CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2020
| Author | Pow, Lindsey Stephen |
|---|---|
| Title | Conquest and Withdrawal: The Mongol Invasions of Europe in the Thirteenth Century |
| Summary | In this dissertation, my aim is to provide an explanation for the abrupt Mongol withdrawal from Europe in 1242. A lesser aim is to explore the Mongols’ intentions during their exchanges with European powers for the next half-century. Scholars have long debated the withdrawal and as yet no explanation has the wide consensus of experts; it remains a mystery in part because the primary sources say so little about what prompted it. I have attempted to offer a thorough, holistic analysis of source references to the initial invasion and its short- and long-term aftermath, combined with the use of relevant archaeological findings. Since the Mongol leadership expressed a desire to conquer Hungary and Europe, before and after their first invasion, we must ask why they withdrew in 1242, and did not subsequently incorporate much of Europe into their unified empire (or its successor states after 1260). The failure to follow up on their ultimatums demanding surrender could imply that the Mongol leadership was somehow deterred from carrying out their project. The present work represents a deviation from persistent ideas that still prevail in the scholarship. Since the twentieth century, the idea is popular in the general and scholarly literature that Europe had been “saved” through no merit of its own, but in my view, the evidence for resistance invites a more complex and nuanced explanation of these events; 1242 withdrawal was a complex event stemming from multiple drivers. Regarding methodology, I have analyzed the four major theories for the Mongol withdrawal in approaching this historical problem. Recently, a clearer picture of the 1242 invasion and the surrounding context has been offered scholars working in diverse fields, their research being made widely available. Thus, this dissertation is a “re-visiting” of all the relevant issues, especially pertaining to the first Mongol invasion, the reasons for the withdrawal, and the subsequent role of the Golden Horde in Europe. I use a comparative approach to the primary sources on the Mongol Empire which are incredibly diffuse in terms of genre as well as geographic and literary contexts, emerging from authors writing in Persian, Chinese, Mongolian, Russian, Latin, Arabic, Greek, French, Turkic, etc. While it poses linguistic challenges, one of the advantages for a researcher is the huge range of sources. Relevant materials were recorded in such distant geographical and linguistic contexts that it is often unlikely their authors could have influenced each other. Nevertheless, there is often remarkable correlations in their descriptions of historical episodes or the Mongols’ habits. With the assumption that the similar descriptions we encounter largely reflect real conditions and events rather than the identical biases and misrepresentations of the Mongols employed by the respective sedentary authors, my approach has been to never squander the wide-ranging comparisons which allow us to better approach specific events and issues tied to Mongol-European interactions. A major implication emerged from this methodology: the assertions found in the Latin sources that the 1241-42 campaign was very difficult for the Mongol side cannot be dismissed merely as wishful thinking since we find complementary claims by authors outside of Europe, even under Mongol auspices. Regarding structure, Chapter 1 is largely devoted to outlining the first invasion of Europe and the larger westward advance of the Mongols (1236-44), while drawing attention to some problematic issues that persist in the scholarly discussions. For the subsequent chapters, I followed a precident set by Greg S. Rogers over two decades ago for exploring the four main theories for the withdrawal – the “political” theory; the “geographical” (and climatic-environmental) theories; the “military weakness” theory; and the “gradual conquest” theory. I approach theories for the withdrawal obliquely, asking specific questions which bring focus to the crucial issues at play. Chapter 2 looks into Mongol preconceptions of Europe and Hungary, as well as the conventional theory that the Mongols withdrew from Europe owing to the death of Ögedei Khan. Chapter 3 analyzes arguments which attribute the Mongol withdrawal to environmental or climatic factors, and also explores the explanation that the Mongols never intended a lasting conquest in 1241. Chapter 4 explores the merits of the theory that strong resistance compelled the Mongols to withdraw, and while I do not agree with this theory as it has appeared in past works, this is the explanation in which we see some European sources showing agreement with the scanty materials on the events recorded outside of Europe. Thus, I then present my own explanation of a complex series of factors that likely brought about the withdrawal. Chapter 5 pertains to the oft-neglected details of Mongol-European relations for the remainder of the thirteenth century which reveal that the Mongols still intended to subjugate Europe, even as reforms in East-Central Europe reduced the likelihood that a lasting conquest could be achieved. Across the entire region, fortification reforms and social adaptations reinforced the ability of those areas to combat future invasions. As a result, the major Mongol inroads of the 1280s against Hungary and Poland were military failures, though weather-related factors contributed to those outcomes. Conclusions. Based on this “revisiting” of the existing explanations for the Mongol withdrawal in 1242 and the following half-century of Mongol-European interactions, some conclusions emerge. A first key point is the Mongol ideology of world conquest seems to have been the driving factor behind the invasion of Europe in 1241. Thus, the purpose behind invading Hungary was the same that motivated other Mongol invasions across Eurasia: subjugation of territory, its ruler, and its people to the divinely chosen Chinggisid dynasty whose mandate was to rule the entire world. The evidence is overwhelming that this objective applied to the whole of Europe since the Great Khan sent that message with his (extant) seal on it, intended for the pope. The recorded formulae we see in such ultimatums sent by Chinggisid khans in the 1200s were not topoi dreamt up by sedentary authors in distant settings, writing in different genres. Rather, this topos of a Mongol ideology of world conquest originated from their highest decision makers. Secondly, the initial invasion of Hungary was a startling success in terms of military history, but the occupation of Hungary was only a partial success. Archaeology corroborates that the destruction of the country was in part, rather than total. Many regions of the kingdom still had troops and a healthy population, and there were still unconquered countries in the vicinity so that Hungary was a salient for Batu’s forces. A consistent message emerging the sources is that the stiff resistance encountered there was a problem for the Mongols, despite the enormous defeats and slaughters they inflicted on the local population. A third point is that fortifications played an important role in the defense of parts of Europe and the survival of segments of the population in affected regions. Broad and massive fortification reforms took place across the entire region of East-Central Europe after 1242. While we have textual records of failed Mongol sieges, perhaps a much better indication of fortifications’ usefulness can be seen in the costly and labor-intensive construction projects that were undertaken as a response throughout the thirteenth century. One might take it that there was a prevailing feeling across the region that such reforms were worth the effort. A fourth consideration is that when the Mongols did pull back from the heartland of the Kingdom of Hungary, their subsequent movements, documented in Rashid al-Din’s work and elucidated by other sources, do not create a picture of an army rushing back to Inner Asia owing to some political contingency. In fact, there is much evidence that they moved in the direction of Constantinople. A fifth conclusion, related to methodology, might represent that most worthwhile historiographical contribution this study can make. It relates to the problem of unrelated written sources. So often, medievalists are keen to see narrative structures, topoi, and the rules of genre at play in the surviving texts, shaping narratives. In the case of Mongol attacks on Europe, we see independent sources in multiple genres that could not possibly have influenced each other corroborating and complimenting one another. Moreover, other types of evidence such archaeological findings and environmental data seem to help corroborate the picture in the textual sources. I would argue that in this type of situation, as we often encounter in research of the Mongol Empire in general, we should consider our textual sources very circumspectly before dismissing their claims as mere narrative structures rather than descriptions of events which actually occurred. |
| Supervisor | Nagy, Balázs; Laszlovszky, József |
| Department | Medieval Studies PhD |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2020/pow_stephen.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University