The Mongol Horde - how and why were they so strong

[Buzghush]

Turco-Mongol people always had potential to conquer world but they always stayed on steppes. Until the Huns. They reached to Europe and found many states such as Khazars, Bulgarian Khaganate, Avars etc.

But Genghis was different than any other Steppe Leaders. Afaik, he used Chinese prisoners to conquer China's huge cities. So, Genghis didn't lose his own soldiers. Also, Chinese siege weapons and tactics helped a lot in Europe. Afair, Kiev resisted Mongols for just 2 weeks. That's impressive, IMHO.

[El Barto]

I think after it had become known that if you resisted the Mongols there were dire consequences, but if you surrendered and paid tribute you'd be relatively OK then I'd think you'd see a lot if people exchanging one ruler for another.

Whilst the Mongols are Ace argument is a bit extreme, let's not forget they conquered China which had larger armies, cities and a more cohesive society than anything in Europe at the time.

At some point they would have overextended, and infighting would have happened sooner or later.

As for terrain, if the Gobi desert didn't stop them then how would forests?

Well, you can't ride at a full gallop through a forest, you can't even see (so how would they coordinate?), and what are you going to shoot yoru arrows at? How can you mount a cavalry charge in there? Forests are very good for guerrilla warfare, ambushes… just like Hannibal, who was invincible in the field in his age, Fabian tactics would've worked against an army so far away from home.

Turco-Mongol people always had potential to conquer world but they always stayed on steppes. Until the Huns. They reached to Europe and found many states such as Khazars, Bulgarian Khaganate, Avars etc.

Were the huns really Turco-Mongols?

[Buzghush]

Were the huns really Turco-Mongols?

Yes, they were.

Hunnic Language was a branch of Lir-Turkic.

[El Barto]

What samples are there that have remained of their language? I thought it was still unclear whether their language was Turkic, or Mongolian, or something else.

[Buzghush]

Actually, there are many sources for that here is one of them;

"It is assumed that the Huns also were speakers of an l- and r- type Turkic language and that their migration was responsible for the appearance of this language in the West." Johanson, Lars; Éva Agnes Csató (ed.). 1998. The Turkic languages. Routledge; Pritsak, Omeljan. 1982 "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan." Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 6, pp. 428–476

Attila, Dengizik, Muncuk etc. all of them Turkic names. Even modern Turkish speaker can easily understand these names and meanings.

[Myth]

Not too sure about that. Turko-Altaic perhaps? It is assumed through lore that the first Bulgarian Khans (not Volga Bulgaria, but the one founded in 681 by Asparukh) were descendants of Attila. Their clan was called Dulo, and Attila was named as the founder of the clan.

Regarding the attrition due to the castle system - sure, there would have been hard nuts to crack. But I don't think the Mongol generals would be that stupid. A better way to go about it is to bait the western forces out. Like, say, by threatening Rome. How much time would it take for there to be a counter-crusade if the threat of Tengri pagans sacking Rome and the Vatican loomed on the horizon?

I think that if faced wtih a common enemy, the nobility of Europe would unite. Especially since it would be the mandate of Heaven as the enemy is heathen. Remember, being promised that you are doing the Lord's work is a very big deal in those times. Enough to get you to go liberating Jerusalem all the way from England.

However, I'm not sure how such massive forces would be coordinated. Europe has fared well but with strong leaders. Charles Martel for example. Who would have been the leaders of such a mega coalition of catholic forces? The ERE would also have to play, and they would have never let their armies be commanded by someone else.

A bunch of poorly coordinated mid-sized armies would not have been as effective a s a single blob of knights, cataphracts, archers and infantry. But since this isn't a computer game, I can almost guarantee that we would see countless examples of both good and bad generalship (everyone wishing to show their valour and win glory and all that) but ultimately, on a strategic level, these armies would be enveloped and routed as they can't hope to act as cohesively as the Mognols.

Now, if the Mongols separated different spears of attack and got pinned between a sturdy castle and an incoming army, then maybe it could work. But again, this requires them to make the mistake of overextending. So far I can't see examples of such mistakes having being made.

[Buzghush]

Not too sure about that. Turko-Altaic perhaps? It is assumed through lore that the first Bulgarian Khans (not Volga Bulgaria, but the one founded in 681 by Asparukh) were descendants of Attila. Their clan was called Dulo, and Attila was named as the founder of the clan.

You also should know that Bulgar Khaganate was also Turkic too.
Bulgar Language was also a branch of Lir-Turkic.
Bulgars

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not too sure about that. Turko-Altaic perhaps? It is assumed through lore that the first Bulgarian Khans (not Volga Bulgaria, but the one founded in 681 by Asparukh) were descendants of Attila. Their clan was called Dulo, and Attila was named as the founder of the clan.

Regarding the attrition due to the castle system - sure, there would have been hard nuts to crack. But I don't think the Mongol generals would be that stupid. A better way to go about it is to bait the western forces out. Like, say, by threatening Rome. How much time would it take for there to be a counter-crusade if the threat of Tengri pagans sacking Rome and the Vatican loomed on the horizon?

I think that if faced wtih a common enemy, the nobility of Europe would unite. Especially since it would be the mandate of Heaven as the enemy is heathen. Remember, being promised that you are doing the Lord's work is a very big deal in those times. Enough to get you to go liberating Jerusalem all the way from England.

However, I'm not sure how such massive forces would be coordinated. Europe has fared well but with strong leaders. Charles Martel for example. Who would have been the leaders of such a mega coalition of catholic forces? The ERE would also have to play, and they would have never let their armies be commanded by someone else.

A bunch of poorly coordinated mid-sized armies would not have been as effective a s a single blob of knights, cataphracts, archers and infantry. But since this isn't a computer game, I can almost guarantee that we would see countless examples of both good and bad generalship (everyone wishing to show their valour and win glory and all that) but ultimately, on a strategic level, these armies would be enveloped and routed as they can't hope to act as cohesively as the Mognols.

Now, if the Mongols separated different spears of attack and got pinned between a sturdy castle and an incoming army, then maybe it could work. But again, this requires them to make the mistake of overextending. So far I can't see examples of such mistakes having being made.

I agree that the Euro's, tactically, would have been beaten. The only weapon systems they possessed that were superior to those employed by the Mongols were heavy-armor cavalry and the English Longbow. Unfortunately, the terrain needed for a heavy cavalry charge was precisely the best terrain for Mongols to outmaneuver the slower, but heavily armored Euro cavalry. The English Longbow, moreover, was in its infancy -- largely in the hands of the Welsh -- and hadn't become a dominant weapon system in England yet (though it would shortly after the time-frame we are discussing).

My argument above suggests that there were so many fortified points with so many persons who had a vested interest in maintaining their control and not submitting to Mongol rule (which was NOT true with the more Eastern cities), that the Mongols would have become worn down during an endless string of victories. Seeing this happening, and not being dumb, I think they would have simply raided at will while consolidating East of the Vistula.

Neither in pitched battle nor in siege warfare could the Euros have bested the Mongols -- only made it not worth the bother.

[Myth]

1. There is no concrete evidence that the proto Bulgarians were turcic. It's a theory, and a very disputed one over here. Wikipedia, in this case, Is a biased and unreliable source. I personally am a fan of the Aryan/Iranian origins theory. And to note - modern day Bulgarian's DNA is the oldest in Europe. It's essentially >80% old Thracian DNA. So the proto Bulgarians gave the idea of strong centralized rule and cavalry warfare, but the actual people who lived in these lands did not disappear magically. They are mostly Thracians with the occasional Slav tribe mixed in.

Regarding the longbow (aka. warbow) - unfortunately it's not superior to the Mongol composite bows in range and draw weight. In fact, they are about evenly matched. Difference is that the composite bow can be fired from the back of a horse. The armours around the year 1200 were mostly mail and perhaps partial plate. European cavalry would still be very potent on the field, but they need a way to pin the Mongols down.

If the Europeans had known they were coming, the would have used their other major advantage - their superior construction and engineering skills, to create many more holdfasts and castles. Like the Hungarians did when the Mongols went back to elect a new great Khan.

[Buzghush]

You're confusing Bulgars with Bulgarians. Bulgars were Turkic people, they spoke a Turkic Language. They were part of Turkic Khaganate (aka Göktürks). After they settled modern day Bulgaria, they assimilated by local people. Modern Bulgarians mix of Native Balkan people, Slavs and Turkic Elite.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Regarding the longbow (aka. warbow) - unfortunately it's not superior to the Mongol composite bows in range and draw weight. In fact, they are about evenly matched. Difference is that the composite bow can be fired from the back of a horse. The armours around the year 1200 were mostly mail and perhaps partial plate. European cavalry would still be very potent on the field, but they need a way to pin the Mongols down.

If the Europeans had known they were coming, the would have used their other major advantage - their superior construction and engineering skills, to create many more holdfasts and castles. Like the Hungarians did when the Mongols went back to elect a new great Khan.

That's why I used the word "system." Weapon on weapon, the Composite Bows used by the Mongols were a wash in terms of hitting power with the English Longbow. The Mongol bows worked wonderfully from horseback, whereas an English Longbow, though usable from horseback, was more cumbersome and could not be deployed to full power. Mongol bows were a bit more sensitive to wet weather. Weapon on weapon you cannot assume either was better than the other, so you have to round up in favor of mobility. As a "system" however, I was also referring to the whole English concept of yeomanry and the armies that they were (admittedly 20+ years after the time period of the Mongol invasion) able to generate using that concept. It let the English fight well beyond their weight. I do not believe that the English system had matured by the time of the invasion (c. 1242 BCE) so it would NOT have been available as a bulwark against the Mongols.

We agree completely as to the cavalry issue. The Euros had more/higher percentage of heavily armored cavalry, but they would have had little chance of forcing an engagement at advantage against the Mongols. The Mongols were too good at scouting and too mobile. If the Euros could find themselves slightly uphill of the Mongols, in open terrain that was surrounded by rough terrain through which the Mongols could not exfiltrate, then maybe the grand charge of the knights might have broken the Mongols. As you rightly suggest, the chance of this combination of terrain occurring at a point in time and place where the Euros were concentrated and a Mongol commander ignorant enough to get into position for them is a rather unlikely combination of circumstances...bordering on mathematical impossibility.

[The Lurker Below]

The Mongol Horde is easily stopped. Dunno what all this forest talk is about. All you need to do is make sure there are only one or two bridges across the river on your battlefield.

[Buzghush]

The Mongol Horde is easily stopped. Dunno what all this forest talk is about. All you need to do is make sure there are only one or two bridges across the river on your battlefield.

You talking about in-game Mongols? if yes, this is history topic. But, if you're talking about real-life, Europeans tried to stop Mongols in Battle of Mohi. (was a river battle) but they couldn't. Mongols killed tens of thousands of europeans in that battle and lost very few men.

[El Barto]

For some reason, you're taking it for granted that the Europeans didn't learn from their mistakes.

[Myth]

For some reason, you're taking it for granted that the Europeans didn't learn from their mistakes.

They didn't. Feudal Russia got dominated yet right next door, Hungary was still wide-eyed surprised that the Mongols came to rape their goats and slaughter their womenfolk.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They didn't. Feudal Russia got dominated yet right next door, Hungary was still wide-eyed surprised that the Mongols came to rape their goats and slaughter their womenfolk.

This is a very human tendency to begin with. Stuff happens to "others" it won't happen to me. Same reason people get into cars without using the safety restraints.

Feudalism -- which could almost be thought of as geographic particularism because there was such a focus on one's own district -- did not lend itself to coordinated efforts that spanned larger regions. Western Europe was better integrated in terms of communication than was the East....but only moderately so.

[Kagemusha]

I am not taking any stand either way, but just to point out few things.

When we talk about European vs Mongol armies, we tend to focus on the generalization, that medieval European armies had high concentration of Heavy cavalry while Mongols lot of light horse archers. It should be noted that each Tumen also had a heavy cavalry component. Also basically every mongol warrior could use his lethal composite bow, compared to even English only part of army was longbow men. So even if dismounted the missile projecting capacity of a Mongol army was devastating.

Another thing about dampness and composite bows is a solution springing from very wet Island called: Japan. Japanese lacquered their bow shafts, Spear shafts, even their armour against dampness and as technology lacquering was well known in Asia and im quite sure it was not unknown to Mongols either. After all they took Siberia and the weather conditions of Europe are like in Beach resort compared to that.

[Fisherking]

Those European armies were not all Knights in shining armor either.

They would have been, in largest part, infantry and some supporting bowmen.

Most would have been lightly armored at best.

Even those you refer to as knights, in the 1200s would not be equipped with heavy plate armor but mostly chain with a few plates in the most vital areas. Most horses would have been unprotected.

More a classic case of showing up with a knife at a gunfight.

[Kagemusha]

Those European armies were not all Knights in shining armor either.

They would have been, in largest part, infantry and some supporting bowmen.

Most would have been lightly armored at best.

Even those you refer to as knights, in the 1200s would not be equipped with heavy plate armor but mostly chain with a few plates in the most vital areas. Most horses would have been unprotected.

More a classic case of showing up with a knife at a gunfight.

I completely agree. Normal European army of the era would have been pretty feudal in structure. Spear point of heavy cavalry combined with levy troops and some mercenaries at times. Compared to highly organized Mongol army the odds would have been dim, but of course it is all speculation. Though with the Mongols there would have been most likely large amount of vassal troops of varied quality.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not to mention that all the European in-fighting might have lead to nations selling out their neighbours...

The idea that Europe would unify is theoretical, at best.

[El Barto]

Yet the crusades happened.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yet the crusades happened.

Not all of Europe went though...

[Fisherking]

Not to mention that all the European in-fighting might have lead to nations selling out their neighbours...

The idea that Europe would unify is theoretical, at best.

I liked “ Why the West Rules, for Now” on the topic of how development works.

[Myth]

I think that if it had come to it, the vast wealth and military force of Constantinople and the Eastern Romans would have been the main pivot around the defense of Europe. Remember that the ERE was far more rich and generally better developed than most of Western Europe. For that matter, I can't recall if we have recorded battles between ERE forces and Mongol forces.

[Fisherking]

What stopped the Mongols was guns and more organized kingdoms.

The brought guns to Europe but in the end, it worked against them.

I think it was the ERE and China on the other end that put an end to the Steppes Highway. That took a lot of time and a new approach along with logistics.

All of Europe was not conquered because the shared the technologies enough that none had a clear overwhelming advantage.

[Kagemusha]

Concerning the steppe highway. My take it was centralization of Russia that made end of the "endless wave". We have to remember that China was essentially ruled by originally Nomadic people right to the end of Empire, last group being the Manchus.

About ERE in 13th century. They had their hands full with Seljuk Turks and fighting a prolonged loosing battle, while Western Europeans only contributed negatively by sacking Constantinopol during 4th Crusade at the start of the century. I cant share the view that they could have provided the bulwark of European defense when they were becoming helpless to defend even themselves in long run.

[Fisherking]

Right! It was Russia and as you say the ERE was broke and had their hands full.

Lucky for Europe the Mongols left after a short time and didn't make it back.

[Kagemusha]

Yes. It was more then huge luck for Europe that Ögedei Khan died suddenly and all the Tumen turned around and went back home. I think that is definitely one of those great historical flukes that changed the course of history dramatically.

[El Barto]

The same level of organisation and traditions that enabled the Mongols to keep cohesion across such a huge empire worked against them? Maybe.

But it surely wasn't the Greeks who would've stopped the Mongols. They had lost at Manzikerta and Myriocephalon and didn't even own Constantinople by then. It was the unification of Russia and the counterattack that eventually led to their conquest of Siberia that did it. The tide was inverted.

[Myth]

A video I had found a while back when searching for Tengri chants:



And an image from Google Maps, a random location in the Mongolian steppes (found it just now):