| Author |
Message |
Randall Moffett
|
 Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 5:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes when the Mongols first arrive the Europeans think this could be a really good thing but quickly realize they have to be wary as the Mongols clearly have their own agenda and it is not always/usually in the wests interest.
After Ayn Jalut where the Crusaders give aid to the Mamluks a few years later the Crusader states left make a deal and aid the Mongols. Simply political. Mongols are now weaker than the Mamluks in the area.
RPM
|
|
  |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2012 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gene Green wrote: | | E.g. it's obvious that Mongols wouldn't be very advanced in masonry, for obvious reasons, but they defeated the Chinese with their stone fortifications. |
And, as I've said in the other thread, Kubilai did this with a largely Chinese army backed by a Chinese system of administration and logistics! This, in turn, was made possible by the earlier conquest of the Jin, which was essentially a Chinese kingdom ruled by a heavily Sinicized dynasty of nomads. I'm not sure there was a similarly convenient halfway house available to facilitate the conquest of Europe even if the Mongols had not overstretched their logistical capabilities by then (and I'm convinced they had).
Remember, too, that the Yuan dynasty's rule never extended far beyond China. The conquest of Burma (and the rest of Indochina) was very ephemeral, and the expedition to Java didn't last long beyond its initial successes. The Mongols eventually had to run out of steam somewhere despite the rapidity of their original conquests.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I would not argue the effectivenes of Mongol armies, I think it should also be remembered that much of their success was due to their post-battle 'customs'. In the middle ages, most armies (with the exception of a few) generally did not commit wholesale massacres in the towns they capture. The Mongols shocked and terrified the civilized world by doing the exact opposite. As almost everybody here probably knows, the mongols had a policy of depopulating cities which resisted them. This cruel scare tactic was effective because the by the time the mongols arrived at the next city, the inhabitants will have already heard of what befell their neighbours. This would have no doubt demoralized the defenders as well as outright horrified them. And we all know morale is essential to success in battle. The mongols by consistently sapping the morale of their civilized enemies reduced the effectiveness of their defense. This tactic was used to great effectiveness in China and Persia.
Another important point to take into consideration is that the nations which suffered the most from the Mongol onslaught were highly civilianized societies. And as such were at a clear disadvantage when faced against a relentless horde of militarily capable nomads. Once they encroached upon Syria however, the tables started turning against them. In addition to being faced with highly skilled Mamluk troops, the Mongols also had to contend with highly militaristic Arab tribesmen guarding the fringes of the Syrian desert. As history has shown us, they were defeated consistently. The shock of their onslaught had worn off, their terror tactic were no longer as intimidating, and their battlefield strategies were no longer a novelty (especially not to the Turkish Mamluks).
The mongols always met their demise at the hands of societies that were both technologically advanced as well as militaristic. Societies which had one but not both attributes were far more vulnrable. Because of this, I personally doubt that the Mongols would have had much success penetrating into Central Europe even if Ogedai lived on. It would have been hard enough defeating the Polish and nearly impossible conquering the Holy Roman Empire which could field larger armies. In fact I imagine that had the Mongols crossed the Elbe, they would have faced a situation similar to that faced by the Carthaginians in Italy. They MAY win a couple of battles but they would never be able to conquer the region.
Last edited by Ahmad Tabari on Fri 08 Jun, 2012 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | Another important point to take into consideration is that the nations which suffered the most from the Mongol onslaught were highly civilianized societies. |
Yes, this might be an important issue, especially in the case of China -- where Confucian ethics (or at least its conventional interpretation) held the army and military affairs in disdain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | Another important point to take into consideration is that the nations which suffered the most from the Mongol onslaught were highly civilianized societies. |
Yes, this might be an important issue, especially in the case of China -- where Confucian ethics (or at least its conventional interpretation) held the army and military affairs in disdain. |
korea had a similar poblem in the 16th C, their confucian system disdained swordsmanship and mst military things, asie from archery which they WERE insanely good at, as well as horsemanship
by the time the japanese invaded, no only were they outnumbered,their whole military system was disoganised and not very efficient.
but long story short they were initially steamrolled by the japanese
|
|
 |
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2012 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
perhaps we should tone down the hyperbole? I think this forum is a place where people are constantly trying to determine hard facts and a more specific understanding of history.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jun, 2012 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I really wouldnt consider any of this hyperbole. The subject of Mongol expansion is worthy of analysis. And a very cruicial part of understanding the reasons behind Mongol success is to examine the internal strengths as well as weaknesses of those they conquered or attempted to conquer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Mikael,
And in 1258 they take Baghdad..... that does not change anything. Within a few years that same Khanate will be chewed up and spit out by the mamluks. The issue is that before this they have few to no defeats. After this they are fighting wars that are very often balanced by severe losses to their victories. |
I don't know about that. The fall of Baghdad put an end to the Abbasid dynasty which had ruled since the 8th century, and the killing of the Caliph as well as a great number of townsmen sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East. Although the Mongols were thrown out from the Levant, the Il-Khans continued to rule Mesopotamia and Persia for another 90 years.
| Quote: | | The greatest period of Mongol expansion was the first four decades of the 13th. After this things slow down greatly. |
Still however they managed to subdue Song China, the most populous country (and in many ways the most advanced) in the world by that time in history.
| Quote: | | The best real estimates of actual land taken by the Mongols of Hungary is right around 1/3 from what I have read. Many are figure much less. |
According to which sources? As I see it, what matters is that all major Hungarian towns and strongholds with the exceotion of Gran were taken by the Mongols in less than a year. All of them had to be replaced by Béla in the years following the Mongol withdrawal.
| Quote: | | And several 13th and 14th century chronicles from all over Europe indicate the heavy Mongol losses as do surrounding areas. |
I only know of the accounts given by Ruysbroek and Carpini, none of them mentioning anything of heavy Mongol losses (although Carpini, iirc, does mention a Mongol burial place for those having fallen in Hungary)
| Quote: | | So might want to broaden the amount of sources you are looking at or regions, that is the best answer I can give. Mongol accounts themselves such as the Yuan Histories give credit to Hungarians killing many of the Mongol army. |
According to the Yuanshi, Batu scolded Sübedei after the battle for taking a long time to attack across the river Sájo, which apparently cost him (Batu) heavy casualties while fighting on the bridge near the Hungarian camp. That's about it. Of course we don't know how many actually died to make it "heavy casualties". The Americans suffered heavy casualties at the battle of the Bulge and at Iwo Jima, but neither were these losses crippling to their war effort nor did it prevent an Allied victory in the Pacific theatre or on the Western Front i Europe.
| Quote: | | They inflate Hungarian forces to larger than Mongol but since they won a very empty victory they had to save face. |
Empty victory? Béla barely escaped with his life and was rendered a refugee along with the rest of those surviving the battle. The Hungarian casualties at Mohi are unanimously described as catastrophical, with prince Kálmán and archbishop Ugolin/Ugrin counted among the dead or mortally wounded. In fact the near annihilation of the Hungarian nobility made the task of centralizing and reorganizing the kingdom easier for Béla, as most his former rivals perished during the Mongol invasion.
| Quote: | | There are many examples of Mongols being halted by European forces. One easy one is Poland. Poland is fighting for nearly four decades and the Mongols fail to take them. Nogai Khan is defeated by them during this period. In the end one of their kings decides it is easier to pay tribute but that is more tied to weakening of Poland internally than the Mongols as Poland then uses Mongol troops to aid it. Sure stuff gets trashed but the Poles burn plenty on Mongol lands out as well. |
However this pertains to latter Mongol raids on Polish territory. In 1242, the Poles were taken by surprise and defeated in every engagement.
| Quote: | I think much of what people state as Mongol accomplishments is blurred by Mongol Myth. Ghengis became a larger than life character in life and in many ways some what akin to King Arthur by his people.
RPM |
I agree that this is a problem, i.e. portraying the Mongols as unstoppable "übermenschen" or a "20th century army during the Middle Ages" as some authors have put it. However I see a risk in battling the myths with equally biased counter-myths. The topic discussed here could easily be compared to the infected Japanese vs. European swords-issue:
original myth: "Japanese swords such as the katana were superiousuperiorsword forged in the West. Japanese swords could tear into any steel and chop off iron bars without damaging the blade, whereas their European counterparts were heavy clumsy crowbars with dull edges whose users had ro rely on brute strength" etc
countermyth: "Western swords were vastly superiousuperiournese blades, the former being technically perfected instruments of combat and the latter being quaint relics forged by superstitious practitioners of bull-shido..."
And as far as the Mongols go:
myth: "the Mongols could easily defeat any opposing force no matter how many or well armed they were. The Mongol bow was far superior to any other missile weapon of the day, and the slow European knight in his cumbersome armour was no match for the lightly equipped Mongol horsearcher".
countermyth "the Mongols won by sheer numbers, their brutal reputation and pure luck. Their initial conquests was the result of weak opponents suffering from internal conflicts and bad rulers, but as soon as they met serious opposition they fled or were defeated"
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: | | don't know about that. The fall of Baghdad put an end to the Abbasid dynasty which had ruled since the 8th century, and the killing of the Caliph as well as a great number of townsmen sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East. Although the Mongols were thrown out from the Levant, the Il-Khans continued to rule Mesopotamia and Persia for another 90 years" |
There was really nothing impressive about the sacking of Baghdad. The Abbasid state in the 13th century was less than a shaddow of its former glory. Its population was largely demilitarized and the army which fought with the Mongols was not as well prepared as the wealth of Iraq could have allowed it to be. In addition to this, the Abbasids recieved little to no support from other Muslim states. And so even though the sack of Baghdad was a highly significant and traumatic event, militarily speaking it was not that big of an achievement.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point regarding Baghdad was that they were destroying a very old empire one year and shortly later were suffering major defeats shortly after. The lingering remnants of the IL Khan was not my point, though in general it had a very small and short place in the Middle East. My point was one day they were able to gain victory the next things fell apart.
Song China might have been advanced and had a massive population but these things are not equal to military power or strength. The Song by this period were hardly strong, if they had ever been militarily. Their scholar gentry limited military power as they feared more general Emperors as had taken place with the end of the T'ang. They paid tribute their whole history to the Liao and later the Jin Empire as well as smaller kingdoms and nomadic groups such as Xi Xia. So while an accomplishment, we have to be careful putting the Song at this point up like the poster child for a strong Empire. They weren't. They were the remaining rump state of what was once a more powerful Song Dynasty.
The vast majority of Hungarian cities and towns remained unconquered, some eighty locations or so that held out. Fulek, Leka, Nemetujvar, Szekesfehervar and others. Yes many were killed but no where near what some are still saying. (see Laszlo Veszpremy or Laszlo Marko) As well there is no way most of the nobility were killed a Mohi as most never showed up. The same academics above is where I'd start. As far as I know 0 modern historians put population loss past 25% newest thinking is 15%. (Dr. Veszpremy's link- http://medievalstudies.ceu.hu/profiles/visiti..._veszpremy )
In the History of the Song the bodyguard was in the rear of the main force. If they suffered high casualties it is more or less impossible the army infront of them and between the Hungarians did not suffer relatively equal casualties, if not worse, or the Hungarians never would have made it to Batu and his guard. I agree we cannot be sure of a number but I'd assume of the Mongols themselves state it was heavy we can follow that reasoning. As well in their own account there are several groups that are pushed back. I'm sure the Hungarians did not talk them back, so we can assume they had a many other casualties in other parts of the battlefield. I also have only read translations and others opinions but I cannot specialize in everything so I have to have some faith they are doing it right.
I still see nothing that makes this victory other than a fail. The Mongols win the battle but thereafter are only mildly successful and shortly after this make little real gains in Hungary.
Yuanshi is probably right. If he had moved faster the battle would have been different. And if Belas had not been so unwilling to really engage the same is true on the other side. Could of, should of statements like this are always possible but bring other variables that would change all sorts of other issues, so who knows.
I try to be as far as I can but the truth is every side has a leg in the race. I really do not myself I guess. I look at most situations as best I can like that. I think by far the Mongol invincibility ideal has gotten out of hand and there may be some who have pushed the pendulum too far the other direction but I do not feel most do. The last few decades there has been a major push to look at nomads and nomadic cultures different than the civilized world saw them and many had sort of inflated the roles. Then some person looks over the evidence and calls them out. I have no doubt nomads had an important place in many aspects of history, especially the Mongols but I think the truth is often harder to see.
I do not think most people see the Mongol conquest as you are stating. I think numbers did often play a part but Ghengis was an amazing character and I think one cannot take personal ambition out of the equation. And Luck may have had a part but Ghengis's reorganization and tactical understanding likely was more vital. And the ability to select good and able leaders, and replace those who were not helps as well.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: |
There was really nothing impressive about the sacking of Baghdad. The Abbasid state in the 13th century was less than a shaddow of its former glory. Its population was largely demilitarized and the army which fought with the Mongols was not as well prepared as the wealth of Iraq could have allowed it to be. In addition to this, the Abbasids recieved little to no support from other Muslim states. And so even though the sack of Baghdad was a highly significant and traumatic event, militarily speaking it was not that big of an achievement. |
Nevertheless, Baghdad (being one of the most populous cities of the world) was protected by a massive system of walls and fortifications which resisted the huge Mongol army for two weeks. My point is that the Mongols at several occasions besieged and took cities that were larger and more well protected than most period European cities. Even the largest cities of 13th century Europe like Paris, Naples, Florens, Milan, Ghent etc were dwarfed compared to Baghdad, Zhongdu, Hangzhou or Xianyang-Fencheng. Although western siege- and fortification technology was highly developed by the 1200s, I have a hard time believing that the Europeans in the long run could have triumphed where the Chinese and most middle-eastern cities had to give in.
| Quote: | | The mongols always met their demise at the hands of societies that were both technologically advanced as well as militaristic. Societies which had one but not both attributes were far more vulnrable. |
I don't really see that being the case. The Mongols initially fought and subjugated societies which were either ruled by- och highly influenced by both civilisation and nomad warrior culture - namely Xixia, the Uighur kingdom, Jin and the Khwarezm empire. One might also want to include the eastern Russian principalities, the sultanate of Rum and Georgia here. Even the Hungarians included nomad Kumans in their ranks, although these were not present at Mohi.
| Quote: | | It would have been hard enough defeating the Polish and nearly impossible conquering the Holy Roman Empire which could field larger armies. |
Although large areas of the HRE made up some of the most densely populated parts of Europe, I'm not that sure that they could field large armies of good quality. In medieval German warfare, battles tended to involve armies that were small even by medieval standards, perhaps a couple of thousand men on each side (e.g. the Battle of Worringen in 1288 in which troops from 11 counties fought involved some 8000-9000 men in total). Even if they managed to unite into larger armies when faced with the Mongol threat, these would probably have been difficult to lead and coordinate.
In general, the early-mid 13th century saw a military stagnation in western Europe, with an over-reliance on knightly cavalry and the infantry revolution still to come. Around the time of the Mongol invasion and during the decades following, western European armies based on heavy cavalry suffered strings of defeats against the mamluks in Egypt and the Levant, who fought with tactics similar to those of the Mongols.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall: thanks for the references, they're precisely what I'm looking for, I'll try to look into them more closely. As for the casualty-figures I think that a death toll even at 15% out of the total population is a horrifying butcher's bill (cfr. Poland which lost 15-16% of its entire population during WW2, the USSR nearly 14% and the Third Reich 10% at its most).
As for the battle of Mohi, we have obviously reached different conclusions about its outcome and consequenses. It is clear that Béla embarked on a huge fortress-building program that served his successors well during the 1284 invasion of Nogai. If we assume that the existing strongholds and cities had resisted so effectively in 1241, I find it hard to see the need for over 40 new stone castles being built during the decade following the Mongol withdrawal.
Also, Béla made sure to welcome the nomadic Kumans and to incorporate them into the kingdom's military ranks, as well as making use of native Székely horsemen. If standard European tactics of the day (centered around heavy cavalry supported by foot milita and smaller units of specialized troops such as archers and crossbowmen) really had been that effective in fighting the Mongols, there would have been of little interest to Béla to recruit friendly nomads into his reorganized army. It is interesting to note that the Hungarians deployed both Kuman horsearchers as well as Mongol-styled ambush tactict against the Bohemians at Marchfeld 1278.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jun, 2012 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mikael,
I agree it must have been a major blow to Hungary but a far cry from every person, half or even a quarter of the population.
I do not see the failure or success of non-stone fortifications as the reason for his building system in stone, only the concern of possible future attacks and knowing that they were more effective. The list is so long of places that held out, that I just do not think the logic is strong enough to say they failed so had to be rebuilt. There is much evidence that they did not fail. Even if they held out knowing the possibility of return assalt would be worth the investment of stone walls as an advantage they likely would do it. We see transition to stone from earth and timber all over in places where they are not under immediate or direct threat.
I think Belas realized the need to have light cavalry to fight light cavalry was an advantage but I do not think that was the biggest reason. I think the reason was more internal. He was having major issues with Hungary's noblility. He had constant shortfalls in calls to arms of his nobles. He needed them to bolster his depleted army and in some ways to counter his own people to empower himself. I am not sure any of the tactics were better or worse really as employment was the real key.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jun, 2012 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Randall. Additional fortifications that were capable of withstanding assaults would have reduced population losses and provided convenient bases for guerilla tactics against an enemy who tried to bypass them. At the same time the fortifications as well as the light cavalry loyal to the crown were a combined force that bolstered the monarchy's power in relation to the nobles.
An extreme case to highlight the shifted balance of power would be a civil war where the light cavalry could reign destruction on nobles while the king has his assets well protected behind stone walls. That's normal politics, like the Bush junior administration using 9/11 for their attack on Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jun, 2012 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing that may well have made the Mongol army appear stronger than it was, or made the opposing generals look incompetent - scouting.
A force based predominantly on light cavalry has the ability to scout (and counter scouting be screening) better than it's opponents.
Now when the mongols faced the turks of the Mamluks, they seemed to be more on even ground.
Is this because the tactics of their turkish opponents were similar, or because the mongols no longer had the foresight of better scouting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Mikael,
I agree it must have been a major blow to Hungary but a far cry from every person, half or even a quarter of the population. |
I also think that a 50% casualty rate is rather exaggerated, nevertheless period chronclers unanimously portray the Mongol thrust into Eastern Europe and Hungary in particular as a catastrophe, almost like a force of nature.
As for the 80 or so Hungarian strongholds claimed to have resisted Mongol attacks I'm not entirely convinced of the validity. I have a feeling that later Hungarian and other European historians have tried their best to defuse the scale of the Mongol's success in the West, just look at how Legnica has been turned into a Polish victory in Polish history books.
Looking at the sites listed in the wikipedia article, I noticed that some of them weren't even attacked by the Mongols, including Bratislava or Székesfehérvár which was saved thanks to the spring thaw. Others like Gyor were indeed attacked - not by the Mongols but by opportunist Austrians! - who wanted to capitalize on the havoc caused by the Mongol invasion. As for Esztergom the city was apparently taken and sacked although the citadel stood firm.
That aside, the Mongols did take Varadin, Orsova, Herrmanstadt (Sibiu), Zagreb, Pécs, Eger, and of course the Hungarian capital of Pest and its twin city of Buda, so obviously the Mongols had the means and resources to lay siege to- and storm fortified European towns.
To summarize my views on this subject I find it very hard to believe that the Mongols would have found Hungary and Poland that hard to subdue after having succsuccesfullyrcome countless of large and heavily fortified cities in Xixia, Jin, Khwarezm and Russia. At this point they had defeated huge Chinese field armies as well as Khwarizmian mamluk cavalry in numerous battles, so I find it highly unlikely that they would have taken serious casualties when fighting European feudal levies at a time when most of the Christian West saw a military stagnation.
In retrospect, the 13th century comes off as the nadir of western military strength as western European armies centered around heavy cavalry had little success when fighting non-western combatants, with the exception of Spain. Otherwise, western armies were soundly defeated by Egyptian mamluks in the Levant, the Latin crusaders were thrown out of Constantinople by the Palaiologoi, western crusaders made futile attempts at subduing pagan Lithuania and orthodox Novgorod, and in the middle of all this enter the Mongols and crush several European armies and take at least a dozen of Central European cities within only a year.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jun, 2012 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: | | Randall Moffett wrote: | Mikael,
I agree it must have been a major blow to Hungary but a far cry from every person, half or even a quarter of the population. |
That aside, the Mongols did take Varadin, Orsova, Herrmanstadt (Sibiu), Zagreb, Pécs, Eger, and of course the Hungarian capital of Pest and its twin city of Buda, so obviously the Mongols had the means and resources to lay siege to- and storm fortified European towns.
|
Well, I live in Varadin, and while the Mongols did burn the city, they didn't manage to take the town fortress, just the civilian areas around it. Same with other towns in Croatia. Zagreb was taken because it had no stone walls, Kalnik resisted Mongols and all Dalmatian towns resisted them because they had stone walls... So Mongols did what any other raiders would do, burn and and pillage what they can and fail to take stone fortresses...
P.S. Please differentiate Croatia and Hungary. 
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mikael
| Quote: | I have a feeling that later Hungarian and other European historians have tried their best to defuse the scale of the Mongol's success in the West, just look at how Legnica has been turned into a Polish victory in Polish history books.
|
This may be true but it is not just Hungarian historians who are doing this. I think more academics right now are revising their earlier views on what the Mongols really did as more people access a more wide number of sources from historic to archeological. I just do not know of recent work that really thinks the Mongols had success in Hungary or Europe in general but Russia. On all accounts it seems they more or less accomplished little success so they had no lasting success there. I have not read the Wiki article but my guess is it was based on either Marko or Veszpremy. Veszpremy's work was in the Medieval Oxford Compendium a few years back I think which I try to read as soon as it comes out. I am not sure what sources you are using but I'd check and see when they were wrote and see if they might not have a bias or point of view that you keep mentioning for every one elses sources. We need to apply critical reading equally.
As Luka said as well your sources seem to be overly generous with what it means to capture or take a town or fortified place. Some places paid tribute as well, I would not count that a capture either. Nor would I include places where the suburbs get burned out. Regardless most of Hungary has little evidence of being taken by the Mongols from any sources I have seen. Where are you getting evidence for this? Are modern scholars arguing this really?
| Quote: | | In general, the early-mid 13th century saw a military stagnation in western Europe, with an over-reliance on knightly cavalry and the infantry revolution still to come. Around the time of the Mongol invasion and during the decades following, western European armies based on heavy cavalry suffered strings of defeats against the mamluks in Egypt and the Levant, who fought with tactics similar to those of the Mongols. |
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.
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.
| Quote: | To summarize my views on this subject I find it very hard to believe that the Mongols would have found Hungary and Poland that hard to subdue after having succsuccesfullyrcome countless of large and heavily fortified cities in Xixia, Jin, Khwarezm and Russia. At this point they had defeated huge Chinese field armies as well as Khwarizmian mamluk cavalry in numerous battles, so I find it highly unlikely that they would have taken serious casualties when fighting European feudal levies at a time when most of the Christian West saw a military stagnation.
|
You keep stating this but I have not seen any evidence you have provided that makes me think this is the case. Part of the issue is the Mongol Empire changes quickly and you are listing many of Ghengis's conquests as if that means his heirs could do the same with equal effectiveness to him, which is untrue. The further from Ghengis the less united and hence less resources. Xi Xia, Northern China, The Khwarizam Empire were conquests when the Mongols were in full swing. Will not even waste time on Russia, 13th century was just a very bad time there. Now the Mamluks in general are victorious so not sure where you are going with that.
The only places in Europe the Mongols took, or largely spent their time fighting were in periods of decay. I honestly do not think that would have been the case in the HRE, France, Italy, England etc. By the 1240s I think the evidence is overwhelming the Mongols would not have done well in Central or Western Europe. You keep mentioning stagnation and using the Crusader States as an example. What real evidence is there that Europe was militarily stagnant. In England this is certainly not true. The 13th century has some of the most powerful Capetian kings. And some of the most powerful Emperors of the HRE lived in the 13th.
Where as compared to this the Mongols by mid 13th are largely devolving into quite separate Khanates, they are drawing men from the far reaches of the older Empire to specific areas where they might focus strength in smaller area, The Song EMpire's demise includes men who fought in Europe for example. If they were strong they would not have needed to pull men from all over for this conquest. And likely the most important is by mid 13th they have a civil war that more or less ends what most look at as the Mongol EMpire, Khublai's claim to the title Great Khan being borderline if useful as the surrounding khans often refused his orders and he spent much time trying to subdue his own people. If you map out Mongol success to failure the time they come in contact with Europe is right around the point when they have passed their apex and are descending. This will have major reprocussions later.
I sort of do not have much else to say. I'd recommend reading work of the last 5-10 years on the subject starting with Veszpremy. I cannot claim to be expert in Mongol History but I have read a great deal on the subject and just do not see evidence to convince me the mongols would have had success if they did so so in Hungary, a country divided by politics and Poland, weakened at this point till its merger with Lithuania. Any one can raid a place, conquest is very different.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
What about fodder for the many horses of the Mongols? Grass is for free, but grain tends to be locked away in order to be fed to people instead of the enemy's horses. Hungary is the place in Western Eurasia where nomadic groups from the East with their horses decided to settle. The usual argument is that this was the most suitable grassland for their way of live. They did raid Central and Western Europe, but did settle there in the Pannonian Basin.
My point is that the Mongols were possibly on their logistic limits and would have to devise new armies and new methods in order to push effectively beyond the Eurasian grasslands. That was a problem and they didn't consider it worth the effort and the risks everywhere. Non-jurte-dwelling people without a shared culture should provide the central component of successful future infantry armies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
Absolutely. Both have there strengths and weaknesses depending upon the situation.
| Quote: | | What about fodder for the many horses of the Mongols? Grass is for free, but grain tends to be locked away in order to be fed to people instead of the enemy's horses. |
Grazing works absolutely fine given the right situation. Everyone assumes grain was needed for fodder. The only real problems with Grazing is that of course you need sufficient land, which should not be a problem. The biggest problem is that to get enough nutrients, horses may need to graze 16-18 hours a day, more if overly active. They don't really sleep much, sothat's not the problem, but getting the proper nutrition is almost impossible with an army on the move, in which case grain and/or hay would be needed.
Most Horse Nomad cultures had symbiotic relationships with either others of their kind (think farming mongols) or other cultures which which they would trade. How impartant the grain part of this relationship was I do not know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic