What if the Mongols Attacked Central Europe an Kings & Generals Alternate History
- Thread starter jeckl
- Start date
So, just almost caught up with this and it is well written, as expected, but as an AH I have a big beef on a pretty key plot point:
Basically, this is borderline defamation against Frederick II, even if he was definitely very flawed to say the least, and definitely whitewashing Innocent IV. In OTL it was the emperor who, as the video noted itself, was ringing the alarm bells as well as offering pretty much everything save the wholesale abdication of his house in exchange for peace while it was the Pope who held out for complete victory despite an existential threat to the very Latin World he claimed overlordship over looming in the east. Moreover, it is also worth noting that Frederick was acutely aware of the PR side of things, and stayed his hand in instances where he might have been able to beat Gregory IX and Innocent IV by pure military means and capture them because he was worried about the consequences. For him to basically completely flip on his attitude toward the Mongols would go against both what we know of his view of himself and his role as well as his political modus operandi, since he would have surely know that his legitimacy would have been utterly smashed in the eyes of the whole Latin World.
It was starting to cost the Pope too, as chroniclers all over the place in Latin Christendom were reporting increasingly pro-imperial sentiments, with Louis in particular being increasingly annoyed as what he saw as the Pope lacking any sense of priorities (sure, for him, it was his obsession with Jerusalem but at least in his case there was signs he was briefly reconsidering that before the Mongols retreated). More immediately, some chroniclers were also reporting it was backfiring against the Pope in Italy, with Matthew Paris saying that Frederick's cause was ''growing daily'' by the end of his life.
IMO a better balance between plausibility and a compelling plot would have been for Innocent IV to be subjected to an intra-Church Canossa with cardinals less hardline then him (which basically means almost all of the Cardinals) beging him on their knees to make peace with Freddy and focus on the Mongols, which in the politics of the time would have been VERY hard to refuse for Innocent. Then you can have him figure that if he had to do this he may as well really go for it and play a role similar to the one in the series in term of coalition building. Then you end the whole thing on a titanic battle somewhere in the non-Italian empire.
It was starting to cost the Pope too, as chroniclers all over the place in Latin Christendom were reporting increasingly pro-imperial sentiments, with Louis in particular being increasingly annoyed as what he saw as the Pope lacking any sense of priorities (sure, for him, it was his obsession with Jerusalem but at least in his case there was signs he was briefly reconsidering that before the Mongols retreated). More immediately, some chroniclers were also reporting it was backfiring against the Pope in Italy, with Matthew Paris saying that Frederick's cause was ''growing daily'' by the end of his life.
IMO a better balance between plausibility and a compelling plot would have been for Innocent IV to be subjected to an intra-Church Canossa with cardinals less hardline then him (which basically means almost all of the Cardinals) beging him on their knees to make peace with Freddy and focus on the Mongols, which in the politics of the time would have been VERY hard to refuse for Innocent. Then you can have him figure that if he had to do this he may as well really go for it and play a role similar to the one in the series in term of coalition building. Then you end the whole thing on a titanic battle somewhere in the non-Italian empire.
Last edited:
Yeah, i mean
they do mention he submits to the mongols out of a desire to spare people, so maybe he didn't know the plan to kill the pope and destroy Rome. But it feels like it came out of left field and then there hasn't been much reaction to it. Feels like pagans killing the Pope should be a big deal but the reaction was "people got sad and Venice made a new sect of Christianity", why is there not a papal conclave with all the politics that entails, as well the Mongols still have christian allies, to me that is super odd. Reminds me when in GoT Cersie blew up the Sept and no one cared.
Also why I am Disappointed Louis died in the battle (it also felt contrived) as to see his reaction to this news (and the death of his friend) would have been interesting.
Also why I am Disappointed Louis died in the battle (it also felt contrived) as to see his reaction to this news (and the death of his friend) would have been interesting.
I mean, I don't think he was planning for it or anything but the sheer divergence between his and Innocent's attitude in the series vs the ones they had OTL is rather jaring IMO...
And I agree for the Conclave. Like, sure all the Cardinals are dead (which is already kinda dubious realism-wise really) but is the clergy all over the Latin World really gonna go ''golly gee...'' and drop the Church they and their ancestors have followed since Constantine? What is far more likely IMO is that you'd get an OG ecumenical council, with the Emperor saying that in his circumstances he is empowered to revive the old imperial right to call and manage such a council, which would then elect a new pope that get to distribute the red hats...
Moreover, and while its definitely a smaller point: the Ruthenians were kinda right to be surprised the Mongols were already in Ruthenia because something doesn't happen there. Like, by all accounts Batu didn't seem to have moved any of his armies for such a punitive expedition (or at least it didn't impact the calendar of operation elsewhere) and to truly lunch such a punitive expedition they'd have to basically bare from garrisons the rest of their conquests, and therefore expose themselves to some pretty big risks on their rears...
IMO the whole thing is about inflaming the butterflies to a truly massive degree, to make it truly civilizational level of change in a short period just because it bring more clicks. Its a shame really because the Mongols getting smashed in a more realistic scenario (I am actually in the minority who think that's what would have happened if they had pushed forth. Europe played to their weaknesses and as good as they were at logistics it was getting pretty wonky by the point they reached the Danube...) would obviously some pretty humongous consequences, even if not as over the top as they portrayed.
And I agree for the Conclave. Like, sure all the Cardinals are dead (which is already kinda dubious realism-wise really) but is the clergy all over the Latin World really gonna go ''golly gee...'' and drop the Church they and their ancestors have followed since Constantine? What is far more likely IMO is that you'd get an OG ecumenical council, with the Emperor saying that in his circumstances he is empowered to revive the old imperial right to call and manage such a council, which would then elect a new pope that get to distribute the red hats...
Moreover, and while its definitely a smaller point: the Ruthenians were kinda right to be surprised the Mongols were already in Ruthenia because something doesn't happen there. Like, by all accounts Batu didn't seem to have moved any of his armies for such a punitive expedition (or at least it didn't impact the calendar of operation elsewhere) and to truly lunch such a punitive expedition they'd have to basically bare from garrisons the rest of their conquests, and therefore expose themselves to some pretty big risks on their rears...
IMO the whole thing is about inflaming the butterflies to a truly massive degree, to make it truly civilizational level of change in a short period just because it bring more clicks. Its a shame really because the Mongols getting smashed in a more realistic scenario (I am actually in the minority who think that's what would have happened if they had pushed forth. Europe played to their weaknesses and as good as they were at logistics it was getting pretty wonky by the point they reached the Danube...) would obviously some pretty humongous consequences, even if not as over the top as they portrayed.
In regard to the idea of the Mongols eradicating Christianity and/or drastically altering European culture, there are some historical nuances that make the topic much more complex. In truth, what makes a good counter-factual stand out from the more, let's call it hyper-focused or Great Man oriented ones, is that they take into account the different social, cultural and political factors of the era in which they're trying to diverge from. Religious history is certainly no exception. We need to the remember that Christianity has always had a number of diverse branches under its umbrella, so to speak. Which can also be said of Judaism and Islam as well.
And while Rome getting sacked and the Pope dying would deal a huge psychological blow to the west, a disaster of that scale would not be unprecedented in the history of the medieval world or the medieval church. There were plenty of instances were things didn't go the way of the Catholic side of the house. Yet its adherents soldiered on and weathered the storm. The Pestilence, more commonly known as the Black Death, dealt a serious blow to the morale of the medieval European Christian, but the faith's practitioners held on. There's plenty of other examples from the history of the church/medieval Europe, but I think the point is made. In fact, it wouldn't totally out of the realm of possiblity for a Mongol-appointed clergyman to become the next Pope and/or for the seat of the Papacy to be moved.
Even early on in Church, a big part of what helped them survive events like the persecution of Decius, was that Rome was already beginning to gravitate towards monotheism in various forms. Just someone wasn't a Christian didn't mean they hated them or cared enough to try and do something about them. More than one Roman emperor regarded them with ambivalence. Sure they weren't defying the Emperor like they should have but that if you were Trajan, you had other things on your mind, besides a religion that was commonly stereotyped as being practiced by old women and slaves. Besides, all they really did was feed beggars and orphans. That seemed pretty harmless to people like Trajan and he wasn't the only one. The point being that religions are often incredible resilient and flexible. If one fades out it's usually because it loses adherents to another practice, more than anything else.
We also can't forget that, as I mentioned earlier, Christianity was never really monolithic. The Nestorians, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic faith are all still around, just to name a few. And two of those doctrines were practiced quite extensively throughout the Mongol Empire. Quite a few Catholic priests also traveled throughout the domain of the Mongols. Though the Mongols dealt harshly with rebellions and were by all accounts, extremely brutal towards the inhabitant of Baghdad, they were generally very tolerant of the local faiths. Sure, churches and clergymen could be and were attacked, but that held true for the Muslim world as well. But Islam would survive the onslaught and even thrive in later years.
While the conquest of the Khwarezmians wasn't a great experience for anyone on the receiving end, it didn't eradicate the regional faith and culture. In fact, attempting to repress local religion is one of the few things that will cause a local people to rise against foreign occupiers. So long as you didn't rebel and didn't make a Mongol commander have to the go the trouble of besieging your city, and you paid tribute on time, they could be very hands off rulers.* Which brings me to my next point, more than one high-ranking Mongol converted to Christianity, or to Islam or to Buddhism. There were even steppe tribes that were largely Christian, well before Chinggis ever showed up on the scene. Kublai is a prime example of this kind of assimilation and far from the only one.
The Mongol Empire was a vast domain that incorporated multiple faiths, languages and cultures under its banner. In fact, as time went on, we don't see the Mongols eradicate the way of life for the peoples they conquered, so much as they themselves eventually assimilate into the beliefs and practices of the people they rule. Again, Kublai is a prime example, but so was pretty much every ruler of the Ilkhanate. And this wasn't unique to the Mongols either, the Germanic tribes that settled within the former western Roman empire did a great deal to preserve Roman law, religious practices and way of life.
After the initial Islamic conquests in the Middle East, who were themselves inclined to tolerate other faiths (for the most part, see the bottom of this post), many of the succeeding Caliphates and Dynasties begin to look very Persian in terms of art, language and culture. Sometimes these were pragmatic measures on the part of the new ruling power, in order to try and legitimize themselves in the eyes of the conquered populace. They could also be genuine gestures and were often both of those things.
So, even if the Mongols do manage to reach the western coasts of Europe, within a few generations they're going to look remarkably like the people they've come to rule and continue to assimilate with them over the next few centuries. Though I have to admit that a Catholic, Latin-speaking, plate-armor wearing, chivalric, Mongol-descended successor/fragment from the old Khanate would be a truly fascinating subject. Though I suppose we'll see, K&G isn't a horrible channel but they've ended up being featured on R/BadHistory more than once and for good reason.
*Obviously there's exceptions, these not hard and fast rules. The Mongols and other conquering groups were not a monolithic cultural group. History is many things but simple is rarely, if ever, one of them.
And while Rome getting sacked and the Pope dying would deal a huge psychological blow to the west, a disaster of that scale would not be unprecedented in the history of the medieval world or the medieval church. There were plenty of instances were things didn't go the way of the Catholic side of the house. Yet its adherents soldiered on and weathered the storm. The Pestilence, more commonly known as the Black Death, dealt a serious blow to the morale of the medieval European Christian, but the faith's practitioners held on. There's plenty of other examples from the history of the church/medieval Europe, but I think the point is made. In fact, it wouldn't totally out of the realm of possiblity for a Mongol-appointed clergyman to become the next Pope and/or for the seat of the Papacy to be moved.
Even early on in Church, a big part of what helped them survive events like the persecution of Decius, was that Rome was already beginning to gravitate towards monotheism in various forms. Just someone wasn't a Christian didn't mean they hated them or cared enough to try and do something about them. More than one Roman emperor regarded them with ambivalence. Sure they weren't defying the Emperor like they should have but that if you were Trajan, you had other things on your mind, besides a religion that was commonly stereotyped as being practiced by old women and slaves. Besides, all they really did was feed beggars and orphans. That seemed pretty harmless to people like Trajan and he wasn't the only one. The point being that religions are often incredible resilient and flexible. If one fades out it's usually because it loses adherents to another practice, more than anything else.
We also can't forget that, as I mentioned earlier, Christianity was never really monolithic. The Nestorians, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic faith are all still around, just to name a few. And two of those doctrines were practiced quite extensively throughout the Mongol Empire. Quite a few Catholic priests also traveled throughout the domain of the Mongols. Though the Mongols dealt harshly with rebellions and were by all accounts, extremely brutal towards the inhabitant of Baghdad, they were generally very tolerant of the local faiths. Sure, churches and clergymen could be and were attacked, but that held true for the Muslim world as well. But Islam would survive the onslaught and even thrive in later years.
While the conquest of the Khwarezmians wasn't a great experience for anyone on the receiving end, it didn't eradicate the regional faith and culture. In fact, attempting to repress local religion is one of the few things that will cause a local people to rise against foreign occupiers. So long as you didn't rebel and didn't make a Mongol commander have to the go the trouble of besieging your city, and you paid tribute on time, they could be very hands off rulers.* Which brings me to my next point, more than one high-ranking Mongol converted to Christianity, or to Islam or to Buddhism. There were even steppe tribes that were largely Christian, well before Chinggis ever showed up on the scene. Kublai is a prime example of this kind of assimilation and far from the only one.
The Mongol Empire was a vast domain that incorporated multiple faiths, languages and cultures under its banner. In fact, as time went on, we don't see the Mongols eradicate the way of life for the peoples they conquered, so much as they themselves eventually assimilate into the beliefs and practices of the people they rule. Again, Kublai is a prime example, but so was pretty much every ruler of the Ilkhanate. And this wasn't unique to the Mongols either, the Germanic tribes that settled within the former western Roman empire did a great deal to preserve Roman law, religious practices and way of life.
After the initial Islamic conquests in the Middle East, who were themselves inclined to tolerate other faiths (for the most part, see the bottom of this post), many of the succeeding Caliphates and Dynasties begin to look very Persian in terms of art, language and culture. Sometimes these were pragmatic measures on the part of the new ruling power, in order to try and legitimize themselves in the eyes of the conquered populace. They could also be genuine gestures and were often both of those things.
So, even if the Mongols do manage to reach the western coasts of Europe, within a few generations they're going to look remarkably like the people they've come to rule and continue to assimilate with them over the next few centuries. Though I have to admit that a Catholic, Latin-speaking, plate-armor wearing, chivalric, Mongol-descended successor/fragment from the old Khanate would be a truly fascinating subject. Though I suppose we'll see, K&G isn't a horrible channel but they've ended up being featured on R/BadHistory more than once and for good reason.
*Obviously there's exceptions, these not hard and fast rules. The Mongols and other conquering groups were not a monolithic cultural group. History is many things but simple is rarely, if ever, one of them.
Not defying the Emperor and worshiping the imperial cult tho was a big thing as it meant less favour from the gods. In a turbulent period when favour from the gods is really needed, it would be tantamount to sabotage of the Empire.
But yeah, I do think they exaggerate the effects it would have on christian theology. The Orthodox church didn't vanish or significantly splinter when the Ottomans conquered it, neither did the Miaphysites nor Madenka.
However, if what they mean by that is that the Venicians replaced the Orthodox Patriarch with theirs and those Orthodox states recognize the Venice patriarch but the Eastern Slavs don't, then it makes sense.
I also think Hungary is restored too quickly.
The Pope probably hasn't been dead for more than a few months at this time. His death and the death of louis happened at around the same time and the Mongols haven't even had time to leave Italy by the time this episode ends so the info has barely gotten to France.