Printable View
how could the mongols have been beaten?a strong defensive?it seems that offenses didnt work well against them. but(if memory serves me) then they were excellent in siege warfare.
like defend, cause as many casualties as possible on them, then perhaps a counter attack(that never strays too far from the fortress)?any suggestions? i am just curious about it. or maybe intrigue?
:dizzy2:
The Mongols were not undefeated and certainly not invincible. However, in order to beat the Mongols one had to be clever, organized, timely and lucky (or any combination thereof). As history has shown, only a select few enemies of the Khans possessed displayed any of those traits. The Khwarazmian Empire and Mamluks proved the Mongols could be beaten in grand fashion. I am unfamiliiar with the methods used by the Khwarazmian army but the Mamluks at the battle of Ain'Jalut simply beat the Mongols at their own game; they used cunning (feint tactics followed by a counterattack) and blisteringly effective horse archery.
Well it depends what era Mongols you are talking about. When they were split into multiple Khanates, they were a heck of a lot easier to defeat, especially when you had your own similar army base, like Timur (who defeated numerous Khans of either the Golden or White Horde, I believe). Not that nomads were impervious against them, the Qipchaqs were defeated by the Mongols, but they would certainlty have helped the Hungarians if they haden't been betrayed by the Hungarian nobles.
Counter attacks would have been extremely unwise, because their enemies always tried that. And the Mongols always were just pretending to retreat, and the enemies almost always died.
Spino, I know that the Mongols defeated the Khawarzim Empire... is it a specific battle that you are reffering to?
werent the mongols very good at siege warfare and whatnot? i remember something like no fortress stood against them for more than 3 weeks under ghenghis.is that true?
Well, aside from the very start they could tap the considerable Chinese expertise in siege warfare - given that this tended to be a field nomads were generally somewhat lacking in, that must have been a pretty useful boost.
By what I've read that's also what Khwarimzam fell to - the Khwarimzamshah apparently wasn't aware of the now quite considerable Mongol siege prowess, so by the point he realized sticking around in fortified places was not as good a plan as he'd thought the Mongols had already dealt with much of his forces piecemeal. Had he taken to the field against them from the start he might've come out the winner - AFAIK the Khwarimzam army was very good at fighting, quite large and well equipped and being at least seminomadic themselves no doubt familiar with the tactical chemes the Mongols also liked to use.
'Course, the Mongols had some seriously high-caliber warlords around but then that'd have been the old question of who knows his stuff better.
In any case he did not, so the point is moot.
In principle defeating the Mongol army in war would not require more than a military system familiar with the nomad way of warfare and capable of mustering and supplying enough troops to take them on, or alternatively a sophisticated enough system of fortifications to simply bog the buggers down in endless sieges. So you'd need basic familiarity with the military principles involved, sophisticated enough military structure to mobilize and maintain sufficient numbers of men, and ultimately enough ability in the leaderhip level to out-general the opposition which when you think about it tends to be something of a basic prequisite anyway.
Alas, most of the folks the Mongols ran into lacked at least one of the above.
Well the Vietnamese did beat off two Mongol Invasions...
I'm going to have to retract my earlier assertion that it was the Khwarazmian Empire that handed the Mongols one of their more significant losses. I am certain that someone other than the Mamluks beat the Mongols initially only to be decisively defeated in a subsequent battle. The recents posts in this thread rattled my memory sufficiently enough to withdraw Khwarazmia from the list. I'm feeling particularly lazy today so i'll leave it up to the more knowledgable here to shed some light on this topic. It's true that Khwarazmia was certainly one of the larger nations whose military had the potential to beat the Mongols but inexcusable arrogance combined with poor leadership via their squandered opportunities ultimately cost them their entire civilization.
Well in the case of Ain'Jalut it was the Mamluks who feigned a retreat, thus luring the Mongols into a hasty and ill advised pursuit. Clearly counter attacking when your enemy is overzealous and overextended is generally considered a wise decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Feigned retreat seems to have worked on nomads as well as most others.
Both the Vietnamese and the Japanese saw off excessive Mongol (well, more like Yuan China but anyway) ambitions in their directions, but let's be honest - they were getting some serious flank support from General Geography. The terrain in Vietnam alone must have robbed the invaders from most of their usual strong points, and in Japan... well, the Yuan weren't exactly amphibious assault specialists, or terribly good seafarers for that matter.
I remembered a battle of Alexander where he faced Scythians who employ similar steppe tactics and manpower.
Alexanders objective was to fix a mobile enemy in place. To do this a small advanced cavalry in front was used as bait to entice the Scythians to swarm around. Then followup infantry and cav cut off the Scythians.
I think that the geography would have assisted how to beat the Mongols.I have no doubt that the gathered mongol force under the Khans was the best Army in the open areas of Asia and Eastern Europe.But if the mongols would have been forced to fight on Forests or cold and humid areas they would have been in trouble.The most important key to Mongol succes was their edge on weapon technology.The mongol composite bow.
Problem with glued composite bow is that it doesnt work on wet conditions the gluing fails.So i have serious doupts that the mongol army would have fared well fighting in large forest areas.The campaigns in Vietnam show proof of that.The use of cavalry tactics would have been hampered in forest and also the more wet and cold/hot conditions would have taken away their main edge on weapon technology.Their exellent bow.
The best way was to sit back and watch them defeat themselves, which is basically what they did.
Ain Jalut......How many times has that been mentioned? A 'Mongol' rearguard that was more Georgian than Mongol, defeated by all the Mamluks could muster....but not before their left flank was shattered and some desperate rallying. If you want a really clear picture of the implications that brought about this defeat I suggest reading 'Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia.' You will then understand some of the major reasons that further expansion ended.
Khwarazm fell to superior tactics by superior commanders. In an all out field battle things may have favoured their vastly superior numbers but they were hit from all angles in one of the most strategically impressive campaigns in history.
The Champa victories were mostly naval...river battles to be precise. An alien environment manned by Yuan Chinese more so than Mongol horse archers.
Probably the toughest opposition that the Mongols met were the Koreans, who did eventually accept suzerainty but were never truly conquered. They were just plain stubborn and put up a terrific effort.
As to Mongol seige ability, they were initially poor in this department but their ability to learn and utilise the methods of conquered nations was to their credit. They broke the walls of Chinese cities with Chinese seigecraft and Chinese engineers. They employed these in Khwarazm and added Moslem (better) seigecraft to their campaign in Russia and eastern Europe
Orda
Edit: Double post