The Mongols would have conquered Europe

Rebuttal". .. smoking walls were all that remained of the splendour that once was Kiev[the smoke came from] bright domes [which] became a prey to the flames"That does not prove anything. For all we know, the walls could have been on the verge of collapse when the gate fell, and most likely were already damaged, seeing as they were on fire. "Kiev just had a thick double-wall. "My opponent concedes this point, then. "As I said, castles were well-stocked and could survive longer without supplies than field armies could. If the Bohemians cut off the supply chain and the farmers burnt their crops (remember that the Pope had ordered all Christians to support the warriors at Liegnitz), the Mongols would have been unable to besiege anybody. "And what would have happened to the peasants? They couldn't have gone into the castles- they wouldn't have anywhere near enough food! Taking their animals with them doesn't work either, because what would the animals eat? Only the major castles grew their own crops [1. . http://www.medieval-castles.net...], the rest brought in food from outside and could not support anything more than the garrison. Even if many of them had been able to hold off the Mongols, they didn't need to conquer every single castle. It would be like island-hopping in WWII. Not to mention that the Mongol came from the the semi-desert steppes, and knew how to live off of the land. "Venice knew the size of the Mongol army, and knew that they would conquer Venice given the opportunity. "That is incredibly unlikely. There have been many, many examples of cities paying tribute to the Mongols and being left alone [2. . http://www.enotes.com...]. My opponent's case rests on his assumption that they would have had to conquer Venice, which I earlier suggested but did not assume to be likely. "Venice could still trade on this route using Byzantium as a conduit. In fact, that's actually exactly what they ended up doing later. "I don't know when this was, but I do know that Byzantium later (1263-1328) became an ally of Mongolia [3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I also know that Venice and Byzantium were having disputes at the time, helped along by the Fourth Crusade [4. . http://www.britannica.com...], and that Venice and Mongolia had signed a trade agreement [5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;-(High Middle Ages)]. "I invite my opponent to explain what kind of psychological warfare WOULD have worked, rather than bring up all these irrelevant examples. "Terror tactics. Murdering all those who resisted but sparing those who accepted Mongol rule. It operates on the same principle of simply giving the enemy a chance to live, provided they did not join the enemy. This would have been made all the more effective by the very nature of feudalism. In fact, "Frederick's rule was a major turning point towards the disintegration of a central rule in the Empire. " [6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;-(Hohenstaufen dynasty)]. Would the peasants have fought against the Mongols while their lieges sat in castles? Moreover, would the soldiers (who were loyal to their liege, not to the Pope) want to be trapped by the "horsemen from hell," without supply routes, contact with the outside world, or hope of reinforcements to wait for some undetermined time in the future when the enemy would retreat? Having a few castles under siege is one thing, having entire regions be trapped is another. And since the lieges were in control of their castles, not the Pope or the King at that point, what would be stopping them from surrendering to or joining the Mongols after a few months when they saw they couldn't win? "The Mongols had no vast spy network in Europe. They chose to rely on the Venetians. "This is blatantly false. While they did strike a deal with the Venetians, they certainly did not rely on them [7. . http://members.tripod.com...]. One of their methods was to have merchants enter the foreign lands to provide military intelligence [8. . http://www.etudeshistoriques.org...]. Furthermore, Con's entire claim is reliant on the supposed hostility of Venice towards the Mongols, which I have already proven to be unfounded. "Note that it says nothing about them falling - they were the powerhouses of Europe at the time of the Mongol invasions. "Con took that completely out of context. I urge all voters to read the source themselves and ignore any more claims of my opponent in regards to it. [9. . http://abe-onhistory.blogspot.com...] "Wrong - they did respond. A large German contingent was present at the Battle of Legnica, the Germans fought the Mongols in a field battle near Breslau, and the Bohemians were at the time vassals of the Holy Roman Emperor. "The battle of Legnica was where the Mongols tricked the Poles by having a man say "Run! " causing them to become disorganized [10. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. This is a perfect example of the ineffectiveness of European alliances. "It wasn't just better crossbows that the Europeans had - it was also vastly better armor. " That is incorrect. Running out of space for full reply: [11 . . http://members.tripod.com...] "This is true - and might I add that there were also many more rivers in western Europe to cross. "I assume this is more west than the HRE. They could easily invade in the winter and cross the rivers when they were frozen. It would not be unfamilar to them. "The battle of Liegnitz. It was planned, several nations and the church jointly organised it, the soldiers were Europeans, and they resisted the Mongol advance. "And it was another excellent example of Europeans not being able to work together [12. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. "If the Church could convince the children of the children's crusade that they could take Jerusalem, then they could convince people to kill horses. "Turning the whole of Catholic Europe into a suicide cult is not a very good method of fighting off invaders. Your theory is flimsy at best and a utterly insane at worst. Would the peasants want to surrender to the Mongols, or kill their own animals and burn their own crops only to be murdered by them in the end? "My opponent is simply trying to say "Oh, they would have found a way we can't fathom. "No. What I described is how typical Mongol battles in Europe went. "The whole area is a massive valley. "Thank you for clarifying. "The only ways out are past Venice (where Bohemia would be), into France (where they would face Milan, Genoa and France), or into Italy (where they would face the Pope, Pisa and Florence). No matter who they attacked, the others would attack them from the rear. "I had assumed it would be small battle based on what my opponent said about being trapped. Now that I know he meant the whole Po valley, the situation becomes much easier. They would only have to wait until the northern Europeans were distracted by the Mongol advance before attacking Italy. The Po river valley is good cavalry terrain [13. . http://en.wikipedia.org...] and the Mongols could fight effectively on the hilly terrain in Italy [14. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. <-(like China)ConclusionCon has argued with unsubstantiated, vague, and exaggerated facts. I have provided sources for all of my claims while he has only given two in the entire Round Three. He has not been able to prove anything, and has often helped my case unwittingly. Contrary to my opponent's claims, the Mongols DID have the time and ability to do long sieges. They DID have the capability to fight and live in terrain unsuitable for cavalry/grazing. Most importantly of all, they DID conquer the most advanced civilizations of the world (China and Muslims).