I keep seeing these historic revisionist takes and it just leaves me... Empty inside, do these people believe that modern Tajikistan is flat? That China is an endless grassland? That Afghanistan, Georgia, the Koreas and East Manchuria, or heck even northern India and Pakistan, are all these places just empty plains? The entirety of you know.... Iran???

Hungary is no more mountainous than the places I mentioned above, I suppose arguing makes no sense here as I feel that these supposed lines or argument are somehow inherently related to a broader sense of "Western excepcionalism"

They couldn't take Dubrovnik (the first well fortified western European city), and also were defeated on mountainous terrain by the Bulgarians. They wouldn't been able to take something more fortified like Constantinople. They actually had clashes at the time, but it was mostly raids by the Mongols.

So, it is pretty clear. In Europe, the Mongolians did great on open terrain, planes, and cities that didn't have great natural defenses. They didn't do that well on cities that were better fortified, and with natural defenses (mountains). They raided and ransacked the areas, and moved on as they couldn't sustain a siege in such terrains.

"The Bulgarian victory can likely be attributed to the mountainous terrain, to which the Mongols were not accustomed.[16]"

That include the mountainous region of Nepal and Tibet.

From what we know of their administration, their focus was on maintaining control of the rich region around Beijing, Xanadu and Cheng du. Not so much the Eastern Europe.

I don't believe the Mongols ever dominated Tibet. They may have made inroads into grassy northern regions such as Kham. In fact I believe that Genghis as Emperor of China paid tribute to Tibetan rulers.

I'd like to see a source for Mongols crossing the Himalaya and impacting Nepal.

Then again... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Tibet

China was the real deal.

Constantinople ruler at the time, Baldwin II was either killed or captured Sources agree that the city started paying tribute to the mongol.

( one is a document excommunicating Baldwin for accepting overloadship from the mongols )

So the city was not taken but the situation was pretty bad.

Similarly, Bulgaria and Hungary were taken too if I’m remember correctly.

Yes. Western crusaders smashed altars and raped nuns. The first Latin Pope to officially apologize to us for this was John Paul II, in Anno Domini 2001, almost eight hundred years after the atrocity took place. This apology was rendered just 2 years after he controversially kissed a Koran.

>"What a beautiful scripture, containing teachings nigh-incompatible with our dogmas!! ちゅ〜 <3"

>"Ohhhhhhhh that one is for year 2099. Okay. I see what happened, I started a century too far into the Novus Ordo playbook. Sorry. Sorry. The pages got stuck together. What was on the start of this page? 2001? Apologizing for the atrocity? Ohhhhkay, right. Back on track."

2001 a Grace Odyssey.

That was used, apparently, as an excuse by the Crusaders killing Christians. A bunch of scum, even by their own standards. The Doge, 80 and blind, played that bunch like fiddle so. He got a mercenary army to sack one of his biggest economic competitors for free, and he got to keep the plunder.

When the Mongols returned to Poland a third time, in 1287-1288, with an even larger force than before, the invasion completely failed because the country's fortifications had been upgraded. The Mongols suffered significant losses and were turned back. During the first two invasions, Western Europe was significantly better fortified than Poland of 1287, so they would almost certainly have been smashed.

Those were prepping for a crusade, and got surprised by the mongols arrival.

They lost pretty badly. When the mongols did setup shop and administration, it sound like their focus was China. And not the backwater of Western Europe.

Not really. Genghis Khan's grandsons split the empire apart; only the part of it that was in China was focused in China. Everyone focused on the territory they controlled, for the obvious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_the_Mongol_Empire

The reason they paid no attention to Western Europe is very straightforward; the Mongols never reached Western Europe. But they reached Eastern Europe and they stayed there for centuries.

But what I wanted to highlight was that the most prized territory were in the east.

For instance in the division you linked the supposed ruler on the empire after Gengis Khan dead was a Yuan, sitting in Beijing and holding the Title or khan of khan. ( even if that did not worked out so well )

Anyway; I’m not an expert ,by far. I mostly regurgitate bits from the Dan Carlin show on the subject.

I remember him putting a emphase on how the Mongols were turned East first, culturally and in intends, and only eventually west.

( great in depth série, 10h or so long, even if I can’t stand his bombastic style )

So what? We also know they never reached either of those places. It's easy to have maps.

> For instance in the division you linked the supposed ruler on the empire after Gengis Khan dead was a Yuan, sitting in Beijing

Again, so what? A traditional title of the king of Assyria was "King of the Universe". It coexisted with the much less aspirational title "King of Assyria". But it didn't mean anything. Kublai Khan held a title that implied he held authority over other divisions of the Mongols.[1] And in fact he held no such authority, and nobody believed that he did. And...?

[1] Though that title wasn't just "Khan"... everyone in charge of anything was called Khan. What title do you think the head of the Il-khanate held?

I find it interesting, don’t you ? That’s all.