I just wondered what people think of the idea of a Mongol conquest of Europe after the Battle of Legnica had the Khagan not died. Do you think the battle of is a reliable indicator of the ability of all medieval European armies when facing more mobile ones like the Mongols? Many people put up arguments about the ability of Mongol bows in wetter weather and of the effect of more numerous and denser forests in Europe but these are heavily disputed.

Mongols were not just horse soldiers. They fought on foot and in rough terrain if necessary. They travel by horse. But they were not restricted to cavalry tactics only. This is amply illustrated by the fact they took far more fortified cities far more efficiently than any other power in history. Mongols always traveled with large numbers of siege engineers (many were Chinese and Korean.)

The Europeans would have had little chance.

-------------------------------------------------
That's for tinting your hair red, arse-kisser!

Don't dismiss the fact that Europeans were just as well versed in siege warfare as any other power and of course Mongols could fight on foot but then would they not have lost their primary military advantage?

some logistical considerations

mongols would have depended logistically for they mounths from the steppes far distant from western europe

and they also depended in conquesting southern china from mostly northern chinese auxiliaries, not on themselves

you have also to consider this in valuing a mongol offensive in western europe

western europe was also more denswely populated and heavily fortified (more then 10,000 castels in germany alone) then eastern one

they would need create a base in eastern Europe as was northern China for operating in western Europe, IMO

otherwise they could made only some destructive but limited raids, IMO

The huns with similar lifestyle and tactics to the mongols did it,so I can't see why mongols, the most powerful military yet seen couldn't. Lets remember that the Huns were fight a vastly superior military (Romans) compared to 13th centry Europeans. Certainly the historians (mordern and mediveal) believe that mongols would had annaliate Europe.


Quote:Don't dismiss the fact that Europeans were just as well versed in siege warfare as any other power
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are on the defensive siege is usless because you are being attecked. Anyway it's unlikely that the Euro siege technology would have saved their a$$ since mongols don't have strong forts or towns in europe for them to lay siege on!! (duh)

PS: This is the first post on hisotry forum in 2007

@waleed

really roman army disappeared long centuries before the hun invasion mainly as consequence of civil wars and low military allocations

the last remnants of a roman army disappeared in the battle of Adrianople

the roman army of the hun invasions were mostly of barbaric auxiliaries and allied

As Mario has mentioned, the Romans were a dead power when the Huns gave it the killing blow, and even then, it was the Goths that sacked Rome, not the Huns.


The Mongols were bested actually by Hungarian forces in 2 of 4 battles, and that was a shock to the Mongols... Not a very widly known fact.

The Mongols would have found it hard fighting deeper in European territory, it would have been a logisitcal nightmare... They had no maps, no idea of the terrain, the people.

However Europe was lucky to be spared from this conquest or at least raping and looting...




Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

According to Wikipedia Batu Khan had "spies" in Europe for ten years making maps and assessing individual states and that the Mongols had some of the best spies. This not only a completely unattested statement but misleading as they were probably not spies in the modern sense, but scouts. No doubt they did have knowledge of Europe though.

Europe was at a weak point in its military history. Had it been another 100 years later they would have met with the more professional armies that began to appear at that point such as Italian Condottieri, the Flemish, and the English troops (who also had the advantage of the Longbow).

In a similar way as the English 100 years later, had a crusade been sanctioned against the Mongols perhaps better soldiers than those of seen in the East could have been produced. The Crusaders had shown that European methods of Warfare were not inferior to assaults by horse archers and light cavalry. To the opposite based on the outcome of the Battle of Legnica is quite narrow minded as the quality of the troops at that battle were generally quite poor and certainly did not represent fully the type of warfare in the West of Europe.

Jamal Al-Waleed
The huns with similar lifestyle and tactics to the mongols did it,so I can't see why mongols, the most powerful military yet seen couldn't. Lets remember that the Huns were fight a vastly superior military (Romans) compared to 13th centry Europeans. Certainly the historians (mordern and mediveal) believe that mongols would had annaliate Europe.

Hi

good point except that the Huns were actually defeated.

At the battle of the Catalaunian field (battle of Chalon) by an army of Francks, Visigoth and Gallo-Romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chalons
(some say the biggest battle of the middle age in Europe)

The fate of the Mongols would have been worse: there is simply too many fortresses and castle in Western Europe, specially in Germany and France. If ever they could have crossed Germany and reached France, they would have been crushed there.

The leaving of the Mongols because of the death of the Khan is just a pretext.

Well the 13th Europe is weaker than Romans in their final days. Also even if the mongols didn't take the whole Europe I think they could at least went as far as central germany and balkans.

The Huns, Mongols, Scythians all were from the same tribe of nomadic warrior horse riders.

scythians were iranic tho.

mongols and huns were mongoliod

Fatih Sultan Mehmet

The Huns were Turkic, the Ottoman dynasty(& other Turkic beyliks who migrated to Anatolia and the ME) were descendants of the Eastern Huns(who didn't leave for Europe unlike the Western Huns).

---



http://fransizkalma.org/
http://simdihareketzamani.tripod.com/

"The Ottoman Empire. Like, what was this? A whole empire based on putting your feet up?"

Jerry Seinfeld

Quote: Hunnic Descendants The word "Hun" comes from the word "kun" in Turkish ...It means people, or nation. Many now accept that the Bulgars are the descendants of the Huns. The ancestor of the Bulgars is Kobrat Han, who was the son of Irnek. Irnek was the son or grandson of Attila. So the Bulgars are directly descended from the Huns. Their writings were a different version of the Turkish-Runic writing used in Mongolia. The Magyars (Hungarians) are also the descendants of the Huns (although modern Hungary itself also consists of a large number of Avar descendants mixed in - Ed). The dynasty of Arpad, which founded the present-day Hungary, is descended from the dynasty of Attila. The very name of the country comes from the name On-Ogur, which is a Turkish tribe. The Magyars consisted of six amalgamated Turkish tribes and one other Turkish tribe. Magyars and Bulgars were accepted by the Byzantines as Turkic. for example, the Magyars were called Turks by the Byzantines during the ninth and twelfth centuries. Both of these tribes have since been assimilated into the native peoples in which they migrated and settled and have lost their own cultural features. There are still hundreds of Turkish words in the Hungarian language. I hope these few examples will help you in clarifying the origin of the Huns. http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/FeaturesEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm

Bulgarians(Western Huns) and Turks(Eastern Huns) are neighbours today.

---



http://fransizkalma.org/
http://simdihareketzamani.tripod.com/

"The Ottoman Empire. Like, what was this? A whole empire based on putting your feet up?"

Jerry Seinfeld

@ ultrarep

some say the biggest battle of the middle age in Europe

It was the biggest battle (in terms man power) before the Dark Ages (late antiquity) so a few centuries before the start of the Middle Ages. The biggest battle (in terms man power) of the Middle Ages was one of the last, largely agreed to be that between the Polish and Lithuanian Alliance and the Teutonic Order at the Battle of Grunwald (Tannenberg)... Just to let you know...

@ Jamal-Waleed

The difference between the Europeans of the 13th century and the Romans was that there was no Professional armies, there wasn't a single army but a patch work of Kingdoms, and the Romans had fought Parthians before, that the Mongols used very similar tactics too. At it's Weakest, the Romans required the use of Barbarian Allies (mainly Gauls and Goths) too fill it's ranks and win it's battles.

@ Foxtrot_Red

Had the Mongols come a century later, there would have been a stronger Eastern cushion for the Mongols to hit. The Polish were finally unified into a decentralized Monarchical state, the Lithuanians with strong Horse cavalry tactics had conquered much of Kievian Rus and the Muscovite's had subdued the rest of the Russian states (but then again the reason Muscovy did that was the power of Kievian Rus was broken by the Mongols, and the same for the Lithuanians).

So in theory without the arrival of the Mongols, much of Eastern Europe would have been different...

Remember also, Western Europe was hit heavily with the Black Plague... which actually spared Poland (the only country) Milan and the Pyrenees (Basque)...

There would have been a lack of Manpower in Europe...





Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

This topic is not about the Huns so stop bringing it up.

There were no standing armies in 13th Century Europe, but professional forces, like the Crusaders consisting of professional men at arms and knights, could have been created for fear of outside threat. That was the nature of European warfare. Don't forget that the Mongols didn't have a standing army but still had a significant military reputation. Standing armies weren't required.

@ Foxtrot_Red

Was that aimed at me?



Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

Quote: The Europeans would have had little chance

But Panda what we do know is that the chinese where defeated humiliated and ruled for about 100 years until the Ming


Chinese state often like to take credit for the Mongols but they did not regard themselves as chinese on the contrary like the Manchurians they where masters of a subrace










Remember the USS Liberty
---------------------------------------------------------------






I would have made a good Pope."
- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)


I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us.
Pigs treat us as equals.
- Sir Winston Churchill ( 1874-1965)

The Mongols would have defeated any European force that stood against them.

At Liegnitz the Mongols crushed a larger force of Templars and Teutonic Knights, two of the most efficient and powerful military orders in Christendom. Many other German and Polish kinghts fought alongside them and they two were killed almost down to the last man.

If he had decided to move forwards into western Europe Sabotai would have called for Auxilliaries and other Mongols to support him. The issue of supply lines never mattered much for the Mongols as they were a people who lived off the land.

As or the issue of remonunts, that also would not have been a problem as each Mongol warrior had four horses under his charge. When oe tired out he would simply mount another one and if food was short he would drink the horses blood and if pickings were lean he would slaughter the horse and eat it.

On a lighter note.

These days its the Islamic month of Moharram, in which Muslims commemorate the martyrdom of the prophets grandsons at the hands of the wretched Caliph Yazid. Here in Pakistan (and some other countries too) the Shia flagellate themselves with chains, and also come on TV and sing sad songs.

Last night I was surfing through the channels on TV when I saw a group of men dressed in black crying while singing. A younger cousin of mine saw one of them and said "Look a Mongol".

Indeed one of the mournerswas a Hazara Shia who are descendents of the one thousand strong Mongol force left in Afghanistan by Chagatai Khan.
The others were all Punjabis so he stood out. He was also bald and had a sparsely growing goatee so he looked just like a stereotypical Mongol Warrior.


"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini

@ Darada

The Hungarians beat them in 2 of 4 battles... They used extensive knowledge of the terrain, quick (early) hussar type cavalry which used a Bow and sword combination attack, and used limited crossbows to devastating effect.

Remember, the Mongols would have fought in dense forest, not open plains. The Mongols were very unfamiliar with this style of warfare, especially if every few miles a massive castle rose up.

As a matter of fact, the Polish were a disunified country split into 5 principalities at the time... with each army being a easy defeat for the mongols. The Teutons were few in number at the time, and Templar's never took a place in the battle.

The Battle which speak of had only two armies form two principalities and one Teuton army which was grossly out numbered. The open plains favoured the Mongols heavily...



Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

News of war travels faster than novelty´s even in the dark ages, if and possible Europeans heard of
Mongols buchering Samarkand later a stronhold for Mongol´s horde we would have an early EU-Defence
Force to defend and strike back the Mongolian Hordes, as REZ says Europe was densly forrest (Bialyztock)
and many rivercrossing that make an army vournable to attacs,fortifikation´s and cities also.
And we would have a lot of "amazons" in the ranks to, a Swedish one is "Blanka" defender of southern
Sweden in the dark ages, Victorius against an invading army, probabilly Vende´s ore Danish.
A French nobel womman in 30 years war whit a few soldiers hold of an beligent army of thousands some years.

Do you wait when your neibur are butchered? and you next? and in those day´s a human´s lifespann was about
30 years, so how should the Mongol´s keep up whit it´s army suplies that´s needed to invade mainly a forrest and swamp infested continent as Europe was then?

To Red Coat how about URSULA? she was killed or took her life when invaders come to England? ore is it a legend only?

It might be wothwhile getting a good book on the subject.


In English I'd suggest: "The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe" by
James Chambers, get the 1988 2nd Edn. there are several printings.
or: "Storm from the East: From Genghis Khan to Khubilai Khan" by Robert Marshall

UglyChinese has a reasonable account of the 1232 attack on Hungary:
http://www.uglychinese.org/mongol.htm#2nd

in a nutshell:

The Mongols weren't 'beaten back' from Europe (though they did lose some minor skirmishes) . A well planned and sophisticated (both strategicaly and tactically) attack saw the defeat of Polish and German armies that were attempting to support the Hungarians. The main Hungarian and Cuman forces were then destroyed . However at this point the news of Ogadai's death reached the commander s and the armies were withdrawn (even at this stage there was considerable risk of civil war over the election of a new Khan).

Historians have contemplated ever since exactly how far the Mongols planned to go, and what would have happened had they reached Western Europe. It is, however, all conjecture as circumstances changed and they never made another serious assault.

regads..

"If he had decided to move forwards into western Europe Sabotai would have called for Auxilliaries and other Mongols to support him. The issue of supply lines never mattered much for the Mongols as they were a people who lived off the land.

As or the issue of remonunts, that also would not have been a problem as each Mongol warrior had four horses under his charge. When oe tired out he would simply mount another one and if food was short he would drink the horses blood and if pickings were lean he would slaughter the horse and eat it."

We're all very impressed by your knowledge of the Mongols... but things are always a lot more complicated. For example, contrary to your statement that logistics were unimportant to the Mongols, as an excuse used to justify the reason for inferior Mongol numbers at Liegnica, it has been put forward that the Mongol supply lines were strained. You see Mongol warfare, like most medieval warfare, is full of contradictions because it hasn't been fully resarched and all you have done is give examples of the oversimplified, poorly extrapolated hypothesis for a successful Mongol invasion of Europe that is all to common on the internet.

People talk about the Anglo-orientated history of the west, biased towards America and England. But seeing as how England was not involved in this debacle it appears Mongol history, on the internet at least, is biased towards the East. Asians trying to get one up on Europeans. The major "myths" of Legnica were "disproved" during the twentieth century, by authors taking advantage of improved world-wide education. Maybe its true, maybe it isn't, but seeing as how most of you have never done any field work at Legnica, I don't see how anyone is in a position to challenge me. Naturally neither have I, but then I'm not trying to advance my own views on how superior the Mongols were militarily. All I do know is that I don't know, and I believe that is a lot more valuable than the opinion of a third rate, amateur, "internet" historian who takes any bit of history which he see as favourable to his "underdog" people's past as true.

We have seen a shift away from this Anglo-orientated history (military history in our context) in the past few decades, largely a result of globalisation and more importantly the internet, to put it simply, but it does not mean that it is any more reliable than what came before it. It's why we get people stating the Katana was the best sword ever when clearly its impossible to tell; the Chinese mapped all the world but Europe in ships the size of the USS Nimitz; the Germans would have been victorious if it wasn't for over-reliance of the Allies on industry (although this revisionist history occurred a lot quicker). Further more, the situation is exacerbated by people comapring things that are completely out of frame, for instance the Chinese to the Romans or a recurve bow to a longbow and using it as a basis for some major deviation in history that could have occurred. The only thing I know is that "historical facts" found on these very trivial subjects which, let's face it, are left open to these very basic of historians (who are to no extent comparable to the historians who teach history that is widely accepted), are open to a wide variety of interpretations and don't need to be accepted by everybody.

Rczez,

As stated by someone earlier the Mongols knew siege warfare all to well, The Kingdom of Khwarizm had hundreds of walled cities and fortresses as did Nortehrn China, other than that they were no strangers to forests either.

Some of the Mongols first conquests were the reindeer herders of the Taiga forests, I know that comparing them to the Europeans is like comparing apples and oranges but the Mongols knew how to fight in forests.

Are you sure that their were no Templars at the battle? The well known writer of historical fiction Cecilia Holland says they were present, but then again as someone who has done a degree in East European in history you know what youre talking about.

Foxtrot,

Calm down dude. I am not just an Internet historian I read books too and many of your very own "Anglo-Saxon Historians" share my views.

I am not saying that the Mongols would have put an end to European civilization, but they would have defeated Europe's armies, probably left a horde or two to collect taxes and left. Much as they did in Muscovy.

"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini

Robert Marshall is a TV producer

his book is a popular work

@Rzecz sources reports "400 french templars" it was a detachment promised by the king of france, in theory many thousand of men but really the famous 400, it is disputed they were all real templar knights, more probably some templars their sergents and some knighst who fought with them

templar knights fought also side-by-side with the hungarians at Mohi and elsewhere

but you have to consider the great orders had no more then 1,200 brother knights and the larger main combat unit (the ones who had the age to fight and not charged with other mainly administrative roles) was no more then the famous 400

Teutonics had their force in Europe but the one of Templars and Knight of S. John was located in Holy Land

"mounts" the problem is they weren't a reserve but usually employed so they were tired after war and european land was unable to support them in such large number and for so long time

there is a reason geography imposed on Europe quality over quantity

then mongols conquered southern china by their northern chinese auxiliaries, mainly infantrymen, they hadn't any in Europe


Bianca Guaccero – 25 years old – from Bitonto. Bari, Apulia

The Templar were present agreed, however they were under the command of the Teutonic Knights and few in number, but we then have to mention the fact there were German Mercenaries, Ruthenian peasants and so on... However that is my fault, I did forget that the Templar's were presents, apologise and thanks for the correction.

Also, the Polish forces I mentioned were made of mainly Peasants, as the 'Noble's Democracy' was yet not formed for centuries more. This made any form of defense against the veteran Mongols an impossibility in terms of strategic fighting capabilities.

In these terms, the force that fought the Mongols was out numbered, grossly under qualified and the terrain favoured the light horse (with heavy cavalry support) tactics of the Mongols to the heavy armed (infantry based) tactics of the Western Ordered Knights (the Polish had a similar style of fighting to the Russian Principalities with a mix of Hungarian).

Some of the Mongols first conquests were the reindeer herders of the Taiga forests, I know that comparing them to the Europeans is like comparing apples and oranges but the Mongols knew how to fight in forests.

One must remember the 'Golden Horde' that entered Europe through Russia was not the size of the army that Conquered Persia.

Also, the infantry that were present in many key battles as they moved towards the West were becoming scarce as the Mongols started favouring horses to cut traveling time.

It is very easy to understand then, the Mongol cavalry men would have found it very difficult in European forests and even harder to challenge European Castles. The Infantry would have easily been beaten by the well adapted German soldiers (particularly the 'Landed Militia').



Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

Reindeer herders sound like they are not as sophisticated in terms of warfare as the Europeans were at that time.

For present days "european" mongols, just go to Kalmykia (Russian autonomous republic). It's geographically in Europe, surrounded by european peoples, but still inhabited by buddhist mongols.

The Mongol-European encounter lasted only a few months and ended with the annihilation of the European armies, the sacking of their cities, and the ravaging of their countryside by the Mongol horsemen. In sheer numbers the Europeans outnumbered the invaders almost four to one but the composition of those numbers was the failing of the former.

The European cavalry was formed by elaborate grades into Dukes, Barons, Knights, and Pages. The infantrymen followed their lord into battle, carried his weapons, cared for his horses, and guarded his camp—these footmen formed the bulk of the European armies. The story of each battle fought above displays graphically the weakness of such formations.

But even the European horsemen by themselves were no match for the Mongols. The heavily armored knights and their sturdy horses charged in a compact body to crush stationary enemy formations—they were ineffective against a rapidly maneuvering opponent. Their horses lacked the endurance for long-range movements, which the Mongols excelled in—moreover the Europeans lacked unity of command to coordinate their larger strategic moves. The Mongol-European contest usually ended with the unhorsed knights of a particular dukedom or religious order huddled in a group and fighting bravely to the last.

This brief but devastating encounter opened the eyes of observant Europeans. Frederick II of Austria, the King who had been saved by the Mongol withdrawal, remarked, “The Tartars are men of small stature but sturdy limbs; high-strung, valiant and daring, always ready to throw themselves into peril at a sign from their commander…they are mounted on better horses, they sustain themselves on choicer foods and wear garments less rude than our own.” He went on to declare that these Mongols were the punishment of God, visited upon Christendom for its sins.

Another contemporary European, Thomas de Spalato, wrote, “No people in the world is as able—especially in conflicts in open country—in defeating an enemy either by personal bravery, or by knowledge of warfare.”

The Pope Innocent IV called the Council of Lyons to discuss means of saving the “Church of God” from the Mongols. He sent Fra Carpini as an envoy to the Mongol court—this man observed the Mongol method of warfare, “Men and horses they wound and slay with arrows, and when men and mounts are shattered in this fashion, they then close in upon them.” Fra Carpini goes on to suggest, “Our armies ought to be marshaled after the order of the Tartars, and under the same rigorous laws of war. The field of battle should be chosen, if possible in a plain where everything is visible on all sides. The army should by no means be drawn up in one body, but in many divisions. Scouts ought to be sent out on every side…The Princes of Christendom ought to have many soldiers armed with strong-bows, cross-bows and artillery…our men ought to have good helmets, armor and horses.”

http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2006/03/discovery-of-europe.html

This brief but devastating encounter opened the eyes of observant Europeans. Frederick II of Austria, the King who had been saved by the Mongol withdrawal, remarked, “The Tartars are men of small stature but sturdy limbs; high-strung, valiant and daring, always ready to throw themselves into peril at a sign from their commander…they are mounted on better horses, they sustain themselves on choicer foods and wear garments less rude than our own.”

Even Asiatic barbarians had better clothing, food and horses than the medieval Euros. LOL

Actually, the Mongol and many of the Turkic tribes were garbed in Chinese silk under their armor. Much of the steel for their armor, swords and hand-held weapons were made in northern China. So were the heavy siege weapons.

Read Owen Lattimore, he said the nomadic tribes that grew under the shadow of the Great Wall were forged into all-conquering nations by the hammer of the inter-tribal steppes warfare and the anvil of the Chinese empire.

The bloody lands of the Ordos along the Chinese border was the crucible of empires. "There were mighty tribes who broke themselves upon the Empire and were lost to history. They were others greater still who survived the maelstrom to become conquerors - Huns, Tatars, Turks and Mongols. Blood and steel.

-------------------------------------------------
That's for tinting your hair red, arse-kisser!

Indeed,

If the Chinese did not continually push the Altaic hordesmen out of their Western Frontier they would probably not have ridden westwards towards the Middle East and Europe and Southwards to India.



"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini

"The Mongol-European contest usually ended with the unhorsed knights of a particular dukedom or religious order huddled in a group and fighting bravely to the last."

Usually? There was only one and that was at Legnica. Only one army was defeated and very few, if any, major settlements were sacked.

"In sheer numbers the Europeans outnumbered the invaders almost four to one but the composition of those numbers was the failing of the former."

Nobody knows for sure the actual numbers of Mongol Horsemen. It is not as if any undeniable physical evidence has been dug up at the site of battle, it's all really just estimation. To presume that the Mongols were outnumbered because of the weakness of their logistics is meaningless when really there is no accurate figure at all for their European opponents.

To say that individually, the heavily armored European horseman was intrinsically inferior to the light horse archer is also baseless. Without taking into account the unique discipline and communication which set the Mongols apart from their predecessors, the Mongol style of warfare was not much different from the Avars or the Seljuk Turks, who were groups with which the Europeans employed heavy cavalry successfully in the middle ages.

Legnica has been used as an example of the apparent backwardness of Medieval Europe, and most professionals on the subject would probably say the battle was little more than a skirmish because of the lack of evidence. Yet for obvious reasons its significance has been over-estimated. It can't be denied that a large amount of information, on the internet anyway, seeks to reappraise the Eurocentric history of the past, and while this is good, it seems that, from this example, the pendulum has swung too far and this view on the battle that is being presented is really no better that of the pyhrric victory for Henry that existed 100 years ago. More importantly, it can't be extrapolated, from what is really a battle clouded in controversy, that the Mongols would have had their way like that throughout Europe. Especially when considering how successful the Europeans were in the Crusades and against other horse-archer nations. As a matter of fact, the future Edward I of England and Charles of Anjou achieved a noted degree of military success against Babiars and his Mameluk forces during the Ninth Crusade in the 13th century, which was caused by the defeat of the Mongols by the very same ruler at Ain Julat in 1260.

One more thing. Does everybody really believe that it was solely because of the death of a leader that the Mongols never returned to Europe again, which is what is said to have happened?

"Read Owen Lattimore, he said the nomadic tribes that grew under the shadow of the Great Wall were forged into all-conquering nations by the hammer of the inter-tribal steppes warfare and the anvil of the Chinese empire."

You can shut your mouth. It was the Mongols and not the Chinese who founded the second largest empire in history, which incidentally, included all of China, not Europe. Whatever he says happened, the Chinese still can't take credit for it because clearly they didn't have the military capacity to achieve such an empire. Remember this, it was the Europeans who came to China first to demonstrate a superiority which from your view probably only existed for about fifty years, yet seeing as how the two cultures never met before that, how can anybody say for sure? You dodn't want to take into account the fact that for several hundred years Europe was on an equal footing, at least, militarily and culturally compared to China. Instead the highly exaggerated voyages of Zheng He probably serve as an indication of how "far ahead" China was in the 15th Century to you because that is the most obvious but superficial fact and to you, nullifies the idea of any further research. Add to this the poor quality of some of the sources that these "facts" have been developed from and the fact that Chinese history in the military field is still poorly under-researched. Like I said, Chinese military history is a more valued tool to the Chinese nationalist than the historian.