Best Military Tactic to defeat Mongolian Army

[Crimson Castle]

Hello,

I've been looking at the battles of Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Army - and it is incredible. They defeated virtually all enemy armies.

Their hit and run tactics using fast horsemen archers was devasating. It seems the Europeans did not have an adequate military reply.

If you were a 12th century European commander - how would you have fought against the Mongolians?

Cheers,

CC

[Loki]

Of course I would have. But by the time I would have fought them the battle as they say, would have already been won.

First I would have sent spies and scouts to understand the nature of Mongol warfare and to discern their numbers and disposition.

Then I would have chosen the battlefield very carefully and made sure the time of the conflict suited me and not them.

Then I would have slaughtered them.

[Crimson Castle]

Sure trying to pick the right battlefield and preparing it would have helped a lot. But trying to do a "Bannockburn" on the wily Mongolians could at best only have worked one or twice.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 04 2004,16:08)]Of course I would have. But by the time I would have fought them the battle as they say, would have already been won.

First I would have sent spies and scouts to understand the nature of Mongol warfare and to discern their numbers and disposition.

Then I would have chosen the battlefield very carefully and made sure the time of the conflict suited me and not them.

Then I would have slaughtered them.
Good luck. The Mongols were infamous for their incredible speed and their gift to take the initiative in a battle at any given time.

Remember that Europeans did not have the troops, the ordered structure and the mobility to truly challenge the Mongols.

Sure, you could make the time of the conflict yours. Say, you're the Germans, and you decide that you want the time for a battle to be right for you, not for the Mongols. Care to fight in Paris?

The Mongols did not wait until you were done plotting, planning and reorganizing your army until it's suited to their style of warfare. By that time, you'd probably be dead and your head would be posted on a stake outside a major city that had been burned. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif



~Wiz

[kiwitt]

Allied with the English until the threat of the Mongols has subsided.

The longbows in defence. Spearmen walls. And Calvary to run down the stragglers.

[bhutavarna]

i don't think there are much that you can do. militarily their tactics and mobility are far superior than any european army at the time. the only way they can be defeated is if somehow you're able to trap the entire mongol contingent in a place where they can't take advantage of their mobility.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Of course I would have. But by the time I would have fought them the battle as they say, would have already been won.

First I would have sent spies and scouts to understand the nature of Mongol warfare and to discern their numbers and disposition.

Then I would have chosen the battlefield very carefully and made sure the time of the conflict suited me and not them.

Then I would have slaughtered them.




Quote[/b] ]Allied with the English until the threat of the Mongols has subsided.

The longbows in defence. Spearmen walls. And Calvary to run down the stragglers.
Why do you make such foolish assumptions? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

We are NOT talking about the game...

We are talking about a specific Historical possibility. You have to take into account the organization capabilities of European medieval armies, their command structure, the experience of their commanders, the tactics that they were familiar with

Back then, it was a question of religious, human, political and social situations that were really important. Reality isn't based on little fly-by controled battles

You hadn't knowledge of enemy strategy, tactics, weaponery, motivation or anything else. The Middle Age men even tought the Mongols to be Devils from Hell

The Middle Age was a completelly desinformed period of History in Europe.

MTW, although being a very good game based on some "aproximated" simulation of reality, it has absolutely nothing to do with the REAL Medieval times per se.

It's just a game

You can't put a claim like that taking the example from in-game Mongols. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[DemonArchangel]

Well Psychology=A LOT

I must convince my men (with blessings from the pope) that they are holy warriors sent out to stop these godless devils. And the only way to do so is to stop being an impetuous idiot.

Then i'll just dismount my knights and form a hollow square, as the mongols are attacking, another relief force comes up behind them, cutting off their escape and murdering them.

[spmetla]

I'd have to try and negate the advantage of their horses. The Carpathian mountains seem the best place for defense or any solid river, like the danube and burn the bridges or keep a solid defense at areas where it could be forded. I'd have to operate on a strategic level because it's hard if not impossible to defeat them at the tactical level.

I'd further try to eliminate their mobility by adopting a scorched earth policy, poisoning wells, burning food I can't have. I'd also try to withdraw the majority of my population from any plains, steppes or relatively indefensible areas to farther back were I'd try to mobilze them into effect militia defense systems.

And then naturally I'd have to play politics if I could form a sort of defensive confederacy it'd be most advantageous but I'd also love to be able to hire foriegn troops as mercenaries and have economic, military, or monetary tribute.

Overall my strategy would be to grind them down through a war of attrition and all them as little mobility as possible. If I were to have no allies or key defensive positions I'd submit to the Golden Horde as a subject nation as many nations did.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]another relief force comes up behind them, cutting off their escape and murdering them.
You forget that scouting, spying and information gathering was one of their strong points. You couldn't surprise them with envelopment tactics. In fact, it would be the other way around, as they proved countless times...

You must also understand that the Polish, German and Hungarian nobles that faced them, weren't exactly unexperienced men. They were very able fighters, but outclassed by a superior war machine in every form.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]I'd have to try and negate the advantage of their horses. The Carpathian mountains seem the best place for defense or any solid river, like the danube and burn the bridges or keep a solid defense at areas where it could be forded. I'd have to operate on a strategic level because it's hard if not impossible to defeat them at the tactical level.

I'd further try to eliminate their mobility by adopting a scorched earth policy, poisoning wells, burning food I can't have. I'd also try to withdraw the majority of my population from any plains, steppes or relatively indefensible areas to farther back were I'd try to mobilze them into effect militia defense systems.

And then naturally I'd have to play politics if I could form a sort of defensive confederacy it'd be most advantageous but I'd also love to be able to hire foriegn troops as mercenaries and have economic, military, or monetary tribute.

Overall my strategy would be to grind them down through a war of attrition and all them as little mobility as possible. If I were to have no allies or key defensive positions I'd submit to the Golden Horde as a subject nation as many nations did.
Tacticaly they weren't invencible, but very close to it. Strategically they were equally strong.

Those strategies that you mentioned, would probably be the most effective against them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[CBR]

By using same battle tactics as crusading armies in the Holy Land: lots of crossbowmen/archers and spearmen to support the knights combined with good discipline and planning.

If you locally are outnumbered then do what any medieval commander would do: hide in the castles and wait for the attacker to run out of supplies or for help to arrive.


CBR

[kataphraktoi]

Try a Byzantine battle plan which combines offensive/defensive capabilitlies. The doctrine of Byzantine battle plans was to co-ordinated blows against the enemy. Although i wonder how they could land a blow on the mercurial Mongolians.

[solypsist]

it would have been impossible to have beaten the Mongols with just one battle. my own tactics, assuming I had control of an "army" of decent ability, would have been this:

attack their rearmost baggage trains, destroy them (the baggage), and start pushing the Mongols into Europe, instead of trying to resist them by keeping the Mongols out. By keeping the Mongol horde distracted with read-gaurd defense, and demoralized because they have no outlet for retreat (ie. no easy walk back home to China), the Horde, with it's impetus moving forward (not designed to move back), would've eventually ground to a halt and then the other armies of Europe would be able to move in.

[spmetla]

Solypist must have been a Russian strategist in the past. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Crimson Castle]

I'm with solypsist on this. Lure them inwards and attack their logistics and communication lines. Luring the Mongols into a major battle in the interior of Central Europe and used a combination of shield spearmen + archers to wear them out - whilst holding the calvary in reserve = that would have been a good plan.

But I doubt the Mongols would have fallen for this trap unless you perform an incredible feat of deception.

[Rosacrux]

In a strategic level, Soly's ideas are the best. The key in defeating the Mongols would be cutting off their supply lines and their way to receive reinforcements, orders etc. Also, trying to face small contigents of the Horde (as their mobility allowed them, they would spread out quite thin to try and demoralize the enemy population, loot whatever they can, isolate smaller contigents of the enemies forces etc) and destroy them one by one. Politically, playing one faction or tribe against the other might've some effect or might've not. Also, the tactic of "burning the land behind you" might've worked wonders, but again the mobility factor is with the Mongols. Also, it would be absolutely vital to try and keep the free hand on your side - try to dictate the terms of the forthcoming battle, not allow yourself to be lured in their battlefield of choice for instance.

On the battlefield, the only European army fit to face the Mongols (because it has adopted to the various Turkic or Mongolic tribes that roamed eastern europe and Asia at the time) was the Byzantine. But at the time of the Mongol move towards West, Byzantium was in decline and couldn't possibly be a match for the Horde, had they moved onwards past the Seljuks.

The keys in a tactical level is keeping tight formations with shield walls, having loads of archers of your own to rain them arrows, do not fall for the faint attacks, keep strong reserves, set lots of ambushes, have a great deal of mobile forces ready for flanking and incerclement moves etc. etc. - one single wunder-tactic wouldn't work against those, they were the supreme fighting force of the era, and the Europeans ain't Mameluks, to beat the Mongols in their own game.

[Brutal DLX]

You forget that the Mongol army's mobility also extends to their supply and communication lines. You will hardly find any European power that could outpace the Mongols, they were trained to quick nonstop marches on horseback, if you try to get any operation in their back going, chances are high that you will be facing the Horde within 3 days.

Given the organisational structure of the medieval European powers, it would be best to resort to defence of well fortified castles, mountains or rivers, while using diplomacy to alert all powers to this new threat and get some kind of crusade going. Spies would also be invaluable as in any war, perhaps it would be possible to assassinate able Mongol commanders.
Of course one has to avoid giving battle on battlefields that favour cavalry, a field like at Agincourt would work much in favour of a defending European army. But it is likely that the Mongols themselves will avoid such a battle. Therefore you would have a stalemate that could only be broken by every threatened or allied kingdom sending their forces and trying to win by numerical superiority, either encircling the Mongol army or push them out of Europe by this maneuvering.
This could be achieved by the "march seperately, strike together" tactic, which, admittedly, would be hard to conduct at this age especially with the Mongols having the initiative.
Often the Mongols were able to raise support troops from the local defeated countries, but I doubt this could be possible in Europe, with religion stirring up the populace against the "devils". Thus, the Mongols could only rely on their own reinforcements, which despite the legends, aren't so numerous. The real trick is to catch and destroy their main army before they depopulate and plunder too many regions.
To sum it up, it could be possible for the Europeans to defeat them, but it is not likely unless some things go their way.

[Rosacrux]

Mameluks beating the Mongols in their old game (from an account of the famous battle at Ain Jalut):

The Mameluks drew out the Mongol cavalry with a feigned retreat, and were almost unable to withstand the assault. Qutuz (the Mameluk leader, he and Baybars allied in this battle) rallied his troops for a successful counterattack, along cavalry reserves hidden in the nearby valleys. The Mongols were forced to retreat

Can you imagine any European army - even the Byzantines - using that tactic?


btw the Mongols drew local recruits by force and by threatening to kill their families if they wouldn't join their ranks - not excactly an army of volunteers. So it's rather unlikely that the European would actually not join the Mongols in our hypothetical scenario.

An interesting fact: the Mongols after destroying Bagdhad and before they faced the Mameluks of Egypt, tried to ally with the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif against the Mameluks. The pope seems to be the factor that stopped that effort.

[Ironside]

Hide in the woods http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Seriously the tactics that would work is disciplined shield-walls with good ranged units behind, ambushes, trappings (river crossings and similar, the Mongol army don't have enough room), castles (works also well for trappings) and fights in the forests.

The problem that occurs is for the shield-wall lack of mobility and lack of range(?) (didn't Mongol bows have longer range than European crossbows?)

Ambushes and trappings is hard to pull of considering the skill of Mongol scouting.

Castles might work as discussed in a earlier tread but you'll still need some kind of army outside the castle.

But for forest fightings I would need to train units for it especially some kind of ranger unit that is excellent on taking out enemy scouts. If nothing else, I'm unique on this forum using this tactics. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif If you don't think this would work how come there isn't any European horse archers?

Strategically, most things had been discussed

Citera[/b] ]Mameluks beating the Mongols in their old game (from an account of the famous battle at Ain Jalut):

The Mameluks drew out the Mongol cavalry with a feigned retreat, and were almost unable to withstand the assault. Qutuz (the Mameluk leader, he and Baybars allied in this battle) rallied his troops for a successful counterattack, along cavalry reserves hidden in the nearby valleys. The Mongols were forced to retreat

Can you imagine any European army - even the Byzantines - using that tactic?

The only working European method for this is to withdraw through an unseen second line. It should be very hard to counterattack, your biggest hope is knights smashing in to the now trapped Mongolian troops (European shield-wall on one side, the rest of the Mongolian army on the other).

[Brutal DLX]

We have to acknowledge what kind of Mongol army we are talking about and what size. Ain Jalut was important, but only a fraction of the full Horde fought there.
Vietnam, I suppose the Mongols used more Chinese infantry troops than horses in this terrain, which put them at a disadvantage right away. The scorched earth tactic always helps, but at the same time limits your own capability to pursue the enemy to achieve a decisive victory.

As long as the Mongols don't win at least one decisive victory against an influential and sizable Christian power, I don't think it is likely they are able to raise auxiliaries in meaningful quantities. Mass killings won't work to the same effect as long as there is an escape route and hope of relief. If it is possible to ambush their foreign recruited siege personnel and equipment, they can be seriously slowed when having to attack cities and castles.

[spmetla]

The european shield wall and archers wouldn't be as effective as you might imagine. Seeing as the only weapon that could pose a challenge to the Mongol bow would be the Longbow and that would be extremely rare to find in Eastern Europe. The mongols also had european troops either from subject nations or mercenaries that could be used as fodder for the spear and archer line. And remeber that unlike in Medieval there is no edge to the map, then can bypass you and cut off your supplies or simply continue firing arrows until you give up or are defeated. The mongols could only be defeat on a Strategic scale by the europeans and it was over years and years.

As for castles, the mongols seiged and took many cities, remeber they were the first non Arabs to take Baghdad. Also siege is the way that the black death was spread into europe.

Most of your are thinking of one great gigantic battle, you'd need to make it lots of smaller raids when they're busy fighting others and playing politics with your neighbors so you don't need to worry about stabs to the back. Also you assume you'd have a disciplined shield wall, the infantry of Europe at the time were fairly ill disciplined and would not likely stand under archer fire for how ever long the mongols would fire at them. Also remeber that their tactics were better than that in MTW were they just stand there and fire arrows, they were a highly mobile army, also the wouldn't be limited to comminting "16 units" to the field at once.

The best tactic is strategy and that is denying then advantageous terrain, denying the time set for battle, and preventing them from making use of sources of water or food because all armies need to eat and the mongols had lots of horses to mind as well. Granted their supply train could supply them for a while confilicts with other European nations would not allow stagnat warfare with you. Simply you'd need to get them to attack someone else and then attack when you feel ready to.

[The_Emperor]

My tactic would be to not face the Horde in a pitched battle because you would lose.

Run to the Mountains and conduct guerilla warefare on their supplies... Make the bastards hate that part of the world for years

[Brutal DLX]

But it's not easy to do just that They are a nomadic people and they don't rely on agriculture, they take such goods if they come across them, but unless you can stage a successful raid on their sheep and burn down the grass on vast areas of your own land in a naturally fertile part of the world which would make doing so an arduous task in itself, you can't hit them. And to get a significant strike force around to their rear without them noticing and intercepting it would need a combined and carefully planned effort by more than one kingdom.
If you operate on attrition, it only works if you can hurt their reinforcement line, if you can't then you will be the one losing to attrition as they have more mobility.
The key is putting them in a situation where they either have to retreat completely or commit to a battle on your terms. This is hard to do for a medieval Europe, but it's possible.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Very good points by Freiherr Brutal DLX and Baron von Schpetzka spmetla

Specially attention to the in-game comments:


Quote[/b] ]And remeber that unlike in Medieval there is no edge to the map, then can bypass you and cut off your supplies or simply continue firing arrows until you give up or are defeated.


Quote[/b] ]Also remeber that their tactics were better than that in MTW were they just stand there and fire arrows, they were a highly mobile army, also the wouldn't be limited to comminting "16 units" to the field at once.

[Rosacrux]

Emperor-Brutal

A pitched battle (a coupe-de-grace battle, if I may say so) is excactly the only way to actually defeat the Horde. Their game is mobility, quick raids, hit and retreat tactics, terrorizing the population etc. etc. - they would avoide a massive battle until they manage to bring things to their favor.

The commander who could force the Horde to stand and fight in a battlefield of his choice, with his forces intact and ready (and uses the tactics I described above) has already won 2/3 of the battle.

Too bad that for this to happen, the Horde would've to cooperate too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Feb. 05 2004,04:01)]it would have been impossible to have beaten the Mongols with just one battle. my own tactics, assuming I had control of an "army" of decent ability, would have been this:

attack their rearmost baggage trains, destroy them (the baggage), and start pushing the Mongols into Europe, instead of trying to resist them by keeping the Mongols out. By keeping the Mongol horde distracted with read-gaurd defense, and demoralized because they have no outlet for retreat (ie. no easy walk back home to China), the Horde, with it's impetus moving forward (not designed to move back), would've eventually ground to a halt and then the other armies of Europe would be able to move in.
They didn't have baggage trains. They took their yurs, families and cattle with them. If you want to attack those, prepare to face the army as well.

They didn't have supply lines. They lived off the lands and off of plunder. They took their land with them, if you will.

It was impossible for any European army to beat the Mongols. Hiding in castles or mountains won't help. The Carpathian mountains? The Mongols dissapeared into them and suddenly appeared out of the blue in Hungary a mere week later. Want to hide in a castle? The Mongols will happily tear it down for you, or rather bypass you, wait until you come out and then ambush you, slaughtering your army.

Knights were too slow to catch any kind of Mongol unit. Crossbowmen would not help either, because they couldn't hit any of the Mongol horse archers even if they tried. Any kind of spear-wielding infantry would be shot to pieces, and then ran down by the Mongol heavy cavalry. The same would be done to the rest of the army.

It is simple. European armies couldn't beat the Golden Horde of Batu Khan and Subedei. Tactics and fighting style were far too advanced for the European armies, used to fighting each other in slow battles and head-on clashes, and besieging castles, in other words: relatively stationary warfare. At the same time, the Mongols skirmished, surrounded, ambushed their way to the destruction of your army, and then ran it down How wonderful. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

And again: why did the Mameluks win? Because Holegu withdrew his main force to siege Baghdad, and left a small, unimportant force to fend off any Mameluke armies. Meanwhile, the Mameluks came with a huge force, fearing the Mongol's full wrath. Then they met that small force, and they had an easy time defeating it. Later, the Il-Khanate was busy getting its act together internally, and fighting the Golden Horde (which was, since Berke Khan, angry because the Il-Khanate had invaded their fellow muslims' lands). Afterwards, the Mameluks piped down anytime the Il-Khanate raised anything larger than a garrisson.

The Mongols defeated all that came in their path in their time. There was no army that could hope to defeat them. They even defeated the Seljuq quite easily, who had a relatively similar army to their own (yes, I am aware that the Seljuq empire had fractured by then).



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 05 2004,09:06)]And again: why did the Mameluks win? Because Holegu withdrew his main force to siege Baghdad, and left a small, unimportant force to fend off any Mameluke armies. Meanwhile, the Mameluks came with a huge force, fearing the Mongol's full wrath. Then they met that small force, and they had an easy time defeating it. Later, the Il-Khanate was busy getting its act together internally, and fighting the Golden Horde (which was, since Berke Khan, angry because the Il-Khanate had invaded their fellow muslims' lands). Afterwards, the Mameluks piped down anytime the Il-Khanate raised anything larger than a garrisson.
A couple minor corrections: The Mongols had already captured (and razed) Baghdad before the battle. It's true that the Mameluks faced only Holegu's henchman, with a 2/5 of the initial force but the two armies were equal in strength - about 20.000 men from each side, according to most accounts.

The Mongols could be defeated and have been defeated. Even the full wrath of the Horde could be defeated. But it would take more than a mediocre general, more than good troops and probably more than a dozen kingdoms to do that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[71-hour Ahmed]

The solution to any army that forages is to destroy all forage via burn, poison and withdrawal, leaving them with one area to go for with the food in it which you are sitting on. Don't go to the Mongols, make the mountain do the walking. Implementing that strategy would involve callousness, cunning and a united army. And the danger is they just ignore you and invade someone else to get their supplies. So erm....not really going to work well.

Alternatively, relying on funneling and channeling and unsuitable terrain is best. The mobility is useless if theres only one way in and out of a region. Again, not really implementable strategy unless you are Danish.If you were really good, you could disperse your army, let them past, then kill the lads they leave behind.

I still refuse to assume though that the golden horde had any siege weapons and engineers in its invasion of Europe. I haven't found any references to any yet (kiev?), so unless someone knows of one I'm not inclined to accept it without evidence.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 05 2004,16:06)]They didn't have baggage trains. They took their yurs, families and cattle with them. If you want to attack those, prepare to face the army as well.

They didn't have supply lines. They lived off the lands and off of plunder. They took their land with them, if you will.
And that gives both advantages and disadvantages. They needed large amounts of grass, something you can find on the big steppe but it will cause problems in more densely populated areas.

Lots of european armies had to quit a campaign because living off the land was not enough, especially when doing sieges. What the mongols could do on the russian steppe is very different compared to a much more fortified Europe.

Sieges takes time, especially against big cities/castles, and they would have no large safe area for their camp.


Quote[/b] ]Knights were too slow to catch any kind of Mongol unit

Well they could and did catch muslim cavalry. Sure they were slower and it was not easy but it happened. Battle of Arsuf is one example.



Quote[/b] ]Crossbowmen would not help either, because they couldn't hit any of the Mongol horse archers even if they tried

And what do you base that on?? Crusading armies could hold back muslim horsearchers and force them to do harassment only (shooting from 400 yards sometimes) Yes they could make this extreme range shooting but it was not very effective. Crossbows would force them to go beyond 200-250 yards and arrows from that range might look scary but would not produce many casualties even if the average Mongol bow was stronger than muslim bows.

There is no doubt that the Mongol army was a very good army but after all it was still just a typical steppe army that relied on the usual 3 elements: Horsearchery, envelopment, and feigned flight. It worked wonders against armies that was not prepared for that.

The typical knight army could easily be destroyed by these tactics, but history do show that the western armies could learn as they did in the crusades. Increased use of missile and in general combined arms to counter the horsearchers and better discipline to ensure that the feigned flight was not as effective.


CBR

[The Wizard]

Ah. But the fact of no outstretched steppes/plains refers to staying power. That is where the Mongols might've lacked in Europe. However, we cannot know, unfortunately. =/

Remember the Mongols destroyed some of the most magnificent cities and greatest fortresses in the world, such as Baghdad, Kyiw and the Jin capital, among many others.

Now I'm no expert on crossbows, so I could be wrong here, but the Mongols defeated three Chinese empires. Chinese adored the crossbow while campaigning, and were quite good with it. If I'm correct, Chinese crossbows were also more advanced than European crossbows. Now of course crossbowmen would've given Mongol horse archers problems if they walked around carrying pavises. But my guess is that Mongols would've bypassed that disadvantage by trying to ambush their enemy.

And IMHO, Mongolian horse archers were of higher quality than Saracen horse archers. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif



~Wiz

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 05 2004,15:43)]
Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 05 2004,09:06)]And again: why did the Mameluks win? Because Holegu withdrew his main force to siege Baghdad, and left a small, unimportant force to fend off any Mameluke armies. Meanwhile, the Mameluks came with a huge force, fearing the Mongol's full wrath. Then they met that small force, and they had an easy time defeating it. Later, the Il-Khanate was busy getting its act together internally, and fighting the Golden Horde (which was, since Berke Khan, angry because the Il-Khanate had invaded their fellow muslims' lands). Afterwards, the Mameluks piped down anytime the Il-Khanate raised anything larger than a garrisson.
A couple minor corrections: The Mongols had already captured (and razed) Baghdad before the battle. It's true that the Mameluks faced only Holegu's henchman, with a 2/5 of the initial force but the two armies were equal in strength - about 20.000 men from each side, according to most accounts.

The Mongols could be defeated and have been defeated. Even the full wrath of the Horde could be defeated. But it would take more than a mediocre general, more than good troops and probably more than a dozen kingdoms to do that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well it really depends which source one gleans information from. Most Islamic accounts of Ain Jalut proclaim victory over a 'Mongol' force of equal size...around 20,000. They would also have us believe this was actually an army of invasion and that Qid Buqha was actually actively undergoing such. I find that very unlikely indeed, considering Hulegu had amassed somewhere in the region of a 300,000 strong army.
Other sources supply less equality...
Mongols ..10,000
Mamluks...125,000

Mongols...10,000 - 15,000
Mamluks...50,000

When we look beyond that one battlefield, at the dilema facing Hulegu, even with a huge army, in hostile territories with the threat of attack on many fronts, his decision to withdraw should be obvious. Too many people think of the Mongol Empire as one large, all conquering entity, at this point in time it was nothing like that. There was Civil War raging, with Qubilai and Ariq Buqha contesting the title. They each had their supporters, Berke and the Golden Horde backed Ariq Buqha, though Hulegu favoured Qubilai. In central Asia, Qaidu resided menacingly, with his own ambitions. Hulegu simply had to secure his position, he could not risk being cut off, a threat that was very possible.

The 'Mongol' force defeated was not exactly 'Mongol' anyway as there was a great deal of Georgian, Armenian and Turkmen presence in its ranks.

I stated in another thread that I get as much information from different sources before I attempt to form a conclusion, which even then is speculation. So my conclusion of Ain Jalut has to be...
An Ilkhanate garrison put up an incredible fight against a larger mamluk army but was eventually defeated.

We should take a look at Mongol warfare on a broader scale than it would seem most on these forums are doing. Feigned retreat and Steppe Envelopment using manoeuvres such as the Tulughma was the 'Classic' Mongol strategy. Strategies such as these would not have been effective in the conquest of the Sung, with the myriad of waterways and huge walled cities. Nothing in Europe compared with defences of these cities, yet they eventually fell. The Mongols were ahead of their time in that they were a professional, trained army, something that feudal Europe could not claim and their ability to adapt is as inspiring as their effectiveness. Chinese traction trebuchets and Ox bows were widely used, the Mongols always made use of local artisans. They added the stronger Muslim counterweight trebuchets and catapults after their conquests in the Middle East.

During the Invasion of Russia and Eastern Europe, Batu used catapults in both seige and field.( I read a reply here doubting their use )
At Mohi, the battle of Sajo, Batu attacked before dawn and stormed the Hungarian bridge defence using catapults and flaming naptha.
In February 1238, Vladimir was assaulted. It was pounded all day and night by Mongol artillery, while seige engineers built scaffolds and brought in battering rams. When Kiev was attacked, the artillery was concentrated on the Polish Gate and its wooden battlements. Riazan had been surrounded by a pallisade which prevented escape and protected the seige engineers.
Apart from a possible alliegeance among the bickering heads of European principalities to create an army larger than that of the Mongols, there was no real answer to them.

I don't find events like Ain Jalut as being momentous, Mongol armies had been stopped before. At the start of the Campaign on Khwarazm, Jelal ad Din had successfully prevented the advance of an albeit weakened Mongol force under Jochi and Jebe, after they had crossed the Tien Shan range. The Bulgars had repelled three Tumens under the command of Sinqur, Batu's brother. I will not include Japan, Java and Champa, all of which were defeats, as one could possibly argue these were more Chinese/Yuan than Mongol. However, the least talked about and possibly the most enduring in their stand against the Mongols were the Koreans.
From 1216 until 1273 the Mongols campaigned against the Koreans and what is most important to note is that this was during a period of great strength in the Mongol Empire.

Tactics to beat the Mongol threat....coalition of forces.

To win a battle... a larger army and grim determination may just help

......Orda

[Mount Suribachi]

I think asking how the Europeans could have defeated the Mongols is like asking how the Iraqi Air Force could have defeated the US Air Force in 1991 - the answer is quite simply that they couldn't.

The Mongols were quite simply one one of the greatest fighting forces of all time. Mobile, fast, skilled, disciplined, brave, well equipped, well led, tactically and strategically excellent, flexible, tough, hardy, subtle, excellent intelligence gathering, not dependant upon a long supply route, brutal, adaptable. They were pretty near unbeatable I reckon.

The best ideas here have been Spemtlas schorched earth policy - the Mongols were always on the move becos of the need to find grazing for their horses. I don't think retreating to castles would have worked - they proved themselves proficient at siege warfare in Russia and elsewhere, incorporating technology & techniques they learnt from captured Chinese siege engineers. Defending a river wouldn't work as they managed successful river crossings elsewhere. Hiding behind a shield wall with archers wouldn't work - the Mongol Composite bow was almost as long ranged as the Longbow and a stationary target is much harder to hit than a fast moving horse archer. Others tried the shield wall and lost.

As others have mentioned, trying to fight on ground that doesn't favour the Mongols would probly result in them sweeping round you and then raping and pillaging their cities whilst you sit and wait for them. You wouldn't have time to gather an alliance as they moved faster than news of their advance and co-ordinating such a multi-pronged attack on them would have been nigh on impossible back then. The Mongols were smart, much smarter than your average Western European General and they fought a kind of warfare that was totally alien to the Europeans who never had time to learn from their mistakes and adapt their style of warfare (as the allies did in WW2 for eg) becos they were usually dead after the first battle - whereas those who have posted here know something of the Mongol fighting style and can at least try and think of a strategy to counter it, an advantage they didn't have back in the middle ages.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Feb. 05 2004,21:01)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 05 2004,15:43)]
Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 05 2004,09:06)]And again: why did the Mameluks win? Because Holegu withdrew his main force to siege Baghdad, and left a small, unimportant force to fend off any Mameluke armies. Meanwhile, the Mameluks came with a huge force, fearing the Mongol's full wrath. Then they met that small force, and they had an easy time defeating it. Later, the Il-Khanate was busy getting its act together internally, and fighting the Golden Horde (which was, since Berke Khan, angry because the Il-Khanate had invaded their fellow muslims' lands). Afterwards, the Mameluks piped down anytime the Il-Khanate raised anything larger than a garrisson.
A couple minor corrections: The Mongols had already captured (and razed) Baghdad before the battle. It's true that the Mameluks faced only Holegu's henchman, with a 2/5 of the initial force but the two armies were equal in strength - about 20.000 men from each side, according to most accounts.

The Mongols could be defeated and have been defeated. Even the full wrath of the Horde could be defeated. But it would take more than a mediocre general, more than good troops and probably more than a dozen kingdoms to do that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
When we look beyond that one battlefield, at the dilema facing Hulegu, even with a huge army, in hostile territories with the threat of attack on many fronts, his decision to withdraw should be obvious. Too many people think of the Mongol Empire as one large, all conquering entity, at this point in time it was nothing like that. There was Civil War raging, with Qubilai and Ariq Buqha contesting the title. They each had their supporters, Berke and the Golden Horde backed Ariq Buqha, though Hulegu favoured Qubilai. In central Asia, Qaidu resided menacingly, with his own ambitions. Hulegu simply had to secure his position, he could not risk being cut off, a threat that was very possible.

The 'Mongol' force defeated was not exactly 'Mongol' anyway as there was a great deal of Georgian, Armenian and Turkmen presence in its ranks.
You are right, and I know this, but I thought it not relevant to the subject. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Very wise words by Orda Khan, Mount Suribachi and Wizzy. Specially these quotes:


Quote[/b] ]During the Invasion of Russia and Eastern Europe, Batu used catapults in both seige and field.( I read a reply here doubting their use )
At Mohi, the battle of Sajo, Batu attacked before dawn and stormed the Hungarian bridge defence using catapults and flaming naptha.
In February 1238, Vladimir was assaulted. It was pounded all day and night by Mongol artillery, while seige engineers built scaffolds and brought in battering rams. When Kiev was attacked, the artillery was concentrated on the Polish Gate and its wooden battlements. Riazan had been surrounded by a pallisade which prevented escape and protected the seige engineers.
Apart from a possible alliegeance among the bickering heads of European principalities to create an army larger than that of the Mongols, there was no real answer to them.

It's a proven fact that they were seige masters after their initial encounters with the Chinese Kingdoms. They defeated ALL Chinese Kingdoms and several Islamic Sultanates afterwards. Both the Chinese and Islamic states had massive city fortifications and that didn't detered them. Adaptability and a practical aproach were their middle name.




Quote[/b] ]The Mongols were quite simply one one of the greatest fighting forces of all time. Mobile, fast, skilled, disciplined, brave, well equipped, well led, tactically and strategically excellent, flexible, tough, hardy, subtle, excellent intelligence gathering, not dependant upon a long supply route, brutal, adaptable. They were pretty near unbeatable I reckon.
Exactly, absolutelly right. The difference was that enormous.




Quote[/b] ]The best ideas here have been Spemtlas schorched earth policy - the Mongols were always on the move becos of the need to find grazing for their horses. I don't think retreating to castles would have worked - they proved themselves proficient at siege warfare in Russia and elsewhere, incorporating technology & techniques they learnt from captured Chinese siege engineers.
Yes, the best way to defeat them was to make them unable to provide forage for their horses. But, even that would be hard, due to their mobility. They could just change areas in a blink of an eye...




Quote[/b] ]Defending a river wouldn't work as they managed successful river crossings elsewhere. Hiding behind a shield wall with archers wouldn't work - the Mongol Composite bow was almost as long ranged as the Longbow and a stationary target is much harder to hit than a fast moving horse archer. Others tried the shield wall and lost.
Everyone talks about the range of the Longbow, but many people don't know that the Mongol bow had almost the same range. Although shorter on length, the string tension was quite a lot higher than the LB. And they used two different types: a shorter mounted one (normal string tension - easier to shoot, shorter range; the one that is known today as The Mongol Bow) and a longer dismounted one (bigger, higher string tension - longer range; about the same range as the LB - some experts say even longer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif ).




Quote[/b] ]As others have mentioned, trying to fight on ground that doesn't favour the Mongols would probly result in them sweeping round you and then raping and pillaging their cities whilst you sit and wait for them. You wouldn't have time to gather an alliance as they moved faster than news of their advance and co-ordinating such a multi-pronged attack on them would have been nigh on impossible back then. The Mongols were smart, much smarter than your average Western European General and they fought a kind of warfare that was totally alien to the Europeans who never had time to learn from their mistakes and adapt their style of warfare (as the allies did in WW2 for eg) becos they were usually dead after the first battle - whereas those who have posted here know something of the Mongol fighting style and can at least try and think of a strategy to counter it, an advantage they didn't have back in the middle ages.
Quite correct. Knowledge as we have today, wasn't achievable by any Medieval European nation at that period. Besides, Europeans had a very different way of thinking. The knights fought for honour, for their own ego. The Mongols fought to win, using every possible way to defeat their opponent.

BTW, we can almost say that Blitzkrieg Warfare was their invention... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 05 2004,19:45)]Ah. But the fact of no outstretched steppes/plains refers to staying power. That is where the Mongols might've lacked in Europe. However, we cannot know, unfortunately. =/
We do know one thing: the mongols never tried to conquer Europe, and it would have been damn easy for them if they were so good as some you hype them up to be http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]Now I'm no expert on crossbows, so I could be wrong here, but the Mongols defeated three Chinese empires. Chinese adored the crossbow while campaigning, and were quite good with it. If I'm correct, Chinese crossbows were also more advanced than European crossbows

I dont know much about the quality of chinese crossbows compared to contemporary european crossbows not any details about how they defeated China, but I do know it takes more than having a good weapon. Good generals and quality of troops are 2 important elements in a victorius army.



Quote[/b] ]And IMHO, Mongolian horse archers were of higher quality than Saracen horse archers. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

Bolts and arrows dont care about discipline nor training of their targets http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] ]Quite correct. Knowledge as we have today, wasn't achievable by any Medieval European nation at that period. Besides, Europeans had a very different way of thinking. The knights fought for honour, for their own ego. The Mongols fought to win, using every possible way to defeat their opponent

Then you dont know much about how knight could and did fight. The romantic ideal of knights having a fair honourable fight is.. well a romantic ideal. Feigned flight and use of hidden reserves was not uncommon. Sure there were knights who wanted to show off or had a personal grudge to settle and that wasnt exactly what you would see in a perfect disciplined army..you cant get everything.

They had no problems ravaging the country trying to provoke the enemy into battle or force him to submit, or just for the loot. And thats against fellow christians.

Just because some careless knights got slaughtered, thinking the Mongols were stupid barbarians, does not make the Mongols an invincible super army. Sure they were good but not that good.

Friar John of Plano Carpini gave a description of Mongol warfare and how to fight them. He and another Franciscan was sent by the Pope in 1245. link (http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/carpini.htm) Some of his advice is also seen used by crusading armies. (Rule of the Templars is a good example)


CBR

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Feb. 05 2004,17:59)]
Quote[/b] ]And IMHO, Mongolian horse archers were of higher quality than Saracen horse archers. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

Bolts and arrows dont care about discipline nor training of their targets http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


CBR
I agree,there is no such thing as "higher quality" considering were talking of a man on a horse firing an arrow,sure a mongol might be better at horse archery than a mameluke but the mameluke was very good at close combat,wich i see lacking in mongolian horse archers.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Good generals and quality of troops are 2 important elements in a victorius army.
Preciselly. Some of the best Generals in the Middle Ages were Mongols, because Ghengis(Chingis) Khan had created a system of command based on military (tactical, strategical or both) merit. Only the best men were chosen for the high command posts. Then, right below them, in the chain of command, were the next best men and so on and on. This enabled a very efficient command as well as a confident army.




Quote[/b] ]Bolts and arrows dont care about discipline nor training of their targets
They do care, if they can't hit the intended targets... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

If they kept moving, attacking, retreating and changing their positions out of range, you wouldn't be able to hit them.




Quote[/b] ]Then you dont know much about how knight could and did fight. The romantic ideal of knights having a fair honourable fight is.. well a romantic ideal. Feigned flight and use of hidden reserves was not uncommon. Sure there were knights who wanted to show off or had a personal grudge to settle and that wasnt exactly what you would see in a perfect disciplined army..you cant get everything.

They had no problems ravaging the country trying to provoke the enemy into battle or force him to submit, or just for the loot. And thats against fellow christians.
Of course. I said that as the principle that thay aspired to follow, not the way they behaved themselves. In anyone's mind, this strict education of Knighthood in the Middle Ages, and it's notion of superiority, creates certain behavioural paths that make Knights, in a general way, rigid to innovative thinking. That implies a certain inability to sort themselves out of an unconvencional situation, making them vulnerable. The Mongols had no mental barriers to hold them back. This allowed them to have a more pratical approach to things.




Quote[/b] ]Just because some careless knights got slaughtered, thinking the Mongols were stupid barbarians, does not make the Mongols an invincible super army. Sure they were good but not that good.
Nobody said they were invencible... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

What they said was, that in Medieval Europe, only if certain conditions were met, could the European nations defeat a Mongol onslaught.




Quote[/b] ]Friar John of Plano Carpini gave a description of Mongol warfare and how to fight them. He and another Franciscan was sent by the Pope in 1245. link Some of his advice is also seen used by crusading armies. (Rule of the Templars is a good example)
Good link. Interesting reading... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif




Quote[/b] ]I agree,there is no such thing as "higher quality" considering were talking of a man on a horse firing an arrow,sure a mongol might be better at horse archery than a mameluke but the mameluke was very good at close combat,wich i see lacking in mongolian horse archers.
But most of the Mongol tactics were performed to deny the enemy a physical confrontation. At least until he was desorganised, broken and ready to be crushed. What I think he meant was: the important aspect is that a "better" group of horse archers can keep their distance better, while pounding on the enemy than a "worse" group of horse archers. If, additionally, due to a better command, the "better" army can coordinate it's "better" groups of horse archers in a "better" tactic than the "worse" army of "worse" horse archers, it makes all the difference.

[Brutal DLX]

As said before, a lot of things would have to come together.
A good European commander, large armies raised by several kingdoms and possibly the mistake by the Mongols to lay siege to one of the larger cities. That would pin them in place at least for a couple of weeks and allow the European relief force to catch up. If this is led by a good general and consists of good quality troops, it might be able to win.
If the Mongols should choose to retreat, it would still be possible to capture or destroy their siege equipment, as that would be moving much slower. Without siege capability, and with having to contsruct new siege engines everytime they have to abandon them on a retreat, a conquest of Europe isn't possible, they would just be a plundering horde.
They couldn't advance deeper into Europe, because sooner or later their sheep and family would need to follow them and at some point they would have to fight to protect it. The site of this fight would probably decide the outcome of the battle, unless the Christian armies outnumber them by a huge margin.
Sure the Mongols were adpative, but siege warfare wasn't exactly one of their strong points, they relied on others to conduct it for them, whereas most European lands had expertise in it. Taking city after city is a long process and not taking them will deny you complete conquest. A good Mongol commander would realise this, and if the Christian commander is at least a bit competent, we would see a long drawn out war in Eastern Europe without a real winner that would leave the land ravaged and both forces exhausted. It's a like moving pieces in a game of chess, if nobody makes a mistake, you will see a draw.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Feb. 06 2004,10:24)]If the Mongols should choose to retreat, it would still be possible to capture or destroy their siege equipment, as that would be moving much slower. Without siege capability, and with having to contsruct new siege engines everytime they have to abandon them on a retreat, a conquest of Europe isn't possible, they would just be a plundering horde.
They couldn't advance deeper into Europe, because sooner or later their sheep and family would need to follow them and at some point they would have to fight to protect it. The site of this fight would probably decide the outcome of the battle, unless the Christian armies outnumber them by a huge margin.
Sure the Mongols were adpative, but siege warfare wasn't exactly one of their strong points, they relied on others to conduct it for them, whereas most European lands had expertise in it. Taking city after city is a long process and not taking them will deny you complete conquest. A good Mongol commander would realise this, and if the Christian commander is at least a bit competent, we would see a long drawn out war in Eastern Europe without a real winner that would leave the land ravaged and both forces exhausted. It's a like moving pieces in a game of chess, if nobody makes a mistake, you will see a draw.
Actually, when Subedei and Batu Khan invaded the Rus states, they actually broke apart their siege engines into parts and carried them on their horses. It was probably quite hard for a European army, predominantly infantry, to catch a Mongolian army, of which each and every warrior (of Mongol descent) had a horse.

About the siege engines themselves and who operated them, the Mongols themselves operated them when sieging Kyiw. By that time, they had mastered the use of siege engines. This had already shown in their quick conquest of the Khwarezm-shah empire. The Khwarezm-shah's strategy was to stay in his heavily fortified cities with his huge garissons. This gave the Mongols free target practice for sieging, and consequently the Khwarezm-shah empire was easily crushed.



~Wiz

[Brutal DLX]

Interesting, but you cannot compare Kiev to Vienna for example. The siege engines they transported on horse wouldn't be very heavy, as from another poster we see that attacks were concentrated on wooden parts of the defense. You won't find that in big European walled cities.
The point is that if they are sieging, it will take time, and then you can catch up. Nobody will claim that staying in castles will defeat the Mongols, as your example about the Khwarezm shows, but retreating to a heavily fortified city and luring them to siege it while other armies are moving on them is a much better strategy. You have to pin the Mongols to defeat them, if they break up the siege and move on, they cannot achieve conquest and you will likely have a draw.

[Rosacrux]

They might do just what they do in Khwarezm: Split their forces into 4 smaller armies (big enough, though) and have the one harassing the enemy main army, and the other three laying siege on cities, conquering them and slaughtering their entire population.

Do you know that some historians bring the Khwarazmian conquest death toll to 20 million? And from the descriptions I've read, they seem quite accurate too...

[Brutal DLX]

Yes, that would be a possible move, undoubtedly, thus Europe would need to raise several vast armies to counter this strategy. Not very likely, but possible.
Spying info would be vital.

Did they even have 20 million inhabitants? I suppose we can only estimate.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Do you know that some historians bring the Khwarazmian conquest death toll to 20 million? And from the descriptions I've read, they seem quite accurate too...
Most of these descriptions were made, at a later time, by guys serving under the Mongols rule. They were exagerated to increase their control on the population and increase their dread in their adversaries mind. They slaughterd hundreds of thousands, but not 20 million That number is bigger than the available population, at that specific place, at that time. One must not forget that they needed people to pay taxes... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Rosacrux]

Well, the Khwarazmian empire was quite huge at the time... perhaps the largest in the late 12th century. 24 mi. is a modest estimation of it's population - some say more than 30 mi.

Also, don't forget the onslaught in the kingdoms of Kara-Kitai, Hsi-Hsia, even in main China.

If the Mongols cared about taxation, they wouldn't eradicate n Khwarazmia only, 8 of the largest cities (all of them with more than 50.000 pop.) from the face of the earth (survivors of all those cities account less than 12.000 in total - and those went to Mongolia to construct monuments for the "great" Khan) and they wouldn't reduce Samarkands population from 550.000+ (largest city in the world at the time - by far) to 60.000.

Those are accounts by people who escaped the fate of their compatriots, not loyal Mongol subjects.

The death toll of Chinghiz' conquest lies anywhere between 30 and 60 million people.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Well, the Khwarazmian empire was quite huge at the time... perhaps the largest in the late 12th century. 24 mi. is a modest estimation of it's population - some say more than 30 mi.
So, do you really believe that they slaughtered 2/3 of the population just for kicks?

That is an exageration.




Quote[/b] ]Also, don't forget the onslaught in the kingdoms of Kara-Kitai, Hsi-Hsia, even in main China.
By the time they were destroyed, they had been a Mongol vassal for more than 15 years. Hsi-Hsia was destroyed because of 2 events:

-They refused to send troops to reinforce the Mongol army when it invaded the Khwarazmian Empire. The text goes something like this: "If the Great Khan doesn't have enough troops, then he shouldn't be Khan". Chingis did not forget that.

-They had tried several times to get rid of Mongol influence and control before 1226. So, to make an example out of them and to revenge himself from their earlier refusal to suply troops, he assaulted and destroyed Xi-Xia in a brutal campaign. All those who weren't killed were enslaved and all the cities were leveled. Xi-Xia ceased to exist. But Xi-Xia was the most radical example of it.




Quote[/b] ]If the Mongols cared about taxation, they wouldn't eradicate n Khwarazmia only, 8 of the largest cities (all of them with more than 50.000 pop.) from the face of the earth (survivors of all those cities account less than 12.000 in total - and those went to Mongolia to construct monuments for the "great" Khan) and they wouldn't reduce Samarkands population from 550.000+ (largest city in the world at the time - by far) to 60.000.
Preciselly. They did care about taxation. The real death toll is much smaller. Not 20 million in Kwarezm alone. Something more like 5 to 6 million is a much more accurate number. Remember that it is much more interesting, for the benefict of a report, to make 200000 into 2000000 and 2000000 into 20000000. They did it all the time in the past.




Quote[/b] ]Those are accounts by people who escaped the fate of their compatriots, not loyal Mongol subjects.
And they were writing the death toll in a pencil and paper, while the Mongols slaughtered their friends? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

What i'm saying is: Could they be sure?




Quote[/b] ]The death toll of Chinghiz' conquest lies anywhere between 30 and 60 million people.
Sources?

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 06 2004,00:52)][quote]Good generals and quality of troops are 2 important elements in a victorius army.. The Mongols had no mental barriers to hold them back. This allowed them to have a more pratical approach to things.[quote]
Off hand I can think of one mental barrier - the need to suspend operations to choose a new leader.

You could cynically say that the West had one weapon which defeated the Mongols - "alcohol" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif

[The Wizard]

Actually alcohol is a destructive force in its own right.

What the problem is here, when comparing to conquests that did happen, is the question: are we talking about pure Mongols here? Holegu's army was already starting to lean to the later Il-Khanate armies. I think, however, that we can be pretty sure that the armies of Batu Khan and Subedei were quite authentically Mongolian. In that time, before the death of Ogedei Khan, the Mongol Empire was still pretty unified.



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Off hand I can think of one mental barrier - the need to suspend operations to choose a new leader.

You could cynically say that the West had one weapon which defeated the Mongols - "alcohol"
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif You're right... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[DojoRat]

I see no meaningful chance that the Europeans could have stopped a concerted Mongol invasion. Leaving battlefield tactics aside, the feudal system would've fractured under the strain. How many lords would've left their lands to answer the kings call when Mongol horsemen could be at their gates the next day. How many would stay when word arrived that their lands, their source of power and wealth, were in flames? Many lords would also have surrendered, especially after a few cities/castles were put to the torch.

Actually, I think Europe's strongest defense was it's relative economic backwardness. Where's the return on your investment after you've slogged your way to Paris? Byzantium, The Po valley, and a few more areas would've been worth it but the vast majority wasn't that lucrative. If it was, would the Mongols have stopped trying?

[spmetla]

That's most likely why the Mongols didn't continue into Europe. Even Byzantium wasn't too rich anymore because of the 1204 sack of it by the Franks and Venetians.

[Ironside]

Here is some good info on the Mongol whereabouts.
Koreanhistoryproject (http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/Idx/KETIndex0601.htm)
There's some pages follow this.

Warning alot of quotes below.


Citera[/b] ]When the Mongols launched their first major military campaign against the Kingdom of Xi Xia (1207-1209), they had no experience in siege warfare (Figure 1). Always a formidable opponent in the open field, they had difficulty in conducting successful campaigns against fortified cities. The dramatic fall of the Jin capital at Zhongdu in 1215, a massive walled fortress defended by some 600,000 Chinese troops, happened not because of the Mongols' military skill, but in spite of it. Outnumbered eight-to-one, the Mongols never really "took" the city. Only after Genghis Khan's armies cut off the last of the capital's resupply routes did starvation and political infighting within the city walls make the collapse of Zhongdu inevitable; not the most efficient siege tactic, but effective nonetheless.

The Mongols could not have realized it at the time, but Zhongdu marked a major turning point in their history. The most valuable prize captured at Zhongdu was not among the city's material wealth, but among the thousands of prisoners rounded up in the wake of the siege; craftsmen, artisans, administrators, engineers, artillerymen, scientists, intellectuals and philosophers



Citera[/b] ]Already further west than they had ever been in the past, Genghis Khan sent Jebe and Subedei around the Caspian Sea toward Eastern Europe not only to conquer, but to gather information. During 1222-1223, while Genghis Khan and his main army returned toward their homeland, Mongol warriors completed a campaign once described as, "a ride [that] has never before been attempted, and has never since been repeated." The Europeans knew nothing about the Mongols, but Jebe and Subedei soon learned a great deal about the Europeans. After annihilating a large Georgian army and destroying the Genoese fortress at Sudak in Crimea, they sent small detachments of spies into western Europe to learn about western political and economic structures, even the family connections of Russian and European rulers, in great detail.


Could be quite dangerous for the Europeians.


Citera[/b] ]Historians have long attributed Mongol military victories to their overwhelming superiority in numbers. In truth, more often than not it was the Mongols who were outnumbered on the battlefield. The Mongols possessed an undeniable battlefield prowess and many claims of opponents being overwhelmed came from the fact the Mongols' superior military tactics and firepower made it seem they were outnumbered. Pursuing their prey northward, the Mongols, numbering only about 20,000, almost completely wiped out an 80,000-man Russian army at the famous Battle of the Khalka River. Jebe's death during this campaign left Subedei the lone survivor among Genghis Khan's four "dogs of war."

As already been said here.


Citera[/b] ]The Mongols struck southward into the Tangut kingdom of Xi Xia in retribution for its earlier refusal to send troops to help the Mongols in their campaign against Shah Sultan Muhammad. Now they would pay the price. Leaving one army to lay siege to the fortified capital at Ningxia, Genghis Khan divided his forces and spread across the countryside. Mongol warriors stormed through western Xi Xia, hunting down Tanguts in the caves and mountains where they sought refuge and killing or enslaving inhabitants wherever they could be found. They destroyed field crops, burned homes and leveled whole towns of any significance. The destruction was so complete that, to this day, the Kingdom of Xi Xia remains but a vague memory.

Unable to penetrate the walls of Ningxia, Mongol soldiers diverted water from a nearby canal and created a roaring flood that forced government troops trapped in the city to surrender. The Mongols decisively sealed the fate of Xi Xia in 1226 during the Battle of the Yellow River. From his vantage point in the hills overlooking the Ningxia Plain, Genghis Khan sent his best marksmen directly across a large frozen lake formed by the Yellow River. The men, traveling on foot, yelled insults and taunted the Tanguts to engage them. In a fury, the Tanguts obliged with a massive cavalry charge directly into the face of the oncoming Mongol archers. Thundering onto the ice-covered battlefield, horses slipped and fell in great numbers, sending their defenseless riders sprawling onto the ice. Mongol warriors pounced on them from all sides, slashing, stabbing and shooting the Tanguts in a murderous melee that turned the ice red. Mounting their own horses, the Mongols quickly circled the lake and mercilessly cut down the advancing infantry. In this one battle the Tanguts reportedly lost some 300,000 men.
Unable to pentrate the walls of Nimgxia, with siege equipments? Yes Wizzy they could take out every fortification. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Stupid Tanguts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif


Citera[/b] ]During the four year Mongol campaign against the Jin Empire, the Chinese repeatedly pulled together whole armies, seemingly out of the ground. These hastily formed armies frequently held their own and even defeated the Mongols in battle. Nevertheless, the Chinese could do little to alter their ultimate fate. In strict accordance with his father's last orders, Genghis Khan's son Tolui led a Mongol army eastward through Song territory toward the southern Jin capital at Kaifeng and simultaneously attacked the city in force from two sides (Figure 1). The capital mounted a courageous defense that lasted nearly a year, but it eventually fell to the Mongols in 1232.

Prime Minister Yelu Zhucai persuaded General Subedei to spare the district's 2,000,000 inhabitants. The dampened furor of the Mongols had an interesting effect in the countryside. When news about the fate of Kaifeng reached the outlying provinces, the population seemed to recognize they had a chance of safety and simply ceased to resist. Within two years, the Mongols held firm control of northern China and the Jin Empire ceased to exist. The Mongols feasted and caroused in their capital at Karakorum to celebrate their victory over the Chin. As the celebrations closed, a new chapter opened in the history of East Asia.


The mighty mongols gets beaten by peasants, but wins by superior force. It would be interesting on what would happen if they had slaughtered the population of Kaifeng. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif


Citera[/b] ]While Tolui's army assaulted Kaifeng in southern China in the autumn of 1231, another large Mongol army under the command of General Sartai entered Korea. The well-organized and experienced campaigners crossed the Yalu River, overran the border town of Uiju, and invaded the northwestern provinces of Koryo under the feeble pretext of avenging the murder of a Mongol emissary near the Yalu River some six years earlier. Ch'oe U called up all available troops in the region and bravely marched his hastily organized and overmatched army north into the face of a far superior force. General Sartai's fast and mobile Mongol cavalry ran into stiff resistance from the Koryo infantry in major battles fought at Anju and Kusong.

The Mongol siege against the walled town of Kusong exemplified Koryo's heroic resistance. General Sartai brought the full array of his medieval assault weapons to bear against the city's defenses. While Mongol troops attempted to undermine the defensive walls by tunneling under them, formidable lines of catapults hurled large boulders and molten metal at the town. Special assault teams used siege towers and scaling ladders against the earthen walls and pushed flaming carts against the city's wooden gates. Perhaps the most grisly tactical weapon used at the siege of Kusong was the catapult-launched fire-bomb. The Mongols boiled down their captives and used liquified human fat to fuel a weapon which produced fires that were practically inextinguishable. Kusong's defenders refused to surrender and stubbornly held on for thirty terrifying days and nights. An old Mongol general, inspecting the ramparts during the siege, commented that, "...I have never seen [a city] undergo an attack like this which did not, in the end, submit." In the end Kusong remained in Koryo's hands.


Yes they forgot the "real" siege weapon at home http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif


Citera[/b] ]The Koryo government and much of the aristocracy spent the summer months of 1232 engaged in a contest of wills with the land-locked Mongols. Koryo's peasants used more than just willpower. From mountain fortresses and refuges to Korea's numerous small coastal islands, Koryo's peasants took up arms and stiffly resisted the Mongol occupation. When the Mongols found themselves unable to break peasant strongholds directly, they resorted to familiar tactics used with such success against the Chinese; they cut off the peasants' food supplies. Mongol raiders laid waste to the countryside, putting ripened grain fields to the torch and forcing even further hardships on the populace. When a mountain stronghold finally fell, the Mongols cruelly slaughtered its weakened and dispirited defenders.

Their sieging skills are really legendary http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


Citera[/b] ]After a two year reconnaisance in the West, General Subedei and Genghis Khan's grandson, Batu, led a force of 150,000 Mongol warriors out of Central Asia during the dead of winter in 1236, beginning a six year campaign to subjugate all of Russia and Eastern Europe. Born in a land where winter temperatures can reach -60°F, the Mongols were better acclimated to the rigors of winter than perhaps anyone else. They reached Russian territory a year later, during the coldest and darkest time of the year and defeated the Volga Bulgars. On December 21, 1237, they took their first Russian town at Riazan.

General Subedei swept through Russia, a land of numerous independent kingdoms ruled by Russian princes who were more often than not at war with each other. The Mongols eliminated all of Russia's principalities one by one, reaching the outskirts of Kiev in November 1240. On December 6, the Mongols laid siege to Kiev and reduced Russia's largest city to ashes with catapults, mangonels, poisoned arrows, and naphtha fire bombs. The Mongol occupation of European Russia, which lasted until 1480, put an end to internal warfare and led to the unification of Russia.

After splitting his army into three separate commands, General Subedei turned west and invaded Hungary and Poland. In the spring of 1241, at the Battle of the Sajo River near Pest, the Mongols fought with considerable success against several Hungarian armies, all of which were defeated. In the span of just a few weeks in April, the victorious Mongols decimated several large armies and killed over 200,000 of Europe's finest warriors, including the famed Teutonic knights.


Ok that siege was actually a success. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif


Citera[/b] ]While Koryo prayed to Buddha for relief from the Mongols, it could be said that Bacchus, the ancient Roman god of wine, answered their prayers. Years of hard drinking finally caught up with Ogodei Khan on December 11, 1241. Despite a promise to his brother to limit the number of cups of wine he drank each day, a promise he evaded by using unusually large cups, Ogodei Khan died of alcohol poisoning
Hmm witch V&V? Severe alcoholic perhaps. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif


Citera[/b] ]Mangu chose not to attack the Song heartland directly, but to outflank it and cut-off its lucrative overland trade with Burma and India. Responsibility for this campaign was given to the thirty-six-year-old Kublai, who set out in September 1253 from the city of Ningxia, the ancient capital of Xi Xia (Figure 3). Commanding one of four large Mongol armies organized for the conquest of southern China, Kublai led his 100,000-man army south and west across some of the most difficult terrain in Asia. He split his command, giving half the army to General Uriyangkhadai, the son of General Subedei. Their objective was to converge on the heavily fortified city of Dali, capital of the Kingdom of Nanzhou in western Yunnan Province.

Crossing the lofty Tibetan plateau into southwestern China, the Mongols found a land of swift flowing rivers, high mountain ranges, and numerous heavily fortified cities. The horse archers of the steppes had to battle not only the difficult terrain, but exposure to new diseases and the unfamiliar climate of southern China which seemed to turn against both man and horse alike. Kublai's warriors faced plenty of hard fighting as they marched, since nearly every valley had to be taken from native tribes defending their ancestral lands.

After a long and arduous fifteen month campaign through country long believed to be impassable, the two Mongol armies converged at Dali in the dead of winter. As Dali's defenders awaited the final onslaught, Kublai sent three of his officers to the city gates with large silk banners proclaiming, "on pain of death, do not kill." Just after the Mongols demanded the city's surrender, Dali defenders executed the three men. In a remarkable departure from their usual practice, the Mongols rode into Dali behind banners bearing the identical message, "on pain of death, do not kill." The city fell to Kublai and the Mongols with a total loss of only six men: three Mongol officers and their two Dali executioners and the city's chief minister for defying Kublai's order. As a leader, Kublai was already showing himself to be civilized enough to realize that mercy could be as effective a weapon as massacre had been.

Kublai left the Kingdom of Nanzhou for the plains north of the Yangtze River, where he rejoined the Mongol armies of Mangu Khan. After decimating Song armies in this appalling campaign and suffering losses that approached 80,000 men, Kublai's first major military command was a resounding success. He had proved himself to be a first rate general and a skilled strategist. Kublai was greatly influenced by Chinese civilization and Chinese military thinking during this campaign, an influence that showed itself even more after his appointment as the Great Khan's Mongol Viceroy of the Chin.

A first rate general and a skilled strategist and got only 80% losses, so much for the Mongols when fighting in wrong terrain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif


Citera[/b] ]While Kublai's Mongol armies swept across China, continuing and persistent peasant attacks in Koryo triggered a series of four separate Mongol assaults on the peninsula between 1253 and 1257. To better combat localized resistance, the Mongols commonly split their large field armies into smaller, wide ranging fighting units that could more easily deal with individual towns or strongholds. True to form, the Mongols lived up to their reputation for cruelty in battle. If a city or town failed to submit, the Mongols divided the artisans, women and young children among their soldiers and killed the rest. The corpses of the dead were too numerous to count. General Jalairtai reportedly took as many as 200,000 prisoners during a deadly campaign that reduced the countryside to ashes. Wherever they went, Jalairtai's troops ravaged a landscape already suffering from a series of droughts. The unusually dry weather ruinously magnified the Mongol's scorched earth policies.


Citera[/b] ]While General Jalairtai's Mongols both terrorized and devastated the lives of Koryo's peasants and inevitably forced them into lives of hardship, high government officials on Kanghwa Island did little to ease the fate of their own people. They continued to make peasant life even more miserable by exacting harsh taxes from them whenever and wherever they could get them. The Koryo government behaved as though they still lived in Kaesong during peacetime.

I wonder why the people did rebel atlast http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif .


Citera[/b] ]No amount of planning could overcome the perennial problems faced by Mongol troops in their assault on southern China. The terrain was unsuitable for wide-open cavalry tactics and provided virtually no open grazing land to feed the large number of horses and remounts taken into battle. Parasites, disease, heat and humidity all took their toll on the Mongols. Even their sturdy horses suffered from the debilitating climate of southern China. As Mongol losses steadily mounted, gaps in the ranks had to be filled by drafting native Chinese into service, most of whom were infantrymen. The Mongols initially despised these "foreign" troops, but the Chinese quickly proved themselves to be not only hardy fighters, but better able to cope with the debilitating climate. Progress was painfully slow. At a time when most opponents considered themselves fortunate to survive twelve weeks, the Song Chinese successfully resisted the Mongols for twelve years.

I don't think the Mongols had a chance if they had somehow attacked the Song empire at first.

Ok this one is mostly directed to Wizzy that sometimes sound that the Mongols was completely invincible. They were good, but not that good.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Funny you recomend a site named "Korean History Project"... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[The Wizard]

The Mongols were not invincible. I never stated that.

Also, they could take any fortification, be that by head-on assault or by cutting off supplies and water. These two are the two elements of succesfully closing off a siege in the attacker's benifit. And that is part of the Mongols' genius. I have mentioned that, if they could not take the castle by force, they would cut off its supplies, or simply abandon the siege and wait until the besieged come out, and then ambush and slaughter them.

Also, about Chinese armies: the usual campaign size for Chinese armies was around the 100,000 men. Logical that the Mongols would lose many men if they are working with armies sized 30,000-50,000 men facing armies more than twice as large.

And as I stated in the other thread about the Mongols, if they were fighting in terrain that was unsuitable for their horses, their campaigns would flounder. Southern China was just on the verge of a "workable" climate for the Mongols, but take a look at the failed Campaigns into Southeastern Asia and what is now Indonesia. The climate and the foliage there was simply not suitable for Mongol warfare. However, in Europe, the temperature was just fine. The Alps wouldn't have made much of an obstacle, for rough mountain ranges such as the Caucasus and the Carpathians were crossed very rapidly.

Also, the campaigns in Korea were indeed quite a mess, but that is thanks to the terrain of Korea, the fact that the leaders of Koryo actually made some smart choices, and that the Mongols screwed up at sevel occassions. Also, Korea was unified with an effective structure of the society, while Europe had a feeble feudal system and was pretty split (take, for instance, the Holy Roman Empire). The Mongols, as seen in the campaign against the Russian principalities, could have either taken them one by one, or sowed dissent in European kingdoms and then easily broken apart feudal kingdoms.

Campaigns like that against Japan also failed because a Mongol on sea simply did not work ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), and because the extremely mountainous terrain of Japan just did not comply with the tactics of the Mongol horsemen.



~Wiz

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 07 2004,06:57)]Funny you recomend a site named "Korean History Project"... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif
Well I found it when I made a short work on Korea in history class for a few years ago. It has great information on China, the Mongols, Japan and of course Korea. I thought they should had written something about how the Koreans resisted the Mongols. But it stood a little bit more.

[Orda Khan]

It has been suggested and probably more correctly judging by the resultant executions, that Ogedei was actually systematically poisoned by a sister of his head wife Toregene. All this fuelled by intrigue because Ogedei planned to pass the title on to Shiremun, son of Ogedei's favourite ( deceased ) son Qochu.

...Back on topic...

Another tactic, though time consuming, would be to pay tribute until they eventually kill each other off http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

.....Orda

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 06 2004,02:52)]Nobody said they were invencible... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif
Well so far its pretty close http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Quote[/b] ]Remember that Europeans did not have the troops, the ordered structure and the mobility to truly challenge the Mongols


Quote[/b] ]militarily their tactics and mobility are far superior than any european army at the time


Quote[/b] ]You must also understand that the Polish, German and Hungarian nobles that faced them, weren't exactly unexperienced men. They were very able fighters, but outclassed by a superior war machine in every form


Quote[/b] ]It was impossible for any European army to beat the Mongols. Hiding in castles or mountains won't help


Quote[/b] ]It is simple. European armies couldn't beat the Golden Horde of Batu Khan and Subedei


Quote[/b] ]The Mongols defeated all that came in their path in their time. There was no army that could hope to defeat them


Quote[/b] ]I think asking how the Europeans could have defeated the Mongols is like asking how the Iraqi Air Force could have defeated the US Air Force in 1991 - the answer is quite simply that they couldn't.


Of course you did say
Quote[/b] ]Tacticaly they weren't invencible, but very close to it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

So in several posts in this thread I see a lot of hype and wild claims.


Quote[/b] ]If they kept moving, attacking, retreating and changing their positions out of range, you wouldn't be able to hit them.


And that is wishful thinking. We have Friar John who writes about how to equip the Europeans "Soldiers also must be furnished with strong hand-bows and cross-bows, which they greatly dread."

Somehow the Mongols would have to be a lot more agile than Seljuks or Mamluks because crossbows (and bowmen) could and did keep horsearchers from doing their standard tactic of riding in close. Horsearchers never liked missile-armed infantry. That doesnt mean that the fight couldnt be very hard if the horsearchers had the will and numbers to close in, but they could definitely be hit and forced out to extreme range.



Quote[/b] ]In anyone's mind, this strict education of Knighthood in the Middle Ages, and it's notion of superiority, creates certain behavioural paths that make Knights, in a general way, rigid to innovative thinking. That implies a certain inability to sort themselves out of an unconvencional situation, making them vulnerable. The Mongols had no mental barriers to hold them back. This allowed them to have a more pratical approach to things.


So what about the crusading kingdoms that encountered the different tactics of the Muslims? They lived in the area and had to adapt or die. The Teutonic Order used light cavalry. The crusaders saw the importance of foot soldiers and archers, as the standard tactic of a frontal cavalry charge would have difficulties against the horse archer dominated armies. To say that they were "rigid to innovative thinking" is simply not true.

They could have a sense of superiority against "barbarians" but they were not the only who could do that. If they had one big problem then it was discipline. Battles could be lost because a knight didnt want to listen to the commander.

CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 07 2004,14:40)]Also, they could take any fortification, be that by head-on assault or by cutting off supplies and water. These two are the two elements of succesfully closing off a siege in the attacker's benifit. And that is part of the Mongols' genius. I have mentioned that, if they could not take the castle by force, they would cut off its supplies, or simply abandon the siege and wait until the besieged come out, and then ambush and slaughter them.
And you are saying that others didnt do sieges like that? I dont see any genius there, they are just doing like all others did.


Quote[/b] ]However, in Europe, the temperature was just fine. The Alps wouldn't have made much of an obstacle, for rough mountain ranges such as the Caucasus and the Carpathians were crossed very rapidly.

Its not the temperature but lack of pastures. Combine that with lots of fortified places and the Mongols are in for a logistical nightmare. The mountains themselves are only interesting if they are fortified at the passes to prevent an enemy from passing through.


Quote[/b] ]The Mongols, as seen in the campaign against the Russian principalities, could have either taken them one by one, or sowed dissent in European kingdoms and then easily broken apart feudal kingdoms

King Louis IX of France was about to go to central europe to fight the Mongols. So I doubt they could take one kingdom after another.


CBR

[FoundationII]

You could have beaten them with an army designed for that purpose, just use archers (foot archers always have better range then mounted, because they can carry larger bows) And defend them with pikemen (like the pikemen in the 17° Century did)
Of course that means you would need to outnumber the enemy, what was hardest in that time.
If you want to win you just choose any defensive position (preferrably a hill or something like that) and wait for the mongols to come to you. You should be able to shoot the mongols to pieces, and if they engage your archers retreat behind the pikes and they're defeated.
Of course when you won DON'T CHASE, because the mongols were very good in partizan tactic (shooting while retreating)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Of course you did say
I didn't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

In none of my sentences I state invencibility... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]And that is wishful thinking. We have Friar John who writes about how to equip the Europeans "Soldiers also must be furnished with strong hand-bows and cross-bows, which they greatly dread."

Somehow the Mongols would have to be a lot more agile than Seljuks or Mamluks because crossbows (and bowmen) could and did keep horsearchers from doing their standard tactic of riding in close. Horsearchers never liked missile-armed infantry. That doesnt mean that the fight couldnt be very hard if the horsearchers had the will and numbers to close in, but they could definitely be hit and forced out to extreme range.
OK. Point taken.




Quote[/b] ]So what about the crusading kingdoms that encountered the different tactics of the Muslims? They lived in the area and had to adapt or die. The Teutonic Order used light cavalry. The crusaders saw the importance of foot soldiers and archers, as the standard tactic of a frontal cavalry charge would have difficulties against the horse archer dominated armies. To say that they were "rigid to innovative thinking" is simply not true.
Very few of them were adaptable, most weren't. Most Mongols were adaptable, some of them probably not. That's the difference. With the Mongols it was the rule. With the Europeans the exception.




Quote[/b] ]They could have a sense of superiority against "barbarians" but they were not the only who could do that. If they had one big problem then it was discipline. Battles could be lost because a knight didnt want to listen to the commander.
True, but not the only reason...




Quote[/b] ]Its not the temperature but lack of pastures. Combine that with lots of fortified places and the Mongols are in for a logistical nightmare. The mountains themselves are only interesting if they are fortified at the passes to prevent an enemy from passing through.
They rode around. With their mobility they would find a way pretty fast. Do you think the Carpathian Mountains are easy to pass? Jebe and Subedei did it easely between battles
Why is it so hard for you to understand? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif




Quote[/b] ]King Louis IX of France was about to go to central europe to fight the Mongols. So I doubt they could take one kingdom after another.
If the Polish, Germans and Hungarians couldn't make it, why would Lous IX be any different?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]And defend them with pikemen (like the pikemen in the 17° Century did)
Pikes were only used on the late 14th century and later...

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 07 2004,21:48)]
Quote[/b] ]King Louis IX of France was about to go to central europe to fight the Mongols. So I doubt they could take one kingdom after another.
If the Polish, Germans and Hungarians couldn't make it, why would Lous IX be any different?
Whoa, easy there. They fell mostly because of stupidity and to the surprise and feigned retreat effect, at Liegnitz just a combined Polish and Teutonic Order force fought. That is just a fraction of the troops that the HRE could raise, together with with other major kingdoms such as France and England, backed financially by the Italians and the Pope, they could have easily fielded a huge force.
As CBR said, Europe at that time didn't have such huge cities as there were in Asia, but they had numerous smaller ones that are more fortified the further west you go. It's impossible to take them quickly, and given the religious zeal, it's unlikely that major cities will just surrender as long the feudal powers haven't been defeated.

It's absolutely not proven that European feudal armies "couldn't make it".

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]It's absolutely not proven that European feudal armies "couldn't make it".

no, it's not proven because it never happened...because it didn't have the chance to happen, because of the death of the great khan...e.t.c.

yes, it's probable that the europeans would have finally pushed them back.
however, the fact that they finally DID conquer strong states with resisting peoples, like the song empire and korea, despite all the hardships, the losses and their own mistakes and failures, showes me that, most possibly, europe would have finally submited too.
it would have taken decades of harsh resistance by peasants and lords, probably, but in the end the european political and economical structures would not have proven strong enough to last.

that is what i think

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]They fell mostly because of stupidity and to the surprise and feigned retreat effect, at Liegnitz just a combined Polish and Teutonic Order force fought. That is just a fraction of the troops that the HRE could raise, together with with other major kingdoms such as France and England, backed financially by the Italians and the Pope, they could have easily fielded a huge force.
What about Kalka? They were severelly outnumbered and still won.


As for Leignitz (Legnica), a brief transcript:


Quote[/b] ]On April 9, 1241, Duke Henry II of Silesia, also known as Henry the Pious, marched out of his city of Liegnitz (now the Polish city of Legnica) to meet the dreaded Mongols, or Tartars, as they were then called by the Europeans. The invaders from the east had already attacked Lublin and sacked Sandomir. Henry's army was the last left to oppose the Tartars in Poland. As he rode through the city, a stone fell from the roof of St. Mary's Church and narrowly missed killing the duke. The people rightly took it for an omen of misfortune.

Henry knew that, only weeks earlier, a Tartar army had routed a combined force of Poles and Slavs under his cousin Boleslav V and burned Kraków on Palm Sunday. He now waited anxiously for the assistance of his brother-in-law, King Wenceslas I of Bohemia, who was marching to join him with 50,000 men. But Henry did not know when they would come, and he wondered if he should have waited behind the walls of Liegnitz for his Bohemian allies. Henry feared that the Tartars who ravaged his country might be reinforced if he waited too long for Wenceslas' arrival, so he and his army left the protection of Liegnitz on that April day and advanced toward the town of Jawor, where he reckoned he was most likely to meet up with the Bohemian king. His army of about 30,000 consisted of Polish knights, Teutonic Knights, French Knights Templar and a levy of foot soldiers, including German gold miners from the town of Goldberg. Opposing him was a host of about 20,000 Mongols, fresh from victories over the other Polish armies and commanded by Kaidu, a great-grandson of Genghis Khan.

Terrible as the Mongol incursion into Poland was, it was merely a diversion to keep the Europeans from uniting to resist the conquest of the Mongols' primary objective--Hungary. Since 1236, a Mongol army of 150,000 had been consolidating the rule of Ogadei, Genghis Khan's son and chosen successor as khakan ("great khan"), over the principalities of western Russia. In overall command of the horde was Batu, a grandson of Genghis Khan. The real mastermind of the expedition, however, was Subotai, longtime lieutenant of Genghis Khan. Subotai had commanded divisions of the great khan's army in the campaigns against the Northern Sung of China and had helped in the destruction of the Khwarazmian empire of Persia.

During the Russian campaign, the Mongols drove some 200,000 Cumans, a nomadic steppe people who had opposed them, west of the Carpathian Mountains. There, the Cumans appealed to King Béla IV of Hungary for protection, in return for which they offered to convert to Western Christianity. A mass conversion would enhance Hungary's prestige with the pope. Moreover, the Cumans pledged 40,000 warriors, experienced in the Mongols' mobile steppe warfare, to Hungary's defense. Béla gladly accepted the offer, but many of his nobles distrusted the Cumans. His decision gave the Mongols an official excuse to make Hungary their next object for conquest.

After holding a council of war in Przemysl in December 1240, Batu sent an ultimatum to King Béla IV. "Word has come to me," he wrote, "that you have taken the Cumans, our servants, under your protection. Cease harboring them, or you will make of me an enemy because of them. They, who have no houses and dwell in tents, will find it easy to escape. But you who dwell in houses within towns--how can you escape me?" Rejecting the ultimatum, Béla sent heralds throughout Hungary carrying a bloody sword, the traditional symbol for a national emergency, to rally the nobles and vassals to the kingdom's defense.

Nobles from Hungary and adjacent kingdoms responded to the call. One of the latter, Archduke Frederick of Austria, had long had chilly relations with Béla over control of territories along their borders. Once in Hungary, he noticed that the kingdom's settled subjects were not getting along well with the nomadic Cumans. Frederick stayed in the capital, Buda, but he had been ferried across the Danube River to the small merchant town of Pest when a riot broke out--some say at his instigation--in which the Cumans' khan, Khotyan, was killed and his head thrown into the street. The enraged Cumans left the country for Bulgaria, pillaging as they went, while Archduke Frederick returned to Austria to observe the coming war from the sidelines.

In February 1241, the Mongol army left its base in southern Russia and crossed the frozen rivers into central Europe. The force consisted of about 70,000 men, two-thirds of whom were light cavalry and the rest heavy cavalry, though all were equipped with bows. They were nominally commanded by Batu, but once again he was guided by Subotai. Even while campaigning in Russia, Subotai had been sending spies westward into central Europe to determine the political, economic and social conditions, as well as the military capabilities, of the kingdoms and duchies in that adjacent region. The results rewarded his efforts.

Prior to embarking on the Hungarian campaign, the Mongols had defeated every major Russian principality that threatened their presence in that region, then spent a year resting and regrouping in what is now the Ukraine before crossing into central Europe. Although Batu and Subotai were aware of the divisive rivalries between the European kings and nobles, they also understood that the European rulers were closely related by blood and marriage, and would likely support each other if they thought an outside threat was serious enough. Therefore, the Mongol army was divided into two unequal forces. The smaller force, 20,000 men jointly commanded by Baidar and Kaidu, the grandson of Ogadei, started off first at the beginning of March 1241 and went north into Poland to draw off any support for Hungary that might be found there. The principal invasion force of about 50,000 men, commanded by Batu and Subotai, advanced a few days later and was itself broken into two contingents--the main body passed through the Carpathians into Hungary on March 12, while a small force to screen its southern flank, commanded by Kadan, son of Ogadei, passed through the Carpathians about 150 miles to the southeast and entered Transylvania.

In 1241, Poland had been divided into four states, each ruled by a different branch of the Piastow family. While King Boleslav V of Kraków was legally the pre-eminent ruler, it was in fact his cousin, Duke Henry II of Silesia, who was the most powerful of the four lords. Whatever the niceties of the Piastows' arrangement, they proved incapable of offering a unified response to an incursion.

Sweeping in a northward arc past the edge of the Carpathians and into Poland, Kaidu and Baidar sacked Sandomir, defeated an army of Poles and other Slavic forces under Boleslav at Kraków on March 3, and defeated another Polish army at Chmielnik on March 18. Turning their attention back to Kraków, the Mongols seized and burned the city on March 24, then assaulted the Silesian capital of Breslau a few days later. Breslau held out, and the Mongol commanders, knowing better than to embroil their small army in a long siege so deep in hostile territory, passed the city by and resumed their search for Duke Henry and his army.

Unlike Henry, Kaidu and Baidar knew where Wenceslas was--only two days' march away. The Mongols were already somewhat outnumbered and could not risk allowing Henry and Wenceslas to join forces. Therefore, when Henry reached a plain surrounded by low hills not far from Liegnitz, called the Wahlstadt, or "chosen place," he found the Tartars already there, waiting for him.

Upon seeing the Tartars, Henry drew up his forces in four squadrons and placed one after the other on the Wahlstadt. The first group was made up of knights from various nations, supplemented by the miners from Goldberg under the command of Boleslav, son of the margrave of Moravia. Sulislav, the brother of the late palatine of Kraków, led the second group--Krakovians and knights from Welkopole. The third group consisted of knights from Opole, led by the Opolian Duke Meshko, and Teutonic Knights from Prussia under the Heermeister Poppo von Ostern. Duke Henry led the fourth group, which was made up of men at arms from Silesia and Breslau, knights from Welkopole and Silesia, and French Knights Templar.

The Teutonic Knights and Knights Templar were religious military orders with origins in the Crusades. As a result of both their religious and military training, the knights submitted readily to discipline and were normally the best of the forces available to Duke Henry. Nonetheless, Baidar and Kadan expected to add another victory to their already considerable tally. The Mongols' confidence was not without foundation.

Henry's army was typical of European armies of the period--it had only the most rudimentary organization. Knights formed irregular "battles" of different sizes, composition, and national or local origin. A group of those battles formed the line. Command was assigned on the basis of birth, not--as in the Mongol armies--on the basis of proven competence. The Mongol army was organized into squads of 10 men, troops of 100, companies of 1,000 and divisions, or toumans, of 10,000. Each unit was highly disciplined and obeyed commands signaled by flags during battle.

A Mongol commander might be anywhere in his formation, directing his troops as he saw fit. In contrast, the leader of a European army often fought alongside his men in the thick of battle where he was easily identified, in danger and unable to respond to developments in the fight. Such leadership by example made a certain amount of sense where battles were seen as opportunities for the display of personal bravery, where the object of the contest was honor as well as victory. But to the Mongols, victory was all that mattered. Consequently, their approach was to kill or defeat the enemy as efficiently as possible--that is, with the least cost to themselves. That was a logical approach for the Mongols, who campaigned thousands of miles from home against opponents who outnumbered them; they could not afford to lose either men or battles. Mongol tactics resembled those of the hunter, who uses speed, finesse and deception to herd his prey where he will, then kill it with as little risk to himself as possible. In the case of their confrontation with Duke Henry's army, Baidar and Kaidu decided to try a common steppe tactic--attack, false flight and ambush.

Both the European and Mongol armies depended upon the horse, but there the similarity ended. The knight was supported by a feudal lord, or by the king, for the purpose of fighting. He was trained for close contact with his enemy, and his chief weapons were the heavy lance and the broadsword. The lance was held with the hand and couched under the arm in order to transmit the weight and force of both horse and rider as they charged the enemy. Likewise, the heavy broadsword swung from the saddle could inflict awful cuts. To protect himself in hand-to-hand combat of this sort, the knight wore elaborate, heavy armor. A long-sleeved chain-mail coat, or hauberk, protected his body. The knight might also wear a mail coif or hood over his head, and he would certainly wear an iron helmet as well. He wore mail gloves and leggings and carried a shield on his left arm. The entire panoply might weigh 70 or more pounds, and the knight rode a horse specially bred to be strong enough to bear him and his armor. His weight was a weapon in itself--he hurtled through an enemy formation, then the foot soldiers ran up and dispatched those whom the knights had unhorsed, struck down, ridden over or brushed aside.

Mongol armies were made up entirely of cavalry, but the Mongol, in contrast to the European knight, depended primarily on his bow, and usually did not favor close-quarters combat on horseback. His protection lay in speed and maneuverability, not in armor, and he often wore no armor aside from an open metal helmet with a leather drop behind the neck and a silk shirt under his coat that followed an arrowhead into a wound and allowed it to be withdrawn without tearing the flesh. There were more heavily armored Mongols, but even those heavy cavalrymen generally wore relatively light and flexible lamellar armor, consisting of a multitude of overlapping leather or iron plates. The Mongol bow was a recurved composite bow, a lamination of wood, horn and sinew that could cast an arrow more than 300 yards. The Mongols shot their arrows with great accuracy while riding at a fast pace and could even shoot accurately backward at a pursuer. Each warrior carried 60 arrows of different weights for shooting different distances and often carried more than one bow.

The Mongol rode a pony that was considerably smaller than the war charger of the Western armies. The Asiatic animal, however, had superb endurance and survived by grazing in the wild. Each Mongol soldier had two, three or even four ponies so that he could spell them on a march and save them from exhaustion. That practice allowed Mongol armies to travel 50 or even 60 miles in a day, several times the distance that a Western army of the period could travel. It also gave the Mongol the edge in speed on the battlefield. They were, then, two utterly different armies that faced each other at the Wahlstadt.

When the engagement at Wahlstadt began, the Europeans were disconcerted because the enemy moved without battle cries or trumpets; all signals were transmitted visually, by pennant and standard. Curiously, even though the Mongols' overall discipline was greater than that of the knights, their formations were looser in appearance, making it difficult for the Europeans to accurately gauge their numbers.

The first of Duke Henry's divisions, that under Boleslav, charged into the Tartar ranks to begin the usual hand-to-hand combat, but the more lightly armed Mongols on their agile ponies easily surrounded them and showered them with arrows. Finding that they could not get any support from the other formations, Boleslav's men broke off their attack and fled back to the Polish line.

A second charge by the second and third divisions was mounted under Sulislav and Meshko of Opole. Unlike the first, this assault seemed successful--the Mongols broke into what appeared to be a disorderly retreat. Encouraged, the knights pressed on their attack, eager to meet the Tartars with lance and broadsword. Their Asiatic adversaries continued to flee before them, evidently unable to face the charge of the heavy horsemen.

Then, an odd thing happened. A single rider from the Tartar lines rushed about the Polish lines shouting "Byegaycze Byegaycze" or "Run Run" in Polish. The Polish chronicle is uncertain whether the man was a Tartar or one of the conquered Russians pressed into their service. Meshko did not take the outburst for a trick and began to retire from the battlefield with his knights. Seeing Meshko's retreat, Henry led his fourth battle group into the Mongol lines and once again engaged in close combat. After a fierce fight, the Mongols again began to flee. Their yak-tailed standard with the crossed shoulder blades of a sheep fixed to it was seen to pull back--its bearer had joined the retreat, and the Polish knights pressed ahead.

Things were not as they seemed to the European knights, however; they had fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the Mongols' book--the feigned retreat. The riders of the steppes, unlike the knights, had been taught to retreat as a tactical move, and in so doing, they drew the knights away from their infantry. Once that was accomplished, the Mongols swept to either side of the knights, who had strung out and lost their own measure of order, and showered them with arrows. Other Mongols had lain in ambush, prepared to meet the knights as they fell into the trap. Whenever the Mongols found that the knights' armor afforded effective protection against their arrows, they simply shot their horses. The dismounted knights were then easy prey for the Mongol heavy cavalrymen, who ran them down with lance or saber with little danger to themselves. The Knights Templar made a determined stand, only to be killed to a man.

The Mongols employed one further trick--smoke drifted across the battlefield between the infantry and the knights who had charged ahead, so the foot soldiers and horsemen could not see each other as the Mongols fell upon the knights and virtually annihilated them. Duke Henry tried to gallop off the field, but he was run down by Mongols who killed him, cut off his head and paraded about Liegnitz with it on top of a spear as a trophy.

In accordance with a Mongol custom used to count the dead, an ear was cut from each dead European. The Tartars filled nine sacks with ears. Contemporary records show that 25,000 of Henry's men were killed. The Grand Master of the Templars wrote to King Louis IX of France, saying of the battle, "The Tartars have destroyed and taken the land of Henry Duke of Poland, ...with many barons, six of our brothers, three knights, two sergeants and five hundred of our men dead." King Louis, preparing to go to central Europe to fight the Mongols, told his mother, Queen Blanche, that either they would send the Tartars back to hell, or the Tartars would send them to Paradise. His statement was a play on the Latin term for hell, Tartarus, and helped fix the Mongols' nickname among the Europeans.

The Grand Master's missive to Louis also stated that no army of any significance stood between the invaders and France. That was no exaggeration. Upon learning of what had transpired at Liegnitz, Wenceslas and the Bohemians halted their approach and retreated to a defensive position. Meanwhile, to the south, Batu and Subotai had forced the passes into Hungary and come down the mountains, covering 40 miles a day in the snow.

On the very day that Henry and so many of his men had fallen, King Béla IV left Pest with an army of some 60,000-70,000 fighting men to confront the larger Mongol force. The Hungarians advanced on the Mongols, who retreated slowly until they reached the plain of Mohi, near the Sajó River. The Mongols then pulled back, past woods beyond the opposite bank, and disappeared. Béla camped on the plain of Mohi and drew his wagons around into a laager for protection.

With the aid of catapults, the Mongols occupied the only bridge over the Sajó. On April 10, however, the Hungarians charged the bridge, and the lightly armored Mongols, having little room to maneuver, took a beating. Again improvising a fortified camp on the west side of the river by lashing wagons together, Béla pushed on and established a strong bridgehead on the east side as well.

Even while the Mongols were being driven from the bridge, however, Subotai had found a fording point to the south. Just before dawn on April 11, he led 30,000 of his horsemen across. Batu then swept to the Hungarians' left flank, causing them to turn, while Subotai's men hurried northward to strike at the Hungarian rear. By 7 a.m., the Europeans, completely outmaneuvered, were falling back and took refuge in their camp. For the next several hours, the Mongols assailed Béla's camp once more with catapults, throwing stones, burning tar, naphtha and even Chinese firecrackers, whose noise and fiery flashes, hitherto unknown to the Europeans, took their toll on morale.

Then another strange thing occurred. The Hungarians discovered that the Mongol army that now surrounded the camp had left a conspicuous gap to the west. Cautiously, a few of the Hungarians tried to escape through the gap and passed through without difficulty. Others followed and soon the flight became uncontrollable. As the Hungarians retreated, however, they became strung out--at which point the Mongols reappeared in force, riding along their flanks and showering them with arrows. The Hungarian retreat degenerated into a panicky, disorderly rout--just as Subotai had calculated it would when he deliberately left them that tantalizing but deceptive escape route. Now, moving in for the kill, the Mongols rode the Hungarians down and killed them with lance and saber. Depending on the source, anywhere from 40,000 to 65,000 Hungarians and other European men-at-arms were killed.

Shortly after smashing the Hungarian army, Batu and Subotai were joined by Kadan, who also had not been idle. In the past few weeks, Kadan's little flanking force had burned and pillaged its way through Moldavia, Bukovina and Transylvania, winning three pitched battles in the process. On the very same day that Subotai annihilated King Béla's army at Mohi, Kadan had taken the heavily fortified town of Hermannstadt, in spite of the desperate courage of its defenders.

Unlike Duke Henry, King Béla managed to escape unrecognized and fled to Austria--where he was promptly imprisoned by Duke Frederick. After buying his freedom with both a monetary ransom and the cession of three western counties to Frederick, Béla continued his flight into Dalmatia, with Kadan's Mongols hard on his heels, until he finally found refuge on an island in the Adriatic Sea near Trau (now Trogier), in Croatia.

Europe was shocked at the news of two thorough defeats mere days apart. The Poles and others attributed the Mongols' success to supernatural agencies or suggested that the Mongols were not entirely human. In fact, there was nothing magical about them; the Mongols had simply exercised discipline, efficiency and order, three qualities generally lacking in European armies of the period.

Almost as astonishing as the Mongols' invasion of Europe was their sudden disappearance. After its victory at Liegnitz, the northern army left Poland and never returned. Believing that they had inflicted such extensive casualties on the Mongols that they were unable to pursue their invasion, Poles still celebrate April 9 as a day on which they saved their country, and quite possibly Germany and Western Europe as well, from the ravages of the barbarian hordes from the East.

The truth was that Kaidu and Baidar had no intention of venturing deeper into Europe--that had never been their objective. They had, in fact, carried out their assigned task brilliantly. With just two toumans totaling 20,000 horsemen, they had destroyed Boleslav's and Henry's armies and forced Wenceslas to withdraw his Bohemian host, thereby completely eliminating the northern threat to Batu and Subotai's army. Mission accomplished, they turned south to join the main force in Hungary, laying the Moravian countryside to waste in the process.

As it developed, the Mongols did not remain long in Hungary, either. On December 11, 1241, Ogadei died in Asia. Upon learning of the great khan's death, Subotai reminded the three princes in his army of the law of succession as laid down by Genghis Khan: "After the death of the ruler all offspring of the house of Genghis Khan, wherever they might be, must return to Mongolia to take part in the election of the new khakan." Recalling all their forces, the Mongols started back to their Mongolian capital of Karakorum, postponing their invasion of central Europe for another time--a time that would never come.

Terrible as the debacle at Liegnitz was, it had ultimately been pointless--a Mongol effort to support a conquest that was suddenly abandoned, leaving nothing but a wide swath of destruction and death as the Mongol legacy in eastern and central Europe.
All of what I said is accuratelly depicted in these transcripts. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

Poor Louis IX... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 08 2004,03:34)]
Quote[/b] ]On December 11, 1241, Ogadei died in Asia. Upon learning of the great khan's death, Subotai reminded the three princes in his army of the law of succession as laid down by Genghis Khan: "After the death of the ruler all offspring of the house of Genghis Khan, wherever they might be, must return to Mongolia to take part in the election of the new khakan." another time--a time that would never come. Terrible as the debacle at Liegnitz was, it had ultimately been pointless--a Mongol effort to support a conquest that was suddenly abandoned, leaving nothing but a wide swath of destruction and death as the Mongol legacy in eastern and central Europe.
This might sound bitchy but the fact that they withdrew all the way back to their homeland after their invasion to elect a new leader - with virtually nothing to show for it -except the slaughter of millions of people and the destruction of many cultures and races - shows the unprofessional or weak side of the Mongols. Great, they got so far but in the end- nothing. (Cue Linkin Park's song "In the End"

[The Wizard]

CBR:
Again, that's staying power. And staying power is too much years after the changed event in history (i.e. Ogedei not drinking himself to death) to discuss. There would be far too many variables.

Crimson Castle:
Actually, the new Khakhan, Guyuk Khan, was quite offended that Batu Khan chose not to attend the Khuriltai to choose the new Khakhan. Instead, Batu Khan had opted to politically establish his conquered territories in Russia and eastern Europe, thus beginning a process of collapse of unity. Batu Khan founded the Khanate of the Blue Horde, and Orda Khan (yes, our friendly Orda Khan) founded the Khanate of the White Horde, together forming the infamous (and infinately cool-sounding) Golden Horde.

An interesting fact is that, thanks to Mongke Khan's plan of invading the Muslim states and conquering Baghdad, a further conquest of Europe did not happen (in theory). This was the civil war in the west of the Empire, between Holegu's newly founded Il-Khanate and Berke Khan's Golden Horde. Berke Khan had converted to Islam, and was angry with Holegu Il-Khan because he had dared to invade the great Muslim states, and deliver such a blow to Islam with the conquest of Baghdad. Instead of going ahead with his plan to invade Europe again, he decided to make war on the Il-Khanate.

Furthermore, it is doubtful that European armies would have adopted such a great change of weaponry. So, the crusaders did so? They did so in a time when the Muslim states around them made no serious moves to conquer their strongholds. In other words: they had the time. Meanwhile, the Mongol advance was quick, and not likely to stop until all was conquered. So we're talking about a real, immediate threat to Europe. Instead of having years to adapt and realize the faults of their normal warfare (as the crusaders did), they didn't have much time. Knights absolutely dispised crossbows for the fact that a peasant could kill him in a single shot after only having been trained in the art of firing a crossbow for a few weeks. Also, in armies using crossbowmen, the crossbowmen were never there in greater number than the men who would fight in the melée (I think, not sure).

That was different in English armies. Longbows were always there in greater number than swordsmen and other melée-based infantry. But that was the 14th-15th century, not the 13th. Now, I'm no expert on the composition of English armies in the 13th century, but logic leads me to the conclusion that longbowmen weren't that numerous in those days as they were a century later. Of course, logic is not always right. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

And if, if European armies adopted strategies against steppe-type armies such as that of the Mongols, what could the Mongols have done? I would say, keep the slow-firing crossbows busy with hit-and-run tactics and such fun stuff. And maybe then surprise the Europeans with moves around the back, that they didn't notice because they were being kept busy, such as at the battle of the Sajo river (Mohi). There is a great amount of strategies a good general such as Subedei could have acted out.



~Wiz

[Crimson Castle]

Hello Wiz,

Yes that does pose an interesting point. Will the Mongol invasion force the European states and armies to adopt more modern means of warfare - like more crossbowmen and archers - and a more structured organized army. And was there enough time to do it?

Probably not.

Maybe we can look to the Napoleonic wars for an example. The French Revolutionary Way of warfare- with its mass conscription and promotion based upon merit - won the French the whole of Europe (except Russia). But eventually attrition wore down the French.

(You could say the same for the ancient Romans too. Eventually others copied their methods and improved upon them.)

Cheers,

CC

[Lazul]

I think that the Pavise crossbow is the answer. To defeat the Mongols you have to fight them with there own tactics or be able to choose the battlefield.
Mountains and Crossbows is the answer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Beirut]

Yep, what he said. Mountains and crossbows. Forests and longbows. And sheer iron disciplined mass. Pull a Moltke on 'em. Brutish overwhelming force.

Attrition if nothing else.

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Feb. 08 2004,01:03)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 07 2004,21:48)]
Quote[/b] ]King Louis IX of France was about to go to central europe to fight the Mongols. So I doubt they could take one kingdom after another.
If the Polish, Germans and Hungarians couldn't make it, why would Lous IX be any different?
Whoa, easy there. They fell mostly because of stupidity and to the surprise and feigned retreat effect, at Liegnitz just a combined Polish and Teutonic Order force fought. That is just a fraction of the troops that the HRE could raise, together with with other major kingdoms such as France and England, backed financially by the Italians and the Pope, they could have easily fielded a huge force.
As CBR said, Europe at that time didn't have such huge cities as there were in Asia, but they had numerous smaller ones that are more fortified the further west you go. It's impossible to take them quickly, and given the religious zeal, it's unlikely that major cities will just surrender as long the feudal powers haven't been defeated.

It's absolutely not proven that European feudal armies "couldn't make it".
Very true, a hastily organised army of Poles and Teutonic Knights took to the field at Liegnitz....against a very small Mongol diversionary force which, though outnumbered, utterly annihilated them.
Liegnitz was not exactly a classic example of feigned retreat either, the Mongols engaged the first cavalry charge and gradually drew back as reinforcements entered the melee. These reinforcements were enough to break the Mongol vanguard. This engagement had however, seperated the Cavalry from the slower infantry and at this point, acrid black smoke from burning reeds, screened them from sight. The Mongol Heavy Cavalry charged in and delivered the coups-de-grace, the Mongol Light Cavalry burst through the smoke and joined by others who had encircled the flanks, shot down the defenceless infantry.
Europe needed to be united in its stance if it were to have a glimmer of hope. It certainly was not....and Mongol Intelligence was well aware of this.
Neither did Europe possess cities of the magnitude of those in Asia and China, the terrain certainly makes for easier campaigning than southern China. The massive population of China was something else that Europe could not claim and I know also that fortifications were improved upon after the Crusades. Massively strong gatehouses replacing the traditional concentric design of battlements and a Keep within was a design adopted after the Crusaders witnessed the strongholds of the area. They had not been built by 1241.

Wizzy has already pointed out that the Mongols did not disappear after Ogedei died, Batu withdrew to the Carpathian basin and founded Sarai. He retained most of his commanders, who chose to stay rather than return to Qaraqorum, he also now possessed a significantly large army, though it must be said most of which were Qipchaq Turks, conscripts from the earlier conquests but natural inhabitants of the area. With this army he could protect his newly acquired Ulus but he would never again have the necessary manpower to conquer Europe. Furthermore he was compelled to withdraw to an area of security as he would certainly one day have to consider a wrathful Guyuk, for an envious quarrel had developed between Batu, Guyuk and Buri. Indeed, it was while marching to the Ili valley, having summoned Batu to meet him there to finally swear allegiance that Guyuk died. Batu had been warned that the real intent was his arrest and execution and was marching an army to the appointed place. There was no chance of a further European Campaign because there was no longer unity amongst the Mongols.
Some scholars suggest unsuitable grazing as the key feature of the Mongol withdrawal and though it is a very plausible argument, it is not one that I adhere to. The Mongols were incredibly adaptable, I am convinced they could have adapted to using fodder where necessity demanded.

Anyway the question was how could Europe beat them? With what tactics?
I still think the only way was to deliver a crushing defeat in the field. This could only be achieved by a larger army as they were simply not as professional as the Mongol ranks...and we all know that Europe, even seperate countries, were not united.

Hehe...King Louis IX ....My sigature is a quote from a letter sent to him by Mangku Khan.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

......Orda

[Brutal DLX]

Yes Orda, the question was about the best military tactic and we were straying from it.

Of course it is good to outnumber your opponents, but I agree with you that to defeat them militarily, you have to face them in battle, so much is obvious. If we are talking about tactic in a wider sense (strategy), there are more options, one could try to strike at their sheep flocks, sow internal dissent, and generally play the diplomatic/spy game.
But to defeat them on the field we would need the following:

1. a smart commander who gathered information about the Mongol's style of warfare (crucial)
2. a time and place that doesn't suit the Mongols
3. an army that includes more missile troops than usual and took measures to prepare for incoming missile fire.

From the examples of prior battles, even Liegnitz, we can see that feudal knights and footroops are at least equal to Mongols in the melee, thus, a numerically superior army is not necessarily needed to defeat them if one doesn't play their game, but it's of course beneficial to have more men. Just as the Mongols did to the knights, the feudal army would try to kill the Mongol horses and to get into a melee. Of course the commander should appoint only disciplined men he trusts as his subcommanders (order knights were often more disciplined and willing to follow commands), this would be a change to the normal procedure, but not one that couldn't be introduced if the importance of the battle would be clear to all participants (which we could assume from prior engagements and assuming the Mongols reinforced their ranks up to 300,000 or more).
If all these criteria are met, the infantry sufficiently shielded from arrow fire, and the Mongols having to fight, it is possible to win, even 60 arrows don't last forever, considering the speed at which they are fired. Firing from far away gives the troops time to take cover (don't forget our commander chose the field) and thus will do less damage, getting closer will result in increasing casualties or dismounted mongols who could then be charged by small contingents of feudal cav. The feigned retreat wouldn't work twice and a good commander will keep his troops together until the the Mongols ran out of arrows and have to commit to the melee.
Of course it is incredibly hard to force the Mongols to fight this battle, but that really isn't the topic of the discussion.

Now, some other remarks about the historical events.
Liegnitz, yes you are right, whether or not it was an unusual example of feigned retreat, it worked, mainly due to the stupidity of the knights and the "first time surprise" effect of this tactic. Naturally falling to an ambush results in devastating losses to the ambushed side, but it is no proof of actual raw combat superiority of a smaller Mongol force compared to a larger feudal army. They won because of a trick, that's not to say it's dishonourable, but if that trick didn't work the Mongols would have to have retreated sooner or later.

Next, many new cities had been founded in central and Western Europe in the 12th century, population was increasing due to changes in the agriculture and new farmland was won by forest and swamp clearings. The black death hadn't hit Europe yet. So, while it's true that Europe didn't have the massive population and cities Southern Asia had, it had many more smaller towns and despite of what you claim (source?), you would not find a lot of them undefended and without city walls made of stone.
The smaller towns may not last long to a siege, but they can stall the advance of the Horde and allow reinforcments to catch up to them, which is the point of having fortified towns in the first place. Even if we assume that the Mongols split their forces to conduct more sieges and harass the approaching relief armies, it will not be enough to actually conquer Europe IF all principalities and kingdoms unite in the face of this threat. The land would become despoiled but whatever the Mongols gain, they can't keep because they constantly need to screen their flocks and they are no farmers themselves. Of course, if ALL Mongol forces would be moved to the West, there is no hope for Europe, but at the same time that would most probably result in China and Southern Asia throwing off the Mongol yoke.

And about King Louis, he obviously was the only one who had an army ready at this time, but the Western and Central German principalities along with the order provinces in the Balticum as well as the Italian city states could raise quite a sizable force in an emergency, nominally enough to drive back the small Mongol force in Hungary/Poland. Whether they are led by a good or bad general of course makes a big difference...

Edit: I really should use the spellchecker. heh.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Great analysis, Freiherr Brutal DLX

I agree with your tactics and I agree that a coalition would defeat the Mongols, if commanded by a good general with disciplined troops and choosing the terrain to their advantage.

However, what I mentioned is that it would be very difficult for everyone to colaborate. The mutual hatreds, envies and suspiciosness would make such an alliance very difficult to implement.

About the small fortified cities:

-The Mongols could bypass all of them and get to the capital of each nation. If the capital fell, the rest would follow. That happened quite a lot during the Middle Ages.




Quote[/b] ]And about King Louis, he obviously was the only one who had an army ready at this time, but the Western and Central German principalities along with the order provinces in the Balticum as well as the Italian city states could raise quite a sizable force in an emergency, nominally enough to drive back the small Mongol force in Hungary/Poland. Whether they are led by a good or bad general of course makes a big difference...
Provided that they could stick together. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 09 2004,11:33)]However, what I mentioned is that it would be very difficult for everyone to colaborate. The mutual hatreds, envies and suspiciosness would make such an alliance very difficult to implement.
That is true. But the Mongols - considering their appearence, religion, and race - might as well have been from Klingons or Martians.

The Europeans - divided as they were - shared roughly the same religion and similar cultures. Once they had seen the devasation and cruelty wrought by the Mongol invaders, the Europeans would have banded together to fight them off. And then later go start killing each other each. :)

The Crusades provided a good example of how they could unite - and that was to go for a huge long trip to some gadfarksen place to attack the Moors and Muslims for CX sake

[Orda Khan]

Yes indeed, mutual hatred, call it what you will, was rife throughout Europe. I was trying to point out that the only hope Europe could have had did not exist because of petty feuds, the HRE and Papacy were mobilising armies while Hungary pleaded for assistance. The Mongol Intelligence knew this, they also knew who was likely to come to Bela's assistance which is why the baraunghar marched into Poland. When they attacked Russia, they knew after Kalka who possessed the strongest forces, so they struck first in the north, Riazan and Suzdal. In other words, the Mongols took advantage of the very fact that Europe was disunited.

The Invasion force that crossed the Volga into Russia numbered 120,000 ish, due to the Tamma system, a fair percentage of these returned to their regular postings when the Imperial Tumens returned to Qaraqorum. The army that Batu was left with was not large enough to consider conquest again and it was lucky for Europe that this was the case, for nothing changed. Even in Russia, under the 'Tatar Yoke' the petty rivalries continued.

....Orda

[econ21]

Fascinating thread - lots of interesting information about the Mongols that shows why they are so impressive. But I have to agree with Brutal_DLX and others that effective tactics to defeat the Mongols on a battlefield are not hard to discern. An army composed mainly of horse archers is not that formiddable in a stand-up fight.

There already were ideal counter-measures - the tactics developed to deal with Eastern horse archers by the Byzantines over centuries or learned quickly by the crusaders. A lot of disciplined infantry with long spears and large shields - ideally armoured to protect against arrows. Behind them a lot of good ranged troops - crossbows or longbows. Finally a reserve of well controlled heavy cavalry to counter-charge. Above all a professional general and sub-commanders who would keep their heads and follow orders.

Reading the account of Liegnitz in this thread, it apears that the Poles used almost the exact opposite tactics - headlong, headless charges of heavy cavalry.

Whether the Europeans would have got their act together in time to stop an all-out Mongol invasion is hard to discern. Given that a Mongol invasion of Europe was likely to have been a protracted affair, I suspect there was a good chance that the Europeans would have worked out appropriate tactics. However, whether this would be done in time to be adopted by a sufficiently large coalition, I am not sure. And whether a great general would have emerged who could match the Mongols in strategy, as opposed to tactics, is even more questionable.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 09 2004,13:33)]About the small fortified cities:

-The Mongols could bypass all of them and get to the capital of each nation. If the capital fell, the rest would follow. That happened quite a lot during the Middle Ages.
Hm no I cant agree with that:

Jerusalem fell but the Crusader states did not. The last few decades before the fall of Acre (1291) had a lot of sieges and slowly killing off one fortress/city after another.

Charles the Dauphin couldnt even be crowned king but the resistance against the English was still there (didnt look good but then a certain Maid came..)

The capital of Poland was IIRC Krakow but the country was still split up in 4 (I think) and although the Mongols sacked Krakow it did not stop the Poles from gathering armies to fight the Mongols.

Italy consisted of several city-states and Holy Roman Empire was just a name really.

The disunited (feudal) state of the nations meant that there were lots of local (and sometimes very independent) strong nobles. Going for a major city without taking care of castles and strongpoints behind you is asking for disaster. If you cant get a quick victory then the siege might take weeks or months and supplies is clearly a problem. Doing a siege with no supply line, and foragers having to travel further and further for supplies while risking being hit by raids coming from castles/strongpoints can very quickly turn nasty.

The Mongols couldnt take Breslau by storm and wisely elected not to start a siege when they knew 2 armies were closing in on them. And their mission was just to keep the Poles from helping Hungary so there were no reason to take silly chances like that.

We actually can compare it with the Huns, Avars and
Magyars that used the Hungarian plain as base for raids
into eastern and central Europe. The Huns did make it into France but that was only shortlived.

Hungary was the only logical target for the Mongols because of these plains. After that they would have a nice base for raids into Poland, Germany and Northern Italy.

Being an all cavalry army (at least the army that entered Eastern Europe) gave them lots of mobility and having several remounts helped too. But everything comes at a price and when it comes to logistics you always have to pay upfront http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

European armies got into trouble many times (especially at sieges) and that was with armies who had a lot fewer horses. For a fastmoving (widefront) raid it would not be that big a problem, but for a lengthy campaign involving many sieges (and a big army) it is very different.


CBR

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]The feigned retreat wouldn't work twice and a good commander will keep his troops together until the the Mongols ran out of arrows and have to commit to the melee.


even a "good" commander would have a real problem keeping his troops together as european troops of the time were hardly trained in collaborating with each other and following a certain tactic.
they just charged and if the enemy retreated they would charge with even more enthusiasm and get too sranded for their own sake. that was the case with most of the knights (except, perhaps, for the crusader knights) and even more with the less trained infantry.
so it would really take a great change in european perception of fighting if they had to start training all of their troops efficiently. i don't think there was enough time for a change like that throughout europe.

[Crimson Castle]

BTW, just how many Mongol warriors were there anyhow? They were a nomadic people and their population couldn't have been great.

Could the Mongols have taken over the whole of continental Europe and at the same time hold on to their possessions in Asia?

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ Feb. 10 2004,02:03)]
Quote[/b] ]The feigned retreat wouldn't work twice and a good commander will keep his troops together until the the Mongols ran out of arrows and have to commit to the melee.


even a "good" commander would have a real problem keeping his troops together as european troops of the time were hardly trained in collaborating with each other and following a certain tactic.
they just charged and if the enemy retreated they would charge with even more enthusiasm and get too sranded for their own sake. that was the case with most of the knights (except, perhaps, for the crusader knights) and even more with the less trained infantry.
so it would really take a great change in european perception of fighting if they had to start training all of their troops efficiently. i don't think there was enough time for a change like that throughout europe.
Nobody said it would be easy. That's not the point. We know countless examples like Agincourt where lack of tactic or impatience ruined a sure victory, but in a battle of the scale we are talking about, you can be sure that just having so many small armies from all over Europe being assembled would simply require an improvement in communication and a fixed battle plan. That's why I said it is important for the general to appoint good subcommanders and give them clear instructions.
When you are facing a horde of maybe 300,000 horsemen who stretch out to make them seem to be even more numerous, every unit leader will have serious doubts about charging in recklessly with his band of maybe 100 knights and assorted infantry. We have to assume prior engagements with Mongols already took place before this battle would be fought, so it should be clear to all participants what a serious threat they are up against.

And like CBR said, I think the feudal system had a little advantage in being de-centralised..there wasn't a real capital in most kingdoms, the HRE for example had several empirial residencies, but every major count or duke had his own mini-capital, so there is not a real center at which to strike at.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 10 2004,04:32)]BTW, just how many Mongol warriors were there anyhow? They were a nomadic people and their population couldn't have been great.

Could the Mongols have taken over the whole of continental Europe and at the same time hold on to their possessions in Asia?
By the time Batu Khan and Subedei crossed the Wolga, the Mongol Empire was already several times the size of Europe as a whole.

How did they do so?

By way of good administration, cooperation with the local populace and also happiness of the locals.

Take for instance the Golden Horde after Batu Khan had founded it. Its armies were no longer toumens of feared Mongol warriors, but mostly Kipchak Turks and Russians. This made for a less effective and smaller force than the true Mongol armies, and thus it wasn't likely that any of Berke Khan's ambitions would become reality. It also led to less cohesity between the Mongol overlords and their forces. Yet, there was a period of reasonable economic bloom in Russia under the Golden Horde, and it led to the unifying of the remaining 'free' Russian principalities under the banner of Novgorod and Moskou.

There just wasn't any real idea of 'garrissons', as there was under an empire such as the Roman, or the Byzantine, or other great empires. Toumens were only assembled for conquest and the Khanates that followed usually assimilated into the local population.



~Wiz

[Stefan the Berserker]

The Mongols Warriors were supirior on open Field (with their Horses), but Castles and dense Woods can be used against them in Defense.

If you play the Japanese in MI, hide in the Woods and produce mostly Yaris and Naginatas which are good against Cavallary. The Mongols will try to charge the woods with their Cavallary, but this is doomed to fail if you have enough Men.

Through Mongols couldn't build any Siege Weapons the Chinese Cities were althrough save from them at first... Before somebody within the Mongols got the Idea that they could force defeated Chinese to build some for them

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 08 2004,12:35)]Furthermore, it is doubtful that European armies would have adopted such a great change of weaponry.
They didnt really have to change weaponry.

Its difficult to get a clear picture of how many missile armed infantry were involved in various battles, but we do have some info.

There might even more info somewhere but this is what I could find in my books.

In 1303 a contingent from Bruges had 1364 men and 200 of them were crossbowmen (14.6%)

The contingent of Canton Zürich in 1443 had 2760 men and 534 were crossbows/handguns (19.3%)

In the early renaissance we have a typical Landsknecht (around year 1500 iirc) Fähnlein of 400 men and 50 of them armed with arquebuses(12.5%) and the Spanish (who were noted for having many arquebuses/muskets) had about 25%. Others still used crossbows but during the 16th century the number of guns would increase to nearly 50% and the crossbow had died out by around 1525.

AFAIK English early 16th century armies also had a considerable amount of billmen, perhaps outnumbering the longbows 3 to 1.

These are of course later than our timeframe but we have earlier info that does show the same tendency.

Some examples:

The 5th crusade in 1219 was supposed to have about 20000 foot sergeants and 4000 crossbowmen is mentioned and I take that as being part of the 20000 as "other 30000 including women" can really only mean camp followers.

Louis IX did the 7th crusade in 1250 and supposed to have 5000 crossbowmen out of 30000+ foot

In the 3rd crusade (Richard Lionheart) we have the hard fought battle of Arsuf in 1191 with something like 1200 knights and 10000 foot. Saladin might have had 15-20000 cavalry and a majority would have been armed with bows. The crusaders had enough missiles there to keep the muslims away.

Not an easy victory but from what one can read about the big muslim attack on the rearguard, that eventually started the big cavalry counterattack that routed the muslims, there were enough crossbowmen/archers to give the muslims a lot of problems and losses.

At Jaffa in 1192 Richard commanded 2000 foot and some knights and there were 400 Italian crossbowmen involved.

At the battle of Hastings archers played an important role although we dont have any exact numbers.


If we can conclude anything from the info and estimates then it will be that missile armed infantry were present in any large infantry forces and in most cases would be 10-20% of the infantry. That only changed with the widespread use of arquebuses and especially muskets in mid 16th century.

We can also see from several crusader battles that, although being outnumbered by horsearchers, missile armed foot could and did stand up to and defeat these horsearchers. People back then were well aware of the importance of missile weapons but they really just used what they already had when fighting Muslims.

It still needed a change in the standard tactics as knights couldnt stand in the first line as that would make them vulnerable against the horsearchers. Impetuous knights and bad quality of the foot could easily be a problem but if you read about the first crusade you will see how they quickly learned to respect horsearchers and change.

That doesnt mean that some knights didnt make mistakes but it does mean that there was no need for a big (meaning impossible) reform in the general weapon mix of the armies.


*later english armies with even more archers is another discussion that I wont bore people with in this post*


CBR

[Orda Khan]

CBR....
You can't describe European weaponry during the 14th, 15th and 16th Centuries, this is quite some time later. The European armies would have to stop the Mongols with what they had in 1241.

Everyone talks about the Horse Archers but there has been little or no mention of the Mongol Heavy Cavalry. Leather and/or iron lamellar armour protected both horse and rider and for hand to hand their sabres were far more suited to mounted combat than the broad sword. Mongol armies contained more Heavy Cavalry than people think, a lot more and at this point in their conquests, there were a lot of infantry auxiliaries also.

By pointing out how the Mongols managed to defeat the Sung through seige warfare, with these cities being far more stoutly defended, means Europe could not rely on this defence.

As you rightly pointed out, they could not take Breslau and laying seige was never the intention, it was diversion.

When one studies the Russian and European campaign it is quite evident that the Mongols outclassed their opponents in every way, from intelligence to strategy

.......Orda

[ShadeFlanders]

I'd have to agree with CBR that a crusader-style army could have defeated the mongols.
The army would consist of:
* mercenary light cavalry: horse archers to harass the enemy, basically play their own game, prevent them from getting easy shots at the infantry, set up feints and fake withdrawals to draw them to a more vulnerable amount (the two latter not very easy because these "units" historically could not be commanded by a mouseclick).
*a solid base of missile troops, preferably crossbows, pavises if possible. Not getting "outshot" will be essential.
Combined with spear units to try to keep enemy cavalry away and shield your own heavy cavalry. Mostly "cannon fodder" tough.
* a small core of elite heavy cavalry: outremer knights. Unlike their western collegues these guys wait for the right moment to get their charge in. They should only charge if they are 100% of a succesfull charge. When the time is right the infantry wall opened up, the knights came through and if the charge succeeded it was game over for the opposing army.


Citaat[/b] ]...their sabres were far more suited to mounted combat than the broad sword.
The western knight should not (and will not) rely on his broadsword. It's the (couched) lance that will make the difference. eg knights templar would withdraw whenever possible to get another charge in. The broadsword was for mopping up or making last stands.

I think it is possible with an able commander which, granted, weren't very common in european armies. But there were some nonetheless.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Feb. 13 2004,18:04)]CBR....
You can't describe European weaponry during the 14th, 15th and 16th Centuries, this is quite some time later. The European armies would have to stop the Mongols with what they had in 1241
And I described it for more than just 14th-16th century. We have some very exact numbers from later periods and compared it to earlier times and there is nothing that suggests that things changed much.

Missile weapons during this long periode produced more less the same effect and was therefore represented as the same (10-20%)percentage compared to the rest of large infantry forces. That really only changed with muskets during the 16th century.

European armies had both bows and crossbows when the Mongols came. And what we have of information about many crusader battles suggest that what they had was enough to cause a lot of problems and losses for horse archers.

What Im saying is that there was no need for some revolution in infantry missile weapons (either in technology or numbers) to have a chance against the Mongols in a battle. No need to wait for thousands of English longbowmen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]By pointing out how the Mongols managed to defeat the Sung through seige warfare, with these cities being far more stoutly defended, means Europe could not rely on this defence

Do you suggest that Mongols were better at siege warfare than European armies? What technologies and tactics did they use that made them a bit or a lot better?



Quote[/b] ]Leather and/or iron lamellar armour protected both horse and rider and for hand to hand their sabres were far more suited to mounted combat than the broad sword.

AFAIK Napoleonic heavy cavalry used heavy straight swords compared to the lighter cavalry that used sabres. As I understand it (and I might be wrong as I dont know that much about this specific topic) its more a question of tactics: shock action done by large men on large horses with swords used for stabbing (of course there will be slashing too) compared to sabres used for quick slashing for the more agile lighter cavalry.

I dont know much about Mongol swords but I just doubt they had some advantage there. I still see an average knight/men-at-arm to be better than an average mongol heavy cavalryman in a head-on fight. Trained from boyhood in mounted combat with lance and other melee weapons and definitely not with less armour than the mongols.

IIRC I have read somewhere that there were about 30% heavy cavalry of the total force in 1241. A big and important part of the Mongol army, no doubt about that.


CBR

[DojoRat]

I went back and read up on the Mongol invasion of Hungary and what struck me was the unity of the Horde vs. the the disunity of the Hungarian nobility. One source says that some 30-40,000 Kipchaks were willing to fight for the king (they fled rather than be assimilated by the Mongols) but the Hungarian nobles feared the power this would give their monarch and forced the Kipchaks out. I can't recall the details but it was political move rather than a military one that got them to leave.

IMO the superiority of the Mongols originated in their strategic abilities and the strategic power of the
horse archer. It was the Mongols unity, focus, and flexibility that gave them such power over the Europeans, not their prowess during anyone set battle. It's not that this prowess wasn't there but it was their strategic abilities that made their victories into such complete defeats for their enemies. In how many accounts do we read about the Poles or Hungarians fighting a battle of their choosing? ... It was always after days of exhausting marches, constant harassing fire, or before their forces could be joined.

The Mongols didn't leave their battles to chance. That's the highest praise you can give for a military campaign.

[ICantSpellDawg]

showers with soap

[Orda Khan]

I did not spend time to go into detail in my last post, I'll try to explain.

CBR No I do not claim the Mongols were better at seige warfare than the Europeans. I meant Sung cities were much larger and more stoutly defended. The Mongols were successful in China so why would European cities be any different? This was my point. If Europe sat behind walls it would lose. Though the threat of total annihilation of the people within these cities was perhaps a new concept of terror, one that must particularly frightening.
I don't know much about Napoleonic weaponry but the sabre as compared with a Mediaeval broadsword, was a lighter, swifter weapon...
A person who trains from a young age compared with a person who has fought almost constantly from a young age...?

ShadeFlanders The Mongol Heavy Cavalry did not rely on swords either. The Teutonic Knights that met their lances did not fare well. The sabre would have been primarily used as a means of despatching disorganised infantry and/or dismounted Knights.
What Horse Archers could be employed to do a job that no Horse Archer based army had done thus far? The Steppes had been conquered.

DojoRat The Qipchaqs left Hungary after their Khan, Kotian and a number of princes were put under house arrest. The Hungarian barons blamed Bela's support of the Russian princes as the reason behind the invasion and they suspected the Qipchaqs of being part of the Mongol army. Frederick II Duke of Austria antagonised the situation by siding with the barons and stirring up trouble for his old adversary ( european division http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) His army captured a Mongol patrol that contained Qipchaq conscripts, proof of their claims. Some of the barons stormed the house, Kotian killed his wives and himself, while the princes were killed and their heads thrown into the street. Understandably, the Qipchaqs were enraged and plundered their way into Austria and south into Bulgaria.

Strategy wise, I agree with you, the Mongols were playing out a script that had been meticulously planned years in advance.

......Orda

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (Orda Khan @ Feb. 14 2004,13:03)]

Citaat[/b] ]The Mongol Heavy Cavalry did not rely on swords either. The Teutonic Knights that met their lances did not fare well.
yes but outremer knights did not operate in the same way as western knights (line up in 2 rows and blindly charge in), getting the charge on them and getting to use your lance them would be very difficult since they had a shield of well trained infantry in front of them. Best chance would be a countercharge, but this is exactly what the crusader knights were trying to do themselves. I would say that whoever gets the charge would win. I also agree with BDC that a knights were better heavy cavalry then mongol heavy cav, mainly because of the couched lance technique which only the knights were masters in.

Citaat[/b] ]What Horse Archers could be employed to do a job that no Horse Archer based army had done thus far? The Steppes had been conquered.
The horse archers used in outremer armies were used differently than those in other eastern armies and they had an entirely different role in the army. Their goal was not to decimate the enemy with their arrows, their goal was to work with the rest of the army so that the heavy cavalry could set up the decisive charge. If the knights made a succesfull charge 9 times out of 10 the battle was won.
The outremer armies used tactics that were a crossbreed between eastern and western styles of warfare, they were successfull whenever they stuck to their ground rules: use missile troops to draw them in and countercharge at the right place at the right moment.

[The Wizard]

ShadeFlanders:

About the mercenary horse archers.

Do you really expect the Mongols to fall for their own trick? The Mongols weren't stupid, and wouldn't follow a retreating unit like lions driven mad by hunger chasing after a prey, unlike the Poles. That would be a waste of good horse archers.

Mongolian heavy cavalry used the lance as well. They were, after all, heavy cavalry used to ride down and break weakened enemy formations.

Also, of course the knight is better at close combat. He knows no other way of spending his time on the battlefield. The Mongol heavy horseman wasn't on the battlefield solely to duke it out in the melée. He was there to break units, and then ride down fleeing enemy soldiers. The melée was far too man-consuming for a Mongol army, and thus Mongol heavy horsemen acted as horse archers until it was time to ride down the enemy. Simple, effective.



~Wiz

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 14 2004,14:07)]ShadeFlanders:

About the mercenary horse archers.

Do you really expect the Mongols to fall for their own trick? The Mongols weren't stupid, and wouldn't follow a retreating unit like lions driven mad by hunger chasing after a prey, unlike the Poles. That would be a waste of good horse archers.
1) strange things can happen in the heat of battle. Remember no general had bird's point of view of the battlefield and couldn't instantly command their units with the click of a mouse.
2) horse archers in outremer armies were mainly used as a defensive tool. They kept the opposing horse archers busy so that the infantry wasn't turned into a pincushin (sp?). Drawing opposing troops in charges was only a very minor part of their role in the army.



Citaat[/b] ]Mongolian heavy cavalry used the lance as well. They were, after all, heavy cavalry used to ride down and break weakened enemy formations.

Very well said, they broke weakened enemy formations. Knights could break enemy formations, weakened or not, because they had one essential advantage: couched lance charge. Couched lance charge is a very difficult technique to learn (there is still debate about how exactly it was performed) but it allowed the knight to use the impetus of the charge to smash enemy formations apart. This is what knights excelled at. Like Anna Comnemos (sp) wrote about the frankish mercenaries in the byzantine army: they are unruly and barbarian but a frankish cavalry charge can bring down the walls of Byzantium itself.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Feb. 15 2004,19:55)]
Quote[/b] ]Mongolian heavy cavalry used the lance as well. They were, after all, heavy cavalry used to ride down and break weakened enemy formations.

Very well said, they broke weakened enemy formations. Knights could break enemy formations, weakened or not, because they had one essential advantage: couched lance charge. Couched lance charge is a very difficult technique to learn (there is still debate about how exactly it was performed) but it allowed the knight to use the impetus of the charge to smash enemy formations apart. This is what knights excelled at. Like Anna Comnemos (sp) wrote about the frankish mercenaries in the byzantine army: they are unruly and barbarian but a frankish cavalry charge can bring down the walls of Byzantium itself.
Exactly.

And that illustrates perfectly the difference between knights and Mongol heavy cavalry. Knights were cavalry for head-on combat, there for true shock combat, to break open enemy formations to allow infantry to fill the gap and start the chopping.

Meanwhile, Mongol heavy cavalry wasn't looking to go in and smash the enemy by brute force (if you will), but rather to go in and break whatever remained after a steady bombardment of the enemy. Long hand-to-hand engagements wasn't something they were aiming to do. They preferred short engagements and the power of the shock to break units with weakened formations and lowered morale, and then run them down.

Thus, a Mongol heavy horseman wasn't looking to fight a knight, and a Mongol horse archer even less. That's why they wanted to separate them from the rest of the army and then take care of them. They knew they were dangerous if left to their devices (i.e. could go in for the charge), thus they sought to negate that advantage through their mobility and tricks. The infantry wouldn't be a great problem after that.

Mongols were very ingenious. They knew their tricks would only work a couple times, and had a boatload of 'em, and if they ran out of them, they tried something new. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]And that illustrates perfectly the difference between knights and Mongol heavy cavalry. Knights were cavalry for head-on combat, there for true shock combat, to break open enemy formations to allow infantry to fill the gap and start the chopping.

Meanwhile, Mongol heavy cavalry wasn't looking to go in and smash the enemy by brute force (if you will), but rather to go in and break whatever remained after a steady bombardment of the enemy. Long hand-to-hand engagements wasn't something they were aiming to do. They preferred short engagements and the power of the shock to break units with weakened formations and lowered morale, and then run them down.

Thus, a Mongol heavy horseman wasn't looking to fight a knight, and a Mongol horse archer even less. That's why they wanted to separate them from the rest of the army and then take care of them. They knew they were dangerous if left to their devices (i.e. could go in for the charge), thus they sought to negate that advantage through their mobility and tricks. The infantry wouldn't be a great problem after that.

Mongols were very ingenious. They knew their tricks would only work a couple times, and had a boatload of 'em, and if they ran out of them, they tried something new.
Very true. Different concepts aren't comparable.



For CBR and Orda Khan:

The sabre has an advantage over the broad sword due to it's weight distribution. The center of mass of the broad sword is closer to the handle (about 1/3 of the length of the blade). The sabre has the center of mass near the center of the sword. What this difference allows is a superior shock impact when a cutting blow is made in the downward direction (the way most cavalry blows are made). The cutting edge responsible for the impact itself, is nearer the tip of the blade and has a greater stregth applied on it. So, there is a really big difference in effectivness. That's why the sabre, after a particular period in History, has been the prefered cavalry sword.

The sabre of the French Light Cavalry was indeeed found to be a superior design to the one used by the French Heavy Cavalry. It had a heavier tip than normal sabres, allowing a blow to inflict more damage. I believe this situation occurred because the design of the Heavy Cavalry's weapon was an earlier one and by a different weapon manufacturer. Later, all typical sabres of the French Army followed that Light Cavalry design.

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 14 2004,08:07)]ShadeFlanders:

About the mercenary horse archers.

Do you really expect the Mongols to fall for their own trick? The Mongols weren't stupid, and wouldn't follow a retreating unit like lions driven mad by hunger chasing after a prey, unlike the Poles. That would be a waste of good horse archers.

Mongolian heavy cavalry used the lance as well. They were, after all, heavy cavalry used to ride down and break weakened enemy formations.

Also, of course the knight is better at close combat. He knows no other way of spending his time on the battlefield. The Mongol heavy horseman wasn't on the battlefield solely to duke it out in the melée. He was there to break units, and then ride down fleeing enemy soldiers. The melée was far too man-consuming for a Mongol army, and thus Mongol heavy horsemen acted as horse archers until it was time to ride down the enemy. Simple, effective.



~Wiz
Mongols could fall in their own tricks,in Ain-Jalut the mamelukes feigned retreat so that the mongols could charge,although the feigned retreat was not a 100% success they still managed to draw the mongols to the royal guard while reserve cavalry charged the mongols from the rear,leading to kitubghas death and stopping mongol advance permanently.

[Orda Khan]

Not Ain Jalut again.....
There is far more to be mentioned about Ain Jalut than the mere fact of a Mongol defeat, I discussed Ain Jalut in the other Mongol thread and all the political aspects involved. Ain Jalut is one example but there are scant few others. I could mention the Russian cavalry ambush at Kulikovo field but this would not be right, as the battle was fought in 1380, hence the situation was different. The same is true for Ain Jalut, 20 years does not seem much but consider this..Ogedei, Guyuk and Mangku had all departed and civil war was in progress to decide who would be the next Qa'an. 20 years was half a Mongol lifetime http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
One thing that Ain Jalut did show, was how a larger, determined force could actually defeat a Mongol army, even though it did not happen very often

....Orda

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Feb. 15 2004,18:08)]The sabre of the French Light Cavalry was indeeed found to be a superior design to the one used by the French Heavy Cavalry. It had a heavier tip than normal sabres, allowing a blow to inflict more damage. I believe this situation occurred because the design of the Heavy Cavalry's weapon was an earlier one and by a different weapon manufacturer. Later, all typical sabres of the French Army followed that Light Cavalry design.
Going off on a detour from the Mongols to Napoleonic swords, I never heard that light cavalry swords were better than heavy cavalry ones. I've read that the British Napoleonic era heavy cavalry swords were poorly balanced, but thought cuirasser swords were well regarded, unlike light cavalry swords. Are you sure the French abandoned cuirassier swords for curved sabres? The British evolved the heavy cavalry sword into a 1912 design that is designed purely for stabbing - I have one at home, it is a straight long sword with a very tapered point and no noticeable edge. I understand it was used pretty much as a mini-lance - point and charge. One commentator said it was the ultimate evolution of the cavalry sword, but rather redundant given what came two years later...

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Feb. 16 2004,11:02)]Not Ain Jalut again.....
There is far more to be mentioned about Ain Jalut than the mere fact of a Mongol defeat, I discussed Ain Jalut in the other Mongol thread and all the political aspects involved. Ain Jalut is one example but there are scant few others. I could mention the Russian cavalry ambush at Kulikovo field but this would not be right, as the battle was fought in 1380, hence the situation was different. The same is true for Ain Jalut, 20 years does not seem much but consider this..Ogedei, Guyuk and Mangku had all departed and civil war was in progress to decide who would be the next Qa'an. 20 years was half a Mongol lifetime http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
One thing that Ain Jalut did show, was how a larger, determined force could actually defeat a Mongol army, even though it did not happen very often

....Orda
problem is see,Baibars threatened to bring an army that spanned from cairo to damascus,but kitubgha underestimated it,when ain jalut came to be problems started right at the begining,the mongols did not have a tight command especially after bringing large numbers of armenians and georgians with them,half of the muslim army where doing prayers(war prayers,wich is usually not done on the battlefield,rather before battle,but thats a rare occasion),on the first rak'a of the prayers the non-mongol cavalry charged the praying muslims,not knowing several muslims were hiding near a tight pass with a slew of ambush traps set there,first the armenian cavalry were disarrayed by wagons that the muslims pushed at them,these were used to scare horses,then several of the muslims on higher ground released a rockfall trap(putting several large rocks on an edge held by a frail peice of wood,when removed rocks would roll from hills,cliffs or whatever and kill whoever is directly below).

on the second rak'a after driving out the first charge baibars personally led a charge with his mamelukes.while qutuz the fat sob was watching from behind,the mamelukes were wavering against the mongols heavier cavalry,thats when the muslims who were praying ended their prayers and aided the mamelukes.end result was the mongols were retreating.

there were several reasons as to why the mongols lost,not mentioned above,one main factor was baibars convincing the crusaders to return,becuase eventually they will be fighting the mongols sooner or later also i think the pope pressured the crusaders on not helping the mongols.

also one other factor was the mongols chain of command,communicating with foreign allied forces such as the armenians is a problem,especially with a language barrier(another example of language barriers is tours,the arabs had visigoths,greeks,berbers and frankish mercenaries rampaging in france before being driven out by charles martel),and then you have the way the armenians and goergians charging without any direct orders from the mongols made it look like the mongols were attacking in waves.

Sorry for a mess of a post,but thats just my 2 cents on ain jalut,it was not only a political problem but also some bad moves made by the mongols in the battle.

[Hakonarson]

A bit off topic, but Napoleonic Cavalry swords were made for 2 different purposes.

the heavy sabre was straight and had a basket hilt for a reason - it was held tip towards teh enemy and arm straight behind it so it struck tip first in a charge - like a lance.

the basket hilt protected the hand agaisnt a returning blow, and I have read an account that tells the cavalryman not to bend his sword elbow lest the enemy blade slide off his hilt and catch him there, ripping his arm off http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Light cavalry were expected to fight in melees and skirmishes more than battlefield charges, and their curved sabre was better suited to that role.

Medieval broadswords were straight because that was the best shape for something designed to batter through armour.

Mongol lances weer NOT the same as Eauropean ones - steppe nomad lances were patterned on the Konto of ancient times - they were much more slender than many European lances and were often hand-held rather than couched.

Most Mongol "heavy" cavalry were close order massed horse archers similar to Byzantine or Sassanid types, and only a few (maybe 40%) had lances.

[CBR]

One article about Napoleonic cavalry swords:

link (http://www.swordforum.com/articles/ams/cavalrycombat.php)

And another thing...If there was anything chainmail was good at then it was protection against slashes.

But in general I dont see that many overall differences to either make a knights sword or a Mongols sabre superior. Training and experience is more important and I would still say a knight is better prepared for a melee as he didnt spend time on mounted archery compared to a mongol. But the difference might not be great in some cases.


CBR

[The Wizard]

GAH - let's go back to talking about crazy steppe warriors that were quite clearly unstoppable in their pure form, instead of debating over swords that perfumed Frenchies or Redcoats use

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Feb. 23 2004,19:09)]One article about Napoleonic cavalry swords:

link (http://www.swordforum.com/articles/ams/cavalrycombat.php)
Fascinating article, seems like my prejudice in favour of the thrusting cavalry sword may be ill-founded - thanks for the link

[Orda Khan]

Well some other points about Ain Jalut that I didn't want to go into...
The Crusaders granting safe passage and supplies for the Mamluk army.
Kit Bukha really had no choice, he faced them with the army he had at his disposal, Hulegu had been forced to retire to protect his flank and rear. The Civil war over succession between Ariq Bukha and Qubilai was not as one sided as many would have us believe. In fact, Hulegu ran the risk of being isolated, with hostile armies on all fronts. The Mamluks as we know, stood before him and Berke of the Golden Horde was a threat to his right ( Berke supported Ariq Bukha ) the Chagadaid Princes raided his rear position and Qaidu threatened to cut off his supply lines. Hulegu was in no position to press on as planned. Like Batu before him, he would never realise his dream as the Mongol Empire was more fragmented and proceeded to self destruct

.......Orda

[BOTP]

The biggest impediment to the Europeans was the very nature of the Western chivalric mentality--the idea that one had to come out and meet the enemy on the open field. If that mentality could have been controlled, then I'd say there might have been at least a remote chance of European success.

One sees an example of this at the Mongol siege of Stuhlweissenburg (and my apologies go out to all Hungarians, for using the Austrian name for the ancient burial place of the Hungarian kings). The town was defended by a unit of Italian mercenaries (these were not men of the knightly class, and hence they lacked certain potentially self-destructive tendencies). I have not been able to find details of the siege, but the Mongols were driven off. We know that Italian mercenaries (North Italians) were noted for their use of the crossbow (witness their stellar performance during the Lion Heart's victory against Saladin at Arsuf), and we know that the Mongols actually had a fear of this weapon (as mentioned by Carpini in his Historia Mongolorum quos nos Tartaros appellamus).

Stuhlweissenburg was the defense of a fortified position--something that European armies tended to be very good at (somewhat paradoxically, considering the chivalric mentality). The Mongols had the benefit of expert Persian and Chinese siege engineers, but the Europeans had learned much during the Crusades, in regards to both siege warfare and fortification (look at the Krak de Chevaliers).

Battles in the field would have been tougher IMO, and I think that it would have required an Arsuf-like order of battle, with crossbowmen protected by pavesari, so as to make up for the crossbow's slow rate of fire.

But how many mid-13th century European commanders were as sharp as Richard the Lion-Heart? The fact that Richard knew how to use his infantry at all is quite remarkable for a European commander of his time; the fact that he knew how to use them in conjunction with his cavalry is downright amazing. Richard seems to have been more the exception than the rule.

And that's the rub--the Europeans were not outclassed technically, but tactically and strategically.

Peace....

[Watchman]

Chivalric stupidity - or rather, dash, bravery and overemphasis on the shock charge - was the major military problem European armies had during the Middle Ages, even aginst each other. There's some pretty decent reasons the armies of the Crusader Kingdoms, facing foes not particularly different from the Mongols in weaponry or tactics, acted in a far more disciplined manner. Practical experience had taught them letting the knights run after the horse-archers was a brilliant way to get them killed and deprive the army of its main attack arm, hence they went to great lenghts to protect the knights' horses from Turkish arrows with heavily armored spearmen and crossbowmen and only committed the chivalry at good opportunities.

Back in Europe there were no nomadic horse-archers to fight, and naturally the techniques to counter them were also lacking. The Hungarians and Polish, living right on the edge of the steppe as they were, were probably a little better off but then they'd never encountered anything to the scale and drive of the Golden Horde before...

Anyway, the point is really a bit moot. The Horde didn't stick in Hungary, the last outpost of the steppe belt in the West, for too long and likely did not find the idea of trying to conquer the comparatively dirt poor but heavily forested and fortified Europe particularly becoming.

[alexanderthegreat]

if i were a medieval commander. i would have tryed to take out their horsemen first. the mongols relied on their fast cavarly. if you take that away the medieval armies of europe would win.

[Sjakihata]

I'll just rush them, using their own advantage, speed, and then I will pray that the kamikaze saves my butt (which is the only thing that can effectively defeat the mongols), if it doesnt then I'll be remembered for my couragous charge. (or my stupidity)

on another note, I think HUGE castles and MASSIVE stone walls are a good way to stop them and force them to make sieges.

[Watchman]

Tried. Didn't work. Headlong charge against the nimble horse-archers was quite specifically the tactical blunder Europeans committed against both the Turks and, on a few occasions, the Mongols (the Teutonic Knights did that, at least - most other battles between the two were fought outside "open field" style territory, such as that one river crossing involving the Hungarians and the Knights Templar). Heavy cavalry just plain can't catch horse-archers in most conditions - and even if they do they'll just nail a few while the rest scatter and leave the cavalry standing isolated and, as tended to happen, rapidly enveloped.

[Shadow]

alexanderthegreat

you are right that taking out their horsemen would give medieval armies of Europe a chance to win But I don't really think that any European Calvary will be able to catch up with them.

So from my point of view during that period of time in medieval Europe there is no army strong or advance enough to take on the Mongols even if there is one.

There is no one in Eastern Europe that is familiar with the Mongol style of warfare so defeat is certain.

Because
Firstly you can’t cut their supply route because they don’t have one.

Secondly they have checked everything from the terrain to the relationships between kingdoms, kings & their princes and so on before the war start.They prepare to make use of every creak and fault to get a quick and easy victory.

Lastly the Mongols are pros with Psychology warfare and medieval Europe didn’t even have it so. They just play with their minds a little & they all go BOMB !!!

In conclusion there is no army in Europe at that time that can defeat them. ~:)

[Watchman]

Oh, I'm sure the East Europeans, living on the edge of the steppe as they did, were fairly familiar with nomad tactics - or at least they don't geberally seem to have made the tactical mistakes their western neighbors did. At Liegnitz, for example, it was specifically the Teutonic Knights who charged off after the Mongol light cavalry and got separated from their Polish allies, duly getting enveloped and shredded by the nomad heavies.

The problem was more the sheer scale, speed, sophistication and determination of the Mongols, which nobody had experienced before - they were the only nomad empire for whom, apparently, "the world is not enough". All the others seem to have been content with rather smaller chunks of Eurasia.

However, had the Golden Horde pushed deeper into Central Europe they'd likely have run into far more trouble than the region was worth. Vast stretches of woodlands cut by rivers and mountains and the whole thing dotted by extensive networks of fortifications (something the Europeans were pretty good at building and defending) full of nasty lance-toting cavalrymen is decidedly not the kind of terrain steppe nomads operate well in. For one finding enough pasture for their vast horse herds - the key to their mobility and most other military advantages - proved to be problematic even on the Great Hungarian Plain, the western terminus of the Great Eurasian Steppe Belt, nevermind what it would have been in the forests of Germany. Down in the Middle East the Egyptian Mamluks devastated Syria solely to cause any Ilkhanid army trying to come over supply difficulties.

Something to keep in mind - China was actually about the only place outside the great steppes where the Mongols could install themselves. Everywhere else they either didn't even try to push further (such as in the vast forest belt of northern Eurasia and Hungary) or, as in Vietnam and Japan, were bluntly shown the door often with heavy casualties.

For another, nomads actually had a supply line and a rather vulnerable one at that, just different from that of the settled peoples. Waggons. Big ones. That's what their children, elderly, sick, wounded, families, craftsmen, stores etc. etc. travelled in. As you can imagine methods of defending these moving towns from other, hostile nomads had been honed to near perfection on the steppes long ago, but how well those techinques would have worked in completely different terrain is a whole another thing. The warriors could and certainly did range far and wide from these mobile bases, but substantial numbers were at all times left behind to guard them.