In addition, even a cursory reading of the Mongol Invasion of Southern Song will show that the Song dynasty maintained few castles; at the time of the Mongol invasion...it had 3. This meant the Mongols could capture the kingdom with a handful of simultaneous sustained sieges. In contrast, at this time, there were hundreds of castles in Europe, most built to withstand years-long sieges, and most within reinforcement range of their neighbors.
Furthermore, Western Europe back then was heavily forested. Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films. Traversing this wilderness would have been possible but difficult for small groups. For an army of mounted horsemen, it would have been extremely difficult. For an army of horsemen each requiring multiple horses, it would have been effectively impossible.
Combining the lack of grazing pasture for the horses, the wild forests preventing the Mongols from utilizing their hit-and-run tactics to any meaningful effect, and the necessity to carry out thousands of sieges and blockades against a well-fed and entrenched enemy, the Mongols had no chance to invade Western Europe.
And calling their tactics "hit and run" is a huge oversimplification, as is the rest of your points.
I think that's incredibly misleading. The Song dynasty had numerous impressive city walls, forts, fortified passes, etc. There's no reason to act as if the only worthwhile fortified structures are castles (should we overlook the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople because they weren't castles?).
> Today, there are few such dense forests in Europe, but the most comparable visual is probably the thick African jungles you see in Hollywood films.
Again, this is very misleading. We're talking about a period after most of the Great Clearance. It's also true that many of the woods that were left were maintained woods.
IIRC the Song also didn't have great castle making technology. Didn't they do earthen fortifications reinforced with clay bricks? And weren't the walled cities typically sitting on plains, possibly without a moat? That's a lot easier to attack than a composite stone wall sitting on a mountain.
That's a pretty bad answer. Look at the conquest of Southern Song - the Mongols were operating far from the steppe, they were up against a large number of fortified positions, and in terrain that wasn't well suited for them (Southern China is not "open country", like Tim ONeill claims). It also didn't fall quickly (the way he says the centralized polities fell), it took decades of devastating war.
It's true that people often exaggerate how close Western Europe came to being conquered by the Mongols. But people arguing against that idea often throw around just as much bad history.