Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

  1. #1
    Påsan's Avatar Hva i helvete?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    the north way
    Posts
    13,916

    Default Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    So basically I'm going for what the Europeans could have done differently strategically and especially tactically in the face of the Mongolian armies that invaded during the latter half of the 13th century. How do you defeat the mongols?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...sion_of_Poland

  2. #2
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    In much the same way that Aetius Flavius and Theodoric were able to beat Attila's nomadic horse-archer-based armies at the Catalaunian Plains in 451 AD: fight on favorable terrain for starters. The same could be said for when the Roman general Publius Ventidius Bassus defeated the Parthian Crown Prince Pacorus at the Battle of Mount Gindarus in Syria in 38 BC, using higher ground to have slingers rain down rocks onto the advancing Parthian cataphracts and horse archers who tired themselves by rushing uphill and facing battlements. The Mongols had a great advantage the Huns did not, though: much, much better siege tech. That included counterweight trebuchets in the 13th century and bombard cannons in the 14th century.

  3. #3
    Påsan's Avatar Hva i helvete?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    the north way
    Posts
    13,916

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Also with the unequaled strategical mobility of the Mongols it is sort of hard to outmaneuver them into fighting in disfavorable terrain. The best opportunity for something like that would be what happened at Mohi, to block them at a ford. But that did not work out in the end and the Europeans were outmaneuvered.


    Or you could do as the Hungarians and preemptively spam castles everywhere. However I was going for more of a tactical approach with this thread.

  4. #4
    Marvzilla's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North-Rhine Westphalia,Germany.
    Posts
    1,043

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Use the strategy the Ottonians used against the Magyars in the 10th century. Deep defense, more or less. Let them raid into your territory and fall upon them on their return to (only logical place where the mongols could mount any kind of significant offensive from) the Pannonian plain. Castles dont only act as defensive positions but also as positions of offensive on an enemy, especially at chokepoints such as fords or rivercrossings. Also, the Pannonian plain can only support that much of steppe horse warriors as it is not as suitable for large scale armies of that kind as was commonly thought.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    One of the big advantages of the Mongols wasn't even that horse archery was some new never before seen tactic, but that most fuedal armies were composed of a small core elite of soldiers with a large group of levied peasants especially during the early years of the medieval age.

    But on the battlefield if things are somewhat even, I would use favorable terrain to cover a flank, give myself high ground or make horse riding difficult. I'd put heavily armored troops at the front that could handle enemy archers while using my own well defended archers to fire back. Foot archers can form much more compact formations providing much more concentrated fire. They're also stationary so they can fire further/be more accurate and use stronger bows.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  6. #6

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Forts wouldn't have worked all that well. Unlike most steppe nomads, the Mongols were actually pretty good in sieges once they got their hands on Chinese engineers and even the odd cannon. It also requires sacrificing the countryside, which is never fun.

    A better approach for a field army facing them was a line of heavy infantry of a quality that could stand up to a charge by lancers, supported by enough foot archers/slingers/crossbowmen to out-shoot the horse archers. As each individual foot archer requires much less training, upkeep and equipment then his mounted counterpart, its easy enough to amass a numerical advantage and turn horse archer hit and run attacks more painful for the Mongols then the Europeans. Some heavier cavalry ready to charge any Mongol that strayed too close with his bow or to beat back retreating Mongol lancers would have also helped, but only if they were disciplined and well led enough not to fall for a feigned retreat into a trap.
    Such a force would be able to beat back the Mongols at any one point, though it'll never be able to catch a Horde, meaning that it needs to be deployed at a strategic focal point, like a bridge or a city the enemy might be interested in. Even then, they'd have to be careful not to get encircled if the terrain was flat.

    The primary problem a Medieval European would have setting up such a force was the feudal structure of his army. Knights were notoriously brave, but ill disciplined (pretty much custom made to fall for a Mongol feigned retreat), and the levied peasants which composed most of the army were little more then arrow fodder. Mercenary forces might do better, assuming the monarch has access to one of the more reliable companies that wouldn't turn on him for a profit, but really, they're not the most cost-effective troops, and gathering them in force requires some preparation. Men-at-arms serving on foot seem the most reliable force of the bunch, but there really weren't very many of them.
    Any real attempt to build an army capable of beating back a Horde without relying on luck (say, an enemy civil war resulting in the Mongols being vastly outnumbered) would have required at the very least extensive martial and social reform.
    A humble equine consul in service to the people of Rome.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Coming back to the terrain issue, IIRC composite bows were suseptible to damp conditions. So fighting in, or shortly after, a rainstorm might've been advantageous (also, anything that slows down horses...). I seem to recall one instance where Hungarian raiders got caught in unfavourable weather conditions and run down somewhere in Germany, because their bows were failing them and the terrain was muddy. I'll try to look it up again.

  8. #8
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Adopt Mongol tactics and pull back forcing them to come after you. Hopefully you'll find a perfect position to defend where their supply lines are so long that their artillery can't be used. Surprise cavalry attacks might have been very effective against the Mongol camp, possibly in night attacks and a think a combination of both tactics would have worked on Mongol armies.
    The fact that the Mongols have expert engineers just means that they most likely have giant lumbering equipment and have to maintain large supply lines. Their clear disadvantage of cavalry against a fortified position or castle combined with organized retreats, raiding and flanking maneuvres is likely to take them down. I recall most Mongol defeats having the Mongols being drawn into combat and then a giant assault on their flanks crushing them, usually their advance is slowed by some obstacle or they just plain get wrecked in close combat by a better opponent for that situation.

    The key really is to lock yourself into said castle in a critical choke point, keep it relatively well supplied but keep your cavalry operating from behind the lines so that they don't get locked in and can keep their mobility. Like the siege of Vienna the Mongols will hopefully keep throw themselves at your walls and you cavalry can attempt from all over or you take an indirect approach and have them raiding the enemy supply and communications lines. Then crush them at the right moment or just wait for them to get sick of it and just retreat.
    This is actually similar to the Battle of Guandu in 200 when Cao Cao defended the fort of Guandu against Yuan Shao and then at the right moment had his cavalry raid Yuan Shao's grain supply and pretty much broke the colossus' foot.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; February 10, 2015 at 04:13 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  9. #9

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Adopt Mongol tactics and pull back forcing them to come after you. Hopefully you'll find a perfect position to defend where their supply lines are so long that their artillery can't be used. Surprise cavalry attacks might have been very effective against the Mongol camp, possibly in night attacks and a think a combination of both tactics would have worked on Mongol armies.
    The fact that the Mongols have expert engineers just means that they most likely have giant lumbering equipment and have to maintain large supply lines. Their clear disadvantage of cavalry against a fortified position or castle combined with organized retreats, raiding and flanking maneuvres is likely to take them down. I recall most Mongol defeats having the Mongols being drawn into combat and then a giant assault on their flanks crushing them, usually their advance is slowed by some obstacle or they just plain get wrecked in close combat by a better opponent for that situation.
    The Europeans have virtually no missile cavalry to work with, and the bulk of their armies in general were composed primarily of infantry. They couldn't feign retreats for the simple reason that the Mongol cavalry would catch them in a heartbeat, in addition to the very real risk the ill-disciplined peasant levies that compromised the bulk of the army would get caught up in the moment and forget the "feigned" part of the retreat.
    The Mongols were also famous for operating with a bare minimum of supply lines; being nomadic, they brought herds of animals and mobile steppe infrastructure on invasions along with the fighting men. In terms of war machines, lighter siege engines were constructed out of local materials, and the heavier stuff was only constructed during sieges--as in, when you're already stuck in one place and have the enemy field army too bottled up or destroyed to bother your supply lines anyway.

    Most Mongol defeats occurred well after they invaded Europe, when a combination of being vastly overstretched and internally fighting over a fragmenting empire led to the Mongols being outnumbered. Occasionally the Mongol general would make a crucial mistake, or the non-Mongols would pull off something clever and manage to beat them in a more "fair" fight, but it was the exception rather then the rule.

    Armies are by and large a construct of the social organization behind them (and vice versa, there's something of a feedback loop going). The Mongol hordes were a professional force constructed from the ground up to wage war, and opposed to most armies of the era, which were a reflection of the feudal system and/or of the dysfunctional politics of the nation that set them up. This put them at an inherent advantage over most opponents--professional and competently led armies might be the norm in large parts of the world today, but that certainly wasn't the case in 13th century Europe.
    A humble equine consul in service to the people of Rome.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    We often forget that the Russians at Khalka, the Poles at Legnica and the Hungarians at Mohi were able to put up a good fight before being defeated. And in each case they had made a massive blunder which directly caused the defeat.

    The Europeans had successfully fought before against the archers-lancers combo and had won even in the open field.

    So yes, carefully picking the terrain would have helped. But just having disciplined troops with enough archers and/or crossbowmen and a decent amount of light and heavy cavalry would have been enough.

    When the Russians defeated the Mongolians at Kulikovo they did so by forcing them to go into hand-to-hand combat and then enveloping their flanks with their own cavalry.

    Even at Carrhae, without much archers and cavalry, the Romans lasted for two days and were only slaughtered when the discipline broke after the assassination of Crassus.

    The Parthians were lining up an army similar to the Mongolians. The Romans on the other hand had an army less heavy than what the 13th century Europeans could field, and still were able to last more than the Poles or the Hungarians thanks to their discipline.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  11. #11
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    The Europeans have virtually no missile cavalry to work with, and the bulk of their armies in general were composed primarily of infantry. They couldn't feign retreats for the simple reason that the Mongol cavalry would catch them in a heartbeat, in addition to the very real risk the ill-disciplined peasant levies that compromised the bulk of the army would get caught up in the moment and forget the "feigned" part of the retreat.
    They don't need to feign retreat, they just need to retreat and not fight the Mongols out in the open or on the edge of the territory where the Mongols can go behind your army and raid your territory. But that's not necessarily a fact that Europeans have no missile cavalry; Hungarians, Russians, Poles and Balkan people all employed missile cavalry. And to that end you don't need missile cavalry to raid or to attack at night.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    The Mongols were also famous for operating with a bare minimum of supply lines; being nomadic, they brought herds of animals and mobile steppe infrastructure on invasions along with the fighting men. In terms of war machines, lighter siege engines were constructed out of local materials, and the heavier stuff was only constructed during sieges--as in, when you're already stuck in one place and have the enemy field army too bottled up or destroyed to bother your supply lines anyway.
    Whether the Mongols can survive on a bare minimum that has little to do with answering the question of how would they feed their camp followers, engineers and experts. Depending on the terrain or area eating might not even be that easy and the cattle and horses brought from the steppe certainly have to eat many more times than a Mongol.
    To build massive siege engines that would be assuming they have the proper material available. Granted it's a pretty good point though that they don't have to carry all of it. Regardless some good quality engines couldn't always be built on the spot.
    It's not like Mongols don't need any supply lines, sure Mongols are resourceful since they hunt, forage, eat minimum amounts, make their own weapons etc but when you're talking tens of thousands or more it really isn't that simple and especially not when the country side is laid waste (or whatever season it is that foraging isn't easy) and you have to fight for long periods deep in the enemy's territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    Most Mongol defeats occurred well after they invaded Europe, when a combination of being vastly overstretched and internally fighting over a fragmenting empire led to the Mongols being outnumbered. Occasionally the Mongol general would make a crucial mistake, or the non-Mongols would pull off something clever and manage to beat them in a more "fair" fight, but it was the exception rather then the rule.
    I don't know that is always true. The Mongols suffered some setbacks before their empire was suffering from large scale fragmentation. In the time of Kublai Khan the empire was suffering from some civil war but Kublai managed to keep it together overall and even in that time when the empire was at it's best he had multiple setbacks. Hulagu's invasion of the Mamluk Sultanate is a good example.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; February 10, 2015 at 05:36 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  12. #12
    Påsan's Avatar Hva i helvete?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    the north way
    Posts
    13,916

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    I feel that a factor that is often underestimated is that the feudal system is not a good military framework at all, and the 13th century was in the height of the feudal period. Its main problems are the monopolization of warrior mentality by the knights and the noble classes, which meant that the rest of the population by consequence was ill trained and mentally prepared for war. The result was a super-elite force of knights and far less competent levies. Compared to the Mongols from a warrior society where every single member of the horde was a highly motivated and able "soldier" that was able to operate well both individually and as part of a larger whole.


    As a result, as seen at Mohi the Europeans main problem was morale and cohesion of their armies. I think they had the tools needed, but not the soldiers.


    When the European forces started professionalizing they also manged to beat back mongol raids and retake territory from the mongols.



    One thing about the mongol "field artillery"

    Common, by the low rate of fire and inaccuracy of a trebuchet I think that's a non-factor.
    Last edited by Påsan; February 10, 2015 at 05:36 PM.

  13. #13
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    ....a super-elite force of knights and far less competent levies. Compared to the Mongols where every single member of the horde was a highly motivated and able "soldier" that was able to operate well both individually and as part of a larger whole. ..
    Agree totally. The Europeans need to build an equivalent to the ERE with something like a fully developed Theme/Tagma system for a comparable level of discipline and resourcing to match Genghis' horde.

    With the available resources it would take a cohesive crusade including the crowns of all Western and Central Europe, backed by the financial powerhouses of Italy and cooperating with Orthodox eastern Europe.

    Given the HR Emperor at that time was Frederick II, Stupor Mundi, such a political combination was not impossible (indeed feared by many), although in the event the Papacy and his many vassals combined to restrain his apparent greatness. A truly ascendant Frederick Hohenstaufen, with the church at heel, friendly relations with Islam and Constantinople established and something like a European state under his hand could mass and supply enough heavy cav and specialists to give the Mongol horde pause for while.

    Did untied China could not stand, for all its wealth and organisational capacity: Europe may have been more barbarised/militarised but I doubt they could prevent an invasion altogether, they'd be fighting in Europe and not out on the steppes.

    I think a United Europe could pull off an Ayn Jalut, or even another Lechfield/Carolingian Avar campaign, but the Mongols were not bandits on a raiding cycle whose strength would vanish if their tribute and loot dried up. they were a colossal horde and any success would surely draw a reaction. A victorious Europe would need to brace itself for more Mongol invasions.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  14. #14
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    One of the big advantages of the Mongols wasn't even that horse archery was some new never before seen tactic, but that most fuedal armies were composed of a small core elite of soldiers with a large group of levied peasants especially during the early years of the medieval age.
    Basically this.

    If the Mongols actually encountered a professional feudal force of equal size they would have extreme problems with dealing with it.
    Of the entire force send by the Templar order to Legnica, only 3 knights and 2 sergeants died along with some other allied troops.

    At Mohi they suffered significant casualties from the crossbowmen across the river and the fact that the Mongols had to resort to using siege equipment to clear them out tells us volumes of the range and power that concentrated crossbow volleys had.

    Also at Mohi, the Mongolian elite bodyguard of Batu Khan was nearly annihilated when they decided to frontally engage the only section of the European army that consisted of professional troops.
    The knight was never to be taken lightly on the battlefield.


    Fortunately for the Mongols of course, the feudal system simply could not produce a professional army even near the size of a single Mongolian tumen, let alone a solid sized Mongolian army.

  15. #15
    KEA's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,104

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula's_Horse View Post
    The Europeans have virtually no missile cavalry to work with, and the bulk of their armies in general were composed primarily of infantry. They couldn't feign retreats for the simple reason that the Mongol cavalry would catch them in a heartbeat, in addition to the very real risk the ill-disciplined peasant levies that compromised the bulk of the army would get caught up in the moment and forget the "feigned" part of the retreat.(...)
    professional and competently led armies might be the norm in large parts of the world today, but that certainly wasn't the case in 13th century Europe.
    The exact opposite would be correct: Feudal European armies of the Middle Ages were highly professional forces, at least the elements that were expected to enter combat, led by men who's primary duty was to command armies, and who were prepared to this task from early infancy. Those armies were much more professional than for example 19th/20th Century mass armies or Ancient (pre-Marian) militia armies.

    It also is not correct that Medieval armies were first of all infantry. In fact they have the highest percentage of mounted soldiers of all armies in European history. In the Late Middle Ages, when the Mongols appeared on the scene, professional forces in Europe usually were completely mounted. Even though, some elements fought on foot, in particular missile troops of all kinds. But this wouldn't be a disadvantage shooting the bow or crossbow standing instead of while sitting on horseback.

    Infantry in Central European armies usually was militia (or vice versa). Militia only played a little role in day-to-day feudal warfare, what also was the reason why it had close to no training, only limited equipment, and also why feudal armies and their commanders often failed to make proper use of them. But during the Mongol invasion raising everyone and his brother was required to somehow match the numbers of the giant Mongol forces. That way they ended up with armies that had a lot of militia infantry which was of not much use against professional light cavalry. So the problem not was that European armies in that period always were composed of lots of infantry but that these armies usually were lacking said large forces infantry (otherwise we would also have to assume that this infantry would have been of a better quality because there is no reason to assume the Europeans wouldn't had been able to field proper infantry in the Centuries between the Roman Legions and the Prussian Grenadiers - if large infantry forces somehow were tactical standard).

    Now, the main problem European armies had, in particular knights' armies, when dealing with Mongols and the like, was that the tactics used by horse-people were "soft" tactics. These were based on mobility, ranged combat, and avoiding contact with the enemy until he is seriously weakened. European tactics traditionally were based on "stiff combat". That is strong lines and seeking combat in order to break the enemy line. While both the knight and the Mongol were mounted soldiers, their reason to mount a horse in combat were completely different: The knight needed his horse to improve his ability to get close in on the enemy, the Mongol needed his horse to get keep the enemy at a distance. In this scenario the one who tries to avoid contact is in an advantage.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by KEA View Post
    The exact opposite would be correct: Feudal European armies of the Middle Ages were highly professional forces, at least the elements that were expected to enter combat, led by men who's primary duty was to command armies, and who were prepared to this task from early infancy. Those armies were much more professional than for example 19th/20th Century mass armies or Ancient (pre-Marian) militia armies.
    (...)
    Now, the main problem European armies had, in particular knights' armies, when dealing with Mongols and the like, was that the tactics used by horse-people were "soft" tactics. These were based on mobility, ranged combat, and avoiding contact with the enemy until he is seriously weakened. European tactics traditionally were based on "stiff combat". That is strong lines and seeking combat in order to break the enemy line. While both the knight and the Mongol were mounted soldiers, their reason to mount a horse in combat were completely different: The knight needed his horse to improve his ability to get close in on the enemy, the Mongol needed his horse to get keep the enemy at a distance. In this scenario the one who tries to avoid contact is in an advantage.
    This still leads us to much the same problem however--the feudal system is preventing the Europeans from mounting a proper fight.

    You could argue that only counting professional forces, the Europeans had very large percentages of cavalry, but this was due less to having many cavalrymen, and more due to having few professional fighters. One of the things that made the Mongol system so effective was that it allowed maintaining very high numbers of professionals; the feudal system on the other hand, was either through design or coincidence, primary built to preserve martial prowess at the hands of a warrior elite, which pretty much defaults to a numerical inferiority without resorting to mass conscription of trash quality levies.
    We're talking Europeans vs. Mongol invaders here after all. Professional forces alone might be well and good for feudal feuding, but that's not our scenario.

    Medieval armies being by and large competently led was also questionable. There is of course the skewed perception of warfare one develops in the knightly classes, like on the overemphasis on 'stiff warfare' you already mentioned, and the disdain for infantry forces.
    A greater concern however, is the inherently decentralized nature of your average medieval command structure, as fragmented as Europe itself. Allies would often fight without a joint command, noblemen would often be given far too much freedom to effectively serve as subordinates with their forces, and the peasants levied on mass to fight off foreign invaders had no leadership and no discipline. It wasn't uncommon for the right hand to compete with the left, to the detriment of the rest of the body no matter the outcome.

    This would have hampered the Europeans greatly even if they ended up uniting against the Mongols (rather then the more likely scenario of squabbling amongst themselves right up until the Mongols are already across the border), and in such a scenario, the multinational nature of the European force would have only further worsened the issue. Europe was truly fortunate that the Mongol empire started to fragment before it could make it much farther then Hungary, though the Russians weren't so lucky. Otherwise, I doubt the Mongols would have been halted militarily, stopping only when they encountered forests, mountains, and the sea.
    A humble equine consul in service to the people of Rome.

  17. #17
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    A truly ascendant Frederick Hohenstaufen, with the church at heel, friendly relations with Islam and Constantinople established and something like a European state under his hand could mass and supply enough heavy cav and specialists to give the Mongol horde pause for while.
    At this point, if we are talking about the 1240s and 1250s, Constantinople was already in the pocket of Western Christendom, considering how the Latin Empire birthed from the Fourth Crusade still held the city. It wasn't retaken by the scattered Byzantines until 1261, by Michael VIII Palaiologos during his (somewhat) successful attempt to revive the empire. Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, therefore would have only had to worry about making nice with the Islamic powers in the meantime. He built a good track record of doing just that when peacefully and diplomatically acquiring Jerusalem from the Ayyubid Egyptian Sultan Al-Kamil during the Sixth Crusade (1228-1229).

    Did untied China could not stand, for all its wealth and organisational capacity: Europe may have been more barbarised/militarised but I doubt they could prevent an invasion altogether, they'd be fighting in Europe and not out on the steppes.
    The Western Xia, Jin, and Southern Song empires divided China for starters, making it weaker than it was a century before when most of China was controlled by the Northern Song dynasty (minus the territories controlled by the Wester Xia and Liao dynasties). Also, by virtue of being Mongolia's neighbor, it was far easier logistically speaking for the Mongols to launch invasions into China, Korea and Central Asia from their home base in Mongolia than it was to send armies all the way to Muscovy and eastern Europe. It's astonishing how much the Mongols were able to conquer so far from home, including all of Persia, Mesopotamia, the Caucuses, etc. That is honestly owing to the fact discussed here about their armies' professionalism and ability to recruit on a massive scale that other empires couldn't compete against, especially not with expensive hired mercenaries who would just as easily join the other side for better pay or when it became obvious who the victor would be.

    I think a United Europe could pull off an Ayn Jalut, or even another Lechfield/Carolingian Avar campaign, but the Mongols were not bandits on a raiding cycle whose strength would vanish if their tribute and loot dried up. they were a colossal horde and any success would surely draw a reaction. A victorious Europe would need to brace itself for more Mongol invasions.
    The Mamluks under Sultan Saif ad-Din Qutuz won at Ain Jalut in 1260 because, just like the earlier withdrawal of the main Mongol forces to Mongolia from Poland and Hungary a decade and a half before, there was a new succession crisis. Möngke Khan had just died, and Hulagu Khan along with the bulk of his troops traveled back to Mongolia to settle the succession of the next great khan. When the Mamluks fought Kitbuqa at Ain Jalut, the latter only had about one tumen (10,000 soldiers) left to him by Hulagu. Their limited numbers (and the fact that the most seasoned Mongol troops were absent) was just one advantage the Egyptian Mamluks had. They also had the logistical support and "neutral" cooperation of the Crusader Kingdom centred at Acre, which allowed them to pass through their territories unmolested and to resupply.

    Therefore, in order to defeat the Mongols, both the Islamic and Western Christian powers would basically have to absorb the largest, hardest hitting Mongol force and wait until the moment was opportune to pick a good weak spot and attack it with favorable conditions and difficult terrain that didn't give the Mongols' horse archers an advantage. In the forests of Germany and Alpine country of Central Europe this could certainly be done, but I don't think they could have relied entirely on holing up in castles considering the Mongols' siege tech borrowed from Persians and Chinese. I'd think a somewhat impregnable fortress like Salzburg could stand even prolonged battering, but it too could fall simply with the ravages of time, starvation and rationing for the besieged.

  18. #18
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    According to Carmen Miserabile, the only effective tactic during the mongol invasion of Hungary was to ambush them in wooded areas, mountain passes and hills - of which Transylvania has plenty.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  19. #19
    Marvzilla's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North-Rhine Westphalia,Germany.
    Posts
    1,043

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Its like no one read my post and says generalised stuff which has already been disproven especially about the composition of European armies of the 13th century (where most of the army was paid for, for example due to scutage).

  20. #20
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Tactical options for Europeans facing a Mongolian army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvzilla View Post
    Its like no one read my post and says generalised stuff which has already been disproven especially about the composition of European armies of the 13th century (where most of the army was paid for, for example due to scutage).
    I read your post. Many of your suggestions I incorporated in my post. Usually the only way to beat a Mongol is to out Mongol the Mongols. The alternative is just to sit on Mount Everest, dig a trench around it and fortify it with a million archers and heavy infantry. But massing cavalry in one flank and watching the entire Mongol column crumble to a surprise attack is usually a must, the issue is catching the Mongols by surprise which I suppose can be done in forests a la Stefan Cel Mare killing Poles and Hungarians or at a river crossing which should have been Mohi but better (although I remember when Conrad von Hoetzendorf tried to outflank the Russians at Warsaw 1915 when they were crossing the Vistula he utterly failed, strangely Manstein succeeded with this at Kharkov so say what you will cause I can't make heads or tails of it).

    Roma mentioned the lack of the best Mongols at a given time thus leading to a defeat. A big con for the Mongols is the lack of actual Mongolian troops to begin with. As time progressed highly skilled Mongols had to be replaced with all sorts of Turkic tribes and Cumans and what not, a true disgrace among horse nomads.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; February 11, 2015 at 08:31 AM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •