🚀Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/KingsandGenerals and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com
It could be also all of them. While death of Khan end invasion. Mongols also faced fierce resistance, they forces were tired after previous conquests and invasion was not yet the main goal. He didn't trust such important mission to be done by someone else, so he called off whole thing.
there was a great and wealthy empire in the region at the time... the Eastern Roman Empire [ later known as ''Byzantine'' ] why don't you make a video explaining ''The relations between the Mongols and the 'Byzantines'...? ''
@@oleopathic yes it can be settled and can still exist as an theory. A law on the other hand explains a set of observations about a scientific topic like newton' laws.
@@oleopathic Hypothesis and theory are sometimes mistaken with each other . A proven and settled hypothesis would be a theory and if its concerns different scientific branches all together it would be a law. An example of an "settled" theory would be the Darwin's theory of evolution, it is proven and settled that evolution exists and creatures change over time according to their enviroments. But it mainly concerns a single scientific branch which would be biology therefore it is a theory not a scientific law.
This is excellent. Historical events rarely have a single, tidy cause. Having multiple theories that don't agree with each other reflects how history actually is as a field of study.
Batu, is a general but notice he does not have an actual Kingdom to rule. When the Khan dies, he his force withdrawal and do a land grab. They go out and secure their own kingdoms for themselves before the new Khan is in place. Notice too Batu doesn't return home for fear of being assassinated.
That's why I love it. It's like a puzzle with many pieces. Trying to piece them together to form a coherent picture. Wadeing through the bias and contemporary geo politics of the time whilst doing so. Man I love history :D
An interesting fact is that there is a Mongolic people that still live in Europe: the Kalmyks. Kalmyks live between the Volga river and the Caucasus in Russia, and its republic Kalmykia is the only place in Europe where Buddhists are the dominant religion group.
Kalmyks have very rich history both glorious and sad. Kalmyks played important role in Russian defense against Napoleon. They were also part of soviet army that entered Germany in WWII. Those who were taken hostage by Germans later immigrated to USA, with help of Leo Tolstoy foundation, Tolstoy had Kalmyk ancestors. There are also sad history of Torghud migration aka last great nomadic migration, and Kalmyk exile to Siberia by Stalin.
@@dreddykrugernewSami and Finnic peoples were in northern Europe for thousands of years before the Mongol expansion. True that they have a eastern origin but not as far as mongol or east asian.
I just can't imagine the logistic and administrative challenges the Mongols were facing. This was the age when you rely on horses for transportation, across the entire Eurasian continent. It is not like Batu could just send a Whatsapp message to the Mongol court and have reinforcements and supplies flying in the next day.
Well considering that everyone else also had awful logistics and transfer of information .it wasnt as bad as you think. They had days to think about moves
I think, when we learn things, we want actual insights, to actually for certain know. tall tales may inspire myths but man/woman inspires the legends among many around. this maybe to inspire someone else's adventure to quest further into the consideration. we assume these youtube videos are just for those seeking history entertainment, yet, there are many, that dig, to discover, to crown the jewel, to know the missing pieces, still. those minds, may find further, as they inquire the spark of curious discoveries unseen before. To find the missing pieces of history that were not once known now for a treasure of lifetimes. That type of knowledge alone, is a beautiful aspiration, isn't it?
They were overextended and tired. They had won the battles and retreating wasn't shameful to them. They pulled back to recover and then Batu got too busy ruling his new empire to go raiding. It wasn't as if they didn't have all the time in the world.
When I feel bummed out that TH-cam has turned into a platform for A.I.-overloaded generic content, a Kings and Generals notification appears to raise my spirits.
00:12 The Mongols withdrew from Europe for unknown reasons. 02:23 Mongol withdrawal from Europe 04:36 Debate on the mystery continues 800 years later 07:04 The Mongols had different theories for leaving Europe 09:17 Mongols withdrew from Europe due to leadership issues and logistical challenges. 11:34 The Mongols' retreat from Europe in 1242 is controversial and possibly related to environmental factors. 14:00 Mongols faced major military challenges and may have withdrawn due to stretched forces. 16:19 The Mongols' withdrawal from Europe remains a mystery.
😮😮😮Ồ. Thắc mắc của bạn dễ hiểu thôi. Quân mông cổ sau khi bị xuy yếu từ những cuộc chiến thất bại ở Việt Nam, Nhật Bản và sự nổi dậy của nhân dân ở một số vùng đất bị chiếm đóng, họ không còn đủ sức mạnh để quản lý những vùng rộng lớn xa xôi do thiếu hụt nhân lực răn đe và đặt bộ máy cai trị, lo ngại sẽ bị đánh bại trước mà đành phải rút bớt quân số, dù sao người Mông cổ lúc đó không phải đông đảo mà chủ yếu họ sử dụng tù binh, hàng binh để tiến đánh những nơi khác. Họ mạnh về quân sự chứ không mạnh về quản trị xã hội, sau này mô hình hoạt động triều đình Mông cổ đã áp dụng mô hình của Triều đại Trung Hoa, và nó không thể phù hợp áp dụng ở từng quốc gia
I wonder how well Mongols knew about Europe politically. AFAIK, Mongols did usually gather very much intelligence about their target countries before attacking. It would be prudent to assume that Mongols knew Hungarian, Polish and Balkan lands quite well but how well did they know about the capabilities Holy Roman Empire or France in detail?
I am just speculating, but maybe they didnt deem it neccessary. There is such a thing called "victory disease" when you defeated so many enemies in the past, that you just extrapolate that next one will be easy target as well...
When I learned history in college, I had to write the local effects and happenings of the mongol invasion of 1241. In the hungarian plains it was quite common practice for the people who lived there to flee into the swamps in time of need. They did so during the mongol invasion too, and with one mongol party some local hungarian peasants lured them into the swamps, by saying that they are starving and they are willing to surrender, so they guided them into the middle of the swamp, then set the whole thing on fire. All of them burned and choked there.
Recent Hungarian archeological findings have established that, in addition to some major battles and sieges, there were many pockets of resistance - ultimately reducing the number of Mongol troops which, together with the escape of King Bela IV and the survival of Hungarian forces in teritories in unoccupied Hungary (NB. NOT the entire country was occupied, but mostly its lowland central area/Great Plain).
From what I gathered from multiple sources, the most likely option is that a number of factors made the conquest of western Europe not worth the effort for the mongols, and Batu was smart enough to quit while he was ahead. For starters, there was a HUGE distance between Europe and the core of the Mongolian empire, which meant that any army that tried to conquer Europe would have essentially been on its own, unable to receive substantial reinforcements. Moreover the amount of resources that could be diverted to attack Europe were limited, since the Mongols had to patrol and control a huge empire already. In addition to this, Europe proved to be a tough nut to crack. While the mongols achieved significant military successes in Eastern Europe, they didn't really fare well in sieges against stone castles (which they often left alone) and Western Europe had many more stone castles compared to Poland and Hungary. The Mongols certainly had the means to perform successful siege operations (like the did in China) but it would have slowed down considerably, making them lose their main advantage (mobility). Moreover, due to the decentralization of Europe due to the feudal system, they couldn't just strike the enemy capital and cut the snake's head, so to speak, but they'd be stuck sieging castle after castle just to bring down a single region. In addition to this, Western Europe was not suitable at all for their style of warfare, since the hilly and rugged terrain would reduce their mobility and make their cavalry vulnerable. To summarize, the Mongols would have certainly tried to conquer Europe if they thought that they could do so easily. Invading Poland and Hungary was almost certainly an attempt to establish a beachhead from which they could stage further campaigns into Europe. But after taking a better look at the western part of Europe, not to mention after suffering significant casualties due to the resistance of the locals, Batu most likely realized that trying to proceed further west would have been incredibly hard and would have resulted in a pyrrhic victory at best, so he did the smart thing and turned away.
Mongolian historians argue that Lack of Goals as the main reason. It is agreed that initial purpose of Batu campaign was to subjugate Kipchaks, who fled to eastern europe. And army that was preparing for european expedition mentioned by Carpini, was actually Ugudei's descendants to subjugate Jochi Ulus (Genghis Khan's oldest son), because Jochi descendants didn't approve Uguudei lineage as Great khans. Your points are probably also valid, but bottom line is Mongol Empire never really planned to conquer Europe. As mentioned in the video, Mongolian army raided eastern europe and left, didn't leave a garrison, which makes no sense if European conquest was planned at all.
@@amgalanbaatarbat-erdene6261 Given the size of their invading armies and the fact that they actually probed deeply into europe, I'd argue that the Mongols probably had multiple possible objectives for their campaign: raiding new territories and subjugating the Kipchaks were certainly among them, but I believe that testing Europe's defenses and even conquer it if it was feasible were also objectives of this campaign. The fact that they turned away once king Bela escaped capture and the europeans actually started moving to fight them back support this in my opinion: they had already achieved the "main" objectives of their campaign, and since the "optional" ones were just too difficult they simply called it a day.
@@ValeTheOwl Well put. The Mongols were opportunists that raided and pillaged, and often claimed vassal states wherever they went. However, there were times when it was just not feasible to continue. Batu was in charge, and you're right. I too think he understood this. There were simply too many obstacles to warrant a further advance. The fierce resistance from the locals, the costly battles as of far, the distance from Mongolia, the difficult terrain, and so on. It really shows his brilliance as a leader. Like you said, he quit while ahead
I think the greatest issues were diverting resources to conquer Europe. The Mongols would have to march thousands of miles to reach Poland and Hungary from Karakorum. Even for their invasion of the Jin Dynasty in the 1230s, which was closer, it was still a significant logistical hurdle due to the sheer distance and the amount of men they had to put into the field to match the Jin (perhaps 120k Mongols and federated vassals). While China was densely populated with many vast and fertile river valleys, the same cannot be said for the underdeveloped and, as you said, decentralized polities of Europe, which did not have the means to supply such massive armies for prolonged periods of time, even via forage and tribute from the local populace. Of course, the Mongols were still very inured to hardship and, if we put aside logistical difficulties, everything else was not strange to them. Climate and weather are challenges they had faced before, in the dry and frigid steppes, as well as the snow-peaked and freezing mountains. Indeed, they had braved mountain ranges in several campaigns under Chinggis Khan and Subugatai to operationally turn the defensive lines of their enemies, in addition to hot and barren deserts bereft of water, except for a few oases. People overstate the difficulties that the Mongols would have faced due to terrain, but all of the greatest Mongol campaigns had been done under the most brutal conditions when one studies them in depth. On several occasions, Chinggis and Subugatai had marched through mountain ranges to outflank the Jin, the Xia, and moved through the harsh deserts to catch the Khwarezmians unaware. Nor would they have particular trouble with European fortifications, as the Jin and Khwarezmians also have many castles and forts, built out of bricks, stone, and reinforced by packed earthworks. The fortifications in the East were just as high quality and dense in quantity, especially in China where almost every town was fortified with earthworks and, in the case of Chinggis Khan's Samarkand Campaign, the Khwarezmians had the Syr Darya Line with a formidable river before their length of fortresses, all of which had to be reduced over several months of campaigning. Even without their primary advantage of mobility in conducting these campaigns, in which they had to be more methodical, the Mongols still managed to overcome their adversaries, who were typically more centralized and powerful than the individual European states. Another thing which is more specific to the Mongol commanders themselves were that Chinggis and Subugatai weren't your average Mongol commanders, nor were they like your average commanders in general. Their art of war was unique in that it was extremely ahead of its time and based on large scale operational manoeuvres utilizing many tumen as if they were divisions or corps. This is something Europe would not really develop until the 18th and 19th centuries, but was a huge advantage which very few generals in Medieval times grasped the concept of. Most of the Mongol generals did not even take war to such a high level, but still operated on the usual status quo and this was especially problematic because the generation of Chinggis and Subugatai were the golden generation; their feats were never reproduced after they had died and one can clearly see that by studying the campaigns of Nogai or Tokhtamysh, as well as Temur to a lesser extent (though he did experiment with it in his Indian Campaign, unlike his peers). It would be like if you took Moltke the Elder and placed him as a general in the Medieval Era. He would have absolutely dominated every other commander of that time, just because of his superior understanding of large scale operations, which almost nobody else did back then.
I've argued for many years that they couldn't have kept going even if they wanted to. The land they were heading into was only getting more densely populated and less favorable, leaving before giving their enemies a chance to regroup and counter attack was just good sense. They probably planned to try again but never got the chance but I still believe they would have been contained in the Carpathian basin just like the Magyars before them.
Mongols thrived in densely populated areas. The higher the population -> the more there is to loot. China/caucasian area were the most populated areas of that time period and its where they found the most success. The mongols had no real supply lines, nor did they practice farming. They relied on what the land gave and what they could loot from locals along the way. I reckon the famine in Hungary played a big part. Since the locals barely had any provisions themselves, the mongols couldnt loot anything to sustain themselves properly. Combine that with bad weather and they have no choice but to leave for a later invasion. And the magyars werent contained. They looted Europe for 100 years as far as France before they decided to convert to christianity. They simply reached their goal, which was to settle in a good land.
The reason they left is exactly opposite lol, since Europe at that time was relatively less dense in population than China, Persia, or Middle East, where the mongols focused their conquest on. Europe at that time was poor and not lucrative for the mongols as the Middle East or China.
This, very much this.While the specific theories may conflict, the core of their arguments do not. There were significant casualties suffered by the Mongols in Poland and Hungary, more than they were likely used to, and with the death of ogedai, it was likely difficult to get reinforcements to continue the campaign since so many were going east to choose the new Khan. Combine that with bad weather, poorer grazing opportunities than were ideal, and he probably just went back to regroup but got bogged down with ruling eastern Europe.
I imagine that the elements of all four theories converged. They realized it was going to be a huge pain in the butt to fight deeper into Europe with their depleted armies. In Germany and France, if you throw a rock it'll bounce off three castles before it hits the ground. I can imagine Batu looking West and thinking, "Well, we did spank the Kipchaks, and now Ogedei is dead. Why not take the W we have and come back later?" The Mongols *did* come back later, and it didn't go well at all... the Poles and Hungarians spent the intervening time building castles everywhere.
If for nothing else they were at the end of their logistical line, because even the Mongols as the equestrian nomads they were, had their logistical limit. All empires and military campaigns have it, and theirs ended in Hungay and Poland. No military force or army expanded as far as they did on land, a record achievement before the advent of the steam powered and gasoline fuel engines.
I just thought that they realised that, with so many losses, they would be stretched far too thin to conquer, secure and maintain the land. So, they left on a high note, knowing that they had spread fear, and leaving the door open to come back again.
Well, they left just four thousands of Mongols to keep the land between Carpathian mountains and what now is Eastern Khazakhstan. They knew a great political art of conquering locals to their administration. Why couldn't they spend some three hundreds more to rule Hungary?
@@clayerhun1597 Khulagu attacked Bagdad, not Esztergom. Or do you mean the raid by Nogai? Exactly 20 times smaller in force? I remember Hungarian sources were so proud they succeeded in stopping these incomplete 2 thousand horsemen. Almost as proud as Muslims of their success about Ain Jalut, where 45 thousand Mamluks were victorious over 15 thousand Mongols.
@@sobolzeev Ooof, where did you get these numbers ? No one argues the second invasion of Hungary was conducted with 2000 men. Modern estimates vary but I never saw a number below 20 000 to be claimed. Stefan Krakowski mentions 30 000 men, P. Jackson mentions a considerable force, that might have been comparable in numbers to the one engaged in the first invasion. Contemporary chroniclers advance numbers in the hundred of thousands although these are definitely inflated. So yeah, what's your source for the 2000 men only ? Also same thing with the Mameluks, estimates for their forcd are 15000 to 20000 not 45 000.
Battles in Poland and Hungary were bloody for both sides and despite Mongol victories they haven't conquered lands thus preventing from enlarging recruitment and logistical base.
The ones in Poland were not and "they haven't conquered lands" that's just absurd. They were there to raid and loot, conquering means just putting men into garrisons as they already had most of these lands.
@@clayerhun1597 the second invasion was just a poorly prepared Raid by a divided and weakened golden horde / Incomparable to the battle hardened professional Imperial army of the First invasion, The Fact that K&G did not even mention it above in the video proves it's irrelevance as an argument
@@aburoach9268 ? Why do you put a mention of KG as the deciding factor in a history debate? Also you're wrong, as they mentioned it, 12:36 and called it an 'invasion'. Sure, the second was just attempt, a much weaker one, facing a more prepared opponent, but calling it 'just a raid' isn't supported.
“With no safe place left in Hungary, the royal family finally escaped to Austria to seek help from Duke Frederick, who arrested them, extorted an enormous ransom in gold and forced the king to cede three western counties to Austria.” Hungary and his European neighbors..
My theory is the "hard to take harder to hold" theory. A combination of well built stone towers capable of dealing horrific casualties before being taken on every other hilltop across the lands and the forests being home to what ammount to armies of guerilla fighters who pick off every other patrol, scout and forrager who ventures into the trees (which is unavoidable) Europe, while its armies in the field could be crushed, there were just too many fortified possitions and too many places for small groups of fighting men to hide and strike from to hold. These things combined made Europe an unending slog over every damn hill with their rear constantly being harassed by guerilla fighters so the mongols chose to peace TF out. In every other place the mongols conquered, they faced forces who preferred to fight in the open field and fortified possitions were few and far between, Europe was the opposite. It was unending siege warfare on every hilltop and constantly needing to devote troops to comb every inch of every forest constantly. Fact is, even for a force like the mongols, that wears on them, breaking down their confidence bit by bit, victories become harder and fewer, moralle drops a little more day by day. Also the territories that had submitted? They were constantly unruly, so one message from back home saying say "hey, the Rus are getting rebellious again and we dont have enough forces to crush them" the mongols were like "... fuck it" and got out of europe.
Almost 100 % agreed. But one more thing to add. They also couldn't crush any solidified empire like China or Persia. Even if they killed 3 Emperors and 5 Kings they would still have to take like 9 morbilion castles and fortifications regardless. The HREs fractured nature would mean that by the time they conquered 10 counties, the first 3 would rebel. After slowly crushing that, 3 others would be rebelling already. Like whack a mole, but with every hit, you lose a part of your finger. For the mongols the HRE would be a mine field. They would spend 10 years conquering what amounts to 5% of their total territory and bearly be able to hold or control it. Like you said hard to take harder to control. High Risk, low reward.
I think that you have limited knowledge of Mongol conquests and geography. China and Korea were way more populous and better fortified than Europe during that time. Also Iran and Caucasus have naturally defendable positions all over them. Really the only reason central Europe wasn't affected is it was just way too far away.
europe isn't that mountainous. mongols conueoroed regions that is far more difficult geographically climatic. i stick to the mainstream opinion that europe was saved because the khan died.
The reason for the Mongol retreat was probably a combination of political, logistical and military difficulties. After the conquest of lowland Hungary, the Mongols reached the shores of the Adriatic, but the mountainous area in the hinterland of Dalmatia did not have enough pastures, and it was also ideal for guerrilla warfare. Isolated Mongolian detachments were destroyed near Sebenico, the island of Pag, the fortified towns of Trau and Clissa. The death of Ogodei contributed to the final decision to withdraw.
Going to Germany would also be an issue for them as Germany is Marshy, is sprerated from Austria and Hungary by Mountains, The HRE had a Lot of Infantry too thanks to this Geography, Being too far away the Mongols probably figured it best to periodically raid than fully invade or lick their wounds after a Major Victory but hard fought victory in Hungary.
Bullshit 😂.Mongol Empire had the Chance to invaded all evrope ..the reason why Mongol Empire coudnt invaded evrope was the civil wars inside Mongol Empire .Sons of genghis Khan were fighting each-other for the throne of Mongole Empire
@@HENSIONAVDUliHistorically even before the great Khan died, the mongols already started to stop once they saw the German fortifications and mountainous terrain, do you really expect them to drag their siege engines all the way from China and STOP their conquest from the Song dynasty and risk losing it?
@@deusvult8340Jackmeihester the person that collaborated with this channel too make any mongolian related video said that before mongke khan died and the empire broke apart and song was subjugated they were planning on doing a full europe campaign and he can’t think of a reason why they won’t be successful
@@CJ-fs1zr They probably would have given up. China and the eastern nations had highly centralised governments meaning if you take the emperor then you win most of the provinces. In Europe they had feudal systems which meant you had to painstakingly conquer each fortified castle over mountainous terrain. At best they reach Poland and that’s it
Awesome Channel with equally awesome content. ANYTHING to do with the Mongols and other peoples of Steppe greatly interests me! Great job as always! Suggestion: On your Wizards and Warriors Channel, how about exploring the Dune Universe and in particular THE SARDAUKAR?
There is multiple reasons They were overstretched, they had internal politics going on, and european warfare wasnt suited for them (Strong castles and forteresses of high quality everywhere, forests everywhere at that time, heavy cavalry/knights + crossbowmen being effective etc....)
more population compared with the steps also helps, is nothing compared with china, but china was centralized making it easier to take in a big atack, europe was full of small kingdoms in florest and mountains with their strong castles and fortified cities. They would need to siege so many castles to take a kingdom, and europe was full of them. They prob could win the war, but at what cost and in how much time?
if you look to the border countries that where invaded, they all had more european style cities and castles and they dint full conquest them, and even so they ended up spending many years taking them, and europe was way worse
They only managed to conquer China because they fully committed a 30 year campaign to take cities and fortifications. They augmented their armies with conquered Han people in Northern China, Turks and others. With Europe they simply did not have the manpower, political unity and resources to carry the scale of operation as in China.
@@alexs2195 Also you have to remember it took a very long time for the Mongols to conquer China. A literal Khan even died during a siege. So I'd reckon they didn't want to waste manpower and time throwing their men against castles. Especially when the empire was so fragmented because of the quarrels of the Mongol princes. Despite the empire's size the Mongols could muster a single big army and Mongke sent the majority of the Mongol army to Baghdad and Song(which eventually got him killed). After Mongke's death the empire was just over. It stopped being a single entity anymore.
I think castles were probably a key factor in Poland and Hungary’s survival as they ensured that, despite Mongol victories in the field, any conquest would degenerate into a war of sieges and attrition (since in order to rule the country the mongols would have had to have taken many if not most or all of them). This would not have suited the mongols as not only would they have had to stop their massive horse herds for weeks or months on end for every siege (possibly eating all the forage), but the small and highly defendable castle proved to be remarkably difficult for them to crack. So if they wanted to conquer they would have to invest years and countless lives in a war of attrition with no guarantee of success and I don’t think they were willing to. Better to just take what money you could and retreat to your already vast empire.
I think Batu went back for political reasons rather than anything else. He brought back his hordes because he needed all of his loyal supporters to give him help. He had a lot of rivals, literally hundreds of brothers and cousins that saw themselves as being equal with him; only his army gave him complete control and he understood that if he went into Europe he would have lost much of his best men and it would have left him open for rebellion. Specifically his brothers.
I have a question, when the Empire collapsed, large chunks ended up ruling entire regions, the Mughals ruled much of India, the Golden Horde ruled much of Eastern Europe, the Yuan Dynasty ruled China and Korea, and the Ilkhanate controlled Persia, assuming they got further, and conquered the Franks and the HRE would there have been a successor state resembling the Roman Empire?
@@rubendr6510 Yes, we did. After this Western European Khanate collapsed, could it have stayed together as one polity like China and Russia did? Imagine Germany, France and Italy united under one Khan! Me thinks Genghis would've approved.
@@aweboatanithey respect their ancestors and their history, is it so strange? I am of Turko-Tatar origin and I understand Mongolians very well, although I do not like them
@@Karabulut96 yes it is strange. I respect my ancestors and history too, but I don't pride myself in my people's participation in the slave trade or situations where they sacked and burned cities or slaughtered Jewish people during the black plague.
@@aweboatani yeah but your ancestors were simply not as good at committing atrocities as the Mongols because you left survivors to complain and make you feel guilty to this day…..
I think there is another option here not being considered. The hordes had just reached Germany. Eastern Europe and Western Europe had very different military technology and tactics. Western Europe heavily relied upon mass Castles and had "Heavy Cavalry". We know that in later conflicts Eastern Europe started to adopt Western European tactics and technology to great success against the Mongols. It's possible Batu was smart enough to understand that going further into Europe was going to be problematic. As in he had insight that later Mongols did not. I believe it was Poland that got crushed by the Mongols numerous times that a revolutionary King spent his life building castles and hiring/training Heavy Cavalry to try and prepare for their next attack. And when they did they got crushed. I think the crusades against Saladin showed that the European contingents of heavily armored knights were very effective against the lightly armored forces. Where situations where the crusaders were outnumbered 2:1 or 3:1 the crusaders ended up routing them.
Chinese had a relatively weak military in their history at song dynasty, but they heavily adopted heavy cavalries, suited with steal plated lamellar armor with and heavy helmets with armored horses. As most time in Chinese history, heavy cavalries are the key part of their Army. At the sametime in Europe, heavy cavalries had mainly chainmail and some plated armor, also with with heavy helmets. later crusades almost all failed, and a Europe that is divided stood no chance against the mongols. It was a matter of time, but just like the typhoon that forced Mongol retreat from Japan, It was all complications.
I had only ever heard the "political" theory. As far as I knew, the idea that the Mongols left because of the death of the Khan was settled historical fact. Thank you for telling us about this debate.
This documentary is extremely well produced narrated and thought provoking . I belive a lot depended on single all powerful leaders and their decisions. Thank you friends.
You're right that the ecological explanation makes no sense - not only because of the reason which you've outlined, but their Hunic ancestors were actually, au contraire, quite fond of the Hungarian plains and the optimal ecosystem which it offered for horseback riding. Also- citation on Subutai's biography? Cheers awesome content!
What about population density? Perhaps the Mongols tried to occupy Hungary but found the structures of government they had used over people they conquered in the steppes didn't work so well in Hungary with its dense population and close neighbours, and they concluded occupying Europe would be more difficult than they had planned, so Batu retreated to what he knew he could hold: the steppe. A kind of add-on to the military weakness theory
Europe started building fortresses(and fortoficated bridges) since 814-1100 when Arabs, Vikings and Magyars attacked them and these saved them unlike another places of the world(except Japan).
@@eljanrimsa5843 Conquering a fortress for every 1000 inhabitants or 1 for every 100.000 makes a big difference. Just because there are less defenders doesnt make the siege much faster, almost all sieges in history are won by attricion. Where most people would make the sensible choice to surrender for a better outcome, Europeans have had the habit of resisting to the bitter end in case of sieges.
@@jemoedermeteensnor88 In the conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire alone the Mongols laid siege and conquered Samarkand and Bukhara, cities bigger and richer and better defended than any city in Europe at the time, and laid siege and destroyed two other cities Otrar and Gurganj so completely that only ruins in the desert remained. They killed around a million people each in their bloodiest conquests in Merv and Nishapur, also two cities which never regained their former size and importance.
@@eljanrimsa5843 But bigger cities are just worse to defend often. Rome practicly surrendered in a week while being by far the largest city in the world at that time. Also at Samarkland they fought on the open field and not at the city walls. Just because someone is not fit to command an army, doesnt mean no one is.
A few decades later the Mongols did come back and were decisively defeated by Poland and Hungary. So... was their intent different in the 1240s than it was in the 1280s? What changed that would cause the Mongols to come back and try again in 40 years when Europe was better prepared to face them?
In fact, it is not a battle between two armies. The Mongols came to collect tributes, and their force number was small less than 1,000 men, but the Poles and Lithuanians refused to pay the tributes and fought and expelled the mongols
@@AhmedWilders Grand Duchy of Lithuania invaded Kiev. Which was not annexed yet. Lithuanians were not paying tribute around Vilnius and Belarus region of GDL.
Just found this channel by accident through Shorts, absolutely crazy that I recognized your voice @offydgg Devin, glad to see you're still around, I remember bingeing most of your series back on your original channel when I was younger. Trippy to hear your voice after so long, glad someone finally recognized your talent for Narration!
The Ecological Theory might fit why the Mongols never Finland. We never had grasslands, only forests. On the other hand it may also been due to economical reasons: there just weren't much to rob in poor Finland.
@@YuuSHiiiN it's not over, they plan to continue it, they're just spicing things up, to then the Reveal the true Imperial might of the mongols By sending another Huge Army group under Hulagu to support Batu's force, Instead of sending hulagu to the middle east Or at least that's my speculation
There's a more plausible explanation that I came across at Quora: as the Mongols traversed Germany and Austria, they bumped into CASTLES, thousands of them. This was unseen elsewhere, not even in China. They realized they faced a major strategic challenge of having to capture them in a shortest possible time, which could NEVER be achieved: first, that would pin down and lock their forces in siege warfare leading to the lack of maneuver, second, thousands of miles from home bases, they would certainly lack food and starve, and finally, their foes would not sit back passively awaiting defeat but would certainly make alliances and try to strike back. Mongols' unparalleled warfare realism was something you can't deny them, so they must have sure realized they couldn't win this war. But because they were good war strategists, too, they made sure their enemies were confused and puzzled concerning their actual plans and objectives. Indirectly, the aforementioned about castles was proved by what happened in Hungary following Bella's return: he undertook a major construction of CASTLES across all of Hungary to get prepared for a new Mongol invasion! This worked brilliantly 50 years later when Nogay invaded with his horde and was defeated
It is a common misconception, but in reality European castles were no better than muslim forts, which fell promptly - and nothing compared to the Chinese fortresses and walled cities. The main thing is that, simply, Mongols didn't care much about Europe as the centre of the world was definitely China: this is where fights concentrated, lasting close to a century before the Song finally submit. They could easily take those castles by using Chinese & Persian engineers and siege techniques, but didn't care enough to do so.
@@ogre-m2z I disagree, although the latter part of your comment is partially true. China was the center of the universe alright, but the Mongol realms were semi independent, all over the place, and their khans were eager to take the throne of the Great Khan in Karakorum most of all, and to that end they needed adequate resources of their own to fight brothers and uncles in the other realms who were likewise willing to claim the Karakorum throne. There was no point whatsoever risking the already available resources, except that the bets are they could be multiplied. So, to mislay the army in a fight with doubtful gains would have been most unwise. I'm sure Batu's army would have been stuck somewhere amid Austria for months, but they should have set Hungary as their primary feeding base, at the very least. Then, it is up to speculation whether Batu would turn out to be an Attila before Catalaunian plains or Emir al Rahman before the battle of Tours in 732. Lastly, Chinese town fortresses were fundamentally different from what European castles appeared. The Chinese fortresses were primarily huge strongholds numbering half a million people, with sizeable garrisons. However, the Mongols had no problem besieging one huge town for a year - that would take down any resistance in all the province altogether. Essentially, the Chinese towns were meant to be passive, in the hope the adversary would give up on it. But in Europe, the Mongols would have had no chance in view of the 3 points I laid out above. To conquer further West, they would have to found a permanent base close by such as Hungary. I wouldn't even dwell on whether Hungary was suited for such a base
@@nallyvaico Passive? The Chinese were masters in water engineering and the sieges involved things like diverting and counter-diverting rivers. This was a different league to what was technically possible in Europe at the time.
@@ogre-m2z Muslim forts were mainly just a high wall, they didnt incorporate a moat, they almost never had a second or a third layer of defence. So if the wall ever gets breached they were automaticly lost. They also never took advantage of the terrain, they might have build it on a hill, but hardly ever on a mountain with a small passage leading to it. Also muslim forts walls were designed so you had a big disadvantage against someone on the wall, while European forts were designed to be an adventegous position for the defender when someone would get on the wall. The only advantage the muslim castles had was the earlier use of round towers instead of square.
I believe that what mongols did to the middle East and eastern Europe it totally destroyed everything and as mongols didn't much invade west Europe so they had the upper hand in developing their education and then renaissance bcoz the fall of political power of middle East it benefited western Europe and no much destruction of any historical work which also help them to keep there culture
@@maverick7291 ok your wrong coz the Arabs kept the ancient greek knowledge preserved bcoz the Christian in Europe at that time the pope saw the greek study as a source of paganism and you can see they gave a stiff resistance against the renaissance scientist and in 400s ce they destroyed lots of studies in Alexandria remove paganism . In bagdad they invented algorithm,optics and many more and also Arabic numerals that we use and also from 800 to 1200 until mongols they were dominant politically and to that you had to have nice technology in warfare as today usa has or the great Britain's as I mean nice institution like Oxford , Cambridge,Harvard or mit so what you are saying just on the basis of today what happened to the middle East not in the view of history
@@maverick7291 ok what about the fourth crusade the Latin sacked Constantinople and ancient greek Mathematician hespacia who was murdered by Christian mob and during renaissance Galileo was murdered and Kepler ran for his life from the catholic during the 30 years war and the Spanish inquisition killed the early modern medical doctors as study of human being was a sin and see the Arabs conquered the lands and they ruled for nearly 400 years including Spain what do you think any nomadic culture can defeat Byzantine and sassanid Empire both as they were the super power during that time and what are you saying is in context of modern days but from 700-1700 it was near East the most political and military dominated the middle East , North Africa , India, central Asia , some parts of Russia and Balkans and East Europe and it all possible because they had the nice institution and at that time west had also strong knight but couldn't maintain the dominant power and later got killed so what are you saying is on the basis of your narrow minded view of today middle East conditions
@@maverick7291and the first university was setup in Damascus in Syria by the Arabs so see the history and talk later and btw during the medieval era European saw and respected the middle eastern people and saw as there equal read history and read about the Jesuit missionaries writing is you don't believe me and see the monarchy remarks on that time on the middle East
1. Strong ressistance, 2 stone castles, 3 city walls, 4 hills, 5. not much pasture, no much nomads to replace losses, 6 Austian and Bohemian knights armies on frotier
@@NubiansNapataAfter Legnica mongols refuse another battle with far more strong bogemian knight army and turn to Hungary. In korean chronicles is describe that battles and sieges in Poland were terrible costly for Mongol army.
@@ales811507 that's because the mongol after was split into 3. Orda and kadan used a small force to defeat the polish at Legnica. It made no sense for orda to attack a much larger force after just defeating the polish who also had a larger force than the Mongols. Orda regrouped with the main army under batu to attack the Hungarians at mohi. Securing another victory in Europe.
I think the Mongols could have conquered Europe if they really wanted, but like the Song who held out against the Mongols for 44 years it would have taken lots of time, resources, manpower and concerted effort, something they didn't have since Europe was at the far end of their Empire compared to China and political instability was already starting to set in.
They probably wouldn't have, as Europe had so many soldiers if you combined all kingdoms. Also in the 2nd and 3rd invasion the Mongols had no chance even against Poland and Hungary
It didn't take months for them to deliver a message. Mongols could deliver a message from Mongolia to Eastern Europe in 10-14 days using the "Yam" system. The death of Ogodei Khan message got delivered to them pretty quick.
Maybe batu felt the mongol civil war is imminent after ogedai 's death, some mongols would have regularly shared insider info on what is going on in the far east by using falcons as messenger birds.
The weather theory seems pretty weak. A better hypothesis would be that supply chain didn’t really reach as far as they overstretched too much. Like sure they could conquer everything but enemies they leave behind as they advance regroup and rebuild and just block supplies. And before they were surrounded and destroyed, better to leave while army is still strong to make it back with high morale. 🤷♂️
One interesting thing I've heard but can't confirm is that the composite/reflex bows of the nomadic people were unsuitable for much of Europe, since frequent rains/humidity damages them, so they're much better used in drylands.
Another two mysteries about the Mongols: 1 What stopped the Mongols from actually trying their luck in the Indian subcontinent? 2 How far the Mongols can go into Africa if they managed to get through the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and Syria?
They didn't like hot climate. They lost against Japan, Vietnam, Delhi, Mameluks and within 100 year disintegrated and almost disappeared from most part of Europe.
Can you imagine if you had to travel all the way back to the heartlands of Mongolia.. Start From the frontiers of Europe.. Knowing that for the next few weeks or months of continuous riding it would take to get back “home” in a reasonable amount of time.. Oww
Mongols hated being static or complacent, sitting upon a conquered land to chill. They were always on the move, it was one of the aspects of their success. Indling in Hungary surrounded by enemies who are camped in strategic castles would give chances of preparation to their enemies and also after a while the tale that they are unstoppable would quickly start to break.
I think the biggest knowledge hole consists of what the Mongol decision-makers felt and thought about the Mongol Empire, its neighbors, and so on at the time of the Mongol retreat from Hungary in 1942. The timing of the Mongol retreat from Hungary in 1942 also makes this question more challenging. The point of time when Ogodei died was also the same point in time in which the Mongol Empire was experiencing a transition between being a single-throne empire and the breakup of the empire into four independent polities. Up to this time, the Mongol Empire was still held by a "glue" consisting of commanders and administrators appointed by Genghis, such as Sudodei. But once these officials faded from history, there was not much glue left to keep the empire in one piece.
The thing is at Mohi the Mongols we’re almost defeated and pushed back into the river. If it weren’t subbuta, they would’ve lost. The units of the Hungarians are doing the most well where the knights of Templar and crossbowmen. Mohi was the reason that Hungarians reformed their army, and added more knights and stonewalls. If Hungarians had more knights and good scouting , the Mongols would be crushed.
If Hungarians had more knights, Mongols would learn it and defeat them accordingly. You forget that the Mongols had an army at that time, while the Europeans had squabbling bands of poorly armed country warriors.
Subutai had nothing to do with the victory at Mohi, if anything he floundered a lot a Mohi. Batu is the one who successfully rallies the Mongol armies to charge and break the Hungarian lines at Mohi.
You forgot how close to Mongols were to defeat at Mohi if it wasn’t for the flanking force it would be a huge disaster. Watch history march vid on the battle.
14:38 isn’t that where the Austrian flag supposedly comes from? The story about the guy who killed so many people in battle that he was covered in blood and then he took off his belt and everything underneath the belt was clean (hence the middle stripe being white)
🚀Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/KingsandGenerals and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com
@@arnijulian6241😅😮
Love your videos!💚
hey could you make a vidio on guirilla warfare 😯
It could be also all of them. While death of Khan end invasion. Mongols also faced fierce resistance, they forces were tired after previous conquests and invasion was not yet the main goal. He didn't trust such important mission to be done by someone else, so he called off whole thing.
there was a great and wealthy empire in the region at the time... the Eastern Roman Empire [ later known as ''Byzantine'' ] why don't you make a video explaining ''The relations between the Mongols and the 'Byzantines'...? ''
Interesting. I'd always assumed that the "Great Khan death" theory was settled history.
Can a theory ever be settled without becoming a law or an equivalent ?
@@oleopathic yes it can be settled and can still exist as an theory. A law on the other hand explains a set of observations about a scientific topic like newton' laws.
@@dogukantopal4809 I've never heard of a settled theory. It seems like an oxymoron, wouldn't you say?
@@oleopathic Hypothesis and theory are sometimes mistaken with each other . A proven and settled hypothesis would be a theory and if its concerns different scientific branches all together it would be a law. An example of an "settled" theory would be the Darwin's theory of evolution, it is proven and settled that evolution exists and creatures change over time according to their enviroments. But it mainly concerns a single scientific branch which would be biology therefore it is a theory not a scientific law.
U aint shit lil homie
Batu 1241: My stomach hurts. Let's go home...
Historians centuries later: WHY???
Or maybe the wife back home sent him an angry letter, asking him why he's so obsessed with someone named Bela.
@@stephenbaluran3298lol
@@stephenbaluran3298 Bah! Alexander wouldn't have chickened out.
@@sizanogreen9900 His army did though, unlike the Mongol army
@@aburoach9268true enough I guess xD Didn't help Darius tho.
This is excellent. Historical events rarely have a single, tidy cause. Having multiple theories that don't agree with each other reflects how history actually is as a field of study.
Batu, is a general but notice he does not have an actual Kingdom to rule. When the Khan dies, he his force withdrawal and do a land grab. They go out and secure their own kingdoms for themselves before the new Khan is in place. Notice too Batu doesn't return home for fear of being assassinated.
I mean if you can get paid...
That's why I love it. It's like a puzzle with many pieces. Trying to piece them together to form a coherent picture. Wadeing through the bias and contemporary geo politics of the time whilst doing so. Man I love history :D
An interesting fact is that there is a Mongolic people that still live in Europe: the Kalmyks. Kalmyks live between the Volga river and the Caucasus in Russia, and its republic Kalmykia is the only place in Europe where Buddhists are the dominant religion group.
Sami are Mongol origin
Kalmyks have very rich history both glorious and sad. Kalmyks played important role in Russian defense against Napoleon. They were also part of soviet army that entered Germany in WWII. Those who were taken hostage by Germans later immigrated to USA, with help of Leo Tolstoy foundation, Tolstoy had Kalmyk ancestors. There are also sad history of Torghud migration aka last great nomadic migration, and Kalmyk exile to Siberia by Stalin.
@@dreddykrugernewSami and Finnic peoples were in northern Europe for thousands of years before the Mongol expansion. True that they have a eastern origin but not as far as mongol or east asian.
@@ballenboy Indo Europeans migrated into Europe thousands of years ago
But they migrated to Europe in 17th century
This Kings and Generals channel is pure wealth.
“Will we see a continuation of the Mongol invasion of Europe on your Wizards and Warriors channel?”
Yes
@@KingsandGeneralsAWESOME!!!
@@KingsandGeneralscould you feature or mention Duke Jean 1 of Brittany he was a cousin to the king
wait they run that channel as well? sick
@@KingsandGeneralsnice!!!
I just can't imagine the logistic and administrative challenges the Mongols were facing. This was the age when you rely on horses for transportation, across the entire Eurasian continent. It is not like Batu could just send a Whatsapp message to the Mongol court and have reinforcements and supplies flying in the next day.
They usually take reinforcements and supplies from the lands that they raid
Mongols were nomads.....
They lived off the land they conquered and occupied they did not need supplies from Mongolia.
Well considering that everyone else also had awful logistics and transfer of information .it wasnt as bad as you think. They had days to think about moves
They kept stuff pretty basic. Whatever they wanted they sent a rider to deliver a message.
It's not a modern mechanized Army. Weaponry and food could be sourced locally. Animals grazed or ate locally acquired hay.
Short version: “We don’t know. Thanks for watching.”
You wright
"...but we got you to think. Welcome to real history."
I was thinking the same thing, Terry...
I think, when we learn things, we want actual insights, to actually for certain know.
tall tales may inspire myths but man/woman inspires the legends among many around.
this maybe to inspire someone else's adventure to quest further into the consideration.
we assume these youtube videos are just for those seeking history entertainment, yet,
there are many, that dig, to discover, to crown the jewel, to know the missing pieces, still.
those minds, may find further, as they inquire the spark of curious discoveries unseen before.
To find the missing pieces of history that were not once known now for a treasure of lifetimes.
That type of knowledge alone, is a beautiful aspiration, isn't it?
They were overextended and tired. They had won the battles and retreating wasn't shameful to them. They pulled back to recover and then Batu got too busy ruling his new empire to go raiding. It wasn't as if they didn't have all the time in the world.
When I feel bummed out that TH-cam has turned into a platform for A.I.-overloaded generic content, a Kings and Generals notification appears to raise my spirits.
They are the last human holdouts. They must be defended at all costs.
00:12 The Mongols withdrew from Europe for unknown reasons.
02:23 Mongol withdrawal from Europe
04:36 Debate on the mystery continues 800 years later
07:04 The Mongols had different theories for leaving Europe
09:17 Mongols withdrew from Europe due to leadership issues and logistical challenges.
11:34 The Mongols' retreat from Europe in 1242 is controversial and possibly related to environmental factors.
14:00 Mongols faced major military challenges and may have withdrawn due to stretched forces.
16:19 The Mongols' withdrawal from Europe remains a mystery.
😮😮😮Ồ. Thắc mắc của bạn dễ hiểu thôi. Quân mông cổ sau khi bị xuy yếu từ những cuộc chiến thất bại ở Việt Nam, Nhật Bản và sự nổi dậy của nhân dân ở một số vùng đất bị chiếm đóng, họ không còn đủ sức mạnh để quản lý những vùng rộng lớn xa xôi do thiếu hụt nhân lực răn đe và đặt bộ máy cai trị, lo ngại sẽ bị đánh bại trước mà đành phải rút bớt quân số, dù sao người Mông cổ lúc đó không phải đông đảo mà chủ yếu họ sử dụng tù binh, hàng binh để tiến đánh những nơi khác. Họ mạnh về quân sự chứ không mạnh về quản trị xã hội, sau này mô hình hoạt động triều đình Mông cổ đã áp dụng mô hình của Triều đại Trung Hoa, và nó không thể phù hợp áp dụng ở từng quốc gia
Thanks for your amazing content
I wonder how well Mongols knew about Europe politically. AFAIK, Mongols did usually gather very much intelligence about their target countries before attacking. It would be prudent to assume that Mongols knew Hungarian, Polish and Balkan lands quite well but how well did they know about the capabilities Holy Roman Empire or France in detail?
They learnt some from Italian envoys in Crimea colonies.
I am just speculating, but maybe they didnt deem it neccessary. There is such a thing called "victory disease" when you defeated so many enemies in the past, that you just extrapolate that next one will be easy target as well...
If you recall that the ambassador of Mongols was an English templar and participant of the Fifth Crusade, you will have little doubts on the issue.
Trade treaty with Venitians too
Marco Polo literally served under Kublai Khan while he was in Asia.
When I learned history in college, I had to write the local effects and happenings of the mongol invasion of 1241. In the hungarian plains it was quite common practice for the people who lived there to flee into the swamps in time of need. They did so during the mongol invasion too, and with one mongol party some local hungarian peasants lured them into the swamps, by saying that they are starving and they are willing to surrender, so they guided them into the middle of the swamp, then set the whole thing on fire. All of them burned and choked there.
Can't imagine how much risky it was lol
Recent Hungarian archeological findings have established that, in addition to some major battles and sieges, there were many pockets of resistance - ultimately reducing the number of Mongol troops which, together with the escape of King Bela IV and the survival of Hungarian forces in teritories in unoccupied Hungary (NB. NOT the entire country was occupied, but mostly its lowland central area/Great Plain).
So it was mostly military reasons then.
From what I gathered from multiple sources, the most likely option is that a number of factors made the conquest of western Europe not worth the effort for the mongols, and Batu was smart enough to quit while he was ahead.
For starters, there was a HUGE distance between Europe and the core of the Mongolian empire, which meant that any army that tried to conquer Europe would have essentially been on its own, unable to receive substantial reinforcements. Moreover the amount of resources that could be diverted to attack Europe were limited, since the Mongols had to patrol and control a huge empire already.
In addition to this, Europe proved to be a tough nut to crack. While the mongols achieved significant military successes in Eastern Europe, they didn't really fare well in sieges against stone castles (which they often left alone) and Western Europe had many more stone castles compared to Poland and Hungary. The Mongols certainly had the means to perform successful siege operations (like the did in China) but it would have slowed down considerably, making them lose their main advantage (mobility). Moreover, due to the decentralization of Europe due to the feudal system, they couldn't just strike the enemy capital and cut the snake's head, so to speak, but they'd be stuck sieging castle after castle just to bring down a single region. In addition to this, Western Europe was not suitable at all for their style of warfare, since the hilly and rugged terrain would reduce their mobility and make their cavalry vulnerable.
To summarize, the Mongols would have certainly tried to conquer Europe if they thought that they could do so easily. Invading Poland and Hungary was almost certainly an attempt to establish a beachhead from which they could stage further campaigns into Europe. But after taking a better look at the western part of Europe, not to mention after suffering significant casualties due to the resistance of the locals, Batu most likely realized that trying to proceed further west would have been incredibly hard and would have resulted in a pyrrhic victory at best, so he did the smart thing and turned away.
Mongolian historians argue that Lack of Goals as the main reason. It is agreed that initial purpose of Batu campaign was to subjugate Kipchaks, who fled to eastern europe. And army that was preparing for european expedition mentioned by Carpini, was actually Ugudei's descendants to subjugate Jochi Ulus (Genghis Khan's oldest son), because Jochi descendants didn't approve Uguudei lineage as Great khans. Your points are probably also valid, but bottom line is Mongol Empire never really planned to conquer Europe. As mentioned in the video, Mongolian army raided eastern europe and left, didn't leave a garrison, which makes no sense if European conquest was planned at all.
@@amgalanbaatarbat-erdene6261 Given the size of their invading armies and the fact that they actually probed deeply into europe, I'd argue that the Mongols probably had multiple possible objectives for their campaign: raiding new territories and subjugating the Kipchaks were certainly among them, but I believe that testing Europe's defenses and even conquer it if it was feasible were also objectives of this campaign. The fact that they turned away once king Bela escaped capture and the europeans actually started moving to fight them back support this in my opinion: they had already achieved the "main" objectives of their campaign, and since the "optional" ones were just too difficult they simply called it a day.
@@ValeTheOwl Well put. The Mongols were opportunists that raided and pillaged, and often claimed vassal states wherever they went. However, there were times when it was just not feasible to continue. Batu was in charge, and you're right. I too think he understood this. There were simply too many obstacles to warrant a further advance. The fierce resistance from the locals, the costly battles as of far, the distance from Mongolia, the difficult terrain, and so on. It really shows his brilliance as a leader. Like you said, he quit while ahead
Realms always meet their nemesis! Batu found it in the person of Bela! And in the Hungarian nobility, allergic to imperial pomposity!
I think the greatest issues were diverting resources to conquer Europe. The Mongols would have to march thousands of miles to reach Poland and Hungary from Karakorum. Even for their invasion of the Jin Dynasty in the 1230s, which was closer, it was still a significant logistical hurdle due to the sheer distance and the amount of men they had to put into the field to match the Jin (perhaps 120k Mongols and federated vassals). While China was densely populated with many vast and fertile river valleys, the same cannot be said for the underdeveloped and, as you said, decentralized polities of Europe, which did not have the means to supply such massive armies for prolonged periods of time, even via forage and tribute from the local populace.
Of course, the Mongols were still very inured to hardship and, if we put aside logistical difficulties, everything else was not strange to them. Climate and weather are challenges they had faced before, in the dry and frigid steppes, as well as the snow-peaked and freezing mountains. Indeed, they had braved mountain ranges in several campaigns under Chinggis Khan and Subugatai to operationally turn the defensive lines of their enemies, in addition to hot and barren deserts bereft of water, except for a few oases. People overstate the difficulties that the Mongols would have faced due to terrain, but all of the greatest Mongol campaigns had been done under the most brutal conditions when one studies them in depth. On several occasions, Chinggis and Subugatai had marched through mountain ranges to outflank the Jin, the Xia, and moved through the harsh deserts to catch the Khwarezmians unaware.
Nor would they have particular trouble with European fortifications, as the Jin and Khwarezmians also have many castles and forts, built out of bricks, stone, and reinforced by packed earthworks. The fortifications in the East were just as high quality and dense in quantity, especially in China where almost every town was fortified with earthworks and, in the case of Chinggis Khan's Samarkand Campaign, the Khwarezmians had the Syr Darya Line with a formidable river before their length of fortresses, all of which had to be reduced over several months of campaigning. Even without their primary advantage of mobility in conducting these campaigns, in which they had to be more methodical, the Mongols still managed to overcome their adversaries, who were typically more centralized and powerful than the individual European states.
Another thing which is more specific to the Mongol commanders themselves were that Chinggis and Subugatai weren't your average Mongol commanders, nor were they like your average commanders in general. Their art of war was unique in that it was extremely ahead of its time and based on large scale operational manoeuvres utilizing many tumen as if they were divisions or corps. This is something Europe would not really develop until the 18th and 19th centuries, but was a huge advantage which very few generals in Medieval times grasped the concept of. Most of the Mongol generals did not even take war to such a high level, but still operated on the usual status quo and this was especially problematic because the generation of Chinggis and Subugatai were the golden generation; their feats were never reproduced after they had died and one can clearly see that by studying the campaigns of Nogai or Tokhtamysh, as well as Temur to a lesser extent (though he did experiment with it in his Indian Campaign, unlike his peers). It would be like if you took Moltke the Elder and placed him as a general in the Medieval Era. He would have absolutely dominated every other commander of that time, just because of his superior understanding of large scale operations, which almost nobody else did back then.
I've argued for many years that they couldn't have kept going even if they wanted to. The land they were heading into was only getting more densely populated and less favorable, leaving before giving their enemies a chance to regroup and counter attack was just good sense. They probably planned to try again but never got the chance but I still believe they would have been contained in the Carpathian basin just like the Magyars before them.
They did try again, they invaded Europe 3 times, only the first invasion was successful. In later battles they lost most of their men
@@starfox300 I meant 'They' as in Batu and Subutai who iirc never returned to Europe
Mongols thrived in densely populated areas. The higher the population -> the more there is to loot. China/caucasian area were the most populated areas of that time period and its where they found the most success.
The mongols had no real supply lines, nor did they practice farming. They relied on what the land gave and what they could loot from locals along the way.
I reckon the famine in Hungary played a big part. Since the locals barely had any provisions themselves, the mongols couldnt loot anything to sustain themselves properly. Combine that with bad weather and they have no choice but to leave for a later invasion.
And the magyars werent contained. They looted Europe for 100 years as far as France before they decided to convert to christianity. They simply reached their goal, which was to settle in a good land.
The reason they left is exactly opposite lol, since Europe at that time was relatively less dense in population than China, Persia, or Middle East, where the mongols focused their conquest on. Europe at that time was poor and not lucrative for the mongols as the Middle East or China.
My theory, which I almost always use when there are many theories, is "a little bit of everything" and it has never failed me.
This, very much this.While the specific theories may conflict, the core of their arguments do not. There were significant casualties suffered by the Mongols in Poland and Hungary, more than they were likely used to, and with the death of ogedai, it was likely difficult to get reinforcements to continue the campaign since so many were going east to choose the new Khan. Combine that with bad weather, poorer grazing opportunities than were ideal, and he probably just went back to regroup but got bogged down with ruling eastern Europe.
This channel and Wizards and Warriors are my favorite war channels
I imagine that the elements of all four theories converged. They realized it was going to be a huge pain in the butt to fight deeper into Europe with their depleted armies. In Germany and France, if you throw a rock it'll bounce off three castles before it hits the ground. I can imagine Batu looking West and thinking, "Well, we did spank the Kipchaks, and now Ogedei is dead. Why not take the W we have and come back later?"
The Mongols *did* come back later, and it didn't go well at all... the Poles and Hungarians spent the intervening time building castles everywhere.
If for nothing else they were at the end of their logistical line, because even the Mongols as the equestrian nomads they were, had their logistical limit. All empires and military campaigns have it, and theirs ended in Hungay and Poland. No military force or army expanded as far as they did on land, a record achievement before the advent of the steam powered and gasoline fuel engines.
Highly rational and unbiased comment here
@@SammyCee23 Regards from Poland/Lechistan.
Awesome video you really did a great job explaining how major world changing events almost never happened in vacuum
I just thought that they realised that, with so many losses, they would be stretched far too thin to conquer, secure and maintain the land. So, they left on a high note, knowing that they had spread fear, and leaving the door open to come back again.
Well, they left just four thousands of Mongols to keep the land between Carpathian mountains and what now is Eastern Khazakhstan. They knew a great political art of conquering locals to their administration. Why couldn't they spend some three hundreds more to rule Hungary?
The Mongols returned and launched a second invasion, but the Hungarians were prepared and defeated them.
@@clayerhun1597 Khulagu attacked Bagdad, not Esztergom. Or do you mean the raid by Nogai? Exactly 20 times smaller in force? I remember Hungarian sources were so proud they succeeded in stopping these incomplete 2 thousand horsemen. Almost as proud as Muslims of their success about Ain Jalut, where 45 thousand Mamluks were victorious over 15 thousand Mongols.
@@sobolzeev Ooof, where did you get these numbers ? No one argues the second invasion of Hungary was conducted with 2000 men. Modern estimates vary but I never saw a number below 20 000 to be claimed. Stefan Krakowski mentions 30 000 men, P. Jackson mentions a considerable force, that might have been comparable in numbers to the one engaged in the first invasion. Contemporary chroniclers advance numbers in the hundred of thousands although these are definitely inflated. So yeah, what's your source for the 2000 men only ?
Also same thing with the Mameluks, estimates for their forcd are 15000 to 20000 not 45 000.
Exactly, they were already defeated in syria amd couldnt conquer the rest of the middle east, they simply reached their limits.
Battles in Poland and Hungary were bloody for both sides and despite Mongol victories they haven't conquered lands thus preventing from enlarging recruitment and logistical base.
Then when the Mongols returned and launched a second invasion, the East Europeans were prepared and defeated them.
The ones in Poland were not and "they haven't conquered lands" that's just absurd. They were there to raid and loot, conquering means just putting men into garrisons as they already had most of these lands.
@@clayerhun1597 the second invasion was just a poorly prepared Raid by a divided and weakened golden horde / Incomparable to the battle hardened professional Imperial army of the First invasion, The Fact that K&G did not even mention it above in the video proves it's irrelevance as an argument
A nice way to ignore all the preparations the kingdom of Hungary did that made life very hard for the mongols there.@@aburoach9268
@@aburoach9268 ? Why do you put a mention of KG as the deciding factor in a history debate? Also you're wrong, as they mentioned it, 12:36 and called it an 'invasion'. Sure, the second was just attempt, a much weaker one, facing a more prepared opponent, but calling it 'just a raid' isn't supported.
“With no safe place left in Hungary, the royal family finally escaped to Austria to seek help from Duke Frederick, who arrested them, extorted an enormous ransom in gold and forced the king to cede three western counties to Austria.”
Hungary and his European neighbors..
My theory is the "hard to take harder to hold" theory.
A combination of well built stone towers capable of dealing horrific casualties before being taken on every other hilltop across the lands and the forests being home to what ammount to armies of guerilla fighters who pick off every other patrol, scout and forrager who ventures into the trees (which is unavoidable) Europe, while its armies in the field could be crushed, there were just too many fortified possitions and too many places for small groups of fighting men to hide and strike from to hold.
These things combined made Europe an unending slog over every damn hill with their rear constantly being harassed by guerilla fighters so the mongols chose to peace TF out.
In every other place the mongols conquered, they faced forces who preferred to fight in the open field and fortified possitions were few and far between, Europe was the opposite. It was unending siege warfare on every hilltop and constantly needing to devote troops to comb every inch of every forest constantly. Fact is, even for a force like the mongols, that wears on them, breaking down their confidence bit by bit, victories become harder and fewer, moralle drops a little more day by day.
Also the territories that had submitted? They were constantly unruly, so one message from back home saying say "hey, the Rus are getting rebellious again and we dont have enough forces to crush them" the mongols were like "... fuck it" and got out of europe.
Almost 100 % agreed. But one more thing to add. They also couldn't crush any solidified empire like China or Persia. Even if they killed 3 Emperors and 5 Kings they would still have to take like 9 morbilion castles and fortifications regardless. The HREs fractured nature would mean that by the time they conquered 10 counties, the first 3 would rebel. After slowly crushing that, 3 others would be rebelling already. Like whack a mole, but with every hit, you lose a part of your finger. For the mongols the HRE would be a mine field. They would spend 10 years conquering what amounts to 5% of their total territory and bearly be able to hold or control it.
Like you said hard to take harder to control. High Risk, low reward.
@@mostgar Except for the empires which you don't know because they crushed them
😂🎉😮🎉😢🎉🎉
I think that you have limited knowledge of Mongol conquests and geography. China and Korea were way more populous and better fortified than Europe during that time. Also Iran and Caucasus have naturally defendable positions all over them.
Really the only reason central Europe wasn't affected is it was just way too far away.
europe isn't that mountainous. mongols conueoroed regions that is far more difficult geographically climatic. i stick to the mainstream opinion that europe was saved because the khan died.
The reason for the Mongol retreat was probably a combination of political, logistical and military difficulties.
After the conquest of lowland Hungary, the Mongols reached the shores of the Adriatic, but the mountainous area in the hinterland of Dalmatia did not have enough pastures, and it was also ideal for guerrilla warfare. Isolated Mongolian detachments were destroyed near Sebenico, the island of Pag, the fortified towns of Trau and Clissa. The death of Ogodei contributed to the final decision to withdraw.
Going to Germany would also be an issue for them as Germany is Marshy, is sprerated from Austria and Hungary by Mountains,
The HRE had a Lot of Infantry too thanks to this Geography,
Being too far away the Mongols probably figured it best to periodically raid than fully invade or lick their wounds after a Major Victory but hard fought victory in Hungary.
Bullshit 😂.Mongol Empire had the Chance to invaded all evrope ..the reason why Mongol Empire coudnt invaded evrope was the civil wars inside Mongol Empire .Sons of genghis Khan were fighting each-other for the throne of Mongole Empire
@@HENSIONAVDUliHistorically even before the great Khan died, the mongols already started to stop once they saw the German fortifications and mountainous terrain, do you really expect them to drag their siege engines all the way from China and STOP their conquest from the Song dynasty and risk losing it?
@@deusvult8340Jackmeihester the person that collaborated with this channel too make any mongolian related video said that before mongke khan died and the empire broke apart and song was subjugated they were planning on doing a full europe campaign and he can’t think of a reason why they won’t be successful
@@CJ-fs1zr They probably would have given up. China and the eastern nations had highly centralised governments meaning if you take the emperor then you win most of the provinces. In Europe they had feudal systems which meant you had to painstakingly conquer each fortified castle over mountainous terrain. At best they reach Poland and that’s it
Awesome Channel with equally awesome content. ANYTHING to do with the Mongols and other peoples of Steppe greatly interests me! Great job as always!
Suggestion: On your Wizards and Warriors Channel, how about exploring the Dune Universe and in particular THE SARDAUKAR?
There is multiple reasons
They were overstretched, they had internal politics going on, and european warfare wasnt suited for them (Strong castles and forteresses of high quality everywhere, forests everywhere at that time, heavy cavalry/knights + crossbowmen being effective etc....)
more population compared with the steps also helps, is nothing compared with china, but china was centralized making it easier to take in a big atack, europe was full of small kingdoms in florest and mountains with their strong castles and fortified cities. They would need to siege so many castles to take a kingdom, and europe was full of them. They prob could win the war, but at what cost and in how much time?
if you look to the border countries that where invaded, they all had more european style cities and castles and they dint full conquest them, and even so they ended up spending many years taking them, and europe was way worse
They only managed to conquer China because they fully committed a 30 year campaign to take cities and fortifications. They augmented their armies with conquered Han people in Northern China, Turks and others. With Europe they simply did not have the manpower, political unity and resources to carry the scale of operation as in China.
@@grimgoreironhide9985 also the fortifications in China were not of the same quality as european ones
@@alexs2195 Also you have to remember it took a very long time for the Mongols to conquer China. A literal Khan even died during a siege. So I'd reckon they didn't want to waste manpower and time throwing their men against castles. Especially when the empire was so fragmented because of the quarrels of the Mongol princes. Despite the empire's size the Mongols could muster a single big army and Mongke sent the majority of the Mongol army to Baghdad and Song(which eventually got him killed). After Mongke's death the empire was just over. It stopped being a single entity anymore.
I think castles were probably a key factor in Poland and Hungary’s survival as they ensured that, despite Mongol victories in the field, any conquest would degenerate into a war of sieges and attrition (since in order to rule the country the mongols would have had to have taken many if not most or all of them). This would not have suited the mongols as not only would they have had to stop their massive horse herds for weeks or months on end for every siege (possibly eating all the forage), but the small and highly defendable castle proved to be remarkably difficult for them to crack. So if they wanted to conquer they would have to invest years and countless lives in a war of attrition with no guarantee of success and I don’t think they were willing to. Better to just take what money you could and retreat to your already vast empire.
Really appreciate your mongol history content - from South Korea
I think Batu went back for political reasons rather than anything else. He brought back his hordes because he needed all of his loyal supporters to give him help. He had a lot of rivals, literally hundreds of brothers and cousins that saw themselves as being equal with him; only his army gave him complete control and he understood that if he went into Europe he would have lost much of his best men and it would have left him open for rebellion. Specifically his brothers.
I have a question, when the Empire collapsed, large chunks ended up ruling entire regions, the Mughals ruled much of India, the Golden Horde ruled much of Eastern Europe, the Yuan Dynasty ruled China and Korea, and the Ilkhanate controlled Persia, assuming they got further, and conquered the Franks and the HRE would there have been a successor state resembling the Roman Empire?
The Holy Roman Khanate.
Fuck me. The khanate of Rome. We missed out.
@@rubendr6510 Yes, we did. After this Western European Khanate collapsed, could it have stayed together as one polity like China and Russia did? Imagine Germany, France and Italy united under one Khan! Me thinks Genghis would've approved.
Love it from Mongolia 🇲🇳 As Mongol im this videos Mongol soldiers paint anime is so realistic great job guys 👍
Mongolians crack me up. You guys are the only people in the world that pride yourselves on the horrendous atrocities you comitted historically.
@@aweboatanithey respect their ancestors and their history, is it so strange? I am of Turko-Tatar origin and I understand Mongolians very well, although I do not like them
@@Karabulut96 yes it is strange. I respect my ancestors and history too, but I don't pride myself in my people's participation in the slave trade or situations where they sacked and burned cities or slaughtered Jewish people during the black plague.
@@aweboatani yeah but your ancestors were simply not as good at committing atrocities as the Mongols because you left survivors to complain and make you feel guilty to this day…..
Based
I think there is another option here not being considered. The hordes had just reached Germany. Eastern Europe and Western Europe had very different military technology and tactics. Western Europe heavily relied upon mass Castles and had "Heavy Cavalry". We know that in later conflicts Eastern Europe started to adopt Western European tactics and technology to great success against the Mongols. It's possible Batu was smart enough to understand that going further into Europe was going to be problematic. As in he had insight that later Mongols did not.
I believe it was Poland that got crushed by the Mongols numerous times that a revolutionary King spent his life building castles and hiring/training Heavy Cavalry to try and prepare for their next attack. And when they did they got crushed.
I think the crusades against Saladin showed that the European contingents of heavily armored knights were very effective against the lightly armored forces. Where situations where the crusaders were outnumbered 2:1 or 3:1 the crusaders ended up routing them.
Chinese had a relatively weak military in their history at song dynasty, but they heavily adopted heavy cavalries, suited with steal plated lamellar armor with and heavy helmets with armored horses. As most time in Chinese history, heavy cavalries are the key part of their Army. At the sametime in Europe, heavy cavalries had mainly chainmail and some plated armor, also with with heavy helmets. later crusades almost all failed, and a Europe that is divided stood no chance against the mongols. It was a matter of time, but just like the typhoon that forced Mongol retreat from Japan, It was all complications.
Scared Pottah?
-random german to Batu Khan, 1242 a.D.
Love the way everything is told, the different theories, why they may be true and why the may not. Would love a series on the mongol conquests
I had only ever heard the "political" theory. As far as I knew, the idea that the Mongols left because of the death of the Khan was settled historical fact. Thank you for telling us about this debate.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@tiboruhrin4080nigga tf you laughing for
This documentary is extremely well produced narrated and thought provoking .
I belive a lot depended on single all powerful leaders and their decisions.
Thank you friends.
Awesome video, thanks for your hard work creating and sharing these!
I've always been interested in the Mongols, so this is a very welcome development.
You're right that the ecological explanation makes no sense - not only because of the reason which you've outlined, but their Hunic ancestors were actually, au contraire, quite fond of the Hungarian plains and the optimal ecosystem which it offered for horseback riding.
Also- citation on Subutai's biography? Cheers awesome content!
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
This was SUPER INTERESTING! I love it when you critically engage with evidence!
What about population density? Perhaps the Mongols tried to occupy Hungary but found the structures of government they had used over people they conquered in the steppes didn't work so well in Hungary with its dense population and close neighbours, and they concluded occupying Europe would be more difficult than they had planned, so Batu retreated to what he knew he could hold: the steppe. A kind of add-on to the military weakness theory
Europe started building fortresses(and fortoficated bridges) since 814-1100 when Arabs, Vikings and Magyars attacked them and these saved them unlike another places of the world(except Japan).
@@lzstep80 Do you think the Chinese and e.g. the Assassins did not build fortresses?
@@eljanrimsa5843 Conquering a fortress for every 1000 inhabitants or 1 for every 100.000 makes a big difference. Just because there are less defenders doesnt make the siege much faster, almost all sieges in history are won by attricion. Where most people would make the sensible choice to surrender for a better outcome, Europeans have had the habit of resisting to the bitter end in case of sieges.
@@jemoedermeteensnor88 In the conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire alone the Mongols laid siege and conquered Samarkand and Bukhara, cities bigger and richer and better defended than any city in Europe at the time, and laid siege and destroyed two other cities Otrar and Gurganj so completely that only ruins in the desert remained. They killed around a million people each in their bloodiest conquests in Merv and Nishapur, also two cities which never regained their former size and importance.
@@eljanrimsa5843 But bigger cities are just worse to defend often. Rome practicly surrendered in a week while being by far the largest city in the world at that time. Also at Samarkland they fought on the open field and not at the city walls. Just because someone is not fit to command an army, doesnt mean no one is.
Got really excited thinking this was part of the alternative history series 😭😭
Brilliant as usual 👏🏻
Newest excavations found hundreds of small fortifications in Hungary, and fierce battles there. I would put my wote to the 4th theory.
A few decades later the Mongols did come back and were decisively defeated by Poland and Hungary. So... was their intent different in the 1240s than it was in the 1280s? What changed that would cause the Mongols to come back and try again in 40 years when Europe was better prepared to face them?
2 entirely different cases, those in 1280 were neighboring Cumans in fact, not the old imperial host.
after subotais and jebe's death, they werent the elite they used to be@@greatsarmatae
Nicely researched and narrated as always it’s the leaves the question
Lithuania did throw out Mongols from Eastern Europe at Battle of Blue Waters in 1362.
In fact, it is not a battle between two armies. The Mongols came to collect tributes, and their force number was small less than 1,000 men, but the Poles and Lithuanians refused to pay the tributes and fought and expelled the mongols
@@AhmedWilders Grand Duchy of Lithuania invaded Kiev. Which was not annexed yet. Lithuanians were not paying tribute around Vilnius and Belarus region of GDL.
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍
Mongols were of Tengrist faith, so rainstorms are actually a plausible reason to end a military campaign, because they see Gods in the weather.
They tried lutefisk and fled in abject terror.
Just found this channel by accident through Shorts, absolutely crazy that I recognized your voice @offydgg Devin, glad to see you're still around, I remember bingeing most of your series back on your original channel when I was younger. Trippy to hear your voice after so long, glad someone finally recognized your talent for Narration!
The Ecological Theory might fit why the Mongols never Finland. We never had grasslands, only forests. On the other hand it may also been due to economical reasons: there just weren't much to rob in poor Finland.
They have been neither North-Russia long but mostly steppe-zone and they were defeated also in Vietnam swamps...
Compelling analysis even better than your battle oriented programs. Thanks!
I am a big fan of your channel and any thing to do with the "Great Khan!!"
Just remembered the alternative mongol invasion History they made on Wizards and Warriors. What happened to that?
@@YuuSHiiiN it's not over, they plan to continue it, they're just spicing things up, to then the Reveal the true Imperial might of the mongols By sending another Huge Army group under Hulagu to support Batu's force, Instead of sending hulagu to the middle east Or at least that's my speculation
Another great Vid thx KnG
This was a good one! The Mongol videos are what first pulled me into this channel.
Thanks for the good information in this video ⚔️
He just feels homesick! He misses mum's inner mongolia hotpot badly.
Mongols “I’m kinda bored of this let’s go home”
16:23 Batu should totally be played by Keanu Reeves in a Mongolian film
Are you guys gonna make a video about manor lords when that game releases?
Thanks for the great content 👍🙏
There's a more plausible explanation that I came across at Quora: as the Mongols traversed Germany and Austria, they bumped into CASTLES, thousands of them. This was unseen elsewhere, not even in China. They realized they faced a major strategic challenge of having to capture them in a shortest possible time, which could NEVER be achieved: first, that would pin down and lock their forces in siege warfare leading to the lack of maneuver, second, thousands of miles from home bases, they would certainly lack food and starve, and finally, their foes would not sit back passively awaiting defeat but would certainly make alliances and try to strike back. Mongols' unparalleled warfare realism was something you can't deny them, so they must have sure realized they couldn't win this war. But because they were good war strategists, too, they made sure their enemies were confused and puzzled concerning their actual plans and objectives.
Indirectly, the aforementioned about castles was proved by what happened in Hungary following Bella's return: he undertook a major construction of CASTLES across all of Hungary to get prepared for a new Mongol invasion! This worked brilliantly 50 years later when Nogay invaded with his horde and was defeated
It is a common misconception, but in reality European castles were no better than muslim forts, which fell promptly - and nothing compared to the Chinese fortresses and walled cities. The main thing is that, simply, Mongols didn't care much about Europe as the centre of the world was definitely China: this is where fights concentrated, lasting close to a century before the Song finally submit. They could easily take those castles by using Chinese & Persian engineers and siege techniques, but didn't care enough to do so.
@@ogre-m2z I disagree, although the latter part of your comment is partially true. China was the center of the universe alright, but the Mongol realms were semi independent, all over the place, and their khans were eager to take the throne of the Great Khan in Karakorum most of all, and to that end they needed adequate resources of their own to fight brothers and uncles in the other realms who were likewise willing to claim the Karakorum throne. There was no point whatsoever risking the already available resources, except that the bets are they could be multiplied.
So, to mislay the army in a fight with doubtful gains would have been most unwise. I'm sure Batu's army would have been stuck somewhere amid Austria for months, but they should have set Hungary as their primary feeding base, at the very least. Then, it is up to speculation whether Batu would turn out to be an Attila before Catalaunian plains or Emir al Rahman before the battle of Tours in 732.
Lastly, Chinese town fortresses were fundamentally different from what European castles appeared. The Chinese fortresses were primarily huge strongholds numbering half a million people, with sizeable garrisons. However, the Mongols had no problem besieging one huge town for a year - that would take down any resistance in all the province altogether. Essentially, the Chinese towns were meant to be passive, in the hope the adversary would give up on it. But in Europe, the Mongols would have had no chance in view of the 3 points I laid out above. To conquer further West, they would have to found a permanent base close by such as Hungary. I wouldn't even dwell on whether Hungary was suited for such a base
@@nallyvaico Passive? The Chinese were masters in water engineering and the sieges involved things like diverting and counter-diverting rivers. This was a different league to what was technically possible in Europe at the time.
@@ogre-m2z Muslim forts were mainly just a high wall, they didnt incorporate a moat, they almost never had a second or a third layer of defence. So if the wall ever gets breached they were automaticly lost. They also never took advantage of the terrain, they might have build it on a hill, but hardly ever on a mountain with a small passage leading to it. Also muslim forts walls were designed so you had a big disadvantage against someone on the wall, while European forts were designed to be an adventegous position for the defender when someone would get on the wall. The only advantage the muslim castles had was the earlier use of round towers instead of square.
I love the way of Your presentation 😍 animation is realistic ✅
Historian:” Why did Batu retreat?”
Batu: “It’s none y’all business, leave me alone”.
I believe that what mongols did to the middle East and eastern Europe it totally destroyed everything and as mongols didn't much invade west Europe so they had the upper hand in developing their education and then renaissance bcoz the fall of political power of middle East it benefited western Europe and no much destruction of any historical work which also help them to keep there culture
@@maverick7291 ok your wrong coz the Arabs kept the ancient greek knowledge preserved bcoz the Christian in Europe at that time the pope saw the greek study as a source of paganism and you can see they gave a stiff resistance against the renaissance scientist and in 400s ce they destroyed lots of studies in Alexandria remove paganism . In bagdad they invented algorithm,optics and many more and also Arabic numerals that we use and also from 800 to 1200 until mongols they were dominant politically and to that you had to have nice technology in warfare as today usa has or the great Britain's as I mean nice institution like Oxford , Cambridge,Harvard or mit so what you are saying just on the basis of today what happened to the middle East not in the view of history
@@maverick7291 ok what about the fourth crusade the Latin sacked Constantinople and ancient greek Mathematician hespacia who was murdered by Christian mob and during renaissance Galileo was murdered and Kepler ran for his life from the catholic during the 30 years war and the Spanish inquisition killed the early modern medical doctors as study of human being was a sin and see the Arabs conquered the lands and they ruled for nearly 400 years including Spain what do you think any nomadic culture can defeat Byzantine and sassanid Empire both as they were the super power during that time and what are you saying is in context of modern days but from 700-1700 it was near East the most political and military dominated the middle East , North Africa , India, central Asia , some parts of Russia and Balkans and East Europe and it all possible because they had the nice institution and at that time west had also strong knight but couldn't maintain the dominant power and later got killed so what are you saying is on the basis of your narrow minded view of today middle East conditions
@@maverick7291and the first university was setup in Damascus in Syria by the Arabs so see the history and talk later and btw during the medieval era European saw and respected the middle eastern people and saw as there equal read history and read about the Jesuit missionaries writing is you don't believe me and see the monarchy remarks on that time on the middle East
@@maverick7291 al Azhar University Egypt 970 Ad and Fatima bint Muhammad Al-Fihriya Al-Qurashiya in Morocco in 9th century
@@maverick7291 yeah certainly usa was there in 9th century and Russia China Mexico Brazil were there to recognise it🤣🤣
Very interesting and well-informed - thank you.
They tasted British food
They met the french too
Hell, I'd leave too lol
They saw Europe shiting infront of their house
Most popular British dish is a chicken madras lol so take that how you will 😂
That's a good one!! 🤣
that feels like a quality analysis. worth paying in my opinion
You should do why the Timurids failed to last long
1. Strong ressistance, 2 stone castles, 3 city walls, 4 hills, 5. not much pasture, no much nomads to replace losses, 6 Austian and Bohemian knights armies on frotier
No European resistance was stronger than the mongol hordes
Strong resistance when they defeated every European army they faced
@@NubiansNapataAfter Legnica mongols refuse another battle with far more strong bogemian knight army and turn to Hungary. In korean chronicles is describe that battles and sieges in Poland were terrible costly for Mongol army.
@@ales811507 that's because the mongol after was split into 3. Orda and kadan used a small force to defeat the polish at Legnica. It made no sense for orda to attack a much larger force after just defeating the polish who also had a larger force than the Mongols. Orda regrouped with the main army under batu to attack the Hungarians at mohi. Securing another victory in Europe.
@@ales811507 Victory at Poland was was a hard battle for the Mongols. Polish had the numerical advantage and home Field and still lost
I think the Mongols could have conquered Europe if they really wanted, but like the Song who held out against the Mongols for 44 years it would have taken lots of time, resources, manpower and concerted effort, something they didn't have since Europe was at the far end of their Empire compared to China and political instability was already starting to set in.
They probably wouldn't have, as Europe had so many soldiers if you combined all kingdoms.
Also in the 2nd and 3rd invasion the Mongols had no chance even against Poland and Hungary
I've noticed that the video quality has improved considerably.
The Europeans learned how to fight the mongols. Mongols didn’t have siege equipment and high masonry walls offered some protection
It didn't take months for them to deliver a message. Mongols could deliver a message from Mongolia to Eastern Europe in 10-14 days using the "Yam" system. The death of Ogodei Khan message got delivered to them pretty quick.
Maybe batu felt the mongol civil war is imminent after ogedai 's death, some mongols would have regularly shared insider info on what is going on in the far east by using falcons as messenger birds.
But they retreated before they heard the news.
@@shadowmaydawn no
And Batu settled down in Astrakhan and never went back to Mongolia neither Hungary 🤔
@@LL-ft6ed 9:50
The weather theory seems pretty weak. A better hypothesis would be that supply chain didn’t really reach as far as they overstretched too much. Like sure they could conquer everything but enemies they leave behind as they advance regroup and rebuild and just block supplies. And before they were surrounded and destroyed, better to leave while army is still strong to make it back with high morale. 🤷♂️
They came to Europe and saw that China had way more stuff worth risking their lives for
💚♦️Waiting for a video about the migration and invasions of the Magyars🏇🏻
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if it turned out they left only because they simply got bored?
No it would be stupid
One interesting thing I've heard but can't confirm is that the composite/reflex bows of the nomadic people were unsuitable for much of Europe, since frequent rains/humidity damages them, so they're much better used in drylands.
Another two mysteries about the Mongols:
1 What stopped the Mongols from actually trying their luck in the Indian subcontinent?
2 How far the Mongols can go into Africa if they managed to get through the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and Syria?
They lost against delhi sultanate in india
@@Ankit-d9f4u I know that. But what I meant was what stopped them from launching another campaign, of course.
@@lerneanlion maybe they didn't wanted to risk further loses
They didn't like hot climate. They lost against Japan, Vietnam, Delhi, Mameluks and within 100 year disintegrated and almost disappeared from most part of Europe.
This sketching sound from around 13:35 is very uncomfortable to listen to with headphones on.
Noted, thank you
*Yo Kings and Generals can We See a Video done on the horn of africa and the history of The Cushite Macrobians and The land of Punt* 👋👋
Wonderful episode
Can you imagine if you had to travel all the way back to the heartlands of Mongolia.. Start From the frontiers of Europe.. Knowing that for the next few weeks or months of continuous riding it would take to get back “home” in a reasonable amount of time..
Oww
But that is exactly what they do....
Mongols hated being static or complacent, sitting upon a conquered land to chill. They were always on the move, it was one of the aspects of their success. Indling in Hungary surrounded by enemies who are camped in strategic castles would give chances of preparation to their enemies and also after a while the tale that they are unstoppable would quickly start to break.
They even destroyed cities in today montenegro and reached Adriatic but no one mentioned this that they went that far south
They went further than that. They met a Muslim army at Ain Jalut and got the shit kicked out of them.
@@joebloggs5318 im talking about europe but hey they did not have to worry about logistics
Loved this ancient history documentary! It’s like watching a never-ending episode of 'Who Wants to Rule an Empire?
"Bro, the food was better in China"
Until you realize that it is cooked in "gutter oil"...
I think the biggest knowledge hole consists of what the Mongol decision-makers felt and thought about the Mongol Empire, its neighbors, and so on at the time of the Mongol retreat from Hungary in 1942. The timing of the Mongol retreat from Hungary in 1942 also makes this question more challenging. The point of time when Ogodei died was also the same point in time in which the Mongol Empire was experiencing a transition between being a single-throne empire and the breakup of the empire into four independent polities. Up to this time, the Mongol Empire was still held by a "glue" consisting of commanders and administrators appointed by Genghis, such as Sudodei. But once these officials faded from history, there was not much glue left to keep the empire in one piece.
The thing is at Mohi the Mongols we’re almost defeated and pushed back into the river. If it weren’t subbuta, they would’ve lost. The units of the Hungarians are doing the most well where the knights of Templar and crossbowmen. Mohi was the reason that Hungarians reformed their army, and added more knights and stonewalls. If Hungarians had more knights and good scouting , the Mongols would be crushed.
If Hungarians had more knights, Mongols would learn it and defeat them accordingly. You forget that the Mongols had an army at that time, while the Europeans had squabbling bands of poorly armed country warriors.
Subutai had nothing to do with the victory at Mohi, if anything he floundered a lot a Mohi. Batu is the one who successfully rallies the Mongol armies to charge and break the Hungarian lines at Mohi.
@@kolsveinnskraevolding Indeed, and the flank movement by Subutai was just for a stroll, no doubts.
You forgot how close to Mongols were to defeat at Mohi if it wasn’t for the flanking force it would be a huge disaster. Watch history march vid on the battle.
Also this was really the first time the mongols met European armies so it would take time to adjust
is it me or is the mic switching volumes? great video despite it !
Mistakes happen. Where did you notice it?
@@KingsandGenerals it was quite prevalent during the whole video i think it might be on my end. i just noticed a change when closing a program. :)
They knew better then to mess with the great Europe.
Hahaha sure sure!
Atilla would've disagreed.
14:38 isn’t that where the Austrian flag supposedly comes from? The story about the guy who killed so many people in battle that he was covered in blood and then he took off his belt and everything underneath the belt was clean (hence the middle stripe being white)