Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 16th, 2011, 04:57 PM   #141

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyd2506 View Post
Europe was not just fields with sparse small woods. We are talking 1200's the middle ages, not 1950's.

I sure the Mongol's could conquer forested area if they out numbered the defenders a billion to to 1. Give us a break here.

A small platoon of 10 men with M4's (M16) could still be beaten by a large force of 10,000 men with muskets. What is your point! massive numbers can win vs a superior fighter force.

Poland and Transylvania, didn't have near the population of Germany back then, then you have France, England, Italy etc etc.

Europe back then was like 99% forests, but what you see on a map today.. modern Europe in the past few 100' years has been cultivated to keep the growing populace feed.

Back in the middle ages, it was almost totally forests, with small fields here and there, roads or more like pathways to and from towns and cities might be 15-20 ft wide.. Most fortified towns and castles sit in a small field, surronded by some houses and small crop fields. maybe 200 meters by 200 metes wide avg. not near enough to have enough room for 15,000 mongols to ride free enough to open fire on a horse while riding fast.

Not enough room to have 15,000 mongols and 15,000 European knights
in the same field.. be very crowded!
That means CLOSE combat..heavy armored knights would have a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE advantage here vs the light armor mongols.

the ultra dinky fields would be no advantage to the mongols unless it was a 20 vs 20 battle. Even so the mongols would have to get to those dinky fields that the castles sat on, and hope to only face 20 people. They would have to go through narrow 5-7 meter wide roads/path to get there. the heavy armor knights would be waiting. along with archers in many many areas on the way to castle/village 25 50 or 100 miles apart.

no chance what so ever!

Again, the terrain of Poland/Transylvania was heavily forested, they fought battles involving 10,000+ knights and annihilated them. The mongols usually retreated, luring the prey with them to a pre-arrainged spot of ambush or where the terrain opened up so they could ride around without running into each other.

You are using the terrain as a main argument but that is false, since terrain of western Europe and that of eastern Europe isn't that different- since eastern Europe wasn't that populated back then, the woodland/marsh situation is more widespread there than in the west. Since the mongols were able to annihilate all armies in that terrain, i see no reason why they couldn't do the same in France/Germany.

All the arguments you make in favour of western european knights are valid for the German/Hungarian knights that faced the Mongols in identical terrain and got annihilated.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 17th, 2011, 11:13 AM   #142
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Central Macedonia
Posts: 17,765
Blog Entries: 4

If Western European armies combined in one huge army, they would give the Mongls a good run for their money. The Mongol forces could not outnumber a combined Western European army.
Thessalonian is offline  
Old December 17th, 2011, 01:46 PM   #143

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,445
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thessalonian View Post
If Western European armies combined in one huge army, they would give the Mongls a good run for their money. The Mongol forces could not outnumber a combined Western European army.

If such a thing could be done, and then done well.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 08:15 PM   #144
Academician
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
Again, the terrain of Poland/Transylvania was heavily forested, they fought battles involving 10,000+ knights and annihilated them. The mongols usually retreated, luring the prey with them to a pre-arrainged spot of ambush or where the terrain opened up so they could ride around without running into each other.

You are using the terrain as a main argument but that is false, since terrain of western Europe and that of eastern Europe isn't that different- since eastern Europe wasn't that populated back then, the woodland/marsh situation is more widespread there than in the west. Since the mongols were able to annihilate all armies in that terrain, i see no reason why they couldn't do the same in France/Germany.

All the arguments you make in favour of western european knights are valid for the German/Hungarian knights that faced the Mongols in identical terrain and got annihilated.

The German knight never fought the mongols, what sources do you have other than a Wiki anyone can write up?

the Hungarian and Polish army was mainly untrained common folk peasants.

10,000 knights? OH COME ON!!

So lets just pretend 10,000 knights fought 30,000 mongols. How are the mongols going to possibly win.. they was crap as close combat fighting vs trained warriors. The ONLY and I MEAN ONLY thing they had going for the was hit and run tactics of the Horse archers that the heavy knights would not be able to catch.. Works good out in the open, not so good in the woods..
EVER ride a horse in your enti8res life? I have and know riding out in the open is utterly HUGE HUGE difference that through paths or woods.. no way you could use a bow aiming at someone.. in the woods you have to watch out where you are going.
Close combat battle means blade combat, not much archery. esp fast riding archery on horses.
10,000 knights would wipe the whole Mongol empire out if the fighting was in the forests.

You keep comparing small populated countries with forests, to Germany and France that was highly populated, and had a massive fighting force
The mongols may have been able to subdue countries with 1.2 million people, but Germany with like 13-15 million, who also are VERY experienced fighters through the centuries.

Lithuania Hungria, Poland had many more fields and open area than Germany and France. No where to use horse archer tactics of run away and shoot back at knights.

Good subjects, but the Mongols NEVER had a chance, no even slightly. not in forests with high populations of high trained troops.
scottyd2506 is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 08:35 PM   #145

Zeno's Avatar
l'esprit de l'escalier
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: ♪♬ ♫♪♩
Posts: 13,691

It is wrong to think Mongol tactics were just about horse archers.The heavy lancers were what delivered the kill blow, rather than the horse archers.

And... There's a difference between "having rode a horse often/several times/a few times/ever"... and actually living in the saddle, like the Mongols did.
Zeno is offline  
Old December 19th, 2011, 03:47 AM   #146
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Central Macedonia
Posts: 17,765
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeno View Post
It is wrong to think Mongol tactics were just about horse archers.The heavy lancers were what delivered the kill blow, rather than the horse archers.

And... There's a difference between "having rode a horse often/several times/a few times/ever"... and actually living in the saddle, like the Mongols did.

Click the image to open in full size.


Click the image to open in full size.

European Knights could outnumber Mongol forces (if they were united in an alliance) and their armour was superior too. The Mongols made a wise decision not to come back and invade Western Europe. They would have been slaughtered entirely in the Alps.
Thessalonian is offline  
Old December 19th, 2011, 03:14 PM   #147

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,028
Blog Entries: 3

That picture resembles the heavy knights of the Late Middle Ages to Renaissance era. Knights during the era of the Mongol invasions wore suits of mail.

Also, I believe that most here have a very incorrect picture of how the Mongol invasion worked. I described them in detail here: http://www.historum.com/speculative-...tml#post594551

I believe what we fail to see is that the Mongol army was very international. Their beginning invasions were focused on cavalry, this is true. But as the invasion progressed their armies consisted more and more of the local population, along with soldiers from other conquest regions. The Mongols themselves did not have the manpower to conquer or govern an empire that stretched from Siberia to Eastern Europe. I would argue that the success of their invasion depended on just how much the locals were willing to join. The question is: were the locals discontent enough to tear down the evil they know, and fight for the evil they don't?

In other words, people are overrating cavalry archers. No doubt Mongols would be a part of any Mongolian army, but for the most part they were outnumbered by soldiers recruited locally once the real invasion began. The Mongols in Europe only operated around 1-2 tumens (1 tumen = 10,000 men), so at this stage the Mongol armies comprised mostly of Mongolians themselves. This wouldn't be the case as the invasion progressed, as the invaders would start looking more and more like local armies.

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 19th, 2011 at 03:23 PM.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old December 19th, 2011, 03:20 PM   #148

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,028
Blog Entries: 3

Here's a more accurate picture of what a knight would look like during the Mongol invasion:

Click the image to open in full size.

As time went by armor slowly transitioned from mail to partial plate to full plate:

1350:
Click the image to open in full size.
1390:
Click the image to open in full size.

Battle of Wakefield: 30 December, 1460:

Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 19th, 2011 at 03:44 PM.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old December 22nd, 2011, 08:53 AM   #149
Academician
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
Here's a more accurate picture of what a knight would look like during the Mongol invasion:

Click the image to open in full size.

As time went by armor slowly transitioned from mail to partial plate to full plate:

1350:
Click the image to open in full size.
1390:
Click the image to open in full size.

Battle of Wakefield: 30 December, 1460:

Click the image to open in full size.

I think most here know this, plate armor was around in the mid 1200's, it was rare though, more popular in the 1400's.

knights in the 1200's wore various types of armor and helms, the Mongolian success was more open field tactics of ambush and of course the horse archer.

To even think 100,000 strong Mongol's could conquer Germany in thr 1250's is insane, a nation of 15 million and of that most with many high trained men.
Comparing this to a poor 3rd world low population countires of the day like Poland, Hungarian etc with 1.5 million each is not going to help your argument or case.

back to armor: Mongolians light armor was steered to speed, perfect for open warfare. and even the Mongol Lancer would still not have a chance. face to face vs a European knight.

Europeans are bigger heavier people than Asians by average, a 130 lb Mongol isn't going to wear as heavy armor as a 200 lb (90 Kg)muscle pound European knight is.. the Mongol blade would be like a bb gun bouncing off a King Tiger II's front armor in a comparison.
The Europeans would have much thicker chain mail armor.


I'm sure in Poland and Hungary where there was a small population, and most of the army was untrained unarmored peasants , the Mongols had the advantage, as even heavier people with no armor or skills would be killed easy. but in the HRE (of Germany), those knights were highly skills, and many of them.

a army of 30,000 European knights are going to look like Bodybuilders from hell compared to the small skinny mongols who can only wear light armor (in comparison to the Europeans).

The Knights with bigger heavier armor would slaughter the mongols EASY in the small tiny fields and large forests of West Europe.

Now if this battles took place in the vast open plains of the East, the big heavy European knights who would be slower (horse carries less weight) would be picked off the the mongol horse archers, as even good heavy chain mail can not always stop arrows.

Remember this subject is not about racism, please do not drag this into a hate subject, The biological and environmental elements do have some factors, bigger people can wear bigger armor and if both have great training, 1vs1 "close" combat the bigger would have huge advantage. Fact is a 200 lb guy swinging a 40 lb sword will break a 130 lb guys (who is weaker) ribs. the 130 lb guy could not even swing the 40 lb sword with any force. Logical Science here.

a Battle the Mongols could NEVER win.. That is why they NEVER tried.
I don't blame them.
scottyd2506 is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2011, 04:04 PM   #150

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,445
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyd2506 View Post
I think most here know this, plate armor was around in the mid 1200's, it was rare though, more popular in the 1400's

The first reference to plate armour is IIRC 1190. Though this was hardly the plate armour that we think of. Certainly in the mid 13th Century there were a few developments, but still not full plate. Padding and chain mail were still the order of the day.

Quote:
To even think 100,000 strong Mongol's could conquer Germany in thr 1250's is insane, a nation of 15 million and of that most with many high trained men.
Comparing this to a poor 3rd world low population countires of the day like Poland, Hungarian etc with 1.5 million each is not going to help your argument or case.
15 million people, not all of them combatants. One must not corelate numbers directly, this confuses the situation and is generaly misleading. It hardly helps your argument either, including anachronisms like 3rd world.


Quote:
I'm sure in Poland and Hungary where there was a small population, and most of the army was untrained unarmored peasants , the Mongols had the advantage, as even heavier people with no armor or skills would be killed easy. but in the HRE (of Germany), those knights were highly skills, and many of them.
I think you will find that untrained poorly equipe pesants are a mainstay of many european armie. The HRE is no different in this respect than France or England was.


Quote:
a army of 30,000 European knights are going to look like Bodybuilders from hell compared to the small skinny mongols who can only wear light armor (in comparison to the Europeans).
Such numbers wouldbe highly doubtful. Are you confusing knights, for combatants in general? While30,000 men might be assembled to face the Mongols, not all 30,000 would have been knights.



Quote:
Remember this subject is not about racism, please do not drag this into a hate subject, The biological and environmental elements do have some factors, bigger people can wear bigger armor and if both have great training, 1vs1 "close" combat the bigger would have huge advantage. Fact is a 200 lb guy swinging a 40 lb sword will break a 130 lb guys (who is weaker) ribs. the 130 lb guy could not even swing the 40 lb sword with any force. Logical Science here.

Well actually thats just a rational argument, some empirical evidence to back that up, some hard physics would make it logical science.

Quote:
a Battle the Mongols could NEVER win.. That is why they NEVER tried.
I don't blame them.

Not really, they never did because other matters got in the way.

The fact is there is only one major battle i n 1241 for all assessments to made upon. It is from that battle that we must draw all potential conclusions.

I cant help but feel that you overestimate the capabilites of western european armies.

My opinion is that the Mongols could not have easily conquered western europe, but not because of any major military threat posed by western europeans themselves, but rather more fundamenta issues.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
conquered, europe, mongols, western



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Genghis Khan and his Mongols, rude barbarians or genius warriors? Herc1993 Medieval and Byzantine History 314 November 30th, 2009 06:10 PM
What factors led to both Western Europe and Eastern Europe to move away from their respective Cold W Milad History Help 4 April 9th, 2009 05:39 PM
Monguls conquered Europe Commander Speculative History 7 July 8th, 2008 12:16 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.