The Mongols would have conquered Europe

SourcesWhile my opponent may have used more sources in this debate, I have done more with fewer sources. Indeed, all my material already had the backing of a source by last round, with two exceptions (although admittadly I did make use of my opponent's sources). My opponent, by contrast, has misused his sources and used lots of sources from dubious blog sites (mostly relying on a blogspot page that contradicts itself about the Germans). He has even lied about my sources, for instance claiming that my source said Kiev's walls were on fire, re-cited sources he'd already cited, and cited some of my sources to make it look like he had more sources. Nothing I said about my opponent's sources was out of context. I even gave you the full context last round, wasting a significant amount of characters. I do agree, however, that my source for Kiev's walls proves little. You really need Dmytro's account. Again, I'd love to source it but I can't provide a link as it's not online. What my source does do is corroborate that the walls were not breached by the Mongols, and that the walls were not on fire (but rather the domes were). Con's PlanTo win, pro must prove not only that it was possible for the Mongols to conquer Europe. He must also prove that they would have followed his strategy. I've presented my strategy, which I believe the Mongols would have followed, and my opponent has presented his. Unlike me, my opponent has given you no evidence that his plan would have been followed over mine, except to argue that the Mongols were ruthless and wouldn't have minded betraying Venice. Even if I grant this (which I don't) it still does not prove pro's plan would have been favored, only that it would have been one option. Of course, as well as being ruthless, the Mongols were smart tacticians, and would have known it would be a mistake to get. .. Stuck in the Po River valleyMy opponent finally indicates in round four the route of the Mongol advance from Po river, into Italy. Imagine it. The Mongol army would probably move against Pisa or Florence first, and the Pope would undoubtably meet them there. From the rear come the 20,000 elites from Bohemia, from the flank come the pikemen of Milan, the crossbowmen from Genoa, and the heavy cavalry of France. In the middle is the Mongol army - depending on how many were sent to Germany, one might expect there to be similar numbers as at Mohi, minus their losses there, perhaps totalling 20,000 soldiers. The Mongols would be trapped, outnumbered and outmanuvered by 50,000+ Europeans. How could they win? My opponent fails to articulate any clear battle strategy, rather appealing to "terror tactics" and Mongol ingenuity. Terror tactics may have worked on peasents, but we know it didn't stop the army. Mongols tried to frighten the soldiers at Legnica and all over Russia, but it rarely worked. Ingenuity can only go so far. If my opponent, with many centuries of hindsight to guide him, cannot even articulate one clear way in which this battle could be won by the Mongols, the Mongols invading Italy would have been defeated. Could Mongols Take Castles? My opponent says, last round, that I conceed the point. No. Kiev had minimal defences compared to many European castles, and the Mongols still could not breach the walls. If anybody conceeds this is is my opponent, who has no refocused on a siege and starve policy - but of course, the besiegers would last less long if they didn't have supplies but the people in the castle had been storing them up for years. My opponent states that the peasents would join the Mongols. If so, then the peasents would be incredibly stupid - if the Mongols couldn't even feed themselves, what makes them think they'll have food to spare for peasents? More likely they'd head to the North of Germany where there were fields aplenty and a chain of castles to defend them, as well as a constant supply route by sea. It's not a suicide cult, people migrated and burnt their old homes frequently in those days. Livestock and horses would be taken with them or butchered. Suicide would be staying there and waiting for the Mongols to starve them to death. He claims the soldiers would not like being trapped. Like I said, the soldiers were used to it. This was a sort of default response. Just because it's lonely doesn't mean every siege ended in a surrender. The Mongols would have been equally cut off and thus have the same incentives. The crux of the matter is that the Mongols would not have been able to take any castles, and thus could not execute pro's "island-hopping" strategy. VeniceThe point is that the Mongols and Venice would have been much stronger working together. However, the whole reason why Venice wanted a Mongol alliance was to gain land - losing land to the Mongols would undoubtably lead to the alliance, and thus Venice's intelligence to the Mongols, to crumble. My opponent cited a blog that said the Mongols used intelligence, but it did not talk specifically about the pre-invasion intelligence of Europe - perhaps because that was 100% Venice-provided. My opponent tries to claim Venice needed the Mongols to maintain their trade power. I said that they could trade via the Eastern Roman Empire. Here's a map of the silk road, showing them doing just that: Were the Mongols Superior Soldiers? My opponent's conception of the Mongols is as an army never defeated in battle. He dreams of them being like zombies, advancing without food and supplies on the land. This is far from the truth. Mongols may have been faster and they did have gunpowder, but the advantages pretty much end there. When it comes to the Europeans, he claims they were disorganised. Beyond the Italian States, this is a myth. Every single nearby nation worked together at the battle of Legnica. My opponent says the European disarray at Legnica was because of European disorganisation - this is false, it was because they'd never seen or fought gunpowder (here used to make a smokescreen) before - see his own source! He used to say the Crusades were of a different era, but dropped it after I proved him wrong. He claims European heavy armor was a bad thing (and cites a blog that makes it sound like all Europeans were wearing heavy plate). Europeans long had silk armor as well, they had traded it with the East for centuries. The Europeans simply had more advanced armor technology. Also, the Europeans had superior weaponary, as exemplified by the crossbows at Mohi. Europeans were, on average, far better equipped. ConclusionThere can be no doubt that the Mongol army was very good, but it was not invincible. Mongols had won two battles against continental Europeans, and from this my opponent deduces they would have conquered most of Europe. Hannibal won many battles and was a brilliant commander also, but he did not conquer Europe. There are literally thousands of commanders who won more than one battle in Europe but did not conquer it. The Mongols, particulary when faced with a united front in Europe, would have been no exception. My opponent's plan would not work.