| Author |
Message |
Shayan G
|
 Posted: Wed 20 Feb, 2008 9:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thank you for confirming that, Mr. Eschenbrenner! That's a good point about the charge, if the entire army backed it up, it would eliminate the "divide and conquer" opportunity presented to the enemy by the knights.
And great point about the Mongols, Mr. Crawford! The steppe tribes had a very practiced approach to exploiting impetuosity. My perhaps romanticized theory is that they got it from watching wolves hunt on the steppe--Turks and Mongols consider the wolf to be the mythical father of the Altaic peoples--because the techniques are very similar. The strategy largely relied upon provoking the foe into impetuously breaking from their solidified position.
1) Use mobility to steal some distance on your foe.
2) Use stealth to encircle them.
3) Begin harassing the enemy/prey. Typically, one of two things will happen at this stage. Either the herd/army will flee, or it will draw up a defensive position to ward off attack. If the enemy/prey doesn't respond by fleeing, step up attacks until they are either enraged or panicked. At this point typically one or more of the prey will break and run, or charge, presenting an opportunity to the wolves to encircle and bring down the prey once it is separated from the main herd.
4) If the animal is too powerful to kill directly, the wolfs will nip at its legs, tiring it from blood loss or even hamstringing it.
Sometimes the wolves will even set up ambushes, in which other members of the pack are lying in wait for the running animal being provoked by the other wolves!
The parallels with Scythian/Parthian/Turkic/Mongolian strategy are striking.
So ultimately a smart commander wouldn't have to wait for impetuous knights to charge, he'd actively provoke them until they "broke from the herd" as it were.
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Feb, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: Re: Impetuous Knights |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | When reading books about the High Middle Ages, you often come across statements that knights in medieval Europe were impetuous and would break ranks to pursue targets on their own while on horseback. There are also quite a few statements indicating that they were not necessarily all that reliable.
My question is, how well are both of these assertions supported by period evidence and documents? Is there enough evidence for us to make generalizations of this nature? Or are we basing statements of these sort from descriptions by chroniclers of things that were worthy of note precisely because they were unusual?
The reason I ask is that historians often make these statements as though we can take them for granted as being true, so I'm wondering on what basis do we have to take it for granted that the statements are true. |
Primary source accounts (i.e. journals, chronicles, letters etc. from the period) are full of anecdotes of battles lost due to such reckless or impetuous behavior.
For for some old (and slightly out of fashion) but readable and comprehensive secondary sources, read Hans Delbruck or Barbara Tuchman's "Distant Mirror". In the footnotes they cite all of their primary sources and you can go directly to these online now days.
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Feb, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shayan G wrote: |
So ultimately a smart commander wouldn't have to wait for impetuous knights to charge, he'd actively provoke them until they "broke from the herd" as it were. |
What do you think would be an effective counter to these tactics ?
My suggestions would be that any force leaving the main defensive force should never go so far as to be isolated or unable to retreat back: A quick short range charge at any of the Mongols who got too close ! The teasing game being played in reverse to entice the Mongol close enough for them to take some casualties. Every attempt to close and lure the static force out of position should be made to COST the attacking Mongols casualties and would be a case of attrition to both sides: Impatience and frustration could also make the Mongols take greater risks while trying to wear on the nerves of the defenders.
Having a missile weapon outraging or at least capable of equalling the horsebow so that any Mongols in range to shoot would be in range to be hit. Use of heavy cavalry only being used if a force of Mongols can be pinned by terrain or another force or only if the Mongols are closing in for a kill. ( But never, never chase them further than you can kill them almost on the spot ).
If moving, an army using warcarts loaded up with archers, crossbowman and handgonnes/small canon ( In later periods ) and with huge amounts of missiles available.
On the flat plains where horse archers are most effective I might make this a double column with infantry marching in between the columns and one's own cavalry using the columns as a mobile fortress: The warcarts acting as the anvil to one's cavalry acting as the hammer.
Also good scouting to spot possible ambushes and maybe the most useful would be knowledge of how often the Mongols would use false retreats and ambushes i.e. their usual tactics.
The counter to the counter is that the Mongols would raid and destroy farms and villages forcing the defenders to try to chase them off or risk seeing their land devastated: Chasing after Mongols is almost to certainly lose and to win one must force them to come to you !
In reply: Finding the Mongol's slow moving baggage train and families while ignoring their attacking forces might work: if you can find them ! Anyway, excuse my having too much fun playing keyboard general.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Feb, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: Re: Impetuous Knights |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Barbara Tuchman's "Distant Mirror". |
Great book! I knew I had to read it when I realized she was the same author as "Guns Of August."
Shayan, the wolf analogy seems appropriate. If you have mobility and superior numbers, but are perhaps not a match one-for-one, it would make the most sense given appropriate terrain and a gullible enemy.
Jean, one way the Crusaders countered horse archers was by combined arms, as you surmised. In Richard's march prior to Arsuf, he placed infantry on the left flank of the cavalry as a screen. The right flank was the sea. Much of the infantry was armed with crossbows, so they could keep the Muslim horse archers far enough from the Crusader cavalry to minimize casualties among the knights' horses. I think by that time, this was a well-known tactic of the knights who had been living and fighting in Outremer for the past century. Richard, a newcomer, was smart enough to adopt it.
In this scenario it almost turned into a game of attrition. As a number of the European horses were being killed despite the infantry screen, some Crusaders thought it only a matter of time before they would altogether lose their ability to counterattack. It would simply come down to which commander could better read the situation and adapt his tactics, assuming he had enough communications and control over his forces to do so. Richard won this time, but a few years earlier at Hattin, Saladin used the attrition tactics to his advantage and wore the Christians down sufficiently (it also helped that his men had access to water and the Europeans did not).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Feb, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Having a missile weapon outraging or at least capable of equalling the horsebow so that any Mongols in range to shoot would be in range to be hit. Use of heavy cavalry only being used if a force of Mongols can be pinned by terrain or another force or only if the Mongols are closing in for a kill. ( But never, never chase them further than you can kill them almost on the spot ).
If moving, an army using warcarts loaded up with archers, crossbowman and handgonnes/small canon ( In later periods ) and with huge amounts of missiles available. |
This is exactly what the Crusaders did, as Scott has said. I don't think I can recall any examples of large numbers of Crusaders marching without a large number of foot crossbowmen in their force--smaller numbers would have been a different matter, since these might plausibly sacrifice versatility for the sake of mobility by taking only mounted men. In any case, I don't think wagons would have been necessary because the weapons of foot archers and/or crossbowmen would have outranged those of horse archers almost by definition. True, the horse archers could still shoot from extreme range, but the ineffectiveness of these long-range harassing shots is amply demonstrated by accounts of Crusaders being unhurt although they were stuck as full of arrows as a pincushion.
| Quote: | | On the flat plains where horse archers are most effective I might make this a double column with infantry marching in between the columns and one's own cavalry using the columns as a mobile fortress: The warcarts acting as the anvil to one's cavalry acting as the hammer. |
The Byzantine army of the Nikephorian period (in the few decades after the ascension of Nikephoros Phokas as emperor) seemed to have operated around this idea of having an infantry formation of archers protected by spearmen to act as a mobile fortress behind which the Byzantine cavalry could retreat behind when pressed and from which they could sally out when they saw an opportunity. They didn't seem to have needed war wagons either.
Last but not least, don't forget that the feigned flight and ambush tactics can be used against the horse archers as well. I have vague recollections of some European commanders utilizing their heavy cavalrymen in this manner against Muslim opponents during the wars in Sicily and southern Italy, although I'm not sure whether the Muslim opponents were really horse-archers. They might have been Arab-style lancers instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Feb, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | Perhaps the Group that best exploited this chivalric over-enthusiasm were the Mongols during their 13 century invasion of Europe. The general tactic was a false cavalry charge, followed by a tactical retreat to draw pursuit, finally followed by an about-face / ambush when the heavily armed knights had worn and spread themselves out far from the protection of their infantry lines. Apparently the Mongols could use this tactic over and over and the Europeans would not learn. Perhaps the most famous example was Subodei's crushing defeat of the German, French, and Polish pride of chivalry near Liegnitz in 1241.
Or so I have read, in popular history sources like 'Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world' by Weatherford. |
The Mongol example is a very interesting way to explore the reality of this in detail. Almost nobody seems aware that there were actually three battles during the Mongol invasion of Europe: Leignitz in Poland, Sajo River in Hungary, and a third battle at Kłodzko in Silesia in which the Bohemian army soundly defeated the Mongols, albiet in a somewhat smaller engagement. The latter is usually treated as a minor footnote in history, but it may have been more signficiant than most historians give it credit. The Mongols had not suffered many defeats in this period.
This is interestingly, like so many of the surprising military successes of the Bohemians, almost totally ignored (look up the hussites some time)
The critical thing about the Mongols was not that they were unstoppable, it was that they were utterly ruthless. Much like the Romans, if you lost a battle to the Mongols you were finished. Bohemia was spared thanks to the valor of the Bohemian knights and soldiers, who evidently did not fail in their discipline. One of the reasons why so much of Central Asia, and even places in Europe like Wallachia were historically so backward is because of the utter devestation wreaked by the Mongols, not just in terms of annihilating the civilian population, but from the damage to infrastructure. The Mongols would block up wells, tear down bridges, tear down every mill, break every dam, and burn every town they came across, setting the area back centuries. That kind of tactic gave their victories a lasting finality and a sense of horror which still leaves an echo today.
The nature of Knightly warfare is illustrated in a detailed account of their encounters with the Mongols. At Liegnitz, the problem was indeed a failure of discipline in the form of a reckless charge - but this took place after a long period of attrition from exchanges of missiles. Two of the three 'divisions' of the European army were lured by false retreats and were subsequently annihilated. The third which maintained discipline in exactly the manner Jean Thibodeau suggests below, did not suffer this fate initially. The Mongols actually used smoke screens (by dragging smoking branches behind the knights) to further isolate the the enemy cavalry. They apparently even also used some kind of biological and / or psychological weapon in the form of some kind of noxious head they flung at the Knights.
The Mongols ultimately won a great victory, however, in their records they reported suffering serious casualties from the Crossbows and in hand-to-hand combat with the heavily armored Europeans.
Which brings us to the key question we have to ask: why the European knights charged so impetuously? Pure folly? insanity? drunkeness? The latter is more of a factor in military history than most people tend to realize, but they also had good reason to charge.
Historically, in almost every case I have read about, when European knights were able to come to grips in a charge against foreign forces (infantry or cavalry) they wreaked major havoc and carnage on their enemies far out of proportion to their numbers, and frequently carried the day in spite of unfavorable odds. A few hundred heavy cavalry could break enemy armies five or ten times their size in a pitched battle. The European heavy cavalry were almost unstoppable shock troops in their day. So the Knights had a good reason to want to charge, they knew if they could come to grips, the enemy would likely be finished, and the "fun" part of the fight would begin.
At Sajo river we see an example of this. Part of the fight took place at a huge bridge. The Mongols tried to move half their army across to envelop the Hungarians on the other side of the river. The Hungarians had sent a small force to secure the bridge against such an eventuality, and the two groups got into a sharp fight on the bridge itself. The much smaller European force caused heavy casualties against the large Mongol army in this fight, both from heavy armored knights and from the heavy-crossbows which were already more powerful than equivalent weapons in Asia. The Mongols finally took the Bridge with the help of Stone-throwers, the Hungarians retreated having gotten the better of the engagement
The Hungarians had an opportunity at this point to crush the Mongol army. Unfortunately, as was so often the case, the centralized leadership of the European Monarchs proved incomptent, and they delayed too long in returning in force to dispute the crossing. Ultimately the large Mongol force prevailed in the subsequent battle, but at a heavy price. Mongol and Chinese records reported that the Mongol commander Batu lost almost his entire bodyguard (30 of them) and his commander Bakatu was also killed. In the fight and it was said only his personal heroism carried the day, and then only because the second Mongol army under Subutai arrived.
The Mongol commander Batu was so shaken by the casualties suffered by the Mongol army that he wanted to retreat, but Subutai convinced him to reknew the attack and finish the Hungarian force.
In the more famous part of this battle which followed, the Mongols played a very clever game. They partly surrounded the Hungarian army camp with their much larger force, and engaged in a missile attrition battle for an entire day. The Europeans did not have as many archers or as much ammunition, and were gradually getting the worst of the exchange. By leaving an avenue of escape open, it was inevitable that some people began to trickle out through the opening and try to escape, finally this trickle became a flood as folks began to wonder if they would be the last person facing the Mongols (never forgetting the Tarters reputation for ruthless cruelty) and then the Hungarian force collapsed, resulting in a massacre of ten thousand troops.
I suspect though, contary to the opinion of many historians, that the bloody noses suffered in their European campaign (which were again, emphasized in their own records) had a major influence on the Mongol tide turning back toward Asia and to the Middle East in subsquent years.
J
EDIT: Another factor was the successful guerilla warfare that the Hungarians engaged in against the Mongols after their victory. They never did "pacify" Hungary, which shows the Hungarians were pretty tough and their terrain was difficult for Steppe horsemen. Many of the Hungarian castles and redoubts proved unbreakable. Supposedly the Mongols had plans to invade Italy and Germany but I do not think they would have been successful, in fact I think if they had done it they would have awakened a force which would have caused them as much trouble as the Mamelukes later did in the Middle East.
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Palmer
Location: herne bay Kent UK Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Feb, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Scot.
As I understand the battle of Agencourt your interpretation is pretty close I would make a couple of points.
The English line advanced for two reasons one to bring archers into range to gall the French line. The second was to bring the line up between the narrowest point in the field some 900 yard between two woods. The French formed up on a front some 1000 yard across this had disastrous results when they advanced to fight. There are numerous acounts of the french line being so packed in that dead men could not fall until the men each side were cut down. A recent program used modern technology to plot the battle using a program designed to predict crowd movements and predict choke points. It showed that the funnel effect of the battle field was a disaster waiting to happen.
Plus one other factor the ground was a sandy clay fine when dry but turning to a claggy gloop when wet tests showed the advancing French knights would have been walking with a couple of pounds of mud on each foot. Not to bad for the front ranks but once a few thousand men started churning it up staying on your feet would be a major achievement. In fact several thousand French are known to have drowned trampled in the mud. It is interesting to note that croniclers report the english archers and many foot fought bare foot possibly to make it easyier to move in the mud?
Beyond the initial movement the English line did not move for the rest of the day they had no need to they had a good position plus given disparity in numbers 26-28000 to 7000 they had little tactical choice lacking the numbers to attack and retreat was out they stood or died.
|
|
 |
|
Shayan G
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Feb, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | One of the reasons why so much of Central Asia, and even places in Europe like Wallachia were historically so backward is because of the utter devestation wreaked by the Mongols, not just in terms of annihilating the civilian population, but from the damage to infrastructure. |
Firstly I'd like to say thank you for your post, it was very thought-provoking and had a lot of thought put into it. Excellent info on the Hungarian campaigns, which I now intend to read about! I only had two issues with it.
While I get your point about the destruction of the Mongols, Central Asia was from from, ahem, "backward." It had a virtual monopoly on transcontinental trade for millenia, resulting in some of the greatest scientific advancements of the Middle Ages, a wonderful tradition of cultural and religious pluralism, the largest cities on Earth (excepting China) and contributed a great deal of the scientific learning that would later come to fruition in the Renaissance. I suggest reading "Genghis Khan and the Modern World," by Jack Weatherford, or perhaps, "Heritage of Central Asia," by Richard Frye.
Sorry, "backward" is just really loaded term. In the 12th and 13th centuries, Central Asia was one of the richest and most cosmopolitan places on Earth, and they viewed Europe as a veritable backwater. The vicissitudes of fate Many scholars, in fact, believe that the recent European ascendancy was due primarily to the redirection of the transcontinental trade routes from the overland steppe caravan to the European maritime empires.
| Quote: | | I suspect though, contary to the opinion of many historians, that the bloody noses suffered in their European campaign (which were again, emphasized in their own records) had a major influence on the Mongol tide turning back toward Asia and to the Middle East in subsquent years. |
Perhaps, but...This ties in to what I'm trying to get at--the real jewel in the crown, for the Mongols, was Khwarezm and the Silk Road (aside of course from the greatest of the kingdoms, China). Soon after that was conquered, the Great Khan died and the empire projected its force inward in the struggles for power, which in Mongol culture were the real determinant of not only which man, but which clans and tribes and subtribes would get the choicest morsels and the most influence. Not only were the major trade routes secure, but the internal struggles also loomed large from the most powerful to the lowliest shepherd--truly everyone's future hung in the balance in such succession disputes.
The Mongols suffered very heavy losses in their campaigns into India, but kept trying for just about a century with no hesitation! I don't think they were afraid of a good fight, even when it was stacked against them.
Aside from that, it has also been speculated that the mountainous landscape of Europe was bad for horse archers. Anyone, however, who knows anything about the Altaic mountains (home of the Altaic peoples) or the mountains of Tibet, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Caucuses, would find this explanation dubious. I'm wholly in agreement with the power struggle school of thought. India has a sketchy climate for breeding the hotbloods used in Central Asian combat, but Europe seems perfectly fine for them, with a few regional exceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Robin, I think I've seen some of the graphics from the study using crowd dynamics. Very similar to how people get killed in panicky stampedes at stadiums or other densely packed areas with choke points. On the English side, wasn't the Duke of York possibly killed this way too (by falling and drowning)?
Shayan, I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I suspect Jean was saying that the areas ravaged by Genghis Khan were set back in development due to depopulation and destroyed infrastructure. Probably not applicable to much of Central Asia, but maybe more so eastern Europe. I don't think he intended to imply that the Mongols were themselves backwards.
Speaking of destruction, some claim that one reason Afghanistan has lagged so far behind in recent centuries has at least something to do with the amount of arable land that was rendered unusable by Genghis Khan. One thing I recall from speaking to some Afghans is that they might not be able to tell you who fought who in WWII, but they talk about Genghis like he just left last week! He definitely left a mark. Sadly, the people that are a genetic remnant of his invasion - the Hazara - are discriminated against by most other ethnic groups in that country.
Even farther off topic (but I find it interesting), the Mongolians have provided some troops to help train the Afghan Army how to use their Soviet-designed artillery. So now they're back, but this time to help. 
|
|
|
|
|
Shayan G
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Eschenbrenner wrote: | Robin, I think I've seen some of the graphics from the study using crowd dynamics. Very similar to how people get killed in panicky stampedes at stadiums or other densely packed areas with choke points. On the English side, wasn't the Duke of York possibly killed this way too (by falling and drowning)?
Shayan, I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I suspect Jean was saying that the areas ravaged by Genghis Khan were set back in development due to depopulation and destroyed infrastructure. Probably not applicable to much of Central Asia, but maybe more so eastern Europe. I don't think he intended to imply that the Mongols were themselves backwards.
Speaking of destruction, some claim that one reason Afghanistan has lagged so far behind in recent centuries has at least something to do with the amount of arable land that was rendered unusable by Genghis Khan. One thing I recall from speaking to some Afghans is that they might not be able to tell you who fought who in WWII, but they talk about Genghis like he just left last week! He definitely left a mark. Sadly, the people that are a genetic remnant of his invasion - the Hazara - are discriminated against by most other ethnic groups in that country.
Even farther off topic (but I find it interesting), the Mongolians have provided some troops to help train the Afghan Army how to use their Soviet-designed artillery. So now they're back, but this time to help. |
Yes, I'm probably being overly sensitive ever since that darned Borat movie! Apologies.
The Mongols, though they were culturally pluralist and led to the biggest global market of ideas and trade of their day, were also undeniably the most destructive human beings ever recorded in history. It isn't surprising that their memory is still fresh in Afghanistan, both there and in Iran they left literal mountains of skulls. Some remain standing in Iran to this day, some 800 years later. Estimates vary, but the total number they killed by sword and famine likely reached as much as 40 million.
Let's ponder that for a moment!
40...MILLION. In a pre-industrial era. There's no doubt that's largely why the balance of power began shifting towards Europe, along with the ingenious maritime trade routes the European naval empires established, which marginalized Central Asia economically. Up to 90% of a society destroyed...not even the Black Death accomplished that (which, incidentally they also introduced!). Mongols are fun to read about, but it's no wonder anyone living in their regions of conquest would shudder at their name, even 800 years later.
Nowadays, my friend who visited Mongolia says they're gracious hosts and peaceful Buddhists! Perhaps the world IS making progress
Now to make a nod towards the topic to mitigate my eternal thread-jacking shame:
It was mentioned above or perhaps in a parallel thread that some men-at-arms, when offered the chance to become knights, preferred to remain soldiers rather than both soldiers AND symbolic warriors with a highly codified ethos of honor and behavior. Did chivalry and the importance of honor above victory (a knight might call them synonymous) or shall I say tactical victory alienate or dissuade some from pursuing their spurs? Were knights viewed as impetuous by more than surly chroniclers of the Crusades? Did other contemporaries share this view?
You have to be a man, first, before you can be a gentleman!
~the immortal John Wayne
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Palmer
Location: herne bay Kent UK Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Shayan.
One factor which comes over clearly in the middle ages is while many commanders had a fair grasp of battle field tactics they seemed to have an almost pathological inability to create long term strategic plans. The Mongols and Romans were successful because they saw war in terms of both tactical battles and long term goals. The medieval mind seems to have been unable to grasp the concept Armies would meet fight and the winner take all.
A perfect example Edward the second he was ordered to France by parliament to settle the on going disputes he fought two battles one Crecy one Calais. He did secure peace returning home victor and hero yet in the end left France free to rebuild and eventually break the treaty and restart war. Any Mongol or Roman commander would have conducted a proper campange dealt with the French king permanently and ensured that no recurrence of the problem would have occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Shayan,
| Quote: | Shayan, I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I suspect Jean was saying that the areas ravaged by Genghis Khan were set back in development due to depopulation and destroyed infrastructure. Probably not applicable to much of Central Asia, but maybe more so eastern Europe. I don't think he intended to imply that the Mongols were themselves backwards.
Speaking of destruction, some claim that one reason Afghanistan has lagged so far behind in recent centuries has at least something to do with the amount of arable land that was rendered unusable by Genghis Khan. One thing I recall from speaking to some Afghans is that they might not be able to tell you who fought who in WWII, but they talk about Genghis like he just left last week! He definitely left a mark. |
Yes this is exactly what I meant.
I think Central Asia had some of the greatest Civilizations known to man, going on back to the Achaemenids, Khazars and before. Thats exactly my point. Some of these glittering civilizations were scoured off the face of the earth. There were a variety of kingdoms which we no longer think of, which were famous in their day. They were annihilated by the Mongols, I believe for example the devestation wrought by Tamarlane had a major and lasting impact on subsquent development in this region.
It's true that the Mongols eventually turned out to be quite Enlightened administrators in some areas, and rebuilt places like Samarkand. But I think the point about Afghanistan is valid. Same with parts of Russia and Eastern Europe which were slow to recover from this catastrophe (while others rebuilt quite quickly, as in China)
| Shayan G wrote: |
The Mongols suffered very heavy losses in their campaigns into India, but kept trying for just about a century with no hesitation! I don't think they were afraid of a good fight, even when it was stacked against them. |
Losses when ultimate victory seems likely are one thing, losses in which annihilation and defeat loom large are another. The Mongols were no doubt willing to duke it out, but they were also capable of being defeated and they knew it (even if other people sometimes didn't) as I said before, see how the wave of Mongol expansion broke against the Mameluks.
| Quote: |
Aside from that, it has also been speculated that the mountainous landscape of Europe was bad for horse archers. Anyone, however, who knows anything about the Altaic mountains (home of the Altaic peoples) or the mountains of Tibet, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Caucuses, would find this explanation dubious. I'm wholly in agreement with the power struggle school of thought. India has a sketchy climate for breeding the hotbloods used in Central Asian combat, but Europe seems perfectly fine for them, with a few regional exceptions. |
The Himilyayas are formidable mountains no doubt, far more so than any in Europe, but I don't think the terrain is the same. Western Europe was full of mountains, forests, and especially rivers, and in those days was occupied by scores of small states and feifdoms each of which had it's own heavily fortified redoubts and fielded it's own small but battle hardened armies of heavily armored, heavily armed shock cavalry and shock infantry with armor piercing weapons. You couldn't win one big battle and defeat the entire region. Scores if not Hundreds of small states would be faced, and rooting them out of their fastnesses after a victory was no easy task as was clearly demonstrated in Hungary. The further they went the more they would be threatened from the flanks by guerillas and enemies fighting from fortified enclaves.
The terrain would prevent a rapid sweep across a large region as is possible in the Steppes in so much of Central Asia precisely because Europe is broken up by all those hills, mountains, swamps, forests, and many, many rivers. Each zone within the terrain divided one or more small political entity from the others. Think for example of how the Mongols bypassed Novgorod in Russia. They did the same with many castles and fortified towns in Hungary, this would become more and more of a problem the further West they traveled.
More importantly, each small state, city, or region would learn from the fate of the others. The would form alliances and coalitions against the invader, and would have time to learn tactics to defeat them. They already had technology available which posed a serious threat to the Mongols (the heavily armored soldiers and the heavy armor piercing crossbows) The armor and the crossbows were improving rapidly in this period, and their use would quickly re-align to the greatest possible efficiency.
And new technologies and associated fighting techniques were coming online in this period: halberds, then pikes in Switzerland, in fact a whole new type of infantry warfare arising in Switzerland, Frisia, Bohemia, Scotland, very difficult for Cavalry to attack a pike square. Or a Hussite Wagon laager. In addition to the increasingly effective heavy crossbows, there were also the famous Welsh / English longbows, all kinds of seige artillery (ballistae, trebuchets et al), and soon primitive firearms, explosives and cannon were around the corner.
I think the Mongols were very wise to turn around when they did.
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shayan G wrote: |
It was mentioned above or perhaps in a parallel thread that some men-at-arms, when offered the chance to become knights, preferred to remain soldiers rather than both soldiers AND symbolic warriors with a highly codified ethos of honor and behavior. Did chivalry and the importance of honor above victory (a knight might call them synonymous) or shall I say tactical victory alienate or dissuade some from pursuing their spurs? Were knights viewed as impetuous by more than surly chroniclers of the Crusades? Did other contemporaries share this view? |
I think it may have had more to do with the financial obligations of knighthood. The difference in daily pay on campaign between a bachelor knight and a man-at-arms was not that significant, but a knight may be required to raise other troops, pay additional taxes, etc. For some full-time soldiers, maybe the cost outweighed the benefits.
What, you didn't like Borat? "Very nice!"
| Robin Palmer wrote: | | Any Mongol or Roman commander would have conducted a proper campange dealt with the French king permanently and ensured that no recurrence of the problem would have occurred. |
Well, maybe not if they had to use the same army available to the medieval commander. I think that was at least as much of a factor as a lack of education in strategy. They were more cautious for other reasons too. Jean Flori writes that kings were often reluctant to pursue pitched battles precisely because they were so decisive. They had everything to lose, often traveling with their entire treasury everywhere they went along with government records, personal belongings, etc. A good deal of treasure and archival material was captured by Richard I's army when they surprised Philip Augustus' baggage train. Philip himself narrowly escaped capture, and had just retreated from a possible pitched battle with Richard. Had they actually clashed, it's likely that there would have been a Poitiers-type situation where the king himself and many nobles would have been captured.
Just as the Mongols would have found it difficult to conquer Western Europe due to the density of fortified towns and castles, so the European monarchs with their smaller armies found it nearly impossible to 'permanently' defeat their neighbors. When cannons became capable of reducing defenses quickly during the HYW, you see much larger swathes of land turning over in a shorter time frame.
Victor Davis Hanson argues that the tendency for "Western" armies to seek a decisive engagement is precisely what gave them their dominance. The Greeks and Romans led the way on this, and it's certainly true in the gunpowder era. I think the technology gap between fortifications and siege weapons helped create a situation during the medieval period where this tendency towards decisive battle gave way to limited campaigns. Also, due to the limited ability of kings to finance large armies until the later rise of nationalism, armies simply weren't big enough to gain and hold territory for very long.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Losses when ultimate victory seems likely are one thing, losses in which annihilation and defeat loom large are another. The Mongols were no doubt willing to duke it out, but they were also capable of being defeated and they knew it (even if other people sometimes didn't) as I said before, see how the wave of Mongol expansion broke against the Mameluks.
|
And the Japanese! (thanks in no small part to a little storm they encountered)
Good points Jean. The Mongols made many gains, but were wise to hold what they could when they did.
|
|
|
|
|
Shayan G
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Feb, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
That makes sense about the cost/benefit aspect of knighthood. Didn't many impoversihed sons of knights (the ones that didn't join the clergy) become men-at-arms? Did I invent that impression?
On topography and the Mongols, only one type of region ever proved difficult for them--arid deserts. Syria and the Iranian Dasht-e Kavir (Great Salt Desert) simply cannot sustain large-scale equestrian nomadism, and sure enough, the Mongols wised up.
With regards to lush, tall mountains with high population concentrations, multiple factions, and long traditions of guerrilla warfare, look no farther than Northern Iran, the Caucuses, and I'd bet many parts of China I've never heard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alborz
The first two, the Alborz of Northern Iran, and the Caucuses, proved hardest to conquer for the infantry-based Achaemenid army. Later Persian equestrian dynasties like the Parthians and Sassanians had trouble maintaining rule there as well. The Arabs never managed to conquer either of those at all! Northern Iran was one of the last strongholds of Zoroastrianism, converting out of free will gradually to Islam over hundreds of years. Finally, the Seljuq Turks also had great difficulty conquering them, as did Khwarezm Shah.
The Mongols steamrolled them in a matter of months. The loftiest mountain fortresses, the densest forests, and the most notoriously rebellious tribesman (many of which to this day still speak a completely different Iranian dialect rather than Persian) were no obstacle to their military. The geography mattered not one whit!
http://business.clayton.edu/arjomand/hossein/...Images.htm
I agree at the time the Mongols turned back, they probably could not have conquered Western Europe. But at the same time, they had a succession dispute to settle after Mongke's death, and they'd faced worse odds before and come out singing. Fear or prudence never seemed to dictate their efforts, as was demonstrated with India. Denser populations, taller and harsher mountains (the Himalayas!) and overwhelming odds did NOT stop them from attempting to invade for 100 years, nor did repeated bloody noses. It was politics that stopped their attempts at seizing India, internal disputes--forever the brakes on the Mongolian military machine.
Sorry I can't respond in greater detail, I have a big paper to write by tomorrow and an internship application.
Best regards, and have a great day!
Shayan
You have to be a man, first, before you can be a gentleman!
~the immortal John Wayne
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Feb, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know we're supposed to be talking about 'impetuous knights', but I appreciate these posts about the Mongols. It's such an overlooked subject (at least in the Western World) compared to Crusades and Vikings etc. I was very surprised when I learned, some years ago, how close Europe came to falling in the 13th century. Maybe 'we' (of European descent) just don't like to talk about how we got our butts kicked.
But isn't much of the reason they turned back just a practical cost-benefit analysis for them, rather than tactical or even political factors? They had enormous logistical and communication lines for that day, or even by today's standards. We (again, the European types) may not like it, but maybe Europe was not too tough for them, maybe it simply was not as important to them as the Middle East and other rich areas.
|
|
 |
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let us not forget that before the rise of Nationalism, Soldiers were loyal to individual Leaders rather then country or ideals. This is significant on a number of levels. The motives and goals of those individual leaders were often not for some greater cause but for individual gain. Individual gain through looting or ransom was often the bait used to rally men behind a war. It is no surprise that they put that above all else. The knights and sergeants of one baron need not obey or even respect in many cases another baron of the same side. These elements seem to be pretty common even in Asia and the Middle East in this time period.
I recall reading that during the battle of Agincourt the English took so many prisoners that the the prisoners outnumbered them. A very dangerous situation given that the battle was not yet decided and that the prisoners were still mostly in armor and there were weapons laying all over the place. Henry V ordered his Nobles to kill the prisoners. The Nobles refused because they did not want to give up their ransom money. Henry V had to order his archers to do the job.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
 |
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shayan G wrote: | That makes sense about the cost/benefit aspect of knighthood. Didn't many impoversihed sons of knights (the ones that didn't join the clergy) become men-at-arms? Did I invent that impression?
|
No, you got that right. For example, William Marshal was a younger son and thus would not inherit any land from his father, so he went into military service in the household of a Norman lord. Later he married an heiress and gained land, but prior to his fame he was probably typical of landless men-at-arms of the era.
That example is probably not the best, as he became a knight anyway and this was during a time when the concept of knighthood was still primarily military. Knights as a social class was a fairly new idea in the 12th century. As the concept of chivalry developed the knights gradually changed from being just elite warriors to being part of the nobility as well, which is where I'd guess the additional obligations of knighthood came from. But if there were significant financial obligations for knighthood in this timeframe, William would have been able to afford it thanks to his tournament winnings. I need to do more reading on this period.
| Shayan G wrote: |
The first two, the Alborz of Northern Iran, and the Caucuses, proved hardest to conquer for the infantry-based Achaemenid army. Later Persian equestrian dynasties like the Parthians and Sassanians had trouble maintaining rule there as well. The Arabs never managed to conquer either of those at all! Northern Iran was one of the last strongholds of Zoroastrianism, converting out of free will gradually to Islam over hundreds of years. Finally, the Seljuq Turks also had great difficulty conquering them, as did Khwarezm Shah.
|
The Arabs never conquered Nuristan either, which is a forested and mountainous region in northwest Afghanistan. They didn't convert until the late 19th century. It was called kafiristan before they "saw the light," under force that is. I'm not sure how successful the Mongols were in that province, although they might have just bypassed it for convenience. It certainly gives infantry trouble to this day, and the limited roads restrict vehicular travel too.
J.D., it's possible that the Mongols could have made more inroads into Europe if they'd really committed to it. Whether they found it strategically impossible, or merely not worth the cost, I don't know for sure.
Vassilis, that's a good point about loyalty. If a commander was known to be generous with loot taken on campaign, he'd be able to recruit more men for the next enterprise. There are many instances where tactical considerations were set aside while soldiers plundered the enemy baggage train.[/code]
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets not forget, in all this talk of feudalism, that there were many other types of armies in Europe at this time other than Feudal vassals and knights (contrary to the emphasis by most of the choniclers). The battles at Liegnitz and Savo river in fact took place in the period just before the dramatic rise to prominence of the infantry militia as the dominant military force on European battlefields. The famous battles at Courtrai, Bannockburn and Morgarten were only the most famous, irrefutable evidence of the effectiveness of these armies, but there were many other places around Europe, in Spain, in Switzerland, in Brittany, in Italy, in Frisia, in Bohemia, in Scandinavia etc. with increasingly effective tribal or urban militias which specialized in fighting cavalry.
These militias tended to exploit new technologies like the heavy arbalest and volgue / halberd (and later pike) of the Swiss, the "GodenDag" of the Flemish lowlands, the longbow of the Welsh / English Yoemen, the crossbows of the urban Italian militias such as the Genoese, the military flail and the armored war-cart of the bohemian Hussites etc. etc.
Significantly, a strong militia was also a characteristic of the old Rus city-states, such as Novgorod wihch was bypassed by the Mongols and in fact ultimately never conquered.
In fact if you read about the Mongol experience in Hungary, the resistance they faced was largely from the common people fighting as guerillas - in cooperation with knights and lords. When utter annihilation is on the line, the nature of the game changes. Crusader armies had already been organized to fight the common Saracen enemy, the reaction against the Tartars would have been rather more dramatic.
You can say what you like about the Mongols coming back later to finish the job, but I don't believe the Mongols would have rolled over, say the Swiss Confderacy.
I don't know of any cavalry army in the world which ever had much luck charging into a forest of pikes wielded by disciplined pikemen, and when you combine that with the heavily armored cavalry (knights), plus the heavy crossbows the Mongols reported having so much trouble with, (soon followed by cannons and firearms), plus terrain like this
..I just don't see it happening.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Fri 29 Feb, 2008 10:07 am; edited 6 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Feb, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | I know we're supposed to be talking about 'impetuous knights', but I appreciate these posts about the Mongols. It's such an overlooked subject (at least in the Western World) compared to Crusades and Vikings etc. I was very surprised when I learned, some years ago, how close Europe came to falling in the 13th century. Maybe 'we' (of European descent) just don't like to talk about how we got our butts kicked.
But isn't much of the reason they turned back just a practical cost-benefit analysis for them, rather than tactical or even political factors? They had enormous logistical and communication lines for that day, or even by today's standards. We (again, the European types) may not like it, but maybe Europe was not too tough for them, maybe it simply was not as important to them as the Middle East and other rich areas. |
Well, this is certainly the conventional wisdom, and exactly the sort of thing you would hear on a typical History Channel documentary. I think the evidence, particularly the records we now have from the Mongols themselves, presents it in a very different light.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Mar, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The southest territory in Europe that Mongols reached in 1242 was Croatia and they spent 6 months here and they didn't manage to inflict any significant victory upon Croats, they couldn't capture any of the walled cities they besieged, they suffered much casualties from Croatian ambushes and guerrilla tactics and they were finally defeated on the Grobnik field where they were in a plain surrounded with mountains, where they were denied their advantage of their horse archer tactics. In north - east plains we retreated to well fortified cities and in hills and mountains we chose the battlefield that suited us to defeat Mongols. If they had such problems with one little country like Croatia because of terrain and fortified cities, no way they could conquer any of central European lands like Germany, Austria or Swiss confederacy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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