Mongols vs medieval knights

[janossyjanos]

I suggest to read this topic and watch its video about western European (it means British Isles and France) armor and archery. Advanced high quality medieval plate armours (plate hardening techology) and metallurgy were produced only in northern Italy and Southern German territories. The victories of the longbowmen were only possible because of the backward Western European (French and English) metallurgy.
Was the Agincourt victory possible because of backward Western armors and metallurgy?

 

[Dan Howard]

I suggest to read this topic and watch its video about western European (it means British Isles and France) armor and archery. Advanced high quality medieval plate armours (plate hardening techology) and metallurgy were produced only in northern Italy and Southern German territories. The victories of the longbowmen were only possible because of the backward Western European (French and English) metallurgy.
Was the Agincourt victory possible because of backward Western armors and metallurgy?

It doesn't matter where they were produced. Northern Italy and Southern Germany distributed armour all over Europe. Most of the armour worn by the French at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt was made in Southern Germany. There is a list of reasons why the longbow was successful and none of them relate to the weapon's ability (or not) to penetrate armour - even poor quality steel is capable of stopping all but the heaviest arrows shot at the closest ranges.

 

[Larrey]

Where did you get this idea from .

History. It's what heavies and lights meant in 19th c. armies, Napoleonic etc.

Generally a big man on a small horse will tend to overpower a small man on a big horse.

 

[janossyjanos]

It doesn't matter where they were produced. Northern Italy and Southern Germany distributed armour all over Europe. Most of the armour worn by the French at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt was made in Southern Germany. There is a list of reasons why the longbow was successful and none of them relate to the weapon's ability (or not) to penetrate armour - even poor quality steel is capable of stopping all but the heaviest arrows shot at the closest ranges.

Despite only Italy and Germany had "industrial" scale manufactury (in the original term "manu facere" ) armour producing, England and France had a lot of very little guilds and local productions, which made the most armour for the knights. It was cheaper than the quality hardened steel of Italians and Germans. The longbowmen had fortune, that most of the knights wore Western European (not hardened) cheaper armour, and only some rich noblemen wore Italian or German armour during the 100 years war. The turning point of 100 years' war was the apply of the Italian mercenary knights, because of their quality hardened armour. That's why I said, PLEASE watch the documentary film and the tests of that article!

 

[Dan Howard]

Documentaries are meaningless because they can't cite peer reviewed studies.

 

[janossyjanos]

Documentaries are meaningless because they can't cite peer reviewed studies.

It does not matter, if the documentary was made by top-end academy scientists, and the tests were made by researchers and scientific academic research institutions. There were not only academic historians in the documentary, but scientists about metallurgy. NATURAL SCIENCE overwrite social sciences (like imaginations of some historians) in the era of RATIONALISM.

 

[BeginnerHistorian]

Kipchak, Cuman (or Kuman), Polovtsky are three different names for the same thing. So it isn't " ... kipchak turks and the cumans ...", it should be " ... kipchak turks (or the cumans) ... "



Not exactly.

"Tartar" is a word that designated originally any population from the eastern steppes, regardless of their actual ethnicity (it's like the term of "barbar/barbarian" in antiquity).

"Tartar", even today, is still designating Mongols in some languages (Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, for example)

No , tartar is certanly called people who lives in eastern europe part of steppe.

source:
Tatars - Wikipedia
)

 

[janusdviveidis]

In Eastern European historiography steppe nomads that invaded in 13 century often are called Mongol-Tatars. Simply because they were army from different tribes, both Mongols and Turks were present in first invasion.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Yep.



The terms "light" and "heavy" have nothing to do with the men or their equipment. It refers to the role they played in battle.

A naked man armed with a shield and spear is classed as "heavy infantry" if he is in a shield wall formation.

A knight in full plate harness is classed as "light cavalry" if he is performing a scouting or skirmishing role.

If a knight is in close formation charging at the enemy then he is classed as "heavy cavalry" but as soon as the formation breaks up and he starts chasing down routers he get reclassified as "light cavalry".

I thought that the terms are/were more like a reference to the type of armour they were clad in, whether 'light' or 'heavy' armour.

 

[sparky]

the term light or heavy cavalry usually refer to the type of horses being ridden and as a consequence the amount of weight they can carry

As long as the mongols could stay out of contact they would have some advantage
but if the lines joined then the mongols would be sliced and diced
part of this is the armor and part , the knight training in close mounted combat ,
an other factor is the heaviest and tallest western horses which have one good charge in them then need a rest

at the battle of the Lechfeld , the steppe magyard got cornered and were severely beaten

it should be pointed out that a nimble force of one hundred would give a better advantage to the mongols
while an sluggish force of ten thousands would favor the heavy knights