The Mongols would have conquered Europe

Rebuttal"The Mongols bombarded for days and days, before eventually discovering the city's secret. The gate was burned down and the Mongols completely subjugated Russia. This is an important battle - it proves the Mongols did not have the power to break walls as thick as Kiev's with their siege technology. "I cannot find any sources claiming that Kiev had a weakness. Until my opponent provides these sources, his claim should be dismissed. Without the alleged wooden gate, his entire point falls apart. Baghdad had massive walls (covered with glacis [1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...], the same substance used in the European walls [2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...] that Con claims the Mongols could not penetrate) and the Mongols broke through without exploiting a weak point. "An important Mongol battle tactic was to let people run away so they could focus on the remaining fighters, and then chase after their foes later with their superior speed. Since the "remaining fighters" in this instance had withstood a Mongol siege for a record length of time, the people who ran away (a tribe called the Cumans) made it all the way to Hungary, where they were given protection. "Catching up to deserters and killing them was not that critical for victory unless they would inform future targets of the Mongols threat. This does not apply here as the Hungarians, despite their earlier refuge, executed the Cumans as spies[3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...] upon the Mongol invasion. Also to be noted is that the siege of Baghdad lasted twelve days [4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(1258)] compared to Kiev's eight [5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(1240)]. "First, a group of Venetian merchants and explorers made contact with the Mongols and came to a trade agreement with them. Venice also claimed they were happy to pay taxes to the Mongols, but Batu Khan explained that wouldn't even be necessary if the Venetians handed over all their maps of Europe (which they were preparing to do as the Mongols retreated). The point is that it is unlikely any Mongol raid into Europe would have gone through Venetian territory. "Why is this? Did having peace mean the Mongols could not have moved though Venetian territory to invade? Please elaborate on this. "Secondly, all the other nations of Europe, which at that time were predominantly Catholic, equated the Mongols with Tartars (what some Chinese called them), which sounded like they came from Tartarus, the latin for "hell". As a result, they felt a religious conviction to fight the Mongols. "The Mongols were experts at psychological warfare. In their invasion of Persia, they did not attack immediately but simply, rode into the country, spreading the word that the Sultan was the only target [6. . http://www.uwgb.edu...] They would, however, slaughter all who resisted. This took away any incentive that the population would have to fight. Any sort of religious inclination to fight could have been dealt with. "The Mongol strategy essentially involved crossing a major river (. http://en.wikipedia.org......) but the king of Hungary stopped them with his technologically superior crossbows, and routed the Mongols. Later, the Mongols won the battle by building a secret bridge while distracting the Hungarian king. "Interestingly, your own source demonstrates that the Mongols were masters at improvisation, psychological warfare, and were not at all helpless on unsuited terrain. Building the bridge was not the sole reason for victory- they actually forced the crossbowmen to retreat. "Unlike Russia, in Western Europe the Mongols faced a united front (except for tiny Venice, who were squabbling with the Pope over land anyway), joined by religious conviction more than fear. The cities of Europe were amongst the most fortified in the world, many major castles having walls matching those at Kiev but without the weaknesses. "Actually, the Europeans did not have much contact with each other. "In those areas of Germany affected by the Mongols, and in Poland and Hungary, the idea took hold that the battles of Liegnitz and Mohi had in fact been Pyrrhic victories for the barbarian hordes. " [7. . http://www.allempires.com...] Addressing his second point, the Mongols would often ignore large fortified cities and destroy the less protected ones, denying them reinforcements or supplies [8. . http://en.wikipedia.org...-(invasion of Hungary)] A fort on its own can't last forever. "Furthermore, in Western Europe it was impossible to maintain a Mongol-style supply line because of the lack of wild horses, most of which had been long put to use in agriculture. With the religious fervor of the age, farmers would likely have killed their horses before the Mongols got to them. "The Mongols were nomads, and could have gotten many of their supplies from where they were by pillaging. They even assembled their own siege engines on the site of sieges [9. . http://sean-abreu.suite101.com...]. Furthermore, the Mongols took with each soldier about four or five horses, as Con admits himself. "The Mongols would likely have taken Croatia (despite suffering many more major losses along the way, like they did trying to assault Klis Fortress) and hired Venetian ships to attack Sicily. Meanwhile, a second detachment attacks the Holy Roman Empire, aiming for the South to make ambushes easier for them, relying on a decent system of military intelligence, with the hope of cutting off the more densely-populated north. "The point about the Mongols still being able to attack through Venice still stands. The Holy Roman Empire was weak from war with the Pope [10. . http://abe-onhistory.blogspot.com...] "In Southern Germany, the Mongols are likely to have faced a sea of castles and walls, with the Europeans wishing to avoid a field battle until they knew for a certainty where their enemy was, and the Mongols knowing that they were no match for European walling. Bohemia, meanwhile, would be free to destroy the Mongol supply chain with the 20,000 men that didn't quite make it in time to defend Poland. Cut off in a desolate wasteland, the Mongols would be forced to retreat and suffer heavy losses along the way. Even if the Bohemian army was somehow routed, the sheer number of states that could fulfil the role of cutting off the Mongol supply line (half the states of the holy roman empire, denmark, sweden etc) makes it quite likely somebody would have done so. "My points about the fortified cities, supply chains, and the state of the HRE still stand. "From my study of Mongol tactics I think a two-pronged assault seems most likely if they wished to avoid Venice. "My previous point still stands. My opponent's case is based on his assumption the Venetians would have refused the Mongols entry. Even if they did, the Mongols had no qualms about betraying their allies and would have swiftly conquered them. I do not feel there is any need for a formal opening as this rebuttal has taken care of most of my points. It was done in a hurry due to lack of time, but the my future arguments will be done more throughly. Your turn.