Real Golden Horde? For historians

[NewJeffCT]

As all of us MTW veterans know, the Golden Horde hits the map in 1230 with a huge horde of Mongol Heavy Cavalry & Horse Archers. Depending on your status and what faction you play, the Horde can be a dangerous foe for a long time, or eliminated pretty quickly...

However, in real life, the Horde was quite succesful, if I recall. What prevented them from advancing even further into Europe was when the Khan got drunk at a celebration, fell of his horse & broke his neck. The Horde then "degenerated into a minor faction" as we say in MTW terms.

This is not quite game related, but how would history have changed in the Khan had not fallen off his horse and survived to a later death, be it natural or something else?

Any speculation? Could any army in Europe at that time stood against them?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

At that time probably not. Europe was a divided old place but i just couldn't see the Mongols conquoring all of Europe. No doubt many will disagree with me but i truely believe they could't.

If the invasion was say 110 years after, then i think it would have been a different story to be quite honest http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Ludens]

This has been discussed extensively in the monastery. I can provide you with two links to discussions there. Especially the latter contains much information about the Mongols.
1) Mongolian Question (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=14650;st=0)
2) Best Military Tactic to Defeat the Mongols (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=15004;st=0)

As for my opinion: to take Europe, they would have needed to do a lot of siege work. I do not know if the equipment they brought with them was able to take on thirteenth century castles. But even if it could, they had to take many. Too many, in my opinion. Either they should have found a way to avoid it, or they would have lost because it took too long.

The best way to defeat the Mongols is not to fight them, but to hold onto what they can't take.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ June 18 2004,19:13)]This has been discussed extensively in the monastery. I can provide you with two links to discussions there. Especially the latter contains much information about the Mongols.
1) Mongolian Question (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=14650;st=0)
2) Best Military Tactic to Defeat the Mongols (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=15004;st=0)

As for my opinion: to take Europe, they would have needed to do a lot of siege work. I do not know if the equipment they brought with them was able to take on thirteenth century castles. But even if it could, they had to take many. Too many, in my opinion. Either they should have found a way to avoid it, or they would have lost because it took too long.

The best way to defeat the Mongols is not to fight them, but to hold onto what they can't take.
sorry Ludens but on this rare occasion, i think you're wrong (i might well be of course) but the mongols sacked the Khwarzm (sp?) who had much larger fortresses than any europeans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

But surely getting the siege equipment, used by the mongols who employed chinese artillery crews, would take weeks or months to get to the front? By that time anything could have happened.

[octavian]

i guess it truely depends on very many factors, all of which cannot be brought into this conversation. however, for the sake of speculation...i think there was the potential for the Horde (assuming that they were prepared to adapt to changes, and i think they were) to take over most (i dont think all, but most) of Europe. of course, it its possible that the Europeon Knights would unite and fight. in which case, they may have had a chance.

[katank]

The horde had plenty of siege and the Chinese engineers they had were quite advanced in the craft of gunpowder.

the mongols woudl have done a heck of a lot of damage to Europe.

it's true they had some trouble with sieges as any cav heavy army would fortresses like the ones in the kwarsm empire as ah_dut mentionned were overcame.

[eds]

They wouldn't need to take every fortress. They'd just do what they did elsewhere - any city that refused to surrender immediately got razed mercilessly, their women raped (then killed). Any city that cooperated paid a small tribute and was left alone.

I bet one brutal razing of a major European city would have resulted in most of the rest giving up without a fight, after their armies on the field were defeated (which the Mongols seemed to excel at).

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ June 18 2004,17:53)]But surely getting the siege equipment, used by the mongols who employed chinese artillery crews, would take weeks or months to get to the front? By that time anything could have happened.
Read the threads supplied by Ludens, all this has been discussed before and since it's 1:24 AM here, I'll join tommorrow.

I'll just answer your question as a taster:

The Mongols carried the parts for siege engines on their horses, while on campaign, so there was no siege train. Neither were there supply routes, since the Mongols lived off the land. It gave them extreme mobility and a huge advantage over all they faced.

Also, the Golden Horde was not in existence when Batu Khan and Subedei Baghatur invaded Russia in 1239, roughly eight years after Jebe Noyon's and Subedei's amazing chase of the Kharezm-shah had led them into Russia and to battle with the various Rurikid princes at the Kalka river.

It was simply the toumens (divisions of 10,000 men) provided by Qaraqorum for the conquest of Europe.

When Ögedei died, Batu's toumens were withdrawn and he decided to consolidate what he had conquered thusfar, namely Russia and far eastern Europe, creating the Khanate of the Blue Horde; his brother (cousin?) Orda Khan was given the more easternly lands and such the Khanate of the White Horde was created. Together, they formed the Khanate of the Golden Horde.

Gah, too much discussion already, I'll be back tommorrow with much more. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ June 18 2004,19:53)]But surely getting the siege equipment, used by the mongols who employed chinese artillery crews, would take weeks or months to get to the front? By that time anything could have happened.
true as always BKB but just telling what i know

[The Wizard]

Read my post and be enlightened. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ June 19 2004,17:08)]Read my post and be enlightened. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz
i already am wiz

[Steppe Merc]

Well, the further west and south, the less grazing fround they've got for their horses. They would need to rely less on Nomadic tactics, and more on stationary. At least, that is the view in some book I've read. Probably one of the Osprey books, but if makes sense.
Even so they probably could have conquered Europe if all the factors were right.

[soibean]

Quote[/b] (NewJeffCT @ June 18 2004,10:20)]Any speculation? Could any army in Europe at that time stood against them?
Didnt the polish help repel the Mongol horde after the khan had died? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the Polish, when they had been a major power in europe around the 1200s I think..., had stopped a major invasion into europe from either the mongol horde or the muslims...

Im not sure if this is correct, I did a report on that quite some time ago so my info might be a little off...

I apologize if Im wrong

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] ]As for my opinion: to take Europe, they would have needed to do a lot of siege work. I do not know if the equipment they brought with them was able to take on thirteenth century castles. But even if it could, they had to take many. Too many, in my opinion. Either they should have found a way to avoid it, or they would have lost because it took too long.


As what katank, The Mongols had Chinese engineers, and used cannons with gunpowder. I mean if they can take down heavily walled cities filled thousands upon thousands of Chinese soldiers, then they could take down castles.

Plus all this image of Mongol armies being all cavalry, Not True. Just like other conquerors before them, The Mongols also require specialty soldiers from different conquered lands, for example: the Persian heavy cavalry, Chinese engineers. If they wanted a infantry army, then they could of easily build a good quality infantry army.

[Chimpyang]

Plus they also used Naptha bombs against the walls, they learnt all this fighting their eariler campaigns in asia. Also, the European ethos of fighting a battle was exactly what the mongols were ready for. he Knights would probably lead a charge whilst the mongols would trick them and annihilate thei army. An example of this would be the Kalke River battle, where the mongols lured the Russian Kinghts across first, routed them into the slower infantry line. Much like againcourt acually.

[zelda12]

What you really have to ask is if the european powers that were the front runners, namely france poland germany and to a lesser degree england and the italian city states, would put aside their differences and try to actually have a concerted effort to stop the horde. if they did the chances are they would of won in all probability. If they didn't the chances are that the states would be picked of one by one.
Out of interest dis anyone know that the horde was the country to use paper money I think I heard that some where.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (soibean @ June 20 2004,04:25)]
Quote[/b] (NewJeffCT @ June 18 2004,10:20)]Any speculation? Could any army in Europe at that time stood against them?
Didnt the polish help repel the Mongol horde after the khan had died? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the Polish, when they had been a major power in europe around the 1200s I think..., had stopped a major invasion into europe from either the mongol horde or the muslims...
Well, the Mongols absolutely annihalated the army of Duke Henry of Silesia at Liegnitz. Poland wasn't a major power by a long shot in Europe, not until Lithuania and Poland manifested themselves as real kingdoms would they become powerful. In the 13th century Poland was devided in roughly four parts; the duchy of Silesia, the duchy of Wielkopolska, another duchy and the duchy of the King of Poland. The Mongols had already defeated the King and the other duchies when Henry decided to attack them.

The Europeans had no chance, even when they banded together (not very likely, take a look at the actions of the duke of Austria after Hungary was savaged by the Mongols) their chances were not large looking at the combat record of the Mongols.

Castles were of no importance; sitting in their castles, waiting for the Mongols, meant certain death. Samarqand was a huge city in the empire of the Khwarezm-shah, but it was taken within a very, very short time by Chingis, and the relief armies marching to aid the cities were so successfully harrassed that they couldn't do a thing.



~Wiz

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm sure area's of Britain, France, italy and Germany would give a fight to the mongols. The armies in Europe they defeated weren't exactly the cream of Europes military( save the handful of Templar at Sajo and Teutonic knights at liegnitz) and the mongols would be dangerously overstreched and we know the mongols couldn't really cope with Guerilla warfare( see the campaigns in south east asia) so imagine places like wales, scotland and various other mountain and rugged areas where they would have a bloody hard time of things

[The_Emperor]

The Europeans would have lost to the Mongols had the Khan not died.

I am not so sure about the entire Middle East being conquered easily, given the Desert terrain they faced there.

But the mainland of Europe was nothing they couldn't handle. By this time they had fought in the Jungles of Vietnam and Cambodia & the Mountains of Afghanistan, which are more harsh than the forests and hills in most of mainland europe.

I think they could easily have reached the atlantic, and they had the resources, the organisation and manpower to easily do this.

[KukriKhan]

Quote[/b] (zelda12 @ June 20 2004,04:19)]Out of interest dis anyone know that the horde was the country to use paper money I think I heard that some where.
I've actually read a bit about that...and you're mostly right. Seems in the 800's AD, the Chinese had a shortage of copper (from making so many copper weapons) that they had been using as coinage to represent stored wealth. To pay off northern invaders (pre-Ghengis Khan Mongols) the Chinese persuaded the potential attackers to accept paper warehouse receipts, with hand-drawn pictures of copper coins on them, as payment. It worked, and the invaders used the notes as money between themselves, as well as spreading it far and wide.

Presumably, at some point, somebody turned some of those notes in for the "real thing" copper coins, and was honored, thereby maintaining at least the illusion of value.

Further introductory reading at:
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/origins.html

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 18 2004,18:29)]sorry Ludens but on this rare occasion, i think you're wrong (i might well be of course) but the mongols sacked the Khwarzm (sp?) who had much larger fortresses than any europeans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif
You may well be right, but that's not what I am saying. The Mongols have overcome greater fortresses then were available in Europe, but the point isn't size, it's number. Europe was dotted with castles, all of which needed to be individually sieged.

Furthermore, were the Mongols equiped to do that? They might have used large siege weapons, but you can't take them with you easily. I refuse to believe they had anything more powerful than a catapult available in Europe. Because anything bigger would require pack donkeys and that would impede the Mongols main weapon: strategic intiative and speed.


Quote[/b] (eds @ June 19 2004,00:01)]They wouldn't need to take every fortress. They'd just do what they did elsewhere - any city that refused to surrender immediately got razed mercilessly, their women raped (then killed). Any city that cooperated paid a small tribute and was left alone.

I bet one brutal razing of a major European city would have resulted in most of the rest giving up without a fight, after their armies on the field were defeated (which the Mongols seemed to excel at).
This is indeed a good point. Terror was one the major weapons of the Mongols. But if the Pope issued a call to arms against these demons, who brutally savaged anything in their way, it might stiffen the resolve of the Europeans. Perhaps.

But in the end: would the Mongols find Europe important enough to bother with? I doubt it. They had more important things to do. And so they thought.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ June 20 2004,15:20)]
Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 18 2004,18:29)]sorry Ludens but on this rare occasion, i think you're wrong (i might well be of course) but the mongols sacked the Khwarzm (sp?) who had much larger fortresses than any europeans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif
You may well be right, but that's not what I am saying. The Mongols have overcome greater fortresses then were available in Europe, but the point isn't size, it's number. Europe was dotted with castles, all of which needed to be individually sieged.

Furthermore, were the Mongols equiped to do that? They might have used large siege weapons, but you can't take them with you easily. I refuse to believe they had anything more powerful than a catapult available in Europe. Because anything bigger would require pack donkeys and that would impede the Mongols main weapon: strategic intiative and speed.
Did you read my post?

They used mangonels and naphta besieging Kyiw, which was the European campaign of Batu Khan and Subedei Baghatur. They carried the pieces on their horses, which they could easily do since each Mongol warrior had 4 or 5 horses with him. When they had to besiege, they dismounted and assembled their siege weaponry. And destroyed the fortress.

A European castle is small, and that is it's problem. What made the siege of Chinese and Kharizmian cities so hard was the simple fact that since they were so huge, it meant that they could sally and harass your siege engines, and generally create a huge nuisance which will greatly wear you out. A European castle was too small to do such a thing, which meant the Mongols could cut off supplies and drinking water, and then simply wait.

Also, BKB, there is no question of being overextended for Mongols. They had no supply lines to worry about, and already besieging Kyiw they were 'overextended' and very far from reinforcements. So had Ögedei not died it would've made no difference for them, since they were already very far from home and without any hope of reinforcements, which made them so efficient.

Also, Emperor, they came from the harshest of climates. Winters colder than Russia's, summers hotter than Syria's. They were in no danger of not being able to handle a certain terrain. The only thing they couldn't handle terrain-wise were the jungles of Southeastern Asia, because there was no pasture for their horses and therefore they couldn't profit from mobility.

And also, the armies which undertook those fateful campaigns to Vietnam, Indonesia and Japan weren't toumens; they were something of a mixture between Mongol and Yuan armies, as Qubilai had learned to appreciate Chinese infantry in his campaign against the Southern Song.



~Wiz

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]A European castle is small, and that is it's problem. What made the siege of Chinese and Kharizmian cities so hard was the simple fact that since they were so huge, it meant that they could sally and harass your siege engines, and generally create a huge nuisance which will greatly wear you out. A European castle was too small to do such a thing, which meant the Mongols could cut off supplies and drinking water, and then simply wait.


This is about the funniest quote I've read in a long time. Do you know how the Mongols took the Chinese super-fortresses? They cut of the supply-lines, and a city with 100.000+ inhabitants will collapse soon.

A European castle on the other is easy to cut of the supplies, but they were food storages for the armies and could last for years. So if the Mongols should be able to starve out the castle, they would need to save the peasant population and have them producing food or having supply-lines and therefore reducing their advantage. And then those diseases would come.

Personally I think it's how much resistance the Europeans would put up is the main question that needs to be answered, and the question how fast the conquest would take, within 2 years I suspect that the Mongols would starting to have heavy problems against a European army.

Would the Mongols be able to raid into Europe? Yes Would they be able to hold Europe? That's uncertain.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ June 20 2004,21:48)]
Quote[/b] ]A European castle is small, and that is it's problem. What made the siege of Chinese and Kharizmian cities so hard was the simple fact that since they were so huge, it meant that they could sally and harass your siege engines, and generally create a huge nuisance which will greatly wear you out. A European castle was too small to do such a thing, which meant the Mongols could cut off supplies and drinking water, and then simply wait.


This is about the funniest quote I've read in a long time. Do you know how the Mongols took the Chinese super-fortresses? They cut of the supply-lines, and a city with 100.000+ inhabitants will collapse soon.

A European castle on the other is easy to cut of the supplies, but they were food storages for the armies and could last for years. So if the Mongols should be able to starve out the castle, they would need to save the peasant population and have them producing food or having supply-lines and therefore reducing their advantage. And then those diseases would come.

Personally I think it's how much resistance the Europeans would put up is the main question that needs to be answered, and the question how fast the conquest would take, within 2 years I suspect that the Mongols would starting to have heavy problems against a European army.

Would the Mongols be able to raid into Europe? Yes Would they be able to hold Europe? That's uncertain.
they held Russia for ages so i don't see why not

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]they held Russia for ages so i don't see why not

Well at first manpower, that army wasn't enough to hold Europe and from were would they get their reinforcements from? They rest of the Mongols already owned land, why leave to conquer some other distant, "small", "uninportant" place?

And comparing Russia to Europe, is well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

There is a big difference there mate. Huge parts of Russia was empty and not exactly huge populace areas.

[Orda Khan]

To speculate this subject requires far more knowledge of the nature of not only Mongol tactics but also the political situation within their established empire.

Is this an If Ogedei had not died question? ( poisoned btw by his sister in law )

There was certainly no chance of further European campaigns after this event due to the political intrigue that developed.

Had he not died.......I'd read those 2 links, just about every angle is covered there. Given the nature of his demise, it would appear there was already an element of disharmony...just one generation from Chingis

......Orda

[soibean]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ June 20 2004,08:03)]Well, the Mongols absolutely annihalated the army of Duke Henry of Silesia at Liegnitz. Poland wasn't a major power by a long shot in Europe, not until Lithuania and Poland manifested themselves as real kingdoms would they become powerful. In the 13th century Poland was devided in roughly four parts; the duchy of Silesia, the duchy of Wielkopolska, another duchy and the duchy of the King of Poland. The Mongols had already defeated the King and the other duchies when Henry decided to attack them.

The Europeans had no chance, even when they banded together (not very likely, take a look at the actions of the duke of Austria after Hungary was savaged by the Mongols) their chances were not large looking at the combat record of the Mongols.

Castles were of no importance; sitting in their castles, waiting for the Mongols, meant certain death. Samarqand was a huge city in the empire of the Khwarezm-shah, but it was taken within a very, very short time by Chingis, and the relief armies marching to aid the cities were so successfully harrassed that they couldn't do a thing.



~Wiz
wow you really know what you're talking about so I'll bow down to a true master here
I guess I was thinking about a later time... its been 5 years since I looked at that kind of material so Im hoping you can excuse me for being way way off

[Ludens]

Bighairyman,


Quote[/b] ]As what katank, The Mongols had Chinese engineers, and used cannons with gunpowder.
Yes, but the Mongols in Europe didn't take those with them.

Wizard,


Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ June 20 2004,19:03)]Did you read my post?
Sorry, I saw it, but somehow I read straight over it.


Quote[/b] ]They used mangonels and naphta besieging Kyiw, which was the European campaign of Batu Khan and Subedei Baghatur. They carried the pieces on their horses, which they could easily do since each Mongol warrior had 4 or 5 horses with him. When they had to besiege, they dismounted and assembled their siege weaponry. And destroyed the fortress.
A mangonel? I am not at home with medieval weaponry, but isn't a mangonel a large arm on support beams with a counterweight? How can you take that to pieces and transport it on horses? The throwing arm alone is several times the length of a horse
It's not that I think you are making it up, but I have troubles envisionaging it.


Quote[/b] ]A European castle is small, and that is it's problem. What made the siege of Chinese and Kharizmian cities so hard was the simple fact that since they were so huge, it meant that they could sally and harass your siege engines, and generally create a huge nuisance which will greatly wear you out. A European castle was too small to do such a thing, which meant the Mongols could cut off supplies and drinking water, and then simply wait.
It isn't size, it's number.
Suppose it would take three months to siege out a castle, then you can take four castles a year. How many castles are there in Europe? Three hundred? Four hundred? More? So, in this example, it would take a century for the Mongols to bring them all down. Even if they were four times as fast in resolving sieges as I supposed here, it would still take them twentyfive years. Enough time for the knights of Europe to adapt their fighting style.

To conquer medieval Europe, you need to take the castles. Taking castles costs time. Did the Mongols have that much time?

[cutepuppy]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ June 21 2004,12:30)][How many castles are there in Europe? Three hundred? Four hundred? More?
Well, it won't surprise me if there were more than 5000 castles in Europe. But regarding their size, it wouldn't take the whole Mongolian army to siege them. Maybe only about 500-1000 men for most of them. The bigger cities would need more men, but would collapse faster.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I think europes being vastly underated here. 500-1000 men for most castles? I really doubt it mate. Edward III needed at least 25,000 men to besiege calais in 1346/47, and it wasn't a particulary big town, many french writers of the period saw it as the arsehole of france I know they might not have had the resources of artillery the mongols could use but you know the point i'm trying to make

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ June 20 2004,22:54)]
Quote[/b] ]they held Russia for ages so i don't see why not

Well at first manpower, that army wasn't enough to hold Europe and from were would they get their reinforcements from? They rest of the Mongols already owned land, why leave to conquer some other distant, "small", "uninportant" place?

And comparing Russia to Europe, is well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
er well wfo has held vast tracts of europe for ages, loads of people. who has held Russia for ages (apart from the russians) the mongols, that's F***** well why. so answer the question, it's true, Russia is harder to hold always has been. read wiz's post, the great cities of the Khwarzm fell so i don't see why the European cities stand a better chance.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ June 21 2004,13:30)]quote]A European castle is small, and that is it's problem. What made the siege of Chinese and Kharizmian cities so hard was the simple fact that since they were so huge, it meant that they could sally and harass your siege engines, and generally create a huge nuisance which will greatly wear you out. A European castle was too small to do such a thing, which meant the Mongols could cut off supplies and drinking water, and then simply wait.
It isn't size, it's number.
Suppose it would take three months to siege out a castle, then you can take four castles a year. How many castles are there in Europe? Three hundred? Four hundred? More? So, in this example, it would take a century for the Mongols to bring them all down. Even if they were four times as fast in resolving sieges as I supposed here, it would still take them twentyfive years. Enough time for the knights of Europe to adapt their fighting style.

To conquer medieval Europe, you need to take the castles. Taking castles costs time. Did the Mongols have that much time?[/QUOTE]
well they could wait for the defender's to make mistakes, and I believe had they been bothered they had enough time. The point is that the smaller the castle, the easier (in general) it is to knock down, if they can carry they're flipping siege weaponary on their horses they CAN so they can knock down castle after castle without major damage to their number's. Besides Europeans of the time were not particularly, whats the word... Diciplined. Thy were not too good at andling the radical direction of warfare, the mongol's had. They were wiped out repeatedly as they were DIVIDED and FRAGMENTED, thus destroying any smblance of COORDINATION. they were divided and would be conquered.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ June 21 2004,18:07)]I think europes being vastly underated here. 500-1000 men for most castles? I really doubt it mate. Edward III needed at least 25,000 men to besiege calais in 1346/47, and it wasn't a particulary big town, many french writers of the period saw it as the arsehole of france I know they might not have had the resources of artillery the mongols could use but you know the point i'm trying to make
Look at the mongol method of combat, they would just raid and pillage, even if your're in your castle which takes a million years to siege, the mongol's can practice a scorched earth policy and walk off,(after plundering your kingdom of course) then at some point, you've got to move out and flee to another kingdom or fight the mongols. The latter not being recomended. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Wizard]

Look, castles are just not the question.

The Mongols didn't have to worry about any attrition, for as they beat down European army after European army, the forces of the European kingdoms would have to flee to their strongholds. Large strongholds would be sieged and destroyed; smaller strongholds would be cut off from (especially) drinking water, for in the Middle Ages drinking water was very hard to preserve. There weren't many castles like the Mycenean strongholds that were built onto a spring (not sure 'bout that, but seems logical to assume so). All the Mongols had to do was then just wait, and if any of the knights and their retainers decided to forage, ambush. Simple; effective. Also, the garissons of these smaller castles were too small to be of any significant threat to Mongol objectives in the area.

Since there were no supply lines to harass, and feudal European armies marched too slow to do so (regarding Mongol speed), there also was no question of trying to sally and cut off Mongol supplies.

So, all an excellent general like Subedei (whom I rank number one of all generals ever) had to do was chase the Europeans to their strongholds and besiege or wait them out.

And again, Ironside, that's staying power. That's simply too far from the changed event in history; thus, there are too many variables to have a worthwhile discussion about.



~Wiz

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]smaller strongholds would be cut off from (especially) drinking water, for in the Middle Ages drinking water was very hard to preserve. There weren't many castles like the Mycenean strongholds that were built onto a spring (not sure 'bout that, but seems logical to assume so

I'm not that good on castles either but I find it stupid to build a castle that doesn't atleast have a well. It's quite stupid to have food supplies for years and water supplies for weeks at tops. And the hole point in having a castle is to have a strong-point that can be sieged.


Citera[/b] ]And again, Ironside, that's staying power. That's simply too far from the changed event in history; thus, there are too many variables to have a worthwhile discussion about.

If that's staying power what are we having this debate for? They don't need to take the castles to loot and plunder. All they needed to do is to defeat the field armies.

[The_Emperor]

Castles would fall easier.

The Mongols with their mobility could easily control the open countryside, while the Knights sat pretty and slowly starved.

They can cut off relief armies while still maintaining enough of a presence to keep the defenders holed up.

If they could do this to a entire cities, then they could easily bypass castles. And those they cannot bypass would be assaulted.

If you have any doubts about the Mongols transporting siege weaponry remember that they moved Counterwieght Trebuchets from Russia (vastly improved from the Traction Trebuchets the Chinese were used to), to sack the fortified cities in China.

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

[Orda Khan]

The Mongols had wagons and oxen just like any other army, this picture of a horde rushing around on horseback is misleading. They simply moved faster by means of being extremely efficient and organised. Seige weapons were used in both Russia and Hungary but most were recalled along with many of the Tumens, although a considerable number of commanders and soldiers alike, decided to remain with Batu. As for Europe ... Subedei had set aside 18 years to complete the campaign and when one considers the scheming between neighbours, it is fair deduce this was ample time.

....Orda