Mongols vs. Napoleon Bonaparte

[D.B. Cooper]

Scenario: let's say the Mongols' invasion force of Europe (175 000 men, they left China alone and instead concentrated their efforts in the West) rides approximately 600 years into the future, about the same time as Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The two forces do battle, the Mongols simply opting to surge forward as they have no idea what time period they are in. Assuming the typical Mongol bow, in the hands of a seasoned rider, is more accurate and has a greater range than the typical French musket, do the Mongols have even a sporting chance at defeating the French?

[Tiberius Tosi]

Napoleon hands down

[D.B. Cooper]

Why?

[Tiberius Tosi]

Why?

Sorry, forgot I even wrote that last night lol. I was in that half sleep mode rofl.

Anyways, I say Napoleon simply because any attempt by the mongols to shower the infantry from far away with arrows would either result in one of two things. First, either French artillery would force the cavalry to run away, as they would be exposed. Or second, French cavalry, which numbered around 50,000 at the beginning of the campaign, could easily fend off a sizeable mongol horse hit and run party. A lot of French cavalry units did indeed still wear chestplates, so the idea that they all had no armor is false.

Artillery would protect the infantry as they moved forward, and once in range the infantry would absolutely destroy any mongol force. It would not be an easy fight, but there was a reason that the gun replaced the bow. Even though the bow outranges the musket, an artillery piece (of which Napoleon had about 1,000 or so with his Grand Army) vastly outranges any bow. Artillery covering infantry advance along with cavalry in support of infantry to ward off mongol cavalry charges would be more than enough to beat the mongols. Also along with bayonets and square formation, a French infantrymen serves basically as a pikemen also. That is why I believe that Napoleon would defeat a Mongol army.

[D.B. Cooper]

Sorry, forgot I even wrote that last night lol. I was in that half sleep mode rofl.

So was I

[nopasties]

What season is the fight in? I believe the Mongols uniquely preferred to fight in the winter. This leads me to reason that the Mongols could effectively harrass Napoleon but could never win a set battle. The Mongols would be stuck doing tactics similar to the Cossacks.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

French see Mongols, French form square, French kill mongols.

The end.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Wow this threads are getting stupider every minute. Napoleon or any enlightenment age army could have beaten the Mongol horde, they had much more powerful artillery advanced tactics and a whole lot of firepower.

[Ishoss]

I believe they would have a fighting chance. Archery was superior to gunpowder for a long time. The problem is only weirdo nation can field a large archery army. I believe the English king wanted to raise longbow units for the Peninsular war.

[A pimp named Slickback]

Why?

Gunpowder?

[Pious Agnost]

What number is the Mongol Invasion force?

I know Le Grande Armee was about 500,000, and there is a reason muskets were adopted instead of bows.

[Ciabhán]

What number is the Mongol Invasion force?

I know Le Grande Armee was about 500,000, and there is a reason muskets were adopted instead of bows.

Muskets were adopted over the bow because they took minimal training to use. You could, as France did, turn a bunch of peasents without a violent thought between them into something resembling soldiers in a very short time. Problems crop up though with the fact that most French troops could only fire 2-3 times a minute, their preferred tactic was to soften the enemy with field artillery then attack en masse in huge columns designed to batter the other European armies lines. The vast majority of French troops in column could not use their weapons, they were essentially a mix of weight and reinforcements when the front and sides of the column were mowed down. Boney also had an unreasonable hatred of rifles meaning that all of his infantry(the British in particular adopted rifles for elite skimishers)were really only effective at around 50 paces being that smoothbore muskets were terribly inaccurate. Marching speed, artillery, and size of the force were the French armies main advantages. Marching speed is given up when fighting a wholly mounted enemy and artillery(except the small galloper guns)would be hard to position to engage a wholly mounted enemy unless you had a very obvious tactical advantage on the terrain. They still have force size but since the fictional engagement is being fought in Russia the Mongols have greater survival skills and could wait for winter and poor forage to slim down the French forces. Winter beat the French in the real world, no reason to believe it wouldn't here. The Mongols would have the advantages of superior cavalry troops and for cavalry engagements vs sabers and lances Mongols in armour would have an even greater advantage. Hard to say what type of increased lethality the Mongol bows would have against completely unarmoured infantry compared to the mostly armoured enemies they fought in their own time but I would assume that this would be a factor as well. The French army also had problems with hit and run raid tactics as demonstrated in Spain with the guerillas. I have a feeling the French would have starved to death as they would have become almost completely immobile and unable to forage fearing the Mongol outriders. In direct conflict.....tough to say, with enough troops the French would absorb all the arrows the Mongols had and then could have easily formed square and become next to immune to attack....however need for food, water, and sleep would have led to the squares eventually showing holes that a very mobile and quick force like the Mongols may have been able to take advantage of.

Something to remember about early and even Napoleonic gunpowder armies is that firearms were used not really because they were so superior a technology but because they allowed large groups of commoners to form professional armies with less training time. Prior to gunpowder a levy of commoners was nothing more than a meat shield. With gunpowder they had some sting. You didn't need a lifetime of martial training to be effective anymore.

[D.B. Cooper]

Alright you have a point about numbers, let's give the Mongols 300 000 troops. They skip China and instead pool their resources into defeating the Western world when they are transported.

[frontier-auxilia]

French, cos let just say they got cannons and pew pew. The mongol will be taking a toll in a fire fight and the cannon blast will keep them from controlling their horse properly.

[Knight of Heaven]

Well no way the mongol bow have more range, or acuracy then french muskets, in the napoleonic era. i dont belive it unless you post here evidence.

Anyway i dont see The mongols have any kind of advantage, facing, the french artillery, and those square formations. The french army in Russia, were consisted also by experienced Soldiers.
Even if the mongols did stay out of range of the muskets the artillery will made mongols in to shreds. the only option for mongols been sussecefull will be run, and run for their lives. Its useless to say even with the great powerfull charges of heavy cavalry, the mongols wouldnt stand a chance against musket fire power, heavy cavalry will be useless.
Anyway this is a bit unfair, and pointless, considering time frames, comparing what cant be compared. Is like who will win? the german war machine of WW2 against the medieval mongol horde. oh wait but you must consider the mongol bow be far more acurate then a machine gun.
Its like changing the rules of the game.

[D.B. Cooper]

double post

[D.B. Cooper]

I am bringing the proposed Mongol invasion force down to 150 000 men. 300 000 soldiers and their several mounts is crazy. Maybe the Mongols' numbers could be swelled by local Russians who flock to this storm from the East?

Well no way the mongol bow have more range, or acuracy then french muskets, in the napoleonic era. i dont belive it unless you post here evidence.

I'm going to cite the Wiki here,

A typical smooth bore musket firing at a single target was only accurate to about 50 yards (46 m) to 70 yards (64 m).

And then there is this comment on the range of the Mongol bow:

An inscription on a stone stele was found near Nerchinsk in Siberia: "While Chinggis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (East Turkestan), Yesüngge (the son of Chinggis Khan's brother) shot a target at 335 alds (536 m)."
In the historical novel "Khökh Sudar" Injinashi, the Mongolian philosopher, historian and writer, imagines the competition amongst all Mongolian men in about 1194-1195: five archers each hit the target three times from a distance of 500 bows (1 bow = at least 1 metre).

It's probably not completely accurate, but from this I don't think it is unreasonable to assume a Mongol bow could hit a target as well as a musket.

Anyway i dont see The mongols have any kind of advantage, facing, the french artillery, and those square formations. The french army in Russia, were consisted also by experienced Soldiers.

They had no armour, least of all that would protect them from an arrow. I also have no doubt the Mongol cavalry could defeat the French cav in hand to hand.

To defend against artillery the Mongols just have to spread out. Artillery can't kill them all, at least in the time it would take for the Mongols to close ranks.

[Pious Agnost]

I also have no doubt the Mongol cavalry could defeat the French cav in hand to hand.

Why is that?

Napoleon used Cuirassiers to great effect

[Don in the North]

napoleans accurate artillery gives him an edge in battles.
the mongols wouldnt choose to sit in sustained fire considering, they would change their tactics into guerilla hit and run warfare imo. attacking supplies, baggage and isolated elements of the enemy.
how that goes down is anyones guess. too variable.
however, napolean wasnt a moron and i can only surmise his strategy for countering that would be to draw a large mongol force(or their hit and run elements) out into the open, using bait, into a carefully laid ambush, and he would rinse and repeat(with some changing of bait/ambush strategies) untill the mongol force disapates. just my opinion.

[D.B. Cooper]

Would such a trap would on Subutai though? He's leading the army. As you said, the Mongols wouldn't sit still like the French and adsorb artillery fire, which is why I think artillery wouldn't be nearly as useful against a highly mobile cavalry army.