The Mongols would have conquered Europe

"I could not find the mention of the siege of Kiev. Could point it out to me? ". .. 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 flamesThe average city was not anywhere near as fortified as KievMy opponent's source makes no mention of an "average" city, nor does it talk about Kiev specifically, but there are lots of examples of really great fortifications. Kiev just had a thick double-wall. those that were would have been isolated and starved outAs 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. Surrounding the heavily fortified cities would still allow the Mongols to hunt down stragglers at their leisure. If we agree the Mongols would have taken Croatia, we also agree there would be no more stragglers to hunt. [On Venice] I meant willingly. If my opponent thinks Venice would just let the Mongol horde pass through, he is mistaken. Venice knew the size of the Mongol army, and knew that they would conquer Venice given the opportunity. They would do everything in their power to convince the Mongols to invade Italy from the South (which had the added bonus of crippling the Pope if successful), or alternatively call off their accord. The people would then flee, probably to Venetian Crete, and the Mongols would have forever squandered their chance of getting the best-quality intelligence in Europe. Mongolia pretty much dominated world trade at that pointVenice could still trade on this route using Byzantium as a conduit. In fact, that's actually exactly what they ended up doing later. Nowhere did I suggest using the same tactic [as in Persia] against the Pope. Well, you used it as an example of Mongol psychological warfare, and I showed why that sort of thing wouldn't have worked in Europe. I invite my opponent to explain what kind of psychological warfare WOULD have worked, rather than bring up all these irrelevant examples. the Crusades were of a different eraNo they aren't - they include military campaigns between circa 1095 and 1291 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). For comparison, Kiev was taken in 1240. Crusades were still happening. the vast spy network the Mongols had would have kept them informed and readyThe Mongols had no vast spy network in Europe. They chose to rely on the Venetians. Japan would be a bad example because the Mongols' invasion fleets were simply devastated by typhoons. Oh right, so wet weather in Japan can stop the Mongols, but wet weather in Western Europe cannot? To be clear - in Japan, the Mongols did actually get their forces on to land, in both attempts, but the Samurai held them off for days each time before the storms came (such as at the legendary . http://en.wikipedia.org...). There can be no doubt that were it not for the cunning and innovative Japanese tactics to stop Mongols claiming much of the beach-head, Japan would have fallen. As it happened, Japan united. Had my opponent read my source carefully, he would have realized that they called it the "powerhouse of Europe" to emphasize how far it had fallenThe full quote is "Although some nations did band together, as in the case of Hungary and Poland, the powerhouses of Europe, such as France and the Holy Roman Empire, did not throw their lot behind the lesser powers who were succumbing to the Mongols. " Note that it says nothing about them falling - they were the powerhouses of Europe at the time of the Mongol invasions. The Holy Roman Empire did not respond militarily or otherwise to the Mongol invasionWrong - 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 Mongols . .. had vastly superior troopsI'm going to have to dispute that point. It wasn't just better crossbows that the Europeans had - it was also vastly better armor. If it wasn't for the genius Mongol strategies, they probably wouldn't have won any of the battles they won in Europe. It wasn't the Mongol troops that won it. crossing the river . .. is not ideal terrain for horsesThis is true - and might I add that there were also many more rivers in western Europe to cross. The point is that if the Mongols thought the terrain in Hungary was bad, they hadn't seen anything yet! Con can provide me with examples of planned organized European resistance? 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. Even in the wilderness they could have easily survived. We are talking about nomads, men who drank their horses' blood when water ran low. It's a question of who would have lasted longer. The Mongols, who were drinking their only means of escape because all the local crops had been burnt and animals killed (the Germans could afford to do this as their empire was large enough), or the Germans, who had been stashing away food in their castles for years on the off-chance that some foe might force them to stay in their castles for a while? the Europeans would have killed their own horses before allowing the Mongols to get to them . .. Con has not provided any evidenceMy evidence is the desperate religious conviction that gripped Europe at the time. Seriously - 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. the northern invasion of the Holy Roman Empire would be proceeding as plannedInvading the north of the Holy Roman Empire would see there being even more castles to siege, meaning the invasion would be much slower. Mongols would have preferred the deceptively-open terrain of the southern Holy Roman Empire anyway. The terrain of northern Germany is also flat, not rolling hills. The Mongols were absolute masters at improvisationThis does not prove victory. My opponent is simply trying to say "Oh, they would have found a way we can't fathom". Mongols were not superheroes and the only reason they won is because they knew when to fight and when not to. My opponent needs to prove that there is a way his strategy could work, not appeal to the supposed authority of a mythical superheroic Mongol army who win every battle. They were outnumbered at every turn in EuropeWrong - historians are now quite sure the Mongols had marginally more troops at Mohi. there are no sharp valleys in the area [of the Po river valley]The whole area is a massive valley. Barring a crossing of the Alps, 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. My opponent's concession that the Italian states would not work together is tellingThey wouldn't have to. They'd all independently come to the conclusion that the time was right to attack the Mongols. he does not provide any reason of why they would want to attackMost of them had already pledged to. Christendom was in danger, their lands were in danger, their lives were in danger, none of the other Italians liked Venice, and so on. Basically all of the same reasons why, say, Hungary wanted to attack. The Mongols would have gone after them one-by-one in typical fashion. .. and as they tried to do this, they would have been defeated because all of the other nations would attack the Mongols at the same time. That's all I have space for - good luck for the final round!