The Mongols would have conquered Europe

My opponent has presented his case, which, while intriguing, contains serious flaws. I will go into detail later.Rebuttal"Several other sources, however, drawing on Dmytro's account, do make reference to the fact that the walls, while smoking and battered, were still standing after the siege (if only implicitly) - see http://www.archive.org... one example. The walls did not fall - only the gate did."As interesting as Con's book seems, I do not have the time to search through it. I did start on it, and it deals with the Mongol invasion of Europe, but I could not find the mention of the siege of Kiev. Could point it out to me?"While Baghdad's walls were comparable, the siege was over a decade later (http://en.wikipedia.org......(1258)). In that time the Mongols took many more Chinese prisoners to work their catapults. The Mongol army at Baghdad was also much larger than the one assaulting Kiev (how much is not certain, but some historians think it may have been ten times larger), suggesting more siege weapons were also available, and most importantly, it was a different army."I concede this point, although it does not have much bearing on the actual invasion of Europe, which came eighteen years after the first attack. The average city was not anywhere near as fortified as Kiev [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...], and as I pointed out, those that were would have been isolated and starved out."This [execution of the Cumans] happened after the Mongols invaded."My point still stands. It was not only the Cumans that alerted Hungary to the Mongols, but also fleeing Russian nobles [2. http://novaonline.nvcc.edu...]. Surrounding the heavily fortified cities would still allow the Mongols to hunt down stragglers at their leisure."The Venetians controlled the trade of two important commodities - wool and wine - and thus knew more about Europe than any Mongol spy network could ever hope to accomplish. The Mongols knew this. They were certainly not showing any of the characteristic Mongol pre-invasion signs, such as sending out emmissaries with ridiclious demands."I meant willingly. Mongolia pretty much dominated world trade at that point due to their monopoly of the Silk Road [3. http://en.wikipedia.org...], and other nations (like Byzantium) realized how much they stood to gain from an alliance with the Mongols. Even Venice itself was dependent on the Silk Road."I will agree that the Mongols made both the Japanese and Europeans fear them, I disagree that they made them not want to fight. Persia is different - you couldn't simply say "All I am after is the Pope" because immediately every Christian nation on Earth would fight the Mongols. Religious loyalty is much harder to stop than Persian-style political loyalty."Strawman. I was trying to show how the Mongols excelled at psychological warfare. Nowhere did I suggest using the same tactic against the Pope. My opponent's claims fall flat because the Crusades were of a different era, and the vast spy network the Mongols had would have kept them informed and ready.Japan would be a bad example because the Mongols' invasion fleets were simply devastated by typhoons."Your own source labels them [the Holy Roman Empire] one of two "powerhouses of Europe."Had my opponent read my source [4. http://abe-onhistory.blogspot.com...] carefully, he would have realized that they called it the "powerhouse of Europe" to emphasize how far it had fallen, due to the power-struggle between the kings and the Pope. The Holy Roman Empire did not respond militarily or otherwise to the Mongol invasion of Hungary or Poland, even though according to Con it should have had some sort of effect on the Europeans. The Mongols, on the other hand, were very effectively organized, communicated quickly and without difficulty, and had vastly superior troops."The terrain at Mohi is steppe - exactly the terrain that the Mongols are most suited to fighting in!"I concede this point as I misread the source. What he does not mention, however, is that it is only because of an escaped slave did the Hungarians know about the attack, and that they caught the Mongols by surprise when they were crossing the river. I believe Con would agree with me that that is not ideal terrain for horses."Before their retreat, they were preparing their battle strategies."So Con can provide me with examples of planned organized European resistance? Please do."Castles were designed to last for months in case of a siege, which were very common back then. It is likely a castle would have lasted longer without supplies than the Mongol army."The Mongols pillaged food and supplies. Even in the wilderness they could have easily survived. We are talking about nomads, men who drank their horses' blood when water ran low [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Traditional supply lines were not critical to the troops' survival."You can't pillage horses if there are no horses."This stems from my opponent's assumption that the Europeans would have killed their own horses before allowing the Mongols to get to them out of some sort of religious obligation. This is a massive stretch and Con has not provided any evidence that they would have actually done so."I will grant that my opponent's strategy has the major advantage of avoiding a sea crossing (though it involves many major river crossings), and being fought on more Mongol-friendly terrain since it avoids northern Europe. The disadvantages are manifold. First, it would be even easier to cut off the Mongol supply line between the Alpes and the sea. The Holy Roman Empire, which controlled significant tracts of land in the Po river valley still, along with France, who were at the time strongly allied with Milan, the Bohemian army, still marching around looking for the Mongols, the Italian states of Genoa, Pisa, Milan and Florence, as well as the Papal States themselves, are all likely to have wanted to fight the Mongols in this valley, meaning the Mongols would be practically under attack from all sides. While these nations are unlikely to have co-operated much, the Mongols would undoubtably grow weary of being a passive army in the valley. The moment they attack anybody, however, whichever army is on their rear would see that as an oppertunity to strike."First of all, the northern invasion of the Holy Roman Empire would be proceeding as planned, due to the combination of factors: the Mongols' spy network, expertise at warfare, maneuverability, communication, nomadic survival skills, and siege tactics. This advantage would be further accentuated when one take into account the terrain of the area (rolling hills) of which anyone who knew the area would agree is cavalry country.Second of all, deciding the outcome of a hypothetical battle is not something that can be done with detail. This is where Con's main argument begins to fall apart. The Mongols were absolute masters at improvisation. An excellent example of this would be the battle of Liegnitz [6. http://militaryhistory.about.com...], where the Mongols used smoke, the feigned retreat, and even had a man scream "Run!" in Polish to put the enemy soldiers out of position.They were outnumbered at every turn in Europe, often winning through faster reactions and from swarming their enemies. Despite my opponent's claims of them being trapped, there are no sharp valleys in the area [7.http://en.wikipedia.org...]. My opponent's concession that the Italian states would not work together is telling (also the fact that he does not provide any reason of why they would want to attack). The Mongols would have gone after them one-by-one in typical fashion. Con is attempting to make the Mongols into just another European army, when in reality they are something extremely different.I await my opponent's counterarguments.