As for the historiography regarding the Mongol invasion of Europe I am under the impression that earlier historians tend to vindicate the view that the Mongols were supposedly defeated and thrown out of Europe. A revision of this view came during the 20th century, but I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum has once again swung back to the earlier stance.
Of course the Mongols never acomplished much in Europe in the end since they ultimately withdrew. Nevertheless their sudden appearance and equally sudden withdrawal left Europe in shock and awe. Obviously the Mongols were perceived as a serious threat and not merely an odd nuisance. The most important primary sources that I can refer to are Carpini, Thomas of Spoleto and Rogerius of Apulia. Other secondary sources I have read include works by René Grousset, J J Saunders, David Morgan, and David Nicolle, although I am aware that these works might contain outdated information and in the case of Nicolle, a strong pro-eastern bias.
Quote: |
This is really not really true. The 13th century saw much of Europe doing fairly well. The issue of the Crusaders states by this point is that Europe was giving very limited, if any, support. The Crusaders had a strong military but were grossly outnumbered by a now largely unified Muslim force. As well they hardly represent European tactics of the 13th century as they had adopted many things, including light cavalry and in some locations horse archery from local traditions. |
In the mid 13th century, Europe still hadn't experienced the infantry revolution, the adaptation of gunpowder or advanced plate armour. In fact relatively little had happened regarding military technology since the Normans - with a few exceptions such as the spread of the crossbow. That is what I meant by stagnation, and I see evidence for a slight "Eastern" advantage when looking at battles such as La Forbie, Al Mansurah and the fall of European strongholds in Outremer to the Ayyubids and later Mamluks. The failure of Western expeditions against Lithuania and the western Russian principalities also underlines the limitations of armies based on heavy shock cavalry as I see it.
Quote: |
You seem to feel light cavalry is superior to Heavy which I do not think is true either. Both have application and heavy cavalry on many instances has wiped the floor with light cavalry. Much depends on how and when it is used. |
Not at all, but we can't reduce Europeans vs. Mongols as a contest between light and heavy cavalry. Heavily armed men-at-arms must have made up merely a small proportion of those feudal levies hastily mobilized to counter the Mongol invasion. At Mohi, there were probably some 20 000-30 000 experienced Mongol horsemen pitted against a few thousand men-at-arms and specialist crossbowmen in king Bélas army, the rest of the Hungarian host being less experienced and less well-armed infantry who could do little on their own to the Mongol horsearchers.
On the issue of whether or not the Mongols could have taken Europe I never claimed they could. To be honest I haven't given that particular matter much thought since there are endless of unknown factors playing in on the outcome. The thing I reacted to was what I perceived as exaggerated claims about the difficulties the Mongols faced in Poland and Hungary.