Here's a conjectural situation:
Mongol Khan doesn't die during Hungarian campaign, it is now 1270 and Mongols are sitting off the Cliffs of Dover. Will the English outshoot Mongols and defend England?
Printable View
Here's a conjectural situation:
Mongol Khan doesn't die during Hungarian campaign, it is now 1270 and Mongols are sitting off the Cliffs of Dover. Will the English outshoot Mongols and defend England?
Not likely. The Welsh longbow isn't a superior weapon to Mongolian composite bow (which many consider as the "ultimate" development of the fearsome and ancient weapon). In fact, it's quite the reverse...
Now, if you're talking about the English on top of a cliff and the Mongols on the ships below or something like that, then it's another issue entirely.
I'd say it's irrelevant if the English managed to hold off the Mongols or not. The mongols would have been even more overextended than they were already and eventually something would have to give, and the the whole empire would fall apart. Or at least that's what I think at the moment with a fairly basic understanding of the time period, and absolutely no in depth research.
Lets say the Khan doesn't die in Hungary, he dies in France instead. The mongols would've been torn apart by internal problems anyway, just a few years later. There's pretty much no way that the Mongols could have remained in Western Europe by the 1270'ies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland
Also, as the British Isles are pretty unfavourable for horses, I don't see why the Mongols should bother to invade them. The idea that the Mongols were an unstopable steamroller is a bit overrated. Yes, they were superior to most other people in the world in that time when it came to warfare, but I seriously doubt they would've made it through the mountaineous and densly fortified areas of Europe.
However, as the composite bows are held together by glue, how long would the glue last in the very damp environment of England?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
In my opinion, if Hitler could not manage it in the 20th century (I'm sure he was able, however, he, like the Mongols, had other things to think of), the Mongols would never be able to do so in the 13th century.
If the Mongols were already sitting upon English soil, then I have a hard time to belive that the English could win. If the Mongols could hack their way through Europe all of Europe I don't see how the English can stand against them. Not to mention that many English lords would probably turn their cloaks after the way the wind was blowing as well and the Mongols can pour in anxilla troops from mainland Europe almost forever while the English most certainly don't possess resources anyway near.
A miracle would be the very least to hold off the Mongols in the proposed situation.
1270 is a pure fantasy date. Assuming they for some strange reason really did want to try to conquer the whole poor, under-inhabited, backwards and chronically unruly subcontinent odds are by that year they'd still be stuck besieging recalcitrant feudal barons doing the Monty Python French Knight thing from the security of their fortress networks in Germany. And like everyone else getting very frustrated at the way you have to try to pull the whole damn thing through before the winter, because an army still in siege camp when the snows come is going to starve period.
The European subcontinent just isn't nomad country. Too little grass and open space, too many large rivers, deep and functionally impassable (for an army anyway) vast forests, hills and mountains - and by the mid-1200s absolutely rotten with ambitious barons with way too many forts and soldiers at their disposal. To take it the Mongols would have had to dump the whole steppe-warfare pattern and start wielding infantry armies instead (cavalry being fairly useless in sieges, and a logistical nightmare in the plains-poor Europe) and patiently wear away at the feudal mini-states through some combination of diplomacy, bribery and naked force - most likely only to find them jumping ship the second an opportunity turns up.
By Attila's time Hunnish armies were mostly infantry too, remember; and that includes the Hun contignents as well. And the Magyars had to abandon pastoralism and settle down within a generation of their conquest of Hungary.
Anyway, to go back to the original question, longbows would be the least of the Mongols' worries in late 1200s England (the logistics and realities of getting an army across the Channel against inevitable naval opposition, and capturing and maintaining suitable bridgeheads once over, being the chief headaches). AFAIK the English had yet to conquer Wales and add the yeoman archer to their armies by that time, y'see, so the only longbows there would be found in the hands of the pesky Welsh tribal warriors lurking in their out-of-the-way hills and some random mercenaries.
Methinks they'd be rather more likely to run into longbowmen around the Baltic seaboard and the northern coniferous zone, heavy with endless forests and hunters as those now were.
Composite bows can be "weather-proofed" to withstand rain and moist climates though. Recall that the Europeans themselves used composite-horn staves (albeit in crossbows and of very different construction than what is used in bows) also in the north.
In all reality, the mongels could mabye take england but not britian as a whole. plus you also have the problem of the change in mobility in the forests and other regions of europe
The Rolling Hills, Deep Forests, and Miles of bog lands in Britain would have been a logistical nightmare for the Mongols. Not too mention, much of the food supply was harvested from the Ocean, a place the Mongols had little experience in dealing with.
One often assumes that the Mongolians that conquered half of Eurasia is incapable of adaptation. I dispute that.
If anything, they're famous for using the expertise of auxiliaries where they just don't have the experience. How else can a horde of badly-clad men on horseback overcame the mighty cities of China?
Now, I'm completely ignoring the mechanics and reasons within this alternate situation here. Obviously, why would the Mongols even want to invade some poor, far-off, backwards, hilly island of petty warlords and a puny king is a problem one has to first solve. Nah, make that second. First one has to wonder if the Great Khan wouldn't bleed his nose to death on the victory feast over Paris' ruins and force the Horde back East.
The first poster seems to focus on the possible duel between longbows and Mongols, which is where I also focus. Assuming that longbows are adapted earlier than they actually were in real life, I still maintain that the Mongolian composite bow is a superior weapon.
I don't see anyone disputing the last bit.
But on the map the Mongol advance does seem to rather stall once they hit the usual limits of Conquests By Nomads(tm) (namely, anything too rugged and/or too far away from the steppe) now don't they ? China is the exception and debatable, as it has been partially or wholly overrun by steppe invaders several times in history which rather suggests it isn't geographically "nomad proof" like some other regions. As for Korea, the army that conquered it for the Khans was mostly Chinese plus Sinicized, no longer nomadic, Mongols (and other former steppe peoples) for the cavalry and officers.
If they wanted to push into Europe beyond Hungary the Mongols could certainly adopt local troops and techniques for the job. Indeed they'd pretty much have to, as the horse herds of a steppe army are quaranteed to starve in short order, and that's what all other nomad empires in the area always did for perfectly good reasons.
It's just that then it'd no longer be a "Mongol" army (whatever that is supposed to mean after decades of "snowballing" conquered tribes and populaces into the ranks) fighting with steppe techniques, but a modified European army with Mongol commanders and access to nomad troops for light cavalry duty.
And it'd still spend a bloody forever wearing down the fortress networks tower by tower, keep by keep, town by town and fortress by fortress. And find itself sent back home every now and then because the Ilkhanids or someone else is making trouble at the other end of the Horde territory, and resource allocation priority just did an about-face. All the while the Europeans got better and better at dealing with them.
Well, just want to comment that it seems a bit unfair to Western Europe as backwater when the steppes from the Mongols once came were even worsly underdeveloped. In general, there is much underestimation of Western European culture in favour of the more "mystic" Asian cultures (especially when it comes to warfare).Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
And, if longbows were indeed used en masse like the English later did, my belief is that the Mongold wouldn't stand much of chance. The bows of the Mongols were perhaps the "superior weapon" (which I wouldn't claim any weapon to be in any case, as they were never tested against each other), but the fact that they'd be able to get within reasonable range for firing their bows effectivly makes all their steppe tactics (especially when employed to the rugged British landscape) useless. If they had uses European mercenaries, then it would be a lot like at Crécy, just some 70 years earlier.
Hahaha, yes, I was just trying to create a conjectural situation in which you have a longbow-based English force face off with cavalry-based Mongol force in English terrain. Somehow after I posted I knew people were gonna go into things like how they made it there, what if the Khan dies later, etc. lol just know that they're there and how they actually got there is unimportant (you can say God picked them up from Mongolia and put them there even, doesn't matter). :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Or perhaps like the Battle of Patay?Quote:
If they had uses European mercenaries, then it would be a lot like at Crécy, just some 70 years earlier.
I find it most unlikely that such a battle would turn out like Patay. Simply because Patay was fought in 1429, when armours had been significantly improved since 1270 (or 1346, for that matter) and the use of the longbow was well-known. If the longbow had appeared on European battlefields already by 1270, it would have struck at a pretty devastating effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurkhal
Any reason why you brought Patay up really?
Sure, the Mongols had never fought massed foot archers before and did not know how to deal with them. Everyone in the East who had a bow sat on horse anyway, right ? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Composite bows, especially late ones, were mechanically rather superior to self-bows. No getting aorund that. Coupled with light long-range arrows and appropriate sundry archery gear they apparently had pretty seriously impressive ranges. Now, those light arrows might not have much effect on decently armoured troops - but what are the odds late 1200s foot archers could be considered to be such...?
Anyway, the English successes in the HYW always came chiefly from the limitations of the French military system (perfidious Albion having managed to work some of those off). The Mongol army were ferociously disciplined professionals, not an intractable feudal host. To expect the same tricks that spelled doom to the unruly French chivalry to work equally on them is patently absurd.
The Mongols could outshoot the Welsh and the English. However, Britian has never been a good enviroment for missile calvary.The Steppe ponies that the Mongols rode were not used to the, well...terrible weather of the British Isles. The wet ground and the unpredictable mud would spell defeat for the steppe pony. The Mongols would then have to dismount, giving the Brits a larger advantage. While the Mongols would still have a bit of a chance agaisnt the Conventional English army, as both armies favoured the bow, the Celtic hit and run tactics (like those used by the Mongols, though primarily on foot with javelins, darts, normal and longbows. The Mongols would not be able to adapt. Their calvary, which they lived and died by, would not have fared well in Britain.
If they got to Britain they would pretty much per definition already had to live without the steppe-pattern skirmish tactics. Those require way more horses per man than is even remotely viable in the European ecology.
Which would leave lots of archers on foot, "medium" horse-archers of the "Persian" pattern, and the usual sprinkling of heavy shock cavalry. All quite potent troops if it comes to that.
Keep in mind that the Mongol long-range bow outranged longbows and the Mongols also did pretty well in melee. Probably wouldn't do as well against armored foot knights but probably would do pretty well against longbowmen and skirmishers.
i find it hard to believe that the brits would lose to a bunch of mongoloids.
Reason besides your obvious British supremacy belief?
Yes, there are resons.Quote:
Any reason why you brought Patay up really?
As I've understood it, now I could of course be very wrong as Medival history isn't any of my really strong parts and I'm a student of ancient history, the Mongols focuses on speed and to attack the enemy before they were really ready. The Mongols did several times defeat much more numerious armies with this tactic. While a normal pitched battle which was not unexpected was the norm of the west the Mongols didn't care to do a "formal" field battle.
This would then indicate that the Mongols are unlikly to line up for a face-to-face battle like the French aristocrats would during the HYW. Also, I belive that Patay shows the weakness of the longbow. It really needs to have the proper circumstances to work, a clear field, stakes driven into the ground for defence ect. When applied with such I belive that the longbow is indeed a very formidable weapon, as English victories during the HYW would indicate. But when denied those circumstances I also belive that the longbow shows it's Achilles' heel, at for instance Patay. Also to add, which I although think is quite unnecissery, but longbows never were an "we win" button for any army.
And thus I do belive that the Mongols would, knowingly or not themselves, take advantage of this and deny the English a field battle where their missile superiority could carry weight. Just like the Mongols on several times denied different enemies their cheif advantage and strenght by similer means.
He was probably joking. I hope. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
You aren't half jumpy though. :laugh4: It's 2nd Generation Irish Immigrant Syndrome claiming another victim, clearly.
Isn't British everyone on the British isles though?
I think the Southern Irish would have something to say about that.:laugh4:
I know, My father is from Kerry, but at this time in history, Briton meant everyone from the isles, no?
No. I don't think that the term British was used for the inhabitants of the British Isles for a few hundred years after this time frame.
IIRC at this time there would be English, Scots, Welsh and then the four Kingdoms of Ireland; Connaught, Leinster, Munster and Ulster.
Please feel free to correct me anyone.
Although the Hungarian Campaign was quite a successful campaign, and it just about left Europe wide open for attack from the Mongols, they would've been undone by exactly the same thing which undid the Huns; lack of pasture. The huns easily pushed through Eastern and CNetral Europe, but the wide open grazing lands which the Huns needed were becoming more and more scarce, and their army became harder to maintain, it pretty much disintegrated after that. (Or at least Im pretty sure that's how it happened.)Gotta go look this up:book:
The Huns fought largely as infantry by Attila's time AFAIK. Or in any case the ones who hadn't stayed on the steppe proper east of the ecological trap of the Great Hungarian Plain did.
Anyway, if the army that got stalemated at the Catalaunic Fields brought along steppe-pattern cavalry in any numbers, I'd rather not think too much about the attrition rates their poor horses must have suffered.
Technically, Britain is an island (comprising England, Scotland, and Wales, and coincidentally the 8th largest island in the world). Ireland is another island. Note that the U.K. is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,' differentiating Northern Ireland from Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
Ajax
edit: typo
You do know that the Mongols conquered Iran right? That isn't exactly a steppe, it's a very mountaineous, arid country with forestation some places, and desert in others.Quote:
Although the Hungarian Campaign was quite a successful campaign, and it just about left Europe wide open for attack from the Mongols, they would've been undone by exactly the same thing which undid the Huns; lack of pasture. The huns easily pushed through Eastern and CNetral Europe, but the wide open grazing lands which the Huns needed were becoming more and more scarce, and their army became harder to maintain, it pretty much disintegrated after that. (Or at least Im pretty sure that's how it happened.)Gotta go look this up
And has also been a major haunt for assorted nomadic and seminomadic empires for millenia. The damn steppe stretches as far as Syria and Anatolia in the southwest after all.
And the Persians and Medes did not start out as nomads, right? There is also that little thing about Media being able to supply thousands of horses. And that is western Iran. The eastern was the one that included Bactia, Arachosia, Parthia, Aryana...all those nomad HA infested satrapes of the Persian empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
And the Persians and Medes did not start out as nomads, right? There is also that little thing about Media being able to supply thousands of horses. And that is western Iran. The eastern was the one that included Bactia, Arachosia, Parthia, Aryana...all those nomad HA infested satrapes of the Persian empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
There's too much talk about the superiority of the Mongols etc IMHO. Yes, they were pretty much superior to all other armies of that time, but in the end they were not as successful as many other nations and kingdoms were since in the end they were shattered, and their political system can't have been all too stabile if their invasion of Europe was halted by the death of a single man.
What if-scenarios are pretty pointless in a way, since it's obvious that what happened was unevitable anyway, and that the fact that it did happen and crushed the dreams for some while others benefited from it shows that it couldn't really have gone any other way. It's like asking: What if Germany had won WW2? Well, they wouldn't have either way. All empires and expansionist states are bound to fail sooner or later.
Okay, I concede defeat there. But a big part of the country is very mountaineous and I don't think that the argument that the Mongols would be owned by the fortifications in mountaineous Europe.
I guess I better move out of United States then :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
You know, I rather imagine the Mongols largely left the mountains alone. Like everyone else. Those things were always virtually ungovernable haunts of raiders and rebels, as well as too poor to bother with in any case. They tended to produce decent mercenaries though - harsh people used to harsh lives, and often quite willing to leave their high homes in pursuit of riches in the lowlands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
Plus the thing with Europe is, it was forested. Quite densely as well, for a long time before the population grew enough they had to colonize the woodlands into fields and pasture. Those deep forests were a serious obstacle to armies at the best of times, and on top of that the blasted fortress networks tended to reach there as well although in rather modest forms.