Mongol defeat at Kolikovo

[the great yuan khan]

How did the Mongols possibly get defeated by the Russians during the battle of Kolikovo in 1380. The Mongols still had a long way before crumbling. The Mongols would have amassed arrows at the Russians. The Mongols had one of the world's state of the art weapons such as hand cannons and artillery. Plus their superior horsemanship to the Russians. I would understand their defeat at Ain Jalut as the Mamelukes had similar weaponry and more familiarity with their terrain and the Mongols used only a small portion or garrison of Mongols to head off against them and their invasion of Japan was thanks to a couple of Kamikazes.

[Ringeck]

I think you place too much faith in mongol technology and general tactics and too little in command and army experience, which was after all what won the Mongol victories during their heyday in addition to the at the time relative novelty of their steppe warfare tactics. The sources claim the russians managed to pull off a cavalry ambush on the mongols' flanks and rear, which was what broke them in conjunction with a russian counterattack from their main line. The Lithuanians defeated Murad Khan of the Kipchak Horde at the Battle of the Blue Waters in 1362 as well, according to the sparse sources by shrugging off Murad's attempt at creating disorder in their formation by attacking Algirdas' flanks as per their usual tactics, and then broke his formation with crossbow fire and counterattacks, leading to a rout. At the battle of Vozzha a few years earlier, although details are sparse, the russians also manage to defeat the mongols, so it was hardly an isolated incident.

In 1380, cannon and handguns were quite some time off from becoming the deciding factor in battles.

[Roma_Victrix]

I second that about cannons and handguns. The very first archeological finds of bronze handguns from China appear only about 1280 AD, i.e. the very end of the Southern Song Dynasty. Before that date, it took more than half the 13th century to see the full evolution of lobbed gunpowder bombs with cast iron casing. When cannons appeared in both Europe and China in the first half of the 14th century, they were simple bombards that were incapable of anything the later monster cannons like that found in the Ottoman siege of Constantinople were able to knock down. The counterweight trebuchet was still viewed as the prime siege weapon.

The Mongols conquered most of Asia with relatively amazing speed, but they certainly weren't invincible. And as Ringeck rightly points out, even for the Russians, Kolikovo was not an isolated case.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I agree with Roma-Victrix. But many of the Mongol defeats were to stupid variables that no one took into account: the two invasions of Japan had to do with extremely poor weather and a few massive storms here and there, in both instances it was for the most part a Mongol military success but in the second one the Mongols struggled in their attempt to hold and secure a beach head, even then they could have kept going had massive storms not forced the Mongols to leave.

The invasion of Java was mostly entirely based on disease and then the Javanese (who were actually being assisted by the Mongols in a military campaign) turned on their Mongol allies and ambushed them in their camp.

Vietnam had more to do with bad logistics and terrain and the fact that Mongols were terrible sailors and hence could not cross the major Vietnamese rivers easily... and then their fleet sank in a battle. Contrary to popular belief and hero folk tales, the Mongol defeat had less to do with the "Invincible" general Tran Hung Dao and more to do with the above factors. Facts are that the Mongols were already struggling to advance and one of their armies in their two pronged assault had already been defeated by another general in another battle because of the above reasons. Only the other army and its fleet which stubbornly decided to continue, faced Tran Hung Dao (who didn't actually have that much influence over the course of the war nor that high of a rank).

[the great yuan khan]

This is a Yuan-era hand cannon. Something like this must have been in Mongol use during Kolikovo. Early gunpowder weapons might not have been as impressive as later weapons but they'll surely turn the battle into their users advantage.

[Ringeck]

This is a Yuan-era hand cannon. Something like this must have been in Mongol use during Kolikovo. Early gunpowder weapons might not have been as impressive as later weapons but they'll surely turn the battle into their users advantage.

Their main function in this period is psychological in addition to their early use as siege weapons - although they would not eclipse counterweight artillery for around a century. If you are outmanouvred by your opponent tactically, as seems to have happened at Kolikovo, fancy "new" gadgets are not going to help.

There is uncertainty as to how early hand guns were used in battle in Europe. We have a reference to a 1281 document mentioning Italian "scopettieri" from Angelo Angelucci Cassonne (1869, available as "Documenti Inediti Per La Storia Delle Armi Da Fuoco Italiane" from Nabu Press these days) in the same units as crossbowmen. However, as mentioned earlier in this thread, they don't have decisive battlefield importance for a long, long time after that.

[the great yuan khan]

Where there any reports of gunpowder weapons being used in Kolikovo?

[nhinhonhinho]

Vietnam had more to do with bad logistics and terrain and the fact that Mongols were terrible sailors and hence could not cross the major Vietnamese rivers easily... and then their fleet sank in a battle. Contrary to popular belief and hero folk tales, the Mongol defeat had less to do with the "Invincible" general Tran Hung Dao and more to do with the above factors. Facts are that the Mongols were already struggling to advance and one of their armies in their two pronged assault had already been defeated by another general in another battle because of the above reasons. Only the other army and its fleet which stubbornly decided to continue, faced Tran Hung Dao (who didn't actually have that much influence over the course of the war nor that high of a rank).

Nah. People often mixed all 3 invasions into 1 single invasion and led all the way to a single battle of Bach Dang (the third) which destroyed the retreating Mongol fleet. Then they threw in something about disease, unfavored terrain and logistic problem...

As for you I afraid you accidentally mixed the second invasion (the two pronged attacked from Champa and China) with the third once (the battle of Bach Dang). Those two things wasn't in the same invasion .

The fact is much more complicated and much different. However I dun want to write so much in the threat about other battle here. I'll if you guys want though

PS: Tran Hung Dao himself is the supreme commander so he got credit in the achievement of other generals. In my opinion though the first invasion was the most success for the Mongol, the second was the most complicated, planed and most epic, the third once was the poorest, they couldn't even reach Viet's capital.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

How could the Germans lose WWII? They had better tanks and small arms and uniforms!

When will people learn that wars aren't won by weapons or small-scale tactics, or gimmicky tricks? I blame this on History channel and similar popular history media, which hugely over-simplify events to make them easier to grasp for the general population. That's why so many people ascribe victories to solitary, often superficial factors.

Warfare is complex. You cannot sum it up in a single sentence.

[Dromikaites]

Against the Europeans the Mongols were successful only if they managed to disrupt the lines of their opponents or to surround them, or both (disrupt and surround).

At Kulikovo the Russians held off the Mongol attacks and resisted the temptation of sending their cavalry too far from the infantry lines (the mistake made by the Poles at Lignica and, to a lesser extent, by the Hungarians at Mohi). They also chose to fight with woods on both flanks, which negated the Mongols any possibility to surround them.

After the initial attempts to disrupt the Russians, the Mongols had to turn to the more costly frontal assault. That might have worked thanks to their numerical superiority had the Russians not hidden a cavalry contingent on each wing, in the woods.

As the Russian left wing was starting to be pushed back, the cavalry of the principality of Serpukhov, who was hidden in the forests on that side, took advantage of the fact the Mongols were pinned down and hit them from the flank.

Any army which manages a flank attack on the opposing force greatly increases its own chances to win. If the enemy doesn't have the reserves to prop up his flank or if those reserves can't intervene before the flank crumbles, the battle is lost.

Whatever the case was (no reserves or slow reaction), the Mongol right flank was shattered and the panic spread to the rest of the army.

To put things more into perspective, the Russians have been accustomed with the Mongol tactics for some 100 years already, since they had served as Mongol vassals for all that time.

Save for some brilliant stratagem, there was nothing Mamai could have pulled on the Russians the Russian princes would not have known how to counter. That's explicitly illustrated by the fact the Russian princes, during the war council the night before the battle, had decided to fight the Mongols on the Mongol side of the river because there there were forests protecting both flanks.

To go beyond a river in face of numerically a superior enemy is taking a huge risk. In case of a defeat the river would prevent a quick withdrawal, practically resulting in annihilation. However the Russians were pretty sure that should they fight on a field where both their flanks are covered, the risk of defeat would be very low. That in turns shows an intimate knowledge of their enemy, stemming from 100+ years of contact.

[Roma_Victrix]

+1 rep to Dromikaites for his excellent rundown of the battle!

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I was talking about all of the invasions. The third invasion which had the Battle of Bach Dang was the only one in which Tran Hung Dao was confirmed as the Supreme Commander although Tran khan Du actually was responsible for screwing the Mongols and he was actually going to be court martialed at the time. Tran Hung Dao just took advantage of what Tran Khan Du had done and launched guerrilla attacks and Tran Hung Dao was able to capture Dai Than. In my opinion Tran Hung Dao had way more influence over the actual outcome in the Second Invasion when he wasn't the Supreme Commander yet. Actually I think that the actual title was only given to him after the wars, only in the Third Invasion though was he actually allowed to do whatever he wanted.

Yeah the Second one was the most epic, have to give serious cred to Tran Hung Dao. But the Third I say we could give the credit equally or maybe most to Tran Khan Du for defeating the Mongol supply and reserves in the first place and totally turned the war into a one sided Dai Viet victory.

[nhinhonhinho]

Firstly +rep for Dromikaites for your battle's AAR !

I was talking about all of the invasions. The third invasion which had the Battle of Bach Dang was the only one in which Tran Hung Dao was confirmed as the Supreme Commander although Tran khan Du actually was responsible for screwing the Mongols and he was actually going to be court martial at the time. Tran Hung Dao just took advantage of what Tran Khan Du had done and launched guerrilla attacks and Tran Hung Dao was able to capture Dai Than. In my opinion Tran Hung Dao had way more influence over the actual outcome in the Second Invasion when he wasn't the Supreme Commander yet. Actually I think that the actual title was only given to him after the wars, only in the Third Invasion though was he actually allowed to do whatever he wanted.

Yeah the Second one was the most epic, have to give serious cred to Tran Hung Dao. But the Third I say we could give the credit equally or maybe most to Tran Khan Du for defeating the Mongol supply and reserves in the first place and totally turned the war into a one sided Dai Viet victory.

I agree. Tran Hung Dao was more like a Strategist than actually command in field battle.

The reasons why Tran Khanh Du was going to be court martial was because he lost his first battle trying to stop the Mongol navy. But then he got away by seize and burnt a whole Mongol supply fleet.

The title Supreme Commander was actually granted to him after the first invasion (1284) so in the second and the third he completely commanded all military power of Dai Viet.

About Tran Khanh Du then he also get credit cause his victory was one of the most important factor to made the Mongol retreat.

Anyway I'm a bit doubt about the Mongol/Yuan navy quality. The Mongol themselves could be terrible sailors but they used Chinese, Muslim, Korean for sea technology, sailors and commanders so I think they should be equal with normal Chinese naval force I think ?

[Col. Tartleton]

How could the Germans lose WWII? They had better tanks and small arms and uniforms!

When will people learn that wars aren't won by weapons or small-scale tactics, or gimmicky tricks? I blame this on History channel and similar popular history media, which hugely over-simplify events to make them easier to grasp for the general population. That's why so many people ascribe victories to solitary, often superficial factors.

Warfare is complex. You cannot sum it up in a single sentence.

Yep. Warfare is about transporting people to where the enemy doesn't want them to be. Feeding and clothing them. Arming them enough to do some damage. And letting things play out as they will. You win by moving better. Who has more efficient railroads is far more important than who has the better guns. That's why Germany had a material advantage. The trains ran on time as they say. This coupled with better nearly everything obviously means that you need several Russians to beat a German. But it's not like one on one it wasn't a toss up every time. It was that it wasn't one on one. It was 21 million Germans vs 34 million Russians. Although 10% of the Germans were elsewhere so 19 million Germans vs 34 million Russians. Which means Russia wasn't nearly as numerically superior as one might imagine when they hear 34 million man army... Not even 2:1.

In the same vein, there's no reason why Russian's can't outperform the Mongols in the areas that matter. I mean there were reasons why they couldn't in the 1200s at first contact. But by the late 14th century the issues of the mid 13th century were largely gone. The Mongol horse archer was losing ground to the Russian horse archer. The very fast moving, very hard hitting, very well led, and very well directed men of Subutai were not being used.

The Russians were outnumbered two to one. But They were not fighting the lean men of a genius like Subutai. These were the softer men of a different era. Mongolians aren't racially superior super men with innate mastery of warfare. If they were they'd still control Eurasia. So we should consider this more like fighting Bulgars or Kipchaks or whatever lesser steppe peoples have less reputation for winning. Still a great victory, but it's not as if 60 thousand Russian knights rode against the main army of Genghis Khan and beat the tar out of them.

I just like that the Genoese murdered Mamai for losing their mercenaries money. I hope it had slow pacing and tension like a Coppola film.

It seems that by the late 14th century the Europeans were already showing signs of what the next few hundred years would be like.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm just wondering but what did Tran Hung Dao do in the first invasion? He probably lost I would assume seeing as how the First invasion was a Mongol victory.

The Mongol fleet is also a very interesting subject... I'll read some books and do some research and see what I can find.

About the European warfare: fancy gadgets like guns were only ever used effectively at the beginning of the 1400s by the Hungarians, even then the matchlocks and hand cannons were used in very small numbers. The Ottomans got matchlocks as well and started using them to great effect and as you probably know the Mughals got matchlocks and used them quite spectacularly as well. Eventually the Japanese started a small matchlock revolution by splitting their gunners into volley firing groups and using continual fire. The Japanese also had matchlock making on a practically industrial scale and standardized all of the barrels and gun sizes so that way soldiers could share lead balls and there weren't ridiculous amounts of matchlock variety. Aside from this the Japanese could use matchlocks in an offensive or defensive manner and built palisades. Interestingly enough Luis Frois wrote his book on Japan and around the same time the the book was available in Europe we find the Dutch making extremely similar reforms to their matchlock corps.
I wonder if Japan and Luis Frois had something to do with that or if it was just coincidence...

[Roma_Victrix]

I just like that the Genoese murdered Mamai for losing their mercenaries money. I hope it had slow pacing and tension like a Coppola film.

Now that you mention it, F.F. Coppola would be the right director for that sequence. Either him or Sergio Leone.

Anyway I'm a bit doubt about the Mongol/Yuan navy quality. The Mongol themselves could be terrible sailors but they used Chinese, Muslim, Korean for sea technology, sailors and commanders so I think they should be equal with normal Chinese naval force I think

Well, I'm assuming the same fleet that Kublai Khan assembled to achieve victory over the Southern Song was used for operations against Vietnam and Japan. At least the seafaring portions, since the terrain of southern China would have required flat-bottomed riverboats by either navy.

[nhinhonhinho]

Well, I'm assuming the same fleet that Kublai Khan assembled to achieve victory over the Southern Song was used for operations against Vietnam and Japan. At least the seafaring portions, since the terrain of southern China would have required flat-bottomed riverboats by either navy.

Same fleet, same technology and same sailors (with Korean and few Muslim) I assumed. There're no other kind of fleet around anyway.

I'm just wondering but what did Tran Hung Dao do in the first invasion? He probably lost I would assume seeing as how the First invasion was a Mongol victory.

Uhm the first invasion was actually briefed only 3-4 months. According to Vietnamese history: Nobody known when Tran Hung Dao became a general, yet in the Fall of 1257 he was at the rank similar to Marshall, Marshal is not Supreme Commander, just a high ranking commander as far as I understand. Nevertheless his influence was high enough to made the emperor (and the crow prince) listened and bring troops to fight the Mongol head-on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At the first battle the Viet sent elephants to charge the Mongol which caused some panic. The Mongol in turn rain arrows at the elephants weak spots (the drivers, ears, eyes...) => The elephants routed in panic followed by Mongol cavalry charge => The Viet was forced back, suffer casualty => the Viet sent in the Thanh Duc (Imperial Guard) commanded by the crowed prince, the emperor meanwhile beat the drum personally and refuse to leave event when the Mongol closed in => The Viet lost. Tran Hung Dao retreated crossed Red river (he prepared ships before in case of defeated). The Mongol failed to capture the Viet emperor and their vanguard gen committed suicide (don't ask me why)! Then the Mongol crossed the river blocked by 3000 Viet's troops of Marquis Tran Binh Trong. Trong halted the Mongol for 3 days (considered as Vietnamese Thermopylae), get captured and his troops died to a man. The Tran count fled Thang Long capital and used scourged earth tactic. The Mongol run in and get starved (nothing to loot). Then later the Viet counter attacked and beat the Mongol at Dong Bo Dau (Near TL). The Mongol retreated all the way back while suffer from ambushes.

So in short the Mongol army was able to repeatedly beat the Viet (commanded by Tran Hung Dao), 'sack' the capital. That was the most successful in the 3.

Uhm but anyone here know about gunpowder weapons used by the Mongol at that period? Are they common? How effective are they? Many sources talking about fire lance, grenades, rockets, bombards or even...cannons (I guest it's just trebutche, catapult with powder ammunition)!

The Mongol fleet is also a very interesting subject... I'll read some books and do some research and see what I can find.

Yeah! And don't to share some .

I wonder if Japan and Luis Frois had something to do with that or if it was just coincidence...

He saw the Japanese training I think! Uhm about matchlock, didn't the Ming China also used similar method? There is a common picture about it

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...musketeers.jpg

[O'Hea]

I've always been a little surprised by the belief in the superiority of the Mongol weapon systems. We have reports from the Crusades of moderately well-armored Crusader troops looking like pincushions from all the Turkish arrows stuck harmlessly into their aketons. Even if the individual horse archer was deadly they could never match the volume of fire of a comparable group of foot archers. The Mongols really only had one devastating battlefield advantage- they had a very mobile army made up of small, disciplined units that could work independently. European armies weren't as articulated so they could be broken into isolated chunks that were scattered or enveloped by Mongol forces that were capable of remaining effective while spread out. As these examples show, when they couldn't split their enemies up they had a much harder time of it. Strategically speaking they were able to build empires much more rapidly because their armies could move so much faster.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

But did Luis Frois writing about the Japanese musketeer organizations have any effect in Europe or did these developments happen in Europe after Luis Frois' book became available as just a coincidence?

[Ringeck]

But did Luis Frois writing about the Japanese musketeer organizations have any effect in Europe or did these developments happen in Europe after Luis Frois' book became available as just a coincidence?

Volley fire predates gunpowder weapons in Europe (and a great many other places) so that's not really an issue - but the size of manouvre units is. Maurice claimed that his model for his smaller tactical units (that scaled down from the giant tercios) came from classical sources, but then again, a great many people claimed classical inspiration (or wrote in ancient author's names) for new ideas in medieval and early modern times, so he might well have had other sources. Smaller tactical infantry units are described all throughout medieval/early modern times as well, in different times and places, before Maurice.