Does anyone know the details for the Mongols invasion plan of Europe?
- Thread starter BOTP
- Start date
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I seriuosly doubt ANY western fortification would withstand a concentrated mongol siege. Just read the accounts of, say, the siege of Kaifeng...
Could any fortress withstand TEN YEARS of near constant trebuchet bombarment, Thunder Crash Bombs, sapping techniques, and starvation? I doubt it.
While I am not an expert on European siege fortifications, that medieval castles (that apparently fell quite easily to much less sophisticated European armies in far less time) could withstand the same siege techniques that managed to topple cities with refined fortifications that were essentially the pinnacle of defensive technology, honed by thousands of years of conflict, is quite unlikely at best.
Besides which, I doubt any European army could defeat the Mongols in the field, so they could just starve them out if need be.
Oh, and the terror advantage would defiantely play out after the Mongols sacked a few cities in, say, Belgium, and killed a few million.
Could any fortress withstand TEN YEARS of near constant trebuchet bombarment, Thunder Crash Bombs, sapping techniques, and starvation? I doubt it.
While I am not an expert on European siege fortifications, that medieval castles (that apparently fell quite easily to much less sophisticated European armies in far less time) could withstand the same siege techniques that managed to topple cities with refined fortifications that were essentially the pinnacle of defensive technology, honed by thousands of years of conflict, is quite unlikely at best.
Besides which, I doubt any European army could defeat the Mongols in the field, so they could just starve them out if need be.
Oh, and the terror advantage would defiantely play out after the Mongols sacked a few cities in, say, Belgium, and killed a few million.
North King said:
read BOTPs arguments.
and for note, european castes in westenr europe were INSANELLY hard to breach- 12 men won a battle agiast several thousand- 12. 12 god damn men northking, against thousands- the event itself happend during the war of the Roses,in england, IIRC.
point is, dont dare discount european foritifacations- a well stocked, well built westenr european citadel coudl withstand almost anything, which is why they were used up to WWII as command centers, aside formt hie rompnipotence as command sites
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Xen said:
So were Chinese fortresses... You underestimate the Mongols.
As for a siege train, pfft. The only thing they would need to bring was the men and the thunder crash bombs. Trebuchets were easily enough constructed, the stones were easily gathered in massive amounts as was shown at Kaifeng.
Xen - Of course I read BOTP's post, and I read the one about the Mongols over-coming the Chinese fortresses. You'll also notice that I said it would've been a stalemate for quite awhile. Hit and run tactics would have slowly won as supply routes and reinforcements were attacked, and the fortresses slowly depleting in population. A fortress does no good without people to defend it. I never said it would've been swift, rather, I gave it 50-100 years at the least. Gunpowder would have helped definately (cannons, etc.), and they could have gotten some of that from Arabia.
Then there's the intimidation factor the Europeans would have been facing -- an enemy that has conquered an entire continent a good 5 times their size!
Then there's the intimidation factor the Europeans would have been facing -- an enemy that has conquered an entire continent a good 5 times their size!
What battle was that?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Questions for the European history buffs :
1)Professional soldiery defending the castles? I was under the impression MOST armed forces in Europe were levies, at that time, not professionals. Can anyone clarify this?
2)If masonry reached its summit around the time of the mongol attacks, wouldn't that mean most of the castles the mongols would have had to face would be somewhat off from these standards? Not to mean they'd have been poor castle, but combining factor 1 and 2, wouldn't that reduce dramatically the number of reliably defended, modern castles?
3)While the mountain argument is fair enough for southern Europe (Balkans, Alps, Carpathians, Pyreneans, etc), isn't northern Europe relatively flat?
All in all, I'm not saying the mongols would have necessarily suceeded. Just wondering about some of the pro-Europe arguments, when what evidence there is doesn't show the Europeans managing to put together much resistance against the mongols.
1)Professional soldiery defending the castles? I was under the impression MOST armed forces in Europe were levies, at that time, not professionals. Can anyone clarify this?
2)If masonry reached its summit around the time of the mongol attacks, wouldn't that mean most of the castles the mongols would have had to face would be somewhat off from these standards? Not to mean they'd have been poor castle, but combining factor 1 and 2, wouldn't that reduce dramatically the number of reliably defended, modern castles?
3)While the mountain argument is fair enough for southern Europe (Balkans, Alps, Carpathians, Pyreneans, etc), isn't northern Europe relatively flat?
All in all, I'm not saying the mongols would have necessarily suceeded. Just wondering about some of the pro-Europe arguments, when what evidence there is doesn't show the Europeans managing to put together much resistance against the mongols.
North King said:
While you certainly undersestimate the Europeans. Unlike China or Persia or Arabia, Europe was a highly militarized entity, whose defense relied on a huge number of comparatively small fortifications scattered throughout the land. With the big wave during the 12th century fortifications were springing up at an astonishing pace. The Europeans had learned much during the Crusades, in regards to both siege warfare and fortification. The Crusades added further stimulus, not just because the Europeans learned more about the advanced Byzantine and Arab military architecture but also thanks to the thriving economy. Medieval Europe was also more commonly furnished with castles and walled cities than were the other areas the Mongols roamed. The European fortifications were also far different than those of other places the Mongols razed, and could withstand long protracted sieges, with enough food and fresh water to stay bottled up for months even with almost the entire local population inside. Fortifications often utilized well-thought-out traps and murder holes, several gates and escape routes, a vast array of secret underground tunnels, and not to mention the high, strategic placement of such castles which would make them virtually immune to conventional siege. The number of such fortifications in Europe was enormous. In the early 13th century the Count of Provence controlled 40 castles, and the King of France had over 100, including 45 in Normandy. The Duke of Burgundy owned 70. In 1216 King Henry III had inherited from his father 93 royal castles in England, and had secured 10 more in Guyenne by 1220, while for their part the English barons held 179. Within several generations, castles and fortified towns dominated much of the countryside.
Oda Nobunaga said:
It is true. Yet at the same time this period witnessed the rise of missile weapons, the introduction of the pike, advances in weapons and armor, the revival of the foot soldier, and the change of feudal conscripts to professional standing armies, all indicating the decline of the Feudal-based society. Armies were undergoing rapid transformation, and were combining infantry, archers, cavalry, and by that time England, France, and Germany were all strong and centralized, which meant less ritualization of warfare.
Oda Nobunaga said:
I'll talk about that later, since I'm running out of time to go into detail about how castles operated.
Oda Nobunaga said:
Only after the massive de-forrestation effort, but that took quite some time. And, history shows that the Mongols were never to good on unfovorable terrain, the sole exception being China. However, China was neither heavily militarized nor covered with a concentration of fortifications anywhere near comparable to medieval Europe. Still, its conquest was a feat which took decades and many campaigns on a huge scale. It was far from anything like a quick victory. To dwell some more on your comments, I believe the key to the ultimate fall of China was its geographical position. China may not have been ideal for horses, but the relative proximity to the steppe made it possible for the Mongols to easily retire back to safety at the end of the campaign. Reinforcements could also arrive much faster. In any case, it was the eastern orientation which seems to have suited the Mongols best. On the other hand, the distance between Mongolia and Western Europe is much longer. The real steppe ends on the Dnester in Western Ukraine. The Hungarian plain, without doubt the best springboard for an invasion of Europe for nomadic horsemen, is not a direct continuation of the steppe. It's separated from it by the Carpathian mountain chain. Russia was newly conquered territory by 1241 it was far from safe. The already inadequate number of Mongol warriors was scattered over a wide area. Any full-scale invasion of Europe must have been risky business from Batu's perspective. Even once Hungary had fallen the situation did not improve in any way. The Mongols found themselves on the Hungarian plain, which in itself could almost certainly not provide sufficient grazing for an extended period. They had suffered heavy losses and were unable to subdue the remaining strongholds. In addition, the Germans began mustering troops in close proximity. To make things worse, there was no easy route to the safety of the steppe, either a tiresome climb over the heavily wooded Carpathian mountains or a long detour through the equally difficult, but at least weakly defended Balkans. Geography dictated that there were only a few routes the Mongols could take into the West, and geography also made a rapid advance impossible. The Balkans are not easily passable - far from that. The combination of hills, mountains, woods and the hot, dry climate near the Adriatic and Mediterranean coast are a serious obstacle to any army, particularly if as reliant on horses as the Mongols.
Oda Nobunaga said:
North King said:
This statement shows considerable ignorance. No large Western European army had ever faced the Mongols in battle. Liegnitz was a mess (in all respects much like Nicopolis in 1396; thanks to the immense ignorance, confusion and extremely poor coordination among the Europeans) destined to be a failure because the mixed Christian force (largely Polish light cavalry, some infantry and a small contingent of heavy cavalry) knew nothing about their enemy and fought without a clear chain of command. Surely, you cant possibly judge the European system on a few isolated mishaps. Granted, there were cases of hysteria and poor judgment, but I don't think there were all that many engagements where the European military system as such failed against an eastern army of comparable size and strength. It would be false to automatically attribute the failures of these battles to any inherent flaw in the European way of waging war. But Mohi and the accompanying skirmishes in Hungary really present an entirely different picture. The Hungarian army, while still relatively poorly equipped by Western standards and commited to battle under unfavorable conditions, inflicted very heavy casualties on the Mongols before collapsing. The Mongols seem to have won only because of their extreme determination and only at a very high cost. To stress this again: it was probably the losses suffered at Mohi that effectively hindered the Mongol expansion and reduced the power of the Golden Horde.
And given the amount of experience with steppe warfare, and it is fair to say the Europeans knew what to expect from the Mongols. They had scored great victories over similar nomadic opponents (i.e. Saracens, Parthians, Huns, Avars, Moors, ect.). For all practical purposes, the Mongols were not so different than these other steppe dwelling peoples. All of them practiced the same type of pastoral transhumance lifestyles, had the same clan-tribal system of government, very similar religious belief system and fought from horseback in the same manner using composite-compound recurved bows as did their predecessors. Even their tactics: encirclement, sweeps, feigned retreat and ambush, were previously used by earlier kindred steppe peoples. The persistent idea of superiority of horse archers to European armies is merely a myth. There already were ideal counter-measures - the tactics developed to deal with Eastern horse archers over centuries. The Carolingians learned about them when fighting the Avars, Lombards and Byzantines. The Germans picked up some experience the Magyars. A fair number of European mercenaries served in the Byzantine and Muslim armies (in Spain or the Middle East). Even if we leave the Avars and Magyars aside, Western Europeans had been fighting horse archers in the Crusades for nearly 150 years - and that was before Batu's raid. Pope Innocent IV had a fair number of people at his court well versed in Eastern warfare, especially Friar John of Plano Carpini, who had plenty of opportunities to observe Mongol military practices, since he was part of the first Papal mission to Karakorum, in 1245-1247. Louis IX of France had ample opportunity to experience the effects of a military system inherently similar to that of the Mongols during his active stay in Egypt. He apparently had parituclar extensive knowledge of Saracen warfare. Preparations for the Louis' two crusades were very serious and display an in-depth familiarity with the Eastern military system. Added to this one can look at the pattern of Mongol raids into central Europe during the rest of the high Middle Ages and late middle ages; hardly a string of successes. The Lithuanians especially made good use of their terrain to neutralize the raids, and launched an impressive numbers of raids into Russian Mongol dependencies that were met with little response. Since the Europeans had some experience fighting predominately nomadic armies, it's fair to expect that they could develop effective countermeasures against a hypothetical Mongol invasion relatively quickly.
A lot of problem with this. Firstly, IF and it's a big IF the Mongols decided that the way to go in Europe was widespread genocide, AND get away with it, then what would be the point? Ruling over a desert isn't really any fun. Secondly, how would they get away with it? There were castles EVERYWHERE in Europe. EVERYWHERE. And they were all filled with armed men. You can't just go rampaging everywhere and avoid all of them no matter if your army is all mounted or not. You have to eat, you get ambushed, you have to rest, you have to plunder. Third, there are only a few thousand Mongols doing all this. It's not like there is a Mongol for every european. And if they use auxiliaries, they lose their mobile advantage--which means that they can no longer outrun the European armies. How do they kill all the peasants anyhow? The way they depopulated Iraq was not by slaughtering everyone but by destroying the irrigation system. Europe relies on rainfall agriculture meaning that the Mongols have to win the hard way--knocking down castles. If they take over a region and start depopulating it, then not only will EVERY LORD AND KNIGHT IN EUROPE rush to the scene, but the peasants will just go into the forests where the Mongols can't chase them.
One thing Mongol History bluffs have completely ignored is possibly the most important aspect to consider......LOGISTICS!!!! The weakness of huge cavalry armies was always forage operating with large mounted forces in one area of operations soon depleted the natural sources of provender, requiring the Mongols to be constantly on the move as a matter of horse-logistics, driving strategy into sometimes unproductive channels. Once the Mongols left the central European plain and entered the more forested Western Europe they were going to be faced with a logistical nightmare. Horsepower required pasture, superabundant in the great pastoral belts of Mongolia, China, Russia and the Middle East, but almost non-existent in the dark forests and arable lands of Europe. Look at the numbers: about 70,000 Mongols in Hungary and Poland, each with 5 horses at least gives 350,000 horses. That means that each horse needs maybe 15 lbs of hay a day (that's allowing for small steppe ponies), gives 5,200,000 lbs of food a day. If grazing on grass alone, say 40 lbs/day = 14 million pounds of grass per day. Look at it the other way: 10,000 horses/sq. mile, with 350,000 horses, = 35 sq. miles of grazing a day. Well, that amount of pasture was simply not available in Central and Western Europe in those days, so feeding that number of horses would be a logistical nightmare. The shortage of European pasture was such that any steppe-nomadic army was always going to be too small to sustain a war of conquest, and the Mongols wouldve starved, as its Hunnic, Avar and Magyar predecessors had been, by the absence of any viable logistical base. If a Mongol army of any size wanted to actually make room for all the mounts, there would have called for a very thorough cleaning of the local livestock. But culling the livestock indiscriminately would have meant a demise of the local population as well, and also deprive them of a valuable source of food. Certainly a horde could feed its animals from granaries instead, but after conquest it would be difficult to maintain the number of horses to which they were accustomed. In either case, it would have been a battle for survival. Simply to keep their mounts alive the Mongols would have been forced to scatter through the endless woodlands as they searched for the few patches of meadowland to devour. Any attempt at concentration (i.e. a major siege or battle) would inevitably bring a multitude of dangers with it. Within a year of the invasion Mongol horse numbers would have crashed simply from starvation. With no significant grazing the nomads would have been quite unable to reassemble in one place and in the kind of force necessary to sustain the military effort.This had compelled the Huns, Avars and Magyars to settle down and make the transition to a much more complex social organisation based on mixed farming on the open field system with three-year crop rotations on the wooded plains and valleys. Reducing the numbers of mounts to boost total troop strength in agricultural conditions would have meant Europeanising, diluting and assimilating the Mongols, robbing them of their mobility in terrain where military manoeuvres were already heavily restricted by the rivers, mountain valleys and the vert, and decisively limiting their destructive potential. To fight in European conditions the Mongols would have to leave their unique advantages behind them when they quit the steppes, bring an end to their nomadic existence, and reinvent themselves as a small conventional force on European lines. And even if the Mongols had somehow miraculously managed to overcome the logistical difficulties I don't think they would have triumphed on European battlefields.
Jeff Yu
Prince
Time to post some actual pictures for comparison:
The walls of Constantinpole:
The walls of Xi'an
Chinese archery tower in Beijing (original walls have been torn down)
The walls of Jerusalem, built by the Ottoman Empire
Walls of Dubrovnik, Croatia
City wall and tower in Germany
The walls of Constantinpole:
The walls of Xi'an
Chinese archery tower in Beijing (original walls have been torn down)
The walls of Jerusalem, built by the Ottoman Empire
Walls of Dubrovnik, Croatia
City wall and tower in Germany
@Jeff Yu- okay dandy, Xi'an are big- great- but how about its strategic position in the country side
Constantinople had pretty big walls- but you shoudl alos remember it had a fortifacation FAR superior to that of Xi'an, and that weas being surrounded on three sides by natual relitivlly deep water areas, that, unlike moats, coul dnot be crossed, because these walls went directlyl intot he water, and the Byzantien navy was no little force ot be trifeld with.
similerlly, you have to remember, the europeans, whiel they did fortify thier cities- used CASTLES as thier primary deposits of military resources, and troops- and these castles were in areas best suited for a pruelly military, and strtegic role= the were not forified cities, because cities are rarelly in a strategic strong point.
Constantinople had pretty big walls- but you shoudl alos remember it had a fortifacation FAR superior to that of Xi'an, and that weas being surrounded on three sides by natual relitivlly deep water areas, that, unlike moats, coul dnot be crossed, because these walls went directlyl intot he water, and the Byzantien navy was no little force ot be trifeld with.
similerlly, you have to remember, the europeans, whiel they did fortify thier cities- used CASTLES as thier primary deposits of military resources, and troops- and these castles were in areas best suited for a pruelly military, and strtegic role= the were not forified cities, because cities are rarelly in a strategic strong point.
Jeff Yu
Prince
You're the one who pointed out that cities aren't fortress. I'm posting examples of comparative city fortifications, not dedicated fortresses.
Jeff Yu
Prince
I'm heading for bed, but I'll try to post more pictures tommorow. Trying to look for pictures of Xiangyang, the strategic fortress-city situated on the Yangtze river than the Mongols held in siege for 5 years. The Mongols blockaded with both a land army and a river navy of thousands of boats, holding off attempts to keep the city supplied. The Mongols ended up using Chinese, Korean, Jurchen, Korean, Uighur, and Persian siege and naval experts. The Muslims had to specially design artillery capable of launching rocks weighing over at a hundred pounds.
For now, here's a picture of the city's moat, one of the largest in China.
For now, here's a picture of the city's moat, one of the largest in China.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
@BOTP:
China wasn't militarized? What the frick? It was divided, one half of it was a highly militarized nation that had conquered its way to dominance, the other so defensively minded that towns took YEARS to reduce.
Oh, and about this "Euro fortresses were designed to hold out well for long periods of time", well point me to ONE siege in Euro history that lasted ten years. THEN we can talk about holding out a long time.
About Leignitz being a mess, that was obvious, most battles against the Mongols were a mess. Regardless, the Euros were sending the elite core of the Teutonic knights, the Polish cavalry, some of the best in Europe, and in Hungary they faced other massive armies. ALL OF THEM WERE DEFEATED. It was barely even a contest, the Mongols simply outinvented, outflanked, and outfought the Euros at every opportune.
To say that a contemperary European army raised up to fight the Mongols (which, BTW, would probably be composed of several nationalities, even if from only one nation, and thus would be fractured and disorganized) would be able to beat them in a stand up fight is ludicrous at best.
As for logistics, the Mongols were quite aware of these, they didn't just figure they could keep on fighting forever. They certainly planned in all other instances for the logistical aspect, and they would surely here too as well.
China wasn't militarized? What the frick? It was divided, one half of it was a highly militarized nation that had conquered its way to dominance, the other so defensively minded that towns took YEARS to reduce.
Oh, and about this "Euro fortresses were designed to hold out well for long periods of time", well point me to ONE siege in Euro history that lasted ten years. THEN we can talk about holding out a long time.
About Leignitz being a mess, that was obvious, most battles against the Mongols were a mess. Regardless, the Euros were sending the elite core of the Teutonic knights, the Polish cavalry, some of the best in Europe, and in Hungary they faced other massive armies. ALL OF THEM WERE DEFEATED. It was barely even a contest, the Mongols simply outinvented, outflanked, and outfought the Euros at every opportune.
To say that a contemperary European army raised up to fight the Mongols (which, BTW, would probably be composed of several nationalities, even if from only one nation, and thus would be fractured and disorganized) would be able to beat them in a stand up fight is ludicrous at best.
As for logistics, the Mongols were quite aware of these, they didn't just figure they could keep on fighting forever. They certainly planned in all other instances for the logistical aspect, and they would surely here too as well.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Indeed. "Europe would have beaten the mongols" is an unsupported claim, given that we only have two engagements to look at, and both involved europeans being very soundly beaten by numerically inferior mongol forces.
According to this site here:
http://www.rsoperations.com/History/Warfare/Exploration_and_Warfare.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_028100_kublaikhan.htm
This shows several things. One Mongolians do have the patience to lay seige to cities for 5 years and probably longer. Secondly Chinese cities despite not being fortresses could actually hold out in seiges for 5 years despite the weakened state of the Song military.
I think the question is, if the Mongolians laid siege to European fortresses for 5-10 years using Muslim and Chinese siege technology, could those fortresses actually hold out. The main question at this point is logistics.
http://www.rsoperations.com/History/Warfare/Exploration_and_Warfare.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_028100_kublaikhan.htm
This shows several things. One Mongolians do have the patience to lay seige to cities for 5 years and probably longer. Secondly Chinese cities despite not being fortresses could actually hold out in seiges for 5 years despite the weakened state of the Song military.
I think the question is, if the Mongolians laid siege to European fortresses for 5-10 years using Muslim and Chinese siege technology, could those fortresses actually hold out. The main question at this point is logistics.
North King said:
