Longbowmen

[Sherwood]

Mongols were a very dangerous foe... I believe the only real conflict between Europe and Mongols was in Poland... and the European knights got massacred. The mongols just killed the knights mount and he was utterly screwed once on foot. Even if his horse was very well armored, they would be slow and tire quickly and could never hope to catch mongol horse archers.

So in reality I don't think even 1 knights could kill 1 mongol horse archer. Sure if the mongols sent their lancers they would get slaughtered... but army for army the knights would have little tactical importance against the mongols.

They were also exceptional foragers and brilliant at laying sieges and using scare tactics. They also kept great order, and there empire only really fractured because of rulers. It was through no lack of their military that they fell, and I can't think of any army that actually killed MORE mongols than they lost men.

[Mr.Marmot]

Mongols were a very dangerous foe... I believe the only real conflict between Europe and Mongols was in Poland... and the European knights got massacred. The mongols just killed the knights mount and he was utterly screwed once on foot. Even if his horse was very well armored, they would be slow and tire quickly and could never hope to catch mongol horse archers.

So in reality I don't think even 1 knights could kill 1 mongol horse archer. Sure if the mongols sent their lancers they would get slaughtered... but army for army the knights would have little tactical importance against the mongols.

They were also exceptional foragers and brilliant at laying sieges and using scare tactics. They also kept great order, and there empire only really fractured because of rulers. It was through no lack of their military that they fell, and I can't think of any army that actually killed MORE mongols than they lost men.

I meant in combat like infantry vs infantry.

Hungary defeated the mongols and made them reatret with poland and russia to mainland asia.

[HighLord z0b]

While I find the books let me tell you the biggest empire was the British, we could say English:

1. British Empire - 36.6 million kmē (under George V in 1922)
2. Mongol Empire - 33.2 million kmē[1] (under Kublai Khan in 1268)
3. Russian Empire - 24.8 million kmē (under Alexander II in 1866) - including Alaska[4]
4. Spanish Empire - 19 million kmē (under King Charles III r. 1759-1788)[4]
5. Umayyad Arab Caliphate - 13.2 million kmē[4] (under Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik r. 723-743)
6. Qing Empire - 13 million kmē[5] (under Emperor Qianlong)
7. French Empire - 12.5 million kmē[4] (under President Albert Lebrun in 1938)
8. Portuguese Empire - 12.4 million kmē[4]
9. Ottoman Empire - 11.5 million kmē (under Mehmed IV [including autonomous indirect ruled lands] in 1680)
10. United States of America - 10 million kmē [6] see American Empire (1898-1934)
11. Rashidun Arab caliphate - 9 million kmē (under Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan r. 644-656)[2]
12. Empire of Brazil - 8.1 million kmē[4]
13. Japanese Empire - 6.9 million kmē[4] (during World War II, under the Showa Emperor)
14. Achaemenid Persian Empire - 6.5 million kmē[7] (under Darius the Great)
15. Ming Empire - 6.5 million kmē[1] (under the Jingtai Emperor in 1450)
16. Macedonian Empire - 6.5 million kmē[4] (under Alexander the Great)
17. Han Empire - 6 million kmē[1]
18. Roman Empire - 5.9 million kmē[4] (under Emperor Trajan)
19. Tang Empire - 5.4 million kmē[1] (under the Xuanzong Emperor in 715)
20. Maurya Empire - 5 million kmē[1] (under Ashoka the Great)
21. Mughal Empire - 5 million kmē[4] (under Aurangzeb in 1690)
22. Byzantine Empire (under Justinian I) - 4.5 million kmē[1]
23. Timurid Empire - 4.4 million kmē[1]
24. Hunnic Empire - 4 million kmē[1] (under Attila the Hun in 441)
25. Mexican Empire - 4 million kmē[4]

Biggest armies? Dude come on, Europeans where the most powerful and Arabs where the most advanced.

And by the way, European lands where more valuable because there where many important kingdoms there, asia and africa had less.

The british had the biggest empire and were not able to conquer the "Entire European Continent" as you said mongols could have.

Ludicrous

If you read my post, you'll see that I said one of the biggest empires in history you just proved my point. I never said the mongols were able to capture the "Entire European Continent" so again you're completely wrong there.

Where did you get this idea that "Europeans where the most powerful" (sic) and "European lands where more valuable because there where many important kingdoms there, asia and africa had less."?

Finally, the Mongols destroyed both the Hungarian and Polish armies; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

[Mr.Marmot]

I said you said that they would have conquered europe, and besides, I read that article already.

[HighLord z0b]

No I didn't say that either. It would have been difficult for them to conquer Europe due to lack of grassy plains to feed their horses, I'm just dismissing your statement that 1 European Knight could beat 10 Mongols.

IF you read that article why are you stating that "Hungary defeated the mongols and made them reatret with poland and russia to mainland asia." it's just not true.

Anyway this is really derailing this thread (sorry about that). I going to stop discussing this with you because there's seems little point.

[Mr.Marmot]

True, no point.

[Lord_Calidor]

Hungarians got thrashed by Mongols in their 1241. campaign, looted the mainland Hungarian plains, slaughtered tens of thousands of inhabitants (exact number is not known, however it's speculated that as much as a third of a peasant population was killed or enslaved). They chased the Hungarian king Bela IV all the way to the Adriatic coast, then NW along it almost to the gates of Venice. Only when Ogedei Khan died, Batu Khan (who led the army into Europe) had to turn back so he could try to sieze the throne.

[The Englishman]

While I find the books let me tell you the biggest empire was the British, we could say English:

1. British Empire - 36.6 million kmē (under George V in 1922)
2. Mongol Empire - 33.2 million kmē[1] (under Kublai Khan in 1268)
3. Russian Empire - 24.8 million kmē (under Alexander II in 1866) - including Alaska[4]
4. Spanish Empire - 19 million kmē (under King Charles III r. 1759-1788)[4]
5. Umayyad Arab Caliphate - 13.2 million kmē[4] (under Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik r. 723-743)
6. Qing Empire - 13 million kmē[5] (under Emperor Qianlong)
7. French Empire - 12.5 million kmē[4] (under President Albert Lebrun in 1938)
8. Portuguese Empire - 12.4 million kmē[4]
9. Ottoman Empire - 11.5 million kmē (under Mehmed IV [including autonomous indirect ruled lands] in 1680)
10. United States of America - 10 million kmē [6] see American Empire (1898-1934)
11. Rashidun Arab caliphate - 9 million kmē (under Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan r. 644-656)[2]
12. Empire of Brazil - 8.1 million kmē[4]
13. Japanese Empire - 6.9 million kmē[4] (during World War II, under the Showa Emperor)
14. Achaemenid Persian Empire - 6.5 million kmē[7] (under Darius the Great)
15. Ming Empire - 6.5 million kmē[1] (under the Jingtai Emperor in 1450)
16. Macedonian Empire - 6.5 million kmē[4] (under Alexander the Great)
17. Han Empire - 6 million kmē[1]
18. Roman Empire - 5.9 million kmē[4] (under Emperor Trajan)
19. Tang Empire - 5.4 million kmē[1] (under the Xuanzong Emperor in 715)
20. Maurya Empire - 5 million kmē[1] (under Ashoka the Great)
21. Mughal Empire - 5 million kmē[4] (under Aurangzeb in 1690)
22. Byzantine Empire (under Justinian I) - 4.5 million kmē[1]
23. Timurid Empire - 4.4 million kmē[1]
24. Hunnic Empire - 4 million kmē[1] (under Attila the Hun in 441)
25. Mexican Empire - 4 million kmē[4]

Biggest armies? Dude come on, Europeans where the most powerful and Arabs where the most advanced.

And by the way, European lands where more valuable because there where many important kingdoms there, asia and africa had less.

The british had the biggest empire and were not able to conquer the "Entire European Continent" as you said mongols could have.

Ludicrous

Believe me, Britain rose to power due to the lack of a strong European nation-state after the Napoleonic Wars. Of course it managed to keep its position as global superpowr until 1947, when we gave up India...which we shouldn't have done.

[Insurgent]

Of course it managed to keep its position as global superpowr until 1947, when we gave up India...which we shouldn't have done.

But that would be a bit harsh on the Indians who have a right to be independent if they want it.

[eskrogh]

oh yes give the indians back their lands... ofcourse all rightes to the natives... (i talk of america) all 300 mil americans sure leave youre lands...

there is no freedom, you are never 100% free, the indians (india) has their own goverment, it would be the same for a english goverment in india?

[Insurgent]

oh yes give the indians back their lands... ofcourse all rightes to the natives... (i talk of america) all 300 mil americans sure leave youre lands...

there is no freedom, you are never 100% free, the indians (india) has their own goverment, it would be the same for a english goverment in india?

Having the government of another nation controlling another country has many drawbacks. They would be forced to go to war and fight for a distant nation they care little for, they would have to pay tax to the main country and the government would probably sap the many resources of the country and deliver them to the 'mother nation'. This would make the country less and less economically powerful while the main country would get richer and sap the resources from the colony.

Besides, I think it should the choice of the people of the country whether they get Independence or not.

[The Englishman]

Actually, I was just kidding about the India remark

[Insurgent]

Actually, I was just kidding about the India remark

Ah, it's so hard to express emotions on the Internet!

[eskrogh]

they owned india, they dident just control india, btw fine i want indipendance, i wanna make my own country at my own house, my laws, should be murder is legal, i am god, and so on...

nobody is free, everyone is controlled in some sort of way

[eskrogh]

Ah, it's so hard to express emotions on the Internet!

i still think inidia was in better hands while england owned it...

[Insurgent]

nobody is free, everyone is controlled in some sort of way

But you should have the freedom to choose who controlls you, should you not? One person's choice is nothing, but when the majority of the population is wanting Independence, then action should be taken.

i still think inidia was in better hands while england owned it...

It's debatable whether India would have been better off in British hands, the point I'm trying to make is that it should be the choice of the people of the country whether the country becomes Independent or not.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

The closest example of the Mongols fighting traditional Western knights is, as frequently referenced but never named in this thread, the Battle of Muhi.

Now, Subutai could easily be termed a great general, whereas Bela IV was pretty mediocre-to-average. Subutai had fought just about everyone, had a crack army and knew how to use it. Bela was okay, but nothing special in the eyes of military history. It's entirely possible the Mongols quite outnumbered the Hungarians too. The Hungarian force was also mainly dismounted.

This is, by no means, a fair fight. I imagine plated-up French knights would have done well against the Mongols, as the Mamluks did in Egypt because they were a mounted warrior caste. Now, let's analyse the bows themselves.

A modern Mongol Bow maxes out at 160lb draw force. The Mongol Bow, according to the article:

"Though similar in construction, it is much larger [2] than the old Mongolian bow that was used during the times of Genghis Khan."

The Mongols used a smaller, more primitive and less powerful composite recurve bow during their conquests. It would not have exceeded 1.5 meters in length due to the difficulty of firing from horseback.

The light arrows the Mongols used are what gave the Mongols such a long range on their weapons. They were very anal about the fletching and construction of the arrow itself, to provide maximum range and accuracy. The Mongol arrow could never have penetrated plate armour; as seen in the Battle of Mohi, it was their use of fire arrows that had the most impact on the Hungarians.

This naturally suited horse archers as you are constantly moving, and thus your accuracy and rate of fire would be severely reduced.

The Mongols used their specialised arrows and intensive training techniques to get around the disadvantage one has when firing a bow while riding.

These things, combined with dynamic generals and an entire army of mobile, mounted archers, trained from childhood is what gave the Mongols so many victories.

Now, on to the English Longbow.

The longbow is an entirely different weapon designed for an entirely different purpose. The English Longbow was, at maximum, at least 2 meters tall, with a draw weight of, according to the Mary Rose longbow replicas, 190lb.

The bow was used by stationary infantry, who were again trained since childhood with a weapon so powerful it caused physical deformities, as seen on the skeletons of the longbowmen themselves.

In addition to this, the arrows were known as English war arrows, often of bodkin variety, with a long iron head, the arrow itself was around a meter long.

This means the arrows were, in comparison, massively heavy and attained a great range only because of the sheer power of the bow they are being fired from, and the great strength and training of the person doing the shooting.

Adding to this, the longbowmen themselves were expected to fire at rate of "ten aimed shots per minute", or one every six seconds. This gives them the nickname of the "machinegun of the Middle Ages".

Conclusion:

I'm quite confident that even the hardened Mongoloid fanboys must be finally able to see that if you are using heavier arrows with a bigger bow that required a stronger wielder, common sense thus dictates that the English longbow was obviously a much more powerful weapon. This is bolstered by the sheer rate of fire and the use of volley tactics.

The Mongols did not conquer because their weapons were more or less advanced than the English longbows, although technologically-speaking the longbow was a dinosaur, they won because of their incorporation of the style of mounted ranged warfare into their tactical scheme, and the range and manoeuverability was too much for their contemporaries.

[Point Blank]

Good post.

[Tajl]

This is, by no means, a fair fight. I imagine plated-up French knights would have done well against the Mongols, as the Mamluks did in Egypt because they were a mounted warrior caste. Now, let's analyse the bows themselves..

Fair fights only happens if both generals are really stupid... Plated French knight would have had hard time to catch any mongols, their ligter horses would have been faster and fleeing mongols did shoot bacwards, eventually even armoured horse will fall and after that knight is helpless.

Conclusion:

I'm quite confident that even the hardened Mongoloid fanboys must be finally able to see that if you are using heavier arrows with a bigger bow that required a stronger wielder, common sense thus dictates that the English longbow was obviously a much more powerful weapon. This is bolstered by the sheer rate of fire and the use of volley tactics.

It doesn't matter at all how long bow, what matters is draw distance and how much energy that distance can give to arrow. Draw distance is equal but recurved mongol bow wins with effective draw distance->recurve

Maximun poundage is equal, both bows can be made so strong that strongest man in world can't draw them. Only thing that matters is how strong the archer was and both trained their whole life.

Longbow was heavier and it is disadvantage, because more draw energy is wasted to accelerate bow instead of arrow.

Conclusion:With mongol bow it was possible to get lot better speed of arrow, it would have been possible to use heavier arrows, but arrow speed would have had lower, no reason to do that. Faster arrow=better penetration with direct fire.

Longbow was slower bow so smaller arrow would not help because bow mass would have wasted more energy. Instead they had slower but heavier arrow. Heavier arrow is better in one thing, and thats when you shoot it very high and it generates its speed and energy by falling->drag of air takes smaller part of heavier arrows starting energy.

And thats exactly how they used their weapons....

[Tajl]

Delete this