Was Genghis Khan's death the most single important turning point in world history.

[Heraclitus]

But there is a difference... China was unified Europe was not.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
But there is a difference... China was unified Europe was not.

Are you kidding? At the time of the Mongol conquest, China proper was divided into at least three feuding dynasties: Western Xia, Southern Song, and Jin.

Perhaps a unified China could have resisted the Mongols, but as it was, the fragmentary state of the Chinese contributed to the Mongol conquest.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Are you kidding? At the time of the Mongol conquest, China proper was divided into at least three feuding dynasties: Western Xia, Southern Song, and Jin.

Perhaps a unified China could have resisted the Mongols, but as it was, the fragmentary state of the Chinese contributed to the Mongol conquest.

I mean more allong the lines of a common identity and that region being unified for most of its history in a single state.

[BeBMan]

I wouldn't underestimate mid-13th catholic Europe from which the Mongols only touched the periphery (Legnica/Liegnitz was 1241 IIRC, shortly afterwards they won another battle in Hungary before Ögedai died).

It wasn't politically unified in terms of a single "empire" like Rome, but that doesn't play much of a role - first because Euro feudal rule doesn't work like the "territorial state" that emerged later or even "nation states" we have today. We already saw the same politically diverse Europe leaving the "strategic defense" it had during the earlier middle ages and going on a expansionist spree in all directions (crusades, reconquista, northern expansion, baltics - and except in the ME successfully) with religion providing one key force for mobilization throughout Europe without needing a unified "Euro empire" or so.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by BeBro
I wouldn't underestimate mid-13th catholic Europe from which the Mongols only touched the periphery (Legnica/Liegnitz was 1241 IIRC, shortly afterwards they won another battle in Hungary before Ögedai died).

It wasn't politically unified in terms of a single "empire" like Rome, but that doesn't play much of a role - first because Euro feudal rule doesn't work like the "territorial state" that emerged later or even "nation states" we have today. We already saw the same politically diverse Europe leaving the "strategic defense" it had during the earlier middle ages and going on a expansionist spree in all directions (crusades, reconquista, northern expansion, baltics - and except in the ME successfully) with religion providing one key force for mobilization throughout Europe without needing a unified "Euro empire" or so.

I think a unified European army mobilized by religion (instigated by the pope for example) would come way too late. The crusader armies weren't that organized, especially at first, and it would take a lot of effort, time, and organisational talent to get everyone to work together, with a fixed hierarchy, line of command etc. I'm a little bit sceptical!

[BeBMan]

Yes, crusader armies weren't the prime example of military discipline and organization but that was the rule in medieval Euro warfare, with some exceptions (military orders for example). But that as well has to do with the nature of feudal rule where personal bonds to vassals and the personal authority of rulers were much more important for an army than a strict military hierarchy with a clear chain of command.

Still, the same system didn't stop them from being militarily successful for quite a time. And difficult to say how much effort and time was needed, for example from the beginning of the first crusade to the siege of Nicaea and the victory against Seljuks at Dorylaeum (both a bit east of Constantinople) they needed not that much given the conditions (time to prepare contingents from various European areas, get them together, march via land, via Constantinople where the Byzantine emperor halted them for some time to get concessions etc, etc.)

The crusader states finally went down because of their strategical weakness being christian "islands" within a dominantly muslim environment. Without constant help from Europe in men and money they couldn't survive, like the Spanish muslim territories couldn't survive the reconquista in a similar situation. And Mongolians in Europe could have found themselves facing the same problems, even when being militarily successful first.

Of course it's impossible to say for sure what would have happened. Maybe we would all speak mongorian today

But generally I'm sceptical as well - esp. if Mongolian victories in Poland and Hungary meant that all of Europe was near a total collapse. Certainly they could have threatened other parts, esp. Italy and so the pope himself, but it's not as if they shattered the complete military might of Europe in those two battles.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by BeBro
Certainly they could have threatened other parts, esp. Italy and so the pope himself, but it's not as if they shattered the complete military might of Europe in those two battles.

Yeah that's true.

I agree with Spiffor here.

Had Europe been invaded by the Mongols, I don't see why the pattern would have been different: warlike nomads conquer political power, become the dominant class, and are slowly assimilated into the stronger local culture. It's not as if such a scenario hadn't occured in Europe before...

Especially given the small size of the Mongol invaders they wouldn't last that long. The Huns during the late-ancient time in Italy were a bit similar. They gained a lot of influence early on, but they gradually disappeared. Instead it were the Germans with their constant (military) presence (, knowledge, experience etc) and their large numbers that exerted a much more permanent and enduring influence in Italy.