Is the Mongol Invasion CB overpowered?

[unmerged(271387)]

Actually,the rus in the 13th century weren't as influential as other centuries(only limited to the south)and the russians started disingrate beccause of the creation of duchies like novgorod,moscow etc.

 

[unmerged(533139)]

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.

No, thats not what I meant.. the generals of the undefeated countries could easily send agents to the subjugated courts (e.g. to Russia), after all most of them were just paying yarlyks and weren't under day-to-day rule of the Mongols. They could then find out how exactly it was that the Mongols defeated them so easily. It's just a matter of thinking ahead and trying to understand your enemy better, which every good general does.

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.

"it couldn't" ? It didn't. I don't see how you can say 100% that it couldn't. You don't need professional armies and professional leaders, just a few good generals building up holy armies together and one grand general to rule over them. If anything the faith was a larger uniting factor back then, if the nobles believed they were faced with total annihilation they could potentially unite together under one banner.

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.

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

I think it's amusing a lot of people here seem to think Kievan Rus was either a huge unified presence, or was starting to become on, around the Mongol invasions of 1236. The fact of the matter is that Kievan Rus was at a high in the 11th century, and in decline after that. By the 13th century it was just very small, unable to put up any resistance to the Mongols.

http://www.countriesquest.com/europe/russia/history/the_decline_of_kievan_rus.htm

Basically in the 12th century it was a single state, but by the end of it, it separated into a bunch of principalities...

Map at a high 1054-1132 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Principalities_of_Kievan_Rus'_(1054-1132).jpg (notice the inclusion of Novgorod, Rostov, etc)

Kievan Rus circa 1220-1240 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:001_Kievan_Rus'_Kyivan_Rus'_Ukraine_map_1220_1240.jpg (the person who held the title of Grand Prince of Kiev controlled those territories directly)
http://izbornyk.org.ua/litop/map_1240.htm with the routes of the mongol invasions . Dashed line is the 1223 scouting party, thick line is the actual invasion after 1237. You can also see pretty clearly that the rest of the principalities are independent of Kievan Rus.
k
So no, just because Kievan Rus fell fast and hard, along with a few other weak states like Poland and Hungary we can't draw a conclusion that there is absolutely 100% no way the rest of the countries wouldn't stand a chance no matter what.

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.

Basically I theorize this is what would've happened.. they could've gone in to the forests of Germany where not only they would've had to face the might of the Holy Roman Empire, but their cavalry would be rendered almost entirely useless. Even if the HRE was fighting on their own, they could've widdled down a large part of the Mongolian standing army. The cumens after all were trained from birth, and weren't some peasants you could "raise". As they took losses they couldn't just get more people immediately, this would be a huge setback and they'd have to either back off or raise conventional infantry armies that would be easily defeated by the superior heavily armored knights of the Western European nations.

Plus I am sure the Pope would be scared shitless and call in a bunch of crusades, and hopefully the mountains would keep him safe long enough for the rest of the Christian countries to unite...

Since Hungary and Poland were the only Catholic country that were even invaded (iirc) by the Mongols, and Hungary successfully repelled with Poland being only partially occupied, it's impossible to say with 100% certainty that this wouldn't have happened.

 

[binTravkin]

No, thats not what I meant.. the generals of the undefeated countries could easily send agents to the subjugated courts (e.g. to Russia), after all most of them were just paying yarlyks and weren't under day-to-day rule of the Mongols. They could then find out how exactly it was that the Mongols defeated them so easily. It's just a matter of thinking ahead and trying to understand your enemy better, which every good general does.

There is no reason to think that the other side is standing still while you are adapting.
If the other side has inherently better leadership, they are likely growing their gap vs you.
One example right off the bat is mongols lenghtening their feigned retreats as a response of enemies realizing they were not real.

"it couldn't" ? It didn't. I don't see how you can say 100% that it couldn't. You don't need professional armies and professional leaders, just a few good generals building up holy armies together and one grand general to rule over them. If anything the faith was a larger uniting factor back then, if the nobles believed they were faced with total annihilation they could potentially unite together under one banner.

There are numerous examples of professional armies with professional generals going against technically irregulars such as the medieval knights.
The outcomes speak for themselves, including the mongol conquests.

What is a "holy army" anyway?

Faith being a major uniting factor is just your theory.
It didn't keep the christians from being almost constantly at war with each other.

Yes, "if they believed".
The correspondence Batu had with HRE clearly showed, they didn't, just as the Polish and Hungarians.
A few major battles later it wouldn't make a difference what they believe anymore (see Hungary after Battle of Mohi).

I wasn't saying it was 100% impossible, but it was certainly MUCH less than 50% possible seeing how many others utterly failed to fight mongols.
Europe was not better, in some regards (chivalry) they were less prepared to fight mongols.

I think it's amusing a lot of people here seem to think Kievan Rus was either a huge unified presence...

1. No one did imply this.
2. At Battle of Kalka river there were 18 princes, or armies of 18 principalities. How many more do you think there were?

but their cavalry would be rendered almost entirely useless

Except for the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Like if the forests of Germany were more severe than those of Siberia, Rus or Poland..
And like if HRE armies were masters of forest fighting, with their knights..

The cumens after all were trained from birth, and weren't some peasants you could "raise".

Mongols and other nomads close to their lifestyle were soldiers all their life.
Technically they were the same "peasants" or the actual nation, not knights, which had to be trained.
They were limited in number, but, including the subjugated nations which were drafted to mongol forces in large numbers, their manpower pool significantly exceeded that of HRE.
Combined with the reliance of HRE on knights and mercenaries, a.k.a. soldiers trained specifically for fighting, HRE is at a big manpower disadvantage here as losses would replenish very slowly.

As they took losses they couldn't just get more people immediately, this would be a huge setback and they'd have to either back off or raise conventional infantry armies that would be easily defeated by the superior heavily armored knights of the Western European nations.

1. They never committed their full might due to simply not having enough pasture/loot in the area for sustained operation. The total available native mongol troops was somewhere between 15-20 tumens, other nomads would add at least 10 more tumens to that and additionally they did draft locals (mostly as infantry, used for sieging and assaulting fortresses).
2. Heavy knights are inferior to horse archers due to speed differences. They are inferior to massed light cavalry due to lower maneuverability. I quoted a source already on this. I find it amusing how they are sometimes considered the universal panacea for any combat situation when their downfall was already in prelude by Mongol arrival (see "Crossbow"). It's almost the same as saying German Tigers would've won the war "if only there were more of them".

Plus I am sure the Pope would be scared shitless and call in a bunch of crusades, and hopefully the mountains would keep him safe long enough for the rest of the Christian countries to unite...

1. Yes he did. Multiple times. Nothing changed. Really, are you just guessing?
2. What mountains? Mongols crossed Caucasus, Carpatians with little delay and fought in Tibet. There are no mountains in Europe that could be expected to stop them. Alps can be passed through NE Italy, near Venetia, just as Huns and other steppe warriors (Magyars, Avars) did.
3. Is there a historical precedent of "christian countries uniting" in medieval? I can only think of anti-napoleonic coalition and it took them quite a lot of beatings to finally realize they HAVE to unite and act coherent.

Since Hungary and Poland were the only Catholic country that were even invaded (iirc) by the Mongols, and Hungary successfully repelled with Poland being only partially occupied, it's impossible to say with 100% certainty that this wouldn't have happened.

Where are you pulling this bullshit from?
Hungary was utterly defeated as well as Poland (with a distraction force).
Mongols left only because the Great Khan Ogedei died and they had to convene for kurultai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe#Invasion_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary

The traditional European method of warfare of melee 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. The New Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 29 says that "Employed against the Mongol invaders of Europe, knightly warfare failed even more disastrously for the Poles at Legnica and the Hungarians at Mohi in 1241. Feudal Europe was saved from sharing the fate of China and Muscovy not by its tactical prowess but by the unexpected death of the Mongol's supreme ruler, Ogedei, and the subsequent eastward retreat of his armies."

In "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples", Winston Churchill wrote:

But Asia too was marching against the West. At one moment it had seemed as if all Europe would succumb to a terrible menace looming up from the East. Heathen Mongol hordes from the heart of Asia, formidable horsemen armed with bows, had rapidly swept over Russia, Poland, Hungary, and in 1241 inflicted simultaneous crushing defeats upon the Germans near Breslau and upon European chivalry near Budapest. Germany and Austria at least lay at their mercy. Providentially in this year the Great Khan died in Mongolia; the Mongol leaders hastened back the thousands of miles to Karakorum, their capital, to elect his successor, and Western Europe escaped.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

binTravkin,because something happened in real life,it doesn't mean it must happen exactly the same in a game
And guys,stop derailing the thread!
I would like the mongols to be kind of a end-boss for ck2(even if you use cheats)

 

[Sebbedan]

No doubt that the mongols would have beaten western and central Europe if it wasn't for Ogedais death.
I mean really, what speaks in favour for Europe here? Anything at all?
Terrain? As mentioned they conquered the chinese.
European countries helping each other? The empires ruled by ONE emperor didn't seem to halt them very much.
Historical battles shows that the mongol tactics and armies were superior to the europeans they fought.

It's almost ashame that they are so teared apart by revolts in CK2.
Given that it is mongols we are talking about, they would have just started burning cities and massacring huge amounts of the population, if it had happened 1-2 years after the Golden Horde great expansion as it does in CK2. After all, they didn't really need the people or the land after all.. They just took it because they could. Lovely culture.

 

[binTravkin]

I wasn't implying it must happen exactly the same, but if the historical or any other IRL related argument is used to change the game in that or the other way, it must use correct historical/IRL information.
There has been a lot of myths floating around in this thread, was just feeling that mongols deserved some justice.

And I agree and already said, they should be the end boss and you should either be saved by very hard work or by waiting out until the Great Khan dies and they go back to the steppe.

 

[Kanin_Usagi]

I think the whole argument over what would have happened had they chose to keep going is moot, because they didn't and eventually their empire broke up. That's it. But I do have to say that the whole "Mongols beat China so Mongols could beat Europe" a retarded ass argument. Chinese and European fighting styles and political ideologies were so different that there is really no way to compare the two. Yes, the Mongols steamrolled pretty much everyone they ever fought, but at the same time there are ways to beat highly mobile forces. All it takes is to pin them down in a melee (think how Alexander the Great did it to the Persians) and defeat them with superior infantry. In fact, if I were a medieval kingdom, I'd probably use light cavalry to pin them in place (fully expecting them to all die) while I used a combination of knight and pikemen to pincer them. Or something to that effect.

But hell, without a time machine there is absolutely NO WAY OF KNOWING how the Mongols would have done in Italy, France, the HRE, England, or anywhere else they might have gone doom mongering, because they didn't. The Huns were not the Mongols, the Jin dynasty was not Western Europe, and Crusader Kings II is not a military simulator, or infallible. So really, all the arguing is moot.

And to stay on topic, I've never directly faced the Mongols in my games before (my one Kievan game got kinda boring) but I really don't think they need to be buffed or nerfed in any dramatic fashion. I have yet to see them go much farther than they did historically (unless you count them going into Finland for some reason) so they're fine the way they are.

 

[unmerged(533139)]

There is no reason to think that the other side is standing still while you are adapting.
If the other side has inherently better leadership, they are likely growing their gap vs you.
One example right off the bat is mongols lenghtening their feigned retreats as a response of enemies realizing they were not real.

Not really, look at Napoleon.. he started off having superior military tactics and strategy but decades later the enemy adapted while he stayed mostly the same. For example using column formation at the Battle of Waterloo instead of row formation against the English (the English used row formation). Column formation is great, its very scary, but you don't want to use it when you're numerically inferior since you are killing less soldiers with each volley.

Everyone makes mistakes, other people just need to capitalize on them, plus consider that the Mongols would go through ever changing generals and eventually they would get someone whose not a brilliant strategist+tactician.

There are numerous examples of professional armies with professional generals going against technically irregulars such as the medieval knights.
The outcomes speak for themselves, including the mongol conquests.

Yes, well the general matters a lot just like the soldiers. If you think about it after a few years of fighting in a row they'd have plenty of experienced soldiers and officers, so this would be fairly moot. Think about how U.S. didn't have a standing army during the Revolutionary War, but they were able to fill up a lot of elite soldiers/officers from the previous French and Indian War who were accustomed to English warfare. Then they were able to use their inferior single armies to fight the English armies by abusing their huge territories and superior knowledge of local terrains.

What is a "holy army" anyway?

Faith being a major uniting factor is just your theory.
It didn't keep the christians from being almost constantly at war with each other.

Yes, "if they believed".
The correspondence Batu had with HRE clearly showed, they didn't, just as the Polish and Hungarians.
A few major battles later it wouldn't make a difference what they believe anymore (see Hungary after Battle of Mohi).

I wasn't saying it was 100% impossible, but it was certainly MUCH less than 50% possible seeing how many others utterly failed to fight mongols.
Europe was not better, in some regards (chivalry) they were less prepared to fight mongols.

Well I'm with you there. I'm only speculating, but the other religions didn't have a strong central religious authority like the Catholics did. The Orthodox churches were all splintered for example.

In terms of faith being a uniting factor, it's really a lot stronger than a lot of people think. People unite in terms of great turmoil, and having something in common besides a common enemy is even better. It's also one thing to unite to take over some far away lands (Jerusalem) which haven't been in Christian hands for hundreds/thousands of years and another to unite to prevent the enemy from sacking your city next year if it successfully sacks your allies' cities this year. That's a very real threat.
[/quote]

1. No one did imply this.
2. At Battle of Kalka river there were 18 princes, or armies of 18 principalities. How many more do you think there were?

Well people seem to think that the entirity of Kievan Rus (at the extents) were all united in defending against the Mongols. Untrue, at the Battle of Kalka for example it was the Principality of Kiev and Vladimir-Suzdal that were participating. The other "princes" or "principalities" were vassals of the two greater principalities. I don't like the translation of "prince" since they were all just Knyazes, roughly Counts with the Great Knyazes being roughly Dukes. Not even a king or anything (the Great Knyaz of Kievan Rus was the closest.. but it was later one of the Ruriks who be

Except for the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Like if the forests of Germany were more severe than those of Siberia, Rus or Poland..
And like if HRE armies were masters of forest fighting, with their knights..

Please show me some evidence that the Mongols went as far north as the Siberian taiga and had major battles there. The Principality of Novgorod for example (which had a lot of taiga) simply surrendered since they had the Teutonic Knights to worry about coming from the West.

Moreover just because there are forests there doesn't mean its an automatic win.. the commander has to be smart enough to take advantage of it and not make dumb mistakes like chase after feigned retreats (out of the forest).

Mongols and other nomads close to their lifestyle were soldiers all their life.
Technically they were the same "peasants" or the actual nation, not knights, which had to be trained.
They were limited in number, but, including the subjugated nations which were drafted to mongol forces in large numbers, their manpower pool significantly exceeded that of HRE.
Combined with the reliance of HRE on knights and mercenaries, a.k.a. soldiers trained specifically for fighting, HRE is at a big manpower disadvantage here as losses would replenish very slowly.

The point is that they had to train children from birth, even after occupying territories and if they wanted to use them as effective cavalry they'd have to train them from birth. If they just took untrained people (like the Europeans did) they'd be on equal footing.

1. They never committed their full might due to simply not having enough pasture/loot in the area for sustained operation. The total available native mongol troops was somewhere between 15-20 tumens, other nomads would add at least 10 more tumens to that and additionally they did draft locals (mostly as infantry, used for sieging and assaulting fortresses).
2. Heavy knights are inferior to horse archers due to speed differences. They are inferior to massed light cavalry due to lower maneuverability. I quoted a source already on this. I find it amusing how they are sometimes considered the universal panacea for any combat situation when their downfall was already in prelude by Mongol arrival (see "Crossbow"). It's almost the same as saying German Tigers would've won the war "if only there were more of them".

Ok in regards to #1 I don't see that refuting any of my point but good to know. In regards to #2 I said heavy knights were superior to infantry and nothing more.. it's obvious that they are inferior to Mongolian light cavalry/archers since they'll ride slower and get tired faster all while getting shot at.

1. Yes he did. Multiple times. Nothing changed. Really, are you just guessing?

http://mongolconquest.devhub.com/blog/724254-the-first-mongol-attacks-on-the-latin-west/
There was a crusade in 1241 but it dissolved before it made contact with the Mongols, basically political infighting since it wasn't acknowledged as a serious threat yet. What other called crusades are you referring to?

2. What mountains? Mongols crossed Caucasus, Carpatians with little delay and fought in Tibet. There are no mountains in Europe that could be expected to stop them. Alps can be passed through NE Italy, near Venetia, just as Huns and other steppe warriors (Magyars, Avars) did.

Mountains are only relevant if the commanders take advantage of them by setting up chokepoints there.. if they pass unharassed well I guess it doesn't matter now does it?

3. Is there a historical precedent of "christian countries uniting" in medieval? I can only think of anti-napoleonic coalition and it took them quite a lot of beatings to finally realize they HAVE to unite and act coherent.

No but again as I've been saying the Catholic nations hardly took any beatings from one collective entity to be scared into uniting (as in my Hungary/Poland reference).

Where are you pulling this bullshit from?
Hungary was utterly defeated as well as Poland (with a distraction force).
Mongols left only because the Great Khan Ogedei died and they had to convene for kurultai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe#Invasion_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary

Different interpretations of the same source, if you look in there it says that Hungary's countryside was occupied but not the castles/forts. Then they left shortly thereafter (it doesn't matter why, only that they did). A fully conquered Hungary would imply that all the castles are conquered as well.. since they weren't fully conquered and they left it's not hard to see why some European rulers would take that invasion lightly.

Ditto for Poland where it says southern and eastern Poland was occupied http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Poland

In "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples", Winston Churchill wrote:

Good stuff, completely agree there. They'd have to lose quite a few battles before they learned how to counter the enemy. Nothing surprising there.

 

[Kanin_Usagi]

Just gonna leave this here...

 

[Avicenna]

We can barely decide what has happened in history - it's an utter fool's errand to try to force your argument of what could have happened.

I am, however, a fool.

'The Mongols' is a pretty flimsy catch-all term. The Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate spring to mind. Their conquests were spread over too vast a landmass. I would say that while the Mongols would beat the average medieval force every day of the week, the old 'Romans v Han Chinese' springs to mind. It wouldn't happen, for a number of reasons.

The Mongols hit a barrier with the Central European states - yes, barriers can be broken, some quite easily, but you need a reason to break them. Why didn't the Ilkhanate stretch to Morocco? Why would it. There was no real reason for the Mongols to go till they reached the Atlantic. There is such a thing as too much hassle. China was hassle, but it was on the Mongol doorstep, painfully advanced and excruciatingly rich. It was worth the hassle. Pushing into Europe would involve amassing an invasion force, recon, movement through difficult terrain, a lot of resistance... and for what? It was not China, it was not Persia, it was not worth the hassle.

The Mongols shouldn't steamroll W. Europe, not because they couldn't, but because they wouldn't.

 

[binTravkin]

The Mongols shouldn't steamroll W. Europe, not because they couldn't, but because they wouldn't.

Yes, because Batu khan was planning to do exactly that (see sources).

Sorry, guys, you really need to up the knowledge on mongols and stop "interpreting sources".
It's faster and easier than to write long posts full of "gut feeling", "retarded ass argument" and other intangibles.

 

[sharkeyanti]

As to the topic...

I am playing a CK2+ game as Georgia. I took land from Terteroba before the Mongols showed up. Ilkhanate obliterated the Seljuks, going all the way to Jerusalem, Egypt, and the Edge of ERE. The Golden Horde easily took land all the way through Rus and Lithuania, also taking the Duchy of Alania from me. I was surrounded on both sides by these invaders. The Golden Horde fell apart 40 years after appearing, and the Ilkhanate has been dealing with infighting for awhile. The conquest CB might be powerful, but they just can't maintain the doomstack after awhile. All you need to do is be patient. Sure, if you play on the eastern edge of the map you're probably toast. But I played as an independent kingdom right up next to both of them and survived. Just make sure your demesne is as far west as possible.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Yes, because Batu khan was planning to do exactly that (see sources).

Sorry, guys, you really need to up the knowledge on mongols and stop "interpreting sources".
It's faster and easier than to write long posts full of "gut feeling", "retarded ass argument" and other intangibles.

Because Batu Khan is every mongol leader and every mongol soldier/citizen

 

[Lord Finnish]

Yes, because Batu khan was planning to do exactly that (see sources).

Aye. One of the few things I know about Golden Horde is that its mission was to conquer land all the way to the Atlantic. I think their AI should be programmed to do that, giving Eastern Europe a whole world of hell for the last 200 years of the game.

 

[Avicenna]

Yes, because Batu khan was planning to do exactly that (see sources).

Sorry, guys, you really need to up the knowledge on mongols and stop "interpreting sources".
It's faster and easier than to write long posts full of "gut feeling", "retarded ass argument" and other intangibles.

Aren't your manners impeccable.

You name the planning on one invasion - one man's plan for an invasion. How long were the Mongols capable of such a feat? And yet you name a handful of botched plans. I'll be sure to tell Paradox that any game they make in the ancient world should have Alexander the Great threatening China because Alexander wanted to push past the Indus, and look what he did to the rest of the world.

I like that you ignore everything else I say, funny thing is that I wasn't disagreeing with you per se, just that you clearly think that anyone with a slightly different opinion to yours is wrong. I say they were capable of it, but that there wasn't the will, you throw back one man and call me an idiot. Good luck in the real world.

Because Batu Khan is every mongol leader and every mongol soldier/citizen

This. Lets base the capabilities of Napoleonic France on the unfulfilled wants of Napoleon as well while we're at it. 'he planned it you idiot ' isn't the same as 'it was a long-term and continual goal that was again and again acted upon'. People plan a lot of things - history is made up of the things people MANAGED to do.

 

[imperium3]

Just going to wade in on the "Could the Mongols have conquered Europe?" argument. In my opinion: no, they couldn't.

The Mongols were nigh-unbeatable in the field. Sure, some terrain would have given great difficulties, such as the thick forests of the HRE and the general dampness, but that would probably not have stopped a hypthetical full-scale invasion. The Europeans had a few things that the Mongols hadn't really faced before, such as the armoured knights and in particular the humble crossbow (European crossbows are much more powerful, though slower, than the ones the Chinese used and inflicted considerable losses on the Mongols at the battle of Mohi). But the Mongols were overall superior, I'd say.

The big difference though is, castles. Sure, the Mongols were experts in siege warfare and had captured quite a lot of massive fortifications in their conquests of Persia and China. But they were unprepared for the sheer number of castles in Europe (a side-effect of feudalism). See, in a large empire like China, all the fortifications you need are strong borders like the Great Wall and probably other castles, and maybe your main cities would be well-defended. This is fine for the Mongols, because they can mass all their strength to crack the borders and then run amok over the whole empire. Europe was different because it was far less stable, and every lord had his own castle of varying size and strength. A lot of them, especially out in relatively poor Eastern Europe, wouldn't have been terribly impressive and wouldn't last ten seconds against a full-scale assault. But there were too many for the Mongols to attack.

That's what happened in Hungary. The Mongols crushed King Bela's army in the field, and forced him to flee the country. But Hungary was full of small castles, large castles and fortified cities, each of which had its knights, waging a guerrilla struggle against the invaders. When the Mongols decided to leave, they had no fewer than 400 (IIRC) castles under siege. Bela survived and learned the lesson, and by the time the Mongols came back (admittedly far weaker by that time) eastern Hungary was full of stone castles which turned them back.

And bear in mind, France and Germany had many far stronger castles than anything in Hungary...

 

[magritte2]

I also tend to think that while beating any European army in the field (except maybe if they get trapped in an alpine pass or something) would not be too difficult, ruling Europe would have been a different proposition. China was a relatively centralized state. You defeat the Emperor's armies capture the major cities and you can more or less take over the Imperial administration and collect vast wealth. But sacking Paris and capturing the Chateau de Vincennes (or whatever was the French king's royal residence at the time) doesn't mean much of anything when every po-dunk baron has a castle to cower in and wait for you to go away. Even if it were feasible, it simply wouldn't have been worth the trouble. Europe wasn't rich enough to justify the nuisance of capturing so many fortifications.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Lets not forget that if there was much interfighting with the conquests the mongols had,what kind of chaos would have happened a few years they conquered all of europe(because either of some injury,black death or anything the khan would have died after so many conquests)

 

[bmullins0118]

the topic has nothing to do with your tl;dr arguing..

 

[unmerged(533139)]

I would say its only overpowered in the hands of a human player, the AI is too dumb to handle the infighting once the Mongols grow large enough. They always get big and then expansion halts in my games before they even reach the HRE.

If Mongols were playable by humans (in a later DLC?) then definitely the mechanic needs to be addressed. Can't Muslims take over whole kingdoms at once anyway by spending 500 piety?