| Author |
Message |
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
 Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 2:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Randall, I will have a look at Veszpremy's works and others if I can find them.
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by René Grousset, J J Saunders, David Morgan, and David Nicolle, although I am aware that these works might contain outdated information and in the case of Nicolle, a strong pro-eastern bias.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.
|
|
  |
 |
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah you might want to read some more works that are more up to date, most of those gents were working in the first half to mid of the 20th century. While I would not say Morgan and Nicolle are outdated (Morgan did do his Major mongol work in the 80s though but it is still very good) just that there are more current and developed sources on this. But once more I do think Morgan's work is very good but I would have to reread it as I do not remember him stating the Mongols took over Hungary or completely destroyed it either. It has been about 5 years since I read it though.
But not having the 'military revolution'- which by the way many do not subscribe to- does not equal stagnation. What evidence it there for a stagnation in the 13th century? Many of the military characteristics tie into a very developed system of fortifications during the 13th century. Some of the most evolved fortifications in the world were likely built in this century.
I do not think any one is arguing the Mongols were not an issue to Hungary and Poland only that both of them did fairly well in dealing with the Mongols during this period of time.
That said I feel like we are more or less off track so I think I will leave this were it is related to Mongols and eastern Europe.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Jun, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
I do not think any one is arguing the Mongols were not an issue to Hungary and Poland only that both of them did fairly well in dealing with the Mongols during this period of time.
That said I feel like we are more or less off track so I think I will leave this were it is related to Mongols and eastern Europe.
RPM |
The Mongols gave us a good entry for a high-tech weapon that was very popular in Europe, the crossbow. There were differences in tactics and design between East Eurasian crossbows and West Eurasian crossbows with little known to me about the South Eurasian crossbows of the Muslim conquerors of India.
The crossbow may look unlike high tech at first glance, but with the development of intricate mechanics for precision shots of high power, the mechanics needed to be maintained and repaired. The tools and technical skills to handle mechanic gear on the battlefield are still part of modern weapon drills and constitute a major mindset evolution that lays the ground for the things to come.
There are in my opinion some wrong claims circulating in the Anglosphere that help to raise longbows on a level far far above crossbows. Both weapons were handled by specialists who had money to afford a decent equipment and both had no low social standing.
The power of the missile, it's quite easy to use a very light missile on a crossbow and at the same time find out that if the missile was much heavier it would not be accelerated to a much lower speed. From an energy transfer model the crossbow is then handled under very inefficient conditions and the crossbowman would be well advised to take a lighter crossbow in order to achieve the same result with less work at a lower price (heavy crossbows were expensive).
Discussing the remaining bolts and the remaining crossbows must take different filters for the preservation of these items into account.
The crossbow is the weapon where the Western and Central Europeans seem to have been willing to learn composite bow construction instead of sticking to their self-bows. That is another major advance not only by introducing something complicated and difficult to maintain, but by being willing to adopt something none else did. Constructing steel bows went even beyond that by introducing a new idea that could cause problems in winter!
I don't want to argue whether the bow or the crossbow were the better solution to battlefield problems of ranged combat, but I think it's worth to look at the implications of the crossbow spread for creating a mindset that feels comfortable with mechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Jun, 2012 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: | | In the mid 13th century, Europe still hadn't experienced the infantry revolution, |
Only if we see the events at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th as developments that came out of nowhere! This certainly isn't true; the Flemings who triumphed at Courtrai relied on tactics descended from those already used by the "Brabantine" mercenaries at the beginning of the 13th century, while the Swiss could reasonably be seen as the successors to the polearm-equipped German infantry that badly mauled the French centre at Bouvines (1214). The term "revolution" in this case becomes meaningless since it implies a sudden cataclysmic shift when what really happened was probably more like the culmination of a long gradual evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Jun, 2012 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Only if we see the events at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th as developments that came out of nowhere! This certainly isn't true; the Flemings who triumphed at Courtrai relied on tactics descended from those already used by the "Brabantine" mercenaries at the beginning of the 13th century, while the Swiss could reasonably be seen as the successors to the polearm-equipped German infantry that badly mauled the French centre at Bouvines (1214). The term "revolution" in this case becomes meaningless since it implies a sudden cataclysmic shift when what really happened was probably more like the culmination of a long gradual evolution. |
Very good points, Lafayette. And While Falkirk was indeed a Scottish loss, but when the shiltrons of the Scots were used in an offensive manner as opposed to stationary as at Falkirk, they had sucess at Bannockburn and Striling Bridge.
I think that was seen during this time is that Infantry unsuported by missile of cavalry troops would be beaten by a combined arms force, but were in many cases certtainly capable of repelling cavalry. and if used offensively, they had a good degree of sucess as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Jun, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
Only if we see the events at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th as developments that came out of nowhere! This certainly isn't true; the Flemings who triumphed at Courtrai relied on tactics descended from those already used by the "Brabantine" mercenaries at the beginning of the 13th century, while the Swiss could reasonably be seen as the successors to the polearm-equipped German infantry that badly mauled the French centre at Bouvines (1214). The term "revolution" in this case becomes meaningless since it implies a sudden cataclysmic shift when what really happened was probably more like the culmination of a long gradual evolution. |
Granted, the infantry "revolution" was a process with its roots going all the way back to antiquity rather than a sudden explosion of development. In several regions such as the Italian peninsula, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, infantry still made up the backbone of armies. nonetheless, most western and central European armies still relied on heavy cavalry in the form of mounted men-at-arms, although spearmen and archers were of course used with varying results. This overconfidence in heavy cavarly partly explains why armies relying on mounted men-at-arms failed at Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn, Courtrai, Morgarten etc.
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | But not having the 'military revolution'- which by the way many do not subscribe to- does not equal stagnation. What evidence it there for a stagnation in the 13th century? Many of the military characteristics tie into a very developed system of fortifications during the 13th century. Some of the most evolved fortifications in the world were likely built in this century. |
"Stagnation" might have been an inapt choice of word by me, but after the battle of Las navas de Tolosa, there are as far as I know very few examples of European victories over non-Europeans or eastern Europeans. On the contrary, at least three crusades directed at Egypt and Tunis failed, the (remaining) flower of Western knighthood in Outremer was cut to pieces at la Forbie and ultimately the Mamluks pushed the Europeans out of the Levant before the end of the century. At the same time, the Catholic expansion into eastern Europe stalled due to effective Lithuanian and Russian resistance.
Although the Mongols never took Eastern Europe, they were never decisively defeated in open battle by a western/central European army. As late as in 1399, a Tatar/Mongol army was able to smash a huge crusader army in the battle of the Vorskla. Three years prior to that, the Ottomans soundly defeated another crusade which included French, German and Burgundian men-at-arms at Nicopolis. The fiasco was repeated nearly 50 years later at Varna. My point here is, pertaining to the original question, that the West had no decisive military advantage over the East until the 16th-17th centuries.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Jun, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mikael,
Just because one is not decisively defeated does not mean they were not defeated. Even the right defeat is a victory if it contributes to the enemy deciding future campaigns there would be difficult or not worth their while there. Edward III probably could have won in Scotland in the mid 14th century but figured his interests in France were more important.
Further you are making comparisons that are not really balanced. Until after Ogedai's death the Mongols basically ruled all Asia. Now soon after this is not true, they become very divided. The Ottomans by the late 14th held almost all of Asia Minor and the Balkans. They both had huge resources available and were focused by one ruler. If one could gather all the resources of Europe in a similar force I think few empires of the time would have stood up to them.
But this brings us to the reason Europe did not defeat these groups. It has nothing to do with direct military effectiveness or technological inferiority of Europeans, in fact by the 14th century I'd say we can safely say Europe is equal if not ahead of much of the world in military effectiveness and technology. That is not their issue though. The main issue with Europe is they were disunified and the strong states/kingdoms of Europe fought more among themselves than any one else. Arguably the most powerful groups during the 13th century spent the majority of their time fighting other Europeans. That is why they could not defeat the Mongols, Ottomans or Timbuktu, It was not they could not fight outside Europe successfully but their priorities were closer to home so largely were only facades of the armies back home.
The force sent to Nicopolis was completely divided and when you have too many chiefs but no Indians things rarely turn out well. But consider early on in the battle the Europeans seem to do fairly well, until the lead force realizes they abandoned the rest of the army far behind them and are not surrounded by Ottomans. Once again, nothing to do with effectiveness or technology but lack of a united front of leadership and resources.
Vorskla is a major mixed bag. The only reason the Tartars were attacking was because Lithuania had taken over much of their territory over the last few decades before. Most of the land taken by the Tartars were retaken lands that had been theirs earlier. And with in fifty years would be back to Lithuania. And considering the Mongols won by deceit hard to say it was superior arms, armies, etc.
So I do think they were ahead of much of the world in wealth, technology and many other things by the 13th century but that does not mean any of these resources could be focused in the way the Mongol Khan or Ottoman Sultan could. They were just to divided.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Sat 16 Jun, 2012 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | 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. |
you wouldn't consider saying that the Mongols were steamrolled hyperbole?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Sat 16 Jun, 2012 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | 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. |
you wouldn't consider saying that the Mongols were steamrolled hyperbole? |
The Mongols were like the Japanese samurai during the civil war when Oda Nobunaga launched his invasions of Korea, a steamroller. They had by lifetimes of fighting configured excellent forces with excellent leadership in combat. The weaknesses of both were how to handle civilians because their mindset and society had been thoroughly militarized and the victories fostered this detached mindset rather than casting doubts. Sooner or later, both, and all since or before, failed due to the pressure by the conquered who upped their own military skills and due to the conqueror's own future generations becoming more like everyone else and not the breed of constant war, fear and terror. The Mongols and the Japanese did have a country, a culture and a family, they were not just a murderous army on the march.
http://www.gutleuthist.de/23michel.jpg
"Michel and his protector" is a famous cartoon on the development of German military prior to WWI (mostly thriving on Sedan since 1870). They did put up an outstanding fight in WWI, but the society afterwards fell into turmoil because they did not want to follow this leadership any more (WWII was a clever engineered backlash resulting in a counterbacklash, German attitudes today).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Sat 16 Jun, 2012 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randall, I'm not trying to claim that the West lagged behind technologically, at least not by the 14th century. I would subscribe to that Europe could well compete with the East in regards to arms, armour and fortification already by the 12th century if not earlier, although China was at the time still leading, naturally, the development of gunpowder and in some respects naval technology.
Sure, when the Mongols galloped into Europe they met armed opponens that in many ways were ahead of them in terms of technological development. The Mongol heavy horseman in lamellar armour wouldn't have appeared much different from a Hun or Avar warrior centuries earlier, neither was the recurved composite bow a novelty. A European man-at-arms armoured cap-a-pie in mail and great helm and armed with a couched lance represented a later development, as did the crossbowman. Mongol catapults would also have seemed primitive compared to western counterweight-trebuchets, and so on. However, Mongol tactics, experience and military organization allowed them to thrust deep into Europe and cause widespread destruction in a way that no western force at the time could have dreamt of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Jun, 2012 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I am beginning to think people don't know what hyperbole is.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Jun, 2012 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, an intentional exaggeration in rhetoric.
But I do not think you can separate exaggeration with the Mongol experience with ease. This is something I have mentioned earlier in this thread. I have tried to avoid intentional exaggeration though at least from the evidence I have present.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Jun, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mikael, sorry for the late reply.
| Quote: | | 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. |
As far as city fortifications go, I absolutely agree with you. The walled cities of the Middle East and China prior to the Mongol arrival were massive and heavily fortified. As far as cities (not forts) go, there is no doubt in my mind that the Middle East and China boasted larger and more defensible structures. But my point was that good city walls by themselves wont do much good if the population residing behind them have never experienced battle. Unfortunately, this was the case for much of the Eastern Islamic world in the 13th century. But it was certainly not the case in the western half of the Muslim world and definitely not in Europe. For instance Persia was a relatively easy victim for the Mongols since the bulk of the population of the region were demilitarized. Instead Turkish troops were relied upon to do much of the fighting. In Syria on the otherhand, the situation was slightly different. While most of he townfold were also quite demilitarized, Syria as whole was not lacking in indigenous fighters. The rulers of Syria (and Egypt) could in addition to fielding Mamluk armies, also call upon Arab, Kurdish, and Turkoman tribesmen who inhabited the area. This increased
sense of militarism in Syria made it more challenging for the Mongols to take over the area. Had the Mongols invaded Central Europe, where the bulk of the male population (with the exception of serfs, artisans, and clergy) could be expected to take up arms, they would have been faced with significant opposition
| Quote: | | 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 |
As for the Xixia Kingdom, this was indeed a state under a militaristic ruling class. But once again, if you look at the bulk of their subjects (i.e. Han Chinese), you will see that they ruled over a highly civilized and advanced people. But also a very demilitarized people. And this in my opinion is what really led to the demise of the state. The Khwarezm Empire was in a way quite similar to Xixia. The ruling class on the eve of the Mongol invasion were the descendants of Turkish slave soldiers serving in Persia. And this ruling class no doubt clinged to a heritage of Turkish militarism. But they were also highly Persianized and their Turkish martial culture was no doubt largely eroded by the 13th century (this paled in comparison with the Mamluk rulers of Egypt who were very much fresh off the steppes). And as in the case of the Xixia kingdom, most of their subjects were highly demilitarized.
The Uighur Kingdom on the otherhand was somewhat of the opposite. The bulk of the population were indeed militarized, but the Kingdom itself lacked the sophisticated infrastructure necessary to support a war effort against the Mongol onslaught.
I do however completely agree with your point that Europe was definitely NOT more militarily advanced that the Middle East and China. They western Europeans had a slightly different way of fighting but thats just it; it was different and not more advanced. I think the only advantage that Europe did have was that much of its population was militarized, whereas this was unfortunately not always the case in the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Tue 19 Jun, 2012 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Sure, an intentional exaggeration in rhetoric.
But I do not think you can separate exaggeration with the Mongol experience with ease. This is something I have mentioned earlier in this thread. I have tried to avoid intentional exaggeration though at least from the evidence I have present.
RPM |
you understand, but the two responses to my comment about it seemed to indicate they didn't know what I was saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sun 23 Dec, 2012 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As for European successes against the Ottomans, the Black army of Hungary proved extremely effective in the 15thC, defeating the Ottomans on numerous occasions. The Ottomans were only able to conquer a large portion of Hungary after Hungary had been seriously weakened by internal affairs.
Before this, Hungary had successfully held off the Ottoman Empire for 70 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Sun 23 Dec, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I would say a major turning point in the west , from a technological advancement standpoint, happens when the Church stops having a monopoly on education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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