troops across the world.
Conquering they much territory is an extremely unusual event, it seems reasonable that the Mongols would just eventually run out of steam.
[+] [-] mannykannot|3 years ago|reply
On the other hand, it seems likely that the resulting empire would fracture into a collection of Khanates, as that is what happened to the actual empire.
[+] [-] KRAKRISMOTT|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwytw|3 years ago|reply
Well by the time their armies arrived in Europe 'true' Mongols were a minority. Just like the Huns and other stepped empires they included many Turkish, Cuman, Finno-Ugric and other nomadic tribes.
> Conquering they much territory is an extremely unusual event
Steppe empires weren't that rare though we just don't have that much information on those preceding the Mongols. Obviously they were much more successful than their predecessors but not necessarily that exceptional.
[+] [-] steele|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] realworldperson|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] marosgrego|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cat_plus_plus|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|3 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] RandomWorker|3 years ago|reply