Is the Mongol Invasion CB overpowered?

[EmperorOfIberia]

I think they fell, because, like all empires, they got too big. It doesn't help when some of the people that you send to invade eventually become culturally and religiously different from you.

 

[binTravkin]

Ptshh. I don't think the Mongols would have had long-term luck in central / western Europe, with its rugged terrain and wet climate. I'm sure they would have shared the eventual fate of all other central-asian steppe riders that tried a European invasion, from Alans over Huns to Hungarians. Initial successes and then *bam* crushing defeat.

Poland was utterly defeated by two mongol units (tumen = 10k troops), which were making a distraction attack to not let armies of Poland and Hungary unite.
The empire could gather some 15-20 tumens when it wanted to kill someone (see campaigns in China, Persia).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Poland

And, BTW, what "crushing defeat" you mean with Huns?
This, seemingly largest battle, doesn't list such an outcome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Châlons

The reasons listed why Europe would militarily stop mongols can be checked vs the sources of history, as the mongol campaigns are amply documented, let's just list a few:
1.
Wet weather.
Much of China being of similar wetness as Europe?
It only stopped them in Viet Nam, a much different type of wet and then due to auxiliary effects of "wet", such as ilnesses.

2.
Terrain.
They traversed like 20%+ of world territory - deserts, mountains, steppes, siberian taiga, what terrain could stop them?
Jungle (see Viet Nam campaigns). And there is none in Europe.
In fact they used frozen over lakes and rivers to invade Rus in winter, while russians themselves, who are now touted for their "general winter" were hiding in their warm places (like cities and forts).
They were immune to the main problem Napoleon and Hitler had in conquering Russia.

3.
Heavy cavalry.

The traditional European warfare method of hand-to-hand combat between knights ended in catastrophe when it was deployed against the Mongol forces, as the Mongols were able to keep a distance and advance with superior number.

It must be one of the easiest ways to die vs a mongol to put something heavy on, so that they can ride away and shoot at you until you fall.
Here's are a couple of examples of knights failing spectacularly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica

Hungary was only able to offer some resistance due to large amount of cuman warriors available, who had fled from mongols and had good knowledge of their tactics and similar way of warfare and equipment.

I think they fell, because, like all empires, they got too big. It doesn't help when some of the people that you send to invade eventually become culturally and religiously different from you.

The reasons of mongol decline are well documented, the primary reason being - infighting.
After death of Mongke, they spent more effort in killing each other than keeping their realms together / furthering their conquests.

 

[Hootieleece]

I was able to free Finland with a Holy War CB.The Golden Horde just converted to Sunni Moslem.Is that worse?

 

[unmerged(530695)]

I don't know why China sucked so hard against the Mongols despite their terrain and climate, but in central Europe, there are lots of highlands and forests, which as terrain simply blows for cavalry. Also, the laminated bows of the steppe riders were prone to fall apart in wet weather. This probably also played a role in the utter annihilation of the Hungarians at the Lechfeld in 955.

As for the Catalaunic Fields 451AD, Attila was losing hard and had already made preparations to commit suicide, which qualifies for a "crushing defeat" in my book, and was only averted because Rome _chose_ not to call the final assault, because a living Attila made it easier for them to keep their own confederates in check (which probably was a mistake in the long run, but that's politics, not warfare).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 13th cty. Mongols continuing their conquest would have been a piece of cake for the Europeans, but eventually they would have failed like all their predecessors did.

 

[EmperorOfIberia]

I was able to free Finland with a Holy War CB.The Golden Horde just converted to Sunni Moslem.Is that worse?

Uh-oh. That's not good at all. It means they Muslim Mongols, which means more CB's against you. Plus, it means more focus against Christians instead of non-Mongol Muslims.

 

[Hootieleece]

Will they continue to get multiple 20k stacks as reinforcements?or are they on their own.

When will the Timmurids show up if at all?

I generally never play past 1300, only time I did was as Saxon England.

I am Queen of Hungary and Sweden, my heir is betrothed to Queen of Bohemia.(hopefully she dies first after producing an heir) so I can be absorbed into the HRE.

I've been fighting the Mongols for 50 years, and if I don't get help I'll begone in 50 more because of the ease of getting cb's for Moslems.

 

[unmerged(533139)]

Poland was utterly defeated by two mongol units (tumen = 10k troops), which were making a distraction attack to not let armies of Poland and Hungary unite.
The empire could gather some 15-20 tumens when it wanted to kill someone (see campaigns in China, Persia).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Poland

And, BTW, what "crushing defeat" you mean with Huns?
This, seemingly largest battle, doesn't list such an outcome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Châlons

The reasons listed why Europe would militarily stop mongols can be checked vs the sources of history, as the mongol campaigns are amply documented, let's just list a few:
1.
Wet weather.
Much of China being of similar wetness as Europe?
It only stopped them in Viet Nam, a much different type of wet and then due to auxiliary effects of "wet", such as ilnesses.

2.
Terrain.
They traversed like 20%+ of world territory - deserts, mountains, steppes, siberian taiga, what terrain could stop them?
Jungle (see Viet Nam campaigns). And there is none in Europe.
In fact they used frozen over lakes and rivers to invade Rus in winter, while russians themselves, who are now touted for their "general winter" were hiding in their warm places (like cities and forts).
They were immune to the main problem Napoleon and Hitler had in conquering Russia.

Putting my Total War hat on, I would imagine that dense forests would step them (i.e. in Germany) since it would make horses a lot less useful, you can easily ambush them from trees plus there's less maneuverability.

I do realize that they took over the Siberian Taiga areas as well, but those were just mostly tribes living there who couldn't put up an organized military to fight against. Kievan Rus did have a few but the rulers of the city-states were all too worried about saving their own hides so they mostly ended up surrendering.

3.
Heavy cavalry.

It must be one of the easiest ways to die vs a mongol to put something heavy on, so that they can ride away and shoot at you until you fall.
Here's are a couple of examples of knights failing spectacularly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica

Hungary was only able to offer some resistance due to large amount of cuman warriors available, who had fled from mongols and had good knowledge of their tactics and similar way of warfare and equipment.

The reasons of mongol decline are well documented, the primary reason being - infighting.
After death of Mongke, they spent more effort in killing each other than keeping their realms together / furthering their conquests.

I am not sure tactically Mongols were really beatable without superior positioning to begin with. Perhaps if their army was tricked into chasing another army (but how? the horses run faster than pure foot infantry? maybe have cavalry only armies set up as bait?) into an area where there was only one way out of (e.g. a peninsula) and then you come from behind with all your other armies and wall them off so they can't escape anywhere.

Another way might be to lead them very deep into enemy territory and then cut off their supply routes.. eventually they'd all starve to death . Probably would need to do some sort of scorched earth thing while retreating all the armies.

Either way, the Christians would need to all band together and organize some kind of Crusade against the Mongols to stand a chance. Kind of like how the Muslims ran Jihads against them (1050-1258). Who knows, maybe there would have been one had they actually started capturing a lot of Catholic land..

 

[binTravkin]

I don't know why China sucked so hard against the Mongols despite their terrain and climate, but in central Europe, there are lots of highlands and forests, which as terrain simply blows for cavalry. Also, the laminated bows of the steppe riders were prone to fall apart in wet weather. This probably also played a role in the utter annihilation of the Hungarians at the Lechfeld in 955.

Again, you are stating "yes China is the same weather, but no Europe would be different".
Did you even read it yourself?

Also, if the terrain "simply blows" for cavalry, how do you explain Huns getting Into France and Italy, as well as most of the medieval using heavy cavalry as primary strike force?
Surely, heavy cavalry has even more stringent terrain requirements than light/horse archers.

As for the Catalaunic Fields 451AD, Attila was losing hard and had already made preparations to commit suicide, which qualifies for a "crushing defeat" in my book, and was only averted because Rome _chose_ not to call the final assault, because a living Attila made it easier for them to keep their own confederates in check (which probably was a mistake in the long run, but that's politics, not warfare).

Really?
Sorry, this is hot air "in my book".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 13th cty. Mongols continuing their conquest would have been a piece of cake for the Europeans, but eventually they would have failed like all their predecessors did.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that mongols were invincible, but seeing how you fail to provide any backing for your arguments, they are not getting any more vulnerable.
Europe was just lucky multiple times, including the death of Atilla.

Putting my Total War hat on

Could've stopped right here.
There are some things you can learn from games set in historical setting, but you are overestimating the accuracy of that knowledge by several orders of magnitude.
There are accounts of battles with Mongols and other reasonably organized armies and many of them go quite as my previous quote indicated.

Kievan Rus did have a few but the rulers of the city-states were all too worried about saving their own hides

That's why they put their armies (18 Rus princes) together with cumans and were soundly defeated by a mongol recon force at Battle of Kalka river?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River

I am not sure tactically Mongols were really beatable without superior positioning to begin with. Perhaps if their army was tricked into chasing another army (but how? the horses run faster than pure foot infantry? maybe have cavalry only armies set up as bait?) into an area where there was only one way out of (e.g. a peninsula) and then you come from behind with all your other armies and wall them off so they can't escape anywhere.

They had superior maneuver, superior recon and superior intelligence.
Even if you managed to trick them, it would be a rare lucky incidence and unlikely to happen for a major battle (due to large presence of recon patrols).
In fact, mongols were famous for feint retreats and other trickery.
Fooling a trickster is not easy.

Another way might be to lead them very deep into enemy territory and then cut off their supply routes.. eventually they'd all starve to death . Probably would need to do some sort of scorched earth thing while retreating all the armies.

Lol, this "supply routes" bullshit keeps popping up on me.
Is this some kind of U.S. theory to explain every war in history in light of the D-Day?
Here's some news for you - many armies of the past had NO "supply routes" whatsoever!
For example Hannibal pretty much lived off the loot and tribute he could get.
How do you even imagine supply route to a hostile territory through Roman fleet to an army that noone really knows where it's at?

And mongols took this to a whole new level.
To realize the futility of the "supply routes" argument vs mongols, you just have to read "Background" and "Caucasus rair" parts of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River#Background
And take look at the west end of this map and the long red line drawn there, dated 1222-1223:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Genghis_Khan_empire-en.svg

Either way, the Christians would need to all band together and organize some kind of Crusade against the Mongols to stand a chance. Kind of like how the Muslims ran Jihads against them (1050-1258). Who knows, maybe there would have been one had they actually started capturing a lot of Catholic land..

Here's some more news - Christians NEVER stood together.
There isn't a simple historical precedent either in Christian or Islamic world of such military cooperation.
That's fairy tale material.
Even the successful crusades were not a story of efficient cooperation.
And the "Jihads" vs Christians in Middle East were mostly Egypt (Saladin, Mamluks) and then some help from neighbors.
Furthermore, HRE was dismissing the threat of mongols almost entirely - only duke of Austria and King of Bohemia showed up to the action.


History is so much different from the fairy tales you get used to see in games.
You have to understand that the "game" part is the most important in this equation.
It has to be fun. History was not fun to live in at all.
Games also have to be fair, for you to not lose interest in them, history is mostly "might makes right".


Mongols have to be the "almost-end boss" of CK2.
In fact, their potential is not fully utilized - with proper conditioning, CK2 could become a game of two stages - first stage "preparing for mongols", and then you either fail or win, and 2nd stage "preparing for Timurids" (those would be less perilous though), and then if you have survived those two, it's only the final years until endgame.

 

[unmerged(533139)]

Could've stopped right here.
There are some things you can learn from games set in historical setting, but you are overestimating the accuracy of that knowledge by several orders of magnitude.
There are accounts of battles with Mongols and other reasonably organized armies and many of them go quite as my previous quote indicated.

Well I was just using a metaphor, if you look at historical sources it's pretty widely considered that the forests presented a problem for the Mongols.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/russia/ru01.html#Nevsky

"They chose not to rule the Russians directly, because in the forests of northern and western Europe, the mounted archers of the steppes would find both their speed and the range of their arrows reduced, putting them at a great disadvantage against the natives. Instead, they gathered tribute every year, giving one of the Russian princes a permit called a yarlyk to claim the wealth of Russia for the Khan."

That's why they put their armies (18 Rus princes) together with cumans and were soundly defeated by a mongol recon force at Battle of Kalka river?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River

That was just a scouting party they sent (and it was just one battle not a war), the real invasion did not begin until 1236 when Subutai crossed the Volga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'

In terms of surrendering, I can't find sources atm, but I seem to recall from my history textbooks as a kid (I grew up in Russia) that a lot of cities surrendered straight out instead of trying to fight the good fight.

They had superior maneuver, superior recon and superior intelligence.
Even if you managed to trick them, it would be a rare lucky incidence and unlikely to happen for a major battle (due to large presence of recon patrols).
In fact, mongols were famous for feint retreats and other trickery.
Fooling a trickster is not easy.

Ok, well superior maneuver/recon is a given due to their usage of horses. But that is a tactical advantage mostly. I am suggesting that they could only be defeated (in theory) by superior strategy. For example the way that Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Knights by luring them onto a frozen lake and then having them sink.

I am curious how they could have superior intelligence? They wouldn't know the terrain as well as the natives, plus as far as I can tell they didn't exactly have intelligence services going as it was mostly just a large pillaging horde. Genghis Khan didn't even try to build up infrastructure, he just subjugated the people and moved on to the next city.

Lol, this "supply routes" bullshit keeps popping up on me.
Is this some kind of U.S. theory to explain every war in history in light of the D-Day?
Here's some news for you - many armies of the past had NO "supply routes" whatsoever!
For example Hannibal pretty much lived off the loot and tribute he could get.
How do you even imagine supply route to a hostile territory through Roman fleet to an army that noone really knows where it's at?

Well that's pretty much it, you pillage and loot whatever you need. But if there's nothing to pillage and loot you'd be kind of screwed. Feeding tens of thousands of angry people is hard. That's why I specifically said that they would need to do scorched earth. It worked for the Russians against Napoleon in 1812 and the Germans in WW2, and they had FAR more mobility in the 1940s what with cars and all .

Here's some more news - Christians NEVER stood together.
There isn't a simple historical precedent either in Christian or Islamic world of such military cooperation.
That's fairy tale material.
Even the successful crusades were not a story of efficient cooperation.
And the "Jihads" vs Christians in Middle East were mostly Egypt (Saladin, Mamluks) and then some help from neighbors.
Furthermore, HRE was dismissing the threat of mongols almost entirely - only duke of Austria and King of Bohemia showed up to the action.

Ok but the Jihads from the Muslims against the Mongols were real.. who knows if half of the Catholic christian realms fell, maybe they'd get scared and unify? It's a What-If anyway, I think we can all agree they wouldn't have had a chance unless they unified.

History is so much different from the fairy tales you get used to see in games.
You have to understand that the "game" part is the most important in this equation.
It has to be fun. History was not fun to live in at all.
Games also have to be fair, for you to not lose interest in them, history is mostly "might makes right".

Mongols have to be the "almost-end boss" of CK2.
In fact, their potential is not fully utilized - with proper conditioning, CK2 could become a game of two stages - first stage "preparing for mongols", and then you either fail or win, and 2nd stage "preparing for Timurids" (those would be less perilous though), and then if you have survived those two, it's only the final years until endgame.

Well I'm with you there, I wasn't commenting on the Mongol gameplay mechanics in CK2. I haven't even bumped into them in my game yet, but I am very very scared .

 

[binTravkin]

"They chose not to rule the Russians directly, because in the forests of northern and western Europe, the mounted archers of the steppes would find both their speed and the range of their arrows reduced, putting them at a great disadvantage against the natives. Instead, they gathered tribute every year, giving one of the Russian princes a permit called a yarlyk to claim the wealth of Russia for the Khan."

It just says about "chose not to rule directly", not combat, which they did and utterly destroyed Rus armies.

Also, this claim is dubious.
Seeing how mongols lived in steppe and lacked an elaborate administration mechanismus (well, after Mongke anyway), it is obvious why they would want to stick to their steppe and just collect tribute.
The whole EU3 horde mechanismus (not that I like the execution that much) is built around this concept of nomadic life locality.

That was just a scouting party they sent (and it was just one battle not a war), the real invasion did not begin until 1236 when Subutai crossed the Volga

Yes, that's what I said.
And this doesn't change the fact that they did band together and try to hit mongols with united armies.
They failed EVEN vs a recon group.
The later campaign was just slack and burn as Rus could only sit in their castles and see the land burn.
That also explains the lack of mention of important battles after Kalka - most of them were too dull or shameful to mention.

In terms of surrendering, I can't find sources atm, but I seem to recall from my history textbooks as a kid (I grew up in Russia) that a lot of cities surrendered straight out instead of trying to fight the good fight.

Because there were no "good fights".
Partly because there couldn't be due to speed and efficiency of mongol advance and partly because quite some of the advances were made in winter, when Rus armies would typically sit at fireside in their forts.

Ok, well superior maneuver/recon is a given due to their usage of horses. But that is a tactical advantage mostly. I am suggesting that they could only be defeated (in theory) by superior strategy. For example the way that Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Knights by luring them onto a frozen lake and then having them sink.

This is highly unlikely, seeing how mongol armies were mostly led by able commanders borne out of their meritocratic promotion system, while most European armies were led by "leaders by birthright".
The many times mongols managed to defeat superior numbers of enemy should in part prove this.
Also, mongols won the Poland/Hungary campaign strategically by sending a distraction army in Poland.
Finally, see:

The Mongols also used deception very well in their wars. For instance, when approaching a mobile army the units would be split into three or more army groups, each trying to outflank and surprise their opponents. This created many battlefield scenarios for the opponents where the Mongols would seem to appear out of nowhere and that there were seemingly more of them than in actuality. Flanking and/or feigned retreat if the enemy could not be handled easily was one of the most practiced techniques. Other techniques used commonly by the Mongols were completely psychological and were used to entice/lure enemies into vulnerable positions by showing themselves from a hill or some other predetermined locations, then disappearing into the woods or behind hills while the Mongols' flank troops already strategically positioned would appear as if out of nowhere from the left, right and/or from their rear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization#Strategy

I am curious how they could have superior intelligence? They wouldn't know the terrain as well as the natives, plus as far as I can tell they didn't exactly have intelligence services going as it was mostly just a large pillaging horde. Genghis Khan didn't even try to build up infrastructure, he just subjugated the people and moved on to the next city.

It is mentioned in numerous sources that mongols had superior intelligence.
Even Wikipedia has a lot of it:

The Mongols carefully scouted out and spied on their enemies in advance of any invasion. Prior to the invasion of Europe, Batu and Subutai sent spies for almost ten years into the heart of Europe, making maps of the old Roman roads, establishing trade routes, and determining the level of ability of each principality to resist invasion. They made well-educated guesses as to the willingness of each principality to aid the others, and their ability to resist alone or together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization#Intelligence_and_Planning

Well that's pretty much it, you pillage and loot whatever you need. But if there's nothing to pillage and loot you'd be kind of screwed. Feeding tens of thousands of angry people is hard. That's why I specifically said that they would need to do scorched earth. It worked for the Russians against Napoleon in 1812 and the Germans in WW2, and they had FAR more mobility in the 1940s what with cars and all

1. Yes, you move to another location. Being able to traverse 100km+ a day shouldn't be a problem.
2. Yes, they did scorched earth to Rus and other places they went to, so that the defenders wouldn't be able to resist for long, even if they survived in their castles (see Rus, Korea, Khwarizm campaigns, etc)
3. No, german mobility in WW2 was somewhat on par or less than mongols. They were much more constrained in routes and much of the time they had to move in a front, also dragging supply and communications with them, which mongols didn't need to. Also, they were unable to move swiftly in bad weather, which mongols did many times. Finally "scorched earth" had proven results on them.

Ok but the Jihads from the Muslims against the Mongols were real.. who knows if half of the Catholic christian realms fell, maybe they'd get scared and unify? It's a What-If anyway, I think we can all agree they wouldn't have had a chance unless they unified.

They were as "real" as the crusades.
Very few of the crusades resulted in a relatively coherent effort on a strategical level.
Often they were ambitions of certain rulers and depended solely on their resources and ability (see Richard Lionheart).
At the same time, strategical planning and execution for mongols was on a superior level, perhaps akin to organization of napoleonic campaigns.

but I am very very scared

Swear fealthy or die!

 

[unmerged(533139)]

Well it is obvious that they lost the first fight without being prepared, however decades or hundreds year later you would think the European rulers could've studied up on their military history and figured out how to at least try to counter the Mongols.

Anyway, I don't see why you keep quoting facts from history about how the Mongols beat every European ruler up they came up against. We all know this, I was just stating that hypothetically they COULD be defeated and gave a few ideas of how. Obviously it DIDN'T happen since there was no medieval age equivalent of the Wellington/Grand Alliance.

 

[binTravkin]

Well it is obvious that they lost the first fight without being prepared, however decades or hundreds year later you would think the European rulers could've studied up on their military history and figured out how to at least try to counter the Mongols.

If you mean that they would've learned to defeat mongols after being subjugated by them - quite probably yes, as the russians did.
But the original argument was about being defeated in the first place, so it's a different topic.

Anyway, I don't see why you keep quoting facts from history about how the Mongols beat every European ruler up they came up against. We all know this, I was just stating that hypothetically they COULD be defeated and gave a few ideas of how. Obviously it DIDN'T happen since there was no medieval age equivalent of the Wellington/Grand Alliance.

Yes, it didn't happen because it couldn't.
The ways how it could happen are unimaginable in the Europe of the time and are incompatible with the European tradition of politics and warfare of the 13th century.
Do note that the example you mention - Wellington/Grand Alliance features a centralized Europe (large, centralized countries) with professional armies and a professional leader - neither of these ingredients were present in 13th century.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Poland was utterly defeated by two mongol units (tumen = 10k troops), which were making a distraction attack to not let armies of Poland and Hungary unite.
The empire could gather some 15-20 tumens when it wanted to kill someone (see campaigns in China, Persia).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Poland
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica
..
Hungary was only able to offer some resistance due to large amount of cuman warriors available, who had fled from mongols and had good knowledge of their tactics and similar way of warfare and equipment.
..
The reasons of mongol decline are well documented, the primary reason being - infighting.
After death of Mongke, they spent more effort in killing each other than keeping their realms together / furthering their conquests.

Thanks for the links. Did just read them and some other to the soundtrack of Battlestar Galactica.
Epic feeling i must admit.




PS: These and other examples simply prove that CK2 is far too easy for a player. A medieval feudal system is quite the opposite of a victorian England. Sigh, if only some people would understand this.....

 

[Blond_Knight]

The Mongols have been weak the last few patches and have a hard time suppressing revolts. They used to easily steamroll Eastern Europe and usually took Norway before slowing down. They need to be beefed up again.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

The Mongols have been weak the last few patches and have a hard time suppressing revolts.

yup

They used to easily steamroll Eastern Europe and usually took Norway before slowing down.

....up to Iceland and going west into France. Ahhhh, these days look nice and cosy compared to the muslims now.

They need to be beefed up again.

The whole game needs an overhaul.Yes, beefed up. Though only a wee bit.
Unless you want to see a christian free world map, getting crushed from the east and south. Prepare for the Onslaught my brethren!

 

[Bialaska]

yup

....up to Iceland and going west into France. Ahhhh, these days look nice and cosy compared to the muslims now.




The whole game needs an overhaul.Yes, beefed up. Though only a wee bit.
Unless you want to see a christian free world map, getting crushed from the east and south. Prepare for the Onslaught my brethren!

Mongols beefed up and Muslims toned down. In half the games these days the Byzantine Empire has been annihilated before 1100, in invasions of Armenia, Anatolia and Greece. Sure, the Byzantine Empire eventually fell, but that shouldn't happen until around 100 years later.

 

[unmerged(530695)]

Again, you are stating "yes China is the same weather, but no Europe would be different".
Did you even read it yourself?[7quote]

Yes I did. The question here is not "Why would Europe have won where China, under similar conditions, had lost?" but "Why did China lose in the first place?". Chinese history is not my forte; if it is yours than you are welcome to tell me, otherwise we should just exclude China from this discussion or wait for someone else who can tell us.

Also, if the terrain "simply blows" for cavalry, how do you explain Huns getting Into France and Italy, as well as most of the medieval using heavy cavalry as primary strike force?

It's a matter of picking your battles. If you think a cavalry battle is good for you, you try to force one onto your enemy. If you think it's bad for you, you avoid it and force battles onto your enemy where he can't use his.

Really?
Sorry, this is hot air "in my book".

It's a historical fact according to, for example, Peter J. Heather: The Fall of the Roman Empire, or Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen: Die Welt der Hunnen, or various other standard works of history.
It's a bit pointless discussing with you when you accuse me of "not backing my arguments" after _ignoring_ the arguments I give, while failing to give any arguments of your own.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Stop going off-topic and arqguing if mongols could have ridden in germany or not,this is a game,not a historical simulator
But i think they need to be buffed up a little bit

 

[Gqarz]

Nobody knows why the Mongols never proceeded into western Europe. Some speculate they just ran out of steam as they do in the game. If they had invaded, Europe would have been toast. The only defeats the Mongols really ever suffered during their conquest period was in situations where they could not use their cavalry well ie. when they were trapped and couldn't maneuver. Seiges were no real trouble for them. They didn't go around the Great Wall, they blew holes in it.

One thing people forget with Russia forming in game is that the mongol invasion was the first time that the lands of Russia had been anything close to united. It had always been a loose set of principalities and duchies. The mongols were a unifying influence.

 

[binTravkin]

Nobody knows why the Mongols never proceeded into western Europe. Some speculate they just ran out of steam as they do in the game. If they had invaded, Europe would have been toast. The only defeats the Mongols really ever suffered during their conquest period was in situations where they could not use their cavalry well ie. when they were trapped and couldn't maneuver. Seiges were no real trouble for them. They didn't go around the Great Wall, they blew holes in it.

Don't generalize. If you don't know, it doesn't mean "nobody knows".
The reasons are well documented, namely the death of Ogedei and later quarrels (during Batu) and infighting (Berke and onwards).
I agree though with the rest of your post.

One thing people forget with Russia forming in game is that the mongol invasion was the first time that the lands of Russia had been anything close to united. It had always been a loose set of principalities and duchies. The mongols were a unifying influence.

No it wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus