The Invincible Warriors?

[unmerged(18159)]

Please do comment on my last post, it will help me in my studies at the Leiden university (also at the free university of Amsterdam since they are studying the muslim history and the mongol hordes have quite an important part in this)
My next vacation will be to Kazachstan and Russia just to the north-west of Kazachstan, so I will try to find as much as I can there...

 

[unmerged(12746)]

“It is not surprising that the mongols where that much better in military tactics than the armies they faced. The Turks and Mongols had longer military traditions, if we look at Germany during the second worldwar, we can see that a military tradition can have many positive influences on an army, especialy in the officer core.”

Good point, you could further it by comparing the Mongol officers to that of their counter parts in the West. European armies were led by people who primarily became leaders due to birth rights. The Mongols promoted people because of ability and that “tradition” alone made them tactically better then most western armies.



“Due to more experience in war, the knowledge about war will increase drasticly. Secondly, the troops were raised in the saddle... Most eastern European soldiers were farmers in their normal life, since most nations used the Auxilia system invented in the Roman empire (they forgot that the Romans stopped using the system because it failed them).”

Your right, in addition to being “raised in the saddle” the Mongols lived off the land and lead a nomadic lifestyle. This translates into perhaps a better adaptability to long campaigns over their western foes. Western armies also lacked the organization and discipline of the Mongols, a skill which is probably attributable to the harsh life on the steppes and having to work with others for survival.

”furthermore, a European nation has some disadvantages compared to a nomadic force. The European nations where mostly settled in the 12th and 13th centuries. A settled nation has certain points of interest in a land; cities, noble houses and fertile places. Therefore, a settled land will sometimes have to defend places that are not suited to defence. A nomadic nation will be able to choose its own battlefield. Maybe not allways, but it must be easy for an experienced force such as the eastern hordes to trick your enemy in fighting on a terrain that doesn't suit his army.”

Agreed, you could further this point by supporting it with the notion of Chivalry that seems to have been adhere to by some European armies, that oft times a noble charge was preferred to a retreat and bait tactic.

Well I have to get back to work, good luck with your studies and remember when you seeking opinions or critiques of your work get as many as you can don’t assume I know what I am talking about. I like to think I can speak intelligently on the Mongols due to my research but there is always someone who has done more.

Good Luck,

Odin

 

[crazy canuck]

Welcome v.Oldebarnevelt,

Thanks for the contribution. I will leave the detailed debate to the Odin and others.


In game terms I agree with both you and Odin that a morale penalty may be a good way of dealling with the perception of invincibility.

In game terms though I still think it is important that the Mongols be forced to withdraw by an event dealing with the election of a new Khan.

The date could be random to some degree but without such an event the game will be all about trying to stop the Mongols and less about the Crusades. With a random date for the call back of forces the European player will still have to worry about how far the Mongol army can come before the event so he cannot completely ignore the invasion from the East.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by crazy canuck
Welcome v.Oldebarnevelt,

Thanks for the contribution. I will leave the detailed debate to the Odin and others.


In game terms I agree with both you and Odin that a morale penalty may be a good way of dealling with the perception of invincibility.

In game terms though I still think it is important that the Mongols be forced to withdraw by an event dealing with the election of a new Khan.

The date could be random to some degree but without such an event the game will be all about trying to stop the Mongols and less about the Crusades. With a random date for the call back of forces the European player will still have to worry about how far the Mongol army can come before the event so he cannot completely ignore the invasion from the East.

I agree with this idea of a random pull back. There was always the worry they would come back though. Guess we will have to have the game to know how it will be handled.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Odin1970
I agree with this idea of a random pull back. There was always the worry they would come back though. Guess we will have to have the game to know how it will be handled.

In regard to the threat of coming back. I suppose that always would exist but historically, were their steps taken to ensure a better defence for "the next time" or, like most things, did the fear simply fade into memory, into legend and then become lost?

 

[Pontiac]

I was going to wait until Endre came back, but I've a little time so:

regarding invincibility- this will be handled as a separate post.

Delusional that they could be stopped? Sweep all before them? Sapped of strength so they can be handled by the opposition?

Sounds like claims of invincibility to me.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Perhaps this is a language problem. I know English can confuse me at times. It appears a inference is being drawn since the word invincibility does not actually appear in the quoted material. Three references are given. Let's take each in turn.

The first has stopped as the verb. This, I would assume, most would take as referring to a larger movement i.e. a campaign, and not simply the movement of a few individuals or a group. Taken as such, I would assert again: I do not believe that any Western field army could stand up against a conserted Mongol drive. That a given Mongol force, given the right set of circumstances, could be beaten is certainly the case. Ain Jalut (1260) would be an example. However, in a campaign setting, I believe, that a Mongol invasion would have been successful.
(Even so, I do not necessarily believe the historical drive into Eastern Europe constituted a real intent on the part of The Horde to conquer Europe given the force was little over 70,000 strong).

The second point: the quote "Sweep all before them" unfortunately omitted a prior verb. The original statement included a "were" before the use of sweep. The were acts as a conditional and gives the real meaning of the statement its force. In logical terms this would be the same as an if then sentence. For example: if X then Y. So the point was "if the Mongols swept all before them, then the game isn't much fun". Now, to make this statement suggests capacity. To this, I would agree. I do not think, as stated above, a full Mongol campaign could be stopped.

Third point: Like the second reference, this was a game features idea. Given the belief the West would be at a disadvantage when facing a Mongol drive westward the "sapped of strengh", comment as already understood by others in this thread, could be a recall to the East or some other idea to make the game more than simply a stand against the Mongols which I think many would enjoy as a challenge, but probably not as the only activity for the Thirteenth Century Monarch to have to deal with.

 

[unmerged(18159)]

To comment on the Mongol drive west...
I have a question: How far can the Mongol way of war be compared to the Polish-Lithuanian way of war in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries? If some comparrison can be found, it might be interresting to look at the different situation in eastern and western Europe.

In this, I don't mean the terrain. If I would, I would be contesting my own theory of: "The experienced Mongol leader can trick the enemy into fighting him on a terrain of his [Mongol] choosing".

What I do mean, is the urbanization difference between eastern Europe en western Europe. The Mongol threat came in the thirteenth century. In this century, the people in western Europe were even more settled then those of eastern Europe. Warfare in an urbanized land differs a lot from war on the steppes.

----
To explain my question: The Polish-Lithuanian troops mainly used cavalry in their army, they used raiding tactics and harrasing tactics but also charge tactics. They manouvered on the battlefield to win a battle on the flanks. They used feigned retreats and rode to meet the enemy to stop different enemy groups from rendevouz.
We would all agree this looks an awful lot like the Mongol way.(Poland-Lithuania tried to use western style armies, based on the tactics used my Maurice of Orange in the Dutch 80 years war against the Spanish Habsburgs, on several occations. This all failed.)

The Swedish adopted the Polish-Lithuanian way of fighting and used it to devastating effect during the rule of Gustav Adolf. During the series of wars in Germany, Gustav Adolf and his successor (Charles X) won all major battles and took large portions of North Germany. Charles X found it impossible to fund its defence. And more so, the swedish didn't have enough manpower to garrison their defences. Only one fifth of the soldiers in Charles X armies where Swedish, and that's only for north Germany. (source - Robert I. Frost, "The Northern Wars")

It is understandable that he could not hold his possesions, since the northern Italian way of war and the Dutch way of war (siege warfare) which was adopted in the whole of western Europe was based on the principle of avoiding the enemy's army and constantly take back the cities he just took, making the enemy capturing the same town over and over. This explains why the Dutch independence war is called the 80 years war.
---

Back to the mongols... The tactics that the Mongols used so succesfully in eastern Europe might not work in western Europe, since the Mongols might be riding around Europe, taking all they can and losing it a few weeks later, because they can't defend what they took.
If you are ruler of a land with 5 settled communities and you don't meet your enemy, you will be defeated in no-time.
If you are ruler of a land with 30 settled communities, it's a whole different story (and that is the kind of comparrison that we can make between settled west en east Europe at that time).

Now give me all the differences between my example and the mongol horde (like, how will the Mongols react to a population they conquered for the second or third time, will they murder them like the Romans did with the Dacians?) and we will analyze them.

I think this is an interresting discussion, worth the space it takes in this thread.

 

[Pontiac]

Back to the mongols... The tactics that the Mongols used so succesfully in eastern Europe might not work in western Europe, since the Mongols might be riding around Europe, taking all they can and losing it a few weeks later, because they can't defend what they took.

I think this is an interesting question. The Mongols, particularly after their experience with the Chin in China learned seige warfare. It seems in the Russian, Persian and Middle Eastern campaigns (Baghdad 1258) the Mongols went with a real attempt to quell the kind of protracted resistance you refer to through crushing a major city. The idea being to intimidate the rest of the region into submission. I don't know if this tactic would have been successful in the West or not.

 

[Pontiac]

Endre response continued:

This is too shallow to have any meaning. What type of recurve-composite? What materials? What sort of arrow(flight arrows fired from a 130pd longbow can go up to 500M if the wind gauge is favorable.)? What draw strength? Firing strength? From horseback or on foot? What typical mongol quiver(there are so few surviving in the west that any definicion of typical would be meaningless). What sort of arrows? I've seen archeological samples of flight, broad-bladed hunting/war, thin-bladed hunting/war, whistiling, fire and thing-bladed hooked, but no bodkin comparison.

The original comment was not based on reading. Rather, I have seen demonstrations by Mongols in Japan where their bows hit ranges in the 300m area. The one I was thinking of in particular was in connection with Japanese exhibitions of the Daikyu "Great Bow" which is believed to be inspired by Mongol recurve-compossite bows. I do not know the draw strength. We were told by the Mongols in attendance that the weapons used were created in the same manner as in the days of the Mongol expansion.

Regarding the range of Mongol bows. I did not think the range was a controversial point. Seems I have read statements of comparable ranges in several books. For references, I believe Stephen Turnbull in his 1986 work "The Mongols" discusses not only range but also the various kinds of arrows used including armor piercing, though not bodkin headed arrows.

impetiousness could be a problem, as in any pre-modern army. No, it wasn't the rule. The latin christian armies could and did display an discipline, tactical training and flexibility before, during and after the high middle ages. Infantry-cavalry cooperation, tactical flanking, timed charges, correct deployment of archers et. al. Sources as early as 750 AD describe Ottonian infantry and cavalry performing mock battles with rebated arms and practicing feigned flights and resposes to this tactic.

Impetiousness dosen't appear to have been a general Mongol trait. It does appear to have played a role in several Western engagements however. I cited several battles of note where this very trait was a determining factor.

Learning the whys and wherefores, and even asigning blame for a defeat, is not out of the ordinary or unusual whether it be the battle of Waterloo, Stalingrad or Mansura.

That some degree of training existed is not really the key. What is, would be the effective comparison of forces on a tactical/strategic level. This is all the more important when dealing with hypothetical situations. The track record of Western armies when engaged against non-Western foes is not particulary impressive. The Mongols however, seemed adept at innovating to meet the enemy and defeat them.

The battles: Sources please.

I used an article written for Military History by Erik Hildinger published in 1997. This was tied to the 1997 release of his work "Warriors of the Steppe: a Military History of Central Asia 500-1700". Hildinger is also the English language translator of Giovanni di Plano Carpini's "The Story of the Mongols whom we Call the Tarters". I believe you cited both Hildinger and Carpini as source material.

Hitting others over the head with a toy phrase when it's not applicable is meaningless and unscholary.

Sir, the vitriol you bring to the table, a disscussion I did not initiate or participate in until your attack, requires no less.

You ask for scholary standards while failing to show any principle of charity regarding your interlocutors, use argumentative language and seem devoted to position rather than a real exchange. My God man, make up your mind! Given your insitigation, respect will be afforded when demonstrated.

 

[unmerged(11633)]

Well, although many others have already stated much about the mongols, I'll direct people's attention to another excellent post on another forum.

Here.

I think answers a lot of questions regarding the Mongols and the likely hood of an invasion of Europe. Especially the claims that that the mongols could have ripped through Europe's castles.

Of course, in his wisdom the great Chinggis Khan had understood that mounted archers were not enough to defeat sedentary societies, and his successors ensured that all metalworkers, carpenters and gunpowder makers in northern China were registered as p’ao-shou catapult operators. We know that Batu had brought a train of minghan engineers, since he was able to field seven ho p’ao catapults to hurl firebombs against the unfortunate Hungarians at the Sajo bridge, teaching them a deadly lesson in the tactical use of artillery. But events showed that these weren’t heavy enough to breach the high stone walls of the Hungarian castles, which Batu had to skirt. Gunpowder wasn’t used during the Mongol campaigns in Russia and Europe, and the primitive projectile technology then in use wouldn’t have made much of an impression. On a later campaign it would take Hülegü three years to transport a thousand crews of Chinese artillerymen and their siege equipment two and a half thousand miles from the steppes of western Mongolia in 1253 to Khurasan in 1256, and another two years before they could topple the walls of Baghdad a thousand miles farther west.

 

[T Knight]

I can't see how someone can put down the accomplishments of the Mongols. Some here have claimed they couldn't take Europe because of cities, mountains whatever.
Well Kiev, Bagdad were large cities, not to mention the cities in China which the mongols became the ruling dynasty. The mongols even took Jerusalem where Richard III failed. As for mountains the mongols successfully took Georgia and the Caucusus. Does anyone know of any major battle the Mongols lost against European forces before Kullikovo? Against the Mamlukes the mongols met their defeat at Wadi-Al-Kanazer because there was no grass for the horses to graze and I believe they were outnumbered. The Mongols should be handled in the game as they were in history. Very difficult to defeat but their way of choosing successors caused them to lose the inertia in their campaigns.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

Originally posted by T.Knight
I can't see how someone can put down the accomplishments of the Mongols. Some here have claimed they couldn't take Europe because of cities, mountains whatever.
Well Kiev, Bagdad were large cities, not to mention the cities in China which the mongols became the ruling dynasty. The mongols even took Jerusalem where Richard III failed. As for mountains the mongols successfully took Georgia and the Caucusus. Does anyone know of any major battle the Mongols lost against European forces before Kullikovo? Against the Mamlukes the mongols met their defeat at Wadi-Al-Kanazer because there was no grass for the horses to graze and I believe they were outnumbered. The Mongols should be handled in the game as they were in history. Very difficult to defeat but their way of choosing successors caused them to lose the inertia in their campaigns.

But there were enormous amounts of castles in Europe during the 13 centaury, castles that didn’t exist in the east. A few large cities is one thing, thousands of castles something else.

 

[T Knight]

Kiev and Bagdad were large fortified cities. Which are difficult to take. If there were thousands of castles in Europe they were probably small being easy to take belonging to the minor noblemen. I,ll admit that Cracow and Breslau (Wroclaw) held out against the mongol siege in 1242, most historians believe the mongol attack on Poland was a diversionary one.

There probably were just as many castles in China and Persia if not more and the Mongols ended up establishing long-lasting dynasties there.

Timur destroyed the Hospitalers' stronghold in anatolia and the Genoese outposts in the Crimea.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Having participated earlier in the thread and being consumed by real life its nice to see this still an active discussion. After having read Endre's assement I have come to realize he is far better read then I am.

However I still stick to the position that if the Mongols had invaded in to Europe that many major cities would have fallen and been reduced. Castles? Different story. The one aspect of medievil warfare that the West was clearly superior on was castles. The mongols had engineer units and siege equipment but a mobile mongol force that stretched out wouldnt last long in a protracted seige against a superior fortress.

The Mongols would have avoided them and just hit population centers.

 

[veji2]

I believe that western Europe would have been unkeepable for the mongols had they wanted to. Had they wanted to invade, they would have devastated Germany, rested there a bit, then rampaged around France and northern Itlay, but eventually they would have gotten bugged down, being either defeated eventually a bit like the Huns were ( I know this example isn't that relevant, it's just an image ) , or even more likely integrated...

What I mean is that The mongols were converted into muslims in invading Persia and Middle East, and they would have converted to cchristianity had they wanted to somewhat control Europe, they would have had to negociate with local elites in order to avoid endless revolts, and getting baptized would have been the easiest way to be accepted as a king/duke or whatever title in a deeply christian land, and they would have somewhat opened up their army and elite to "indigeneous" population, so eventually they would have been integrated like the Germanic tribes were integrated by local population in Gaule, Italy an Spain.

Either way, a fullout invasion, be it succesful or not would have a great impact on Europe of course, but it would still be a Christian land. In many cases the vanquished wins the cultural battle after having lost the actual one...

By the way this would make for interesting what ifs in game

 

[T Knight]

The mongols were very successful in siege warfare in China and Persia. They would have done the same with European castles if they wanted to. No European force defeated them in the 13th century. The Mongols defeated the Russians, Poles, Hungarians, and the Knights hospitaler, perhaps the teutonic knights depending whose source you believe. Would they have had success against the rest of Europe.... Probably

 

[unmerged(11633)]

The mongols were very successful in siege warfare in China and Persia. They would have done the same with European castles if they wanted to.

Its all very well to say the Mongols were successful in siege warfare in Persia and China. But the fact is that Europe is a bloody long way away from Northern China where the Mongols got their siege weapons from. The Mongol led Kipchacs that made of most of Batu's forces did not have access to the industry necessary for large scale siege siege weapons.

As I have said, it took 3 years for Hulegu's siege train to arrive from China to destroy the Iranian fortresses such as Alamut. It would have taken even longer for such a siege train to reach Europe- maybe 5 years. There was simply not enough forage to maintain a horse riding nomadic army in Medieval Europe for that length of time. Ideally each Mongol (or More likly Turk) according to Marco Polo used 18 horses to give them their amazing maneuverability. When they were defeated by the Mamelukes, they had much less than 18 horses due to the terrain, which is one reason for their defeat at Ayn-Jalut.

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Time to resurrect that thread .

1st: While defeating Europeans armies in field Mongols were unable to take a single castle in any of their raids against western Europe (there were three or four of them against Poland for example).

2nd. Why someone mentions is that Russia and Russians are different from Western empire, is beyond me. Russians of XIII century were very open-minded, with good chunk of society depending on trade and living in large urban societies. They were used to personal freedom a lot more than in Western Europe, due to still alive tradition of veches etc. But they were slaughtered and had no choice as to accept vassalage of Mongols.

3rd. Someone mentioned P=L tactics, that we were trying to accept western tactics and failed. Well, P-L tactics met few times western tactics and most of the time (until 1630s) results were disastrous for western armies. Polish-Lithuanian army was small, but very effective - Polish infantry regiments of XVI century for example, while smaller, had higher firepower than western counterparts.
Also Polish forces IIRC adopted more modern rifles than western parts - can't remember the name, they were later introduced to western Europe by Swedes, to Poland it came IIRC from Transilvania), had some kind of horse artillery by XVII century etc.
Note also that Polish tactics weren't much different from western until XVI century or so.

 

[unmerged(17822)]

Originally posted by Hrv123
Of course Mongols were not invincible.

Croatians and Hungarians defeated them...

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Originally posted by fLod
Croatians and Hungarians defeated them...

Not until their King had fled to an island in the Adria...