Historical inaccurate about mongol horse archers

[Dracleath]

According to the latest historical estimates the battle at Legnica was approximately equal in terms of forces:

20,000 mongols, most all horse archers

28,000 european soldiers, but only 10,000 were actually mounted at all, probably less of those actual knights. The rest were spearmen with a small number of archers.


And maybe archers had been tried before, but in any of those cases were they well equipped and the center of the battle strategy? They certainly weren't in any of the european cases. In the turkish cases they were fighting an army of 150,000 cavalry which was a juggernaut by any standards of the day and I doubt there were 150,000 turkish bowmen in the armies of any of the states captured.

Also keep in mind that in Kublai Khan's conquests of china he used gunpowder weapons and korean pike phlanxes, hardly classical mongolian tactics and closer to alexandrian combined arms forces.

 

[Grimshok]

You guys are so funny. This debate is funny. I have one word for you; "stirrup". It was the stirrup that allowed the Mongols to have the silmultaneous advantages of firepower AND mobility. Can you imagine? shooting at them, and they move out of your arrows path? flanking them, and they end up flanking you? What made this all possible was the technological advancement of the stirrup. Granted, they DID have good bows, and their horsemanship was great, but others had good bows, too... and good horsemen. But it was their tech advancement of the stirrup that gave them the silmultaneous edge. Here's a bit of Hyperhistory:

Stirrup for horses

Stirrups were unknown in ancient times and horsemen had to hold the horse's mane to avoid falling off. Cavalrymen of antiquity used their spears to mount a horse hoisting themselves aloft as in pole-vaulting.

Although no inventor of the stirrup is recorded, and some primitive form of a rope stirrup originated probably from the horsemen of the steppes, by the third century AD metallurgical advances allowed the Chinese to cast perfect metal stirrups.

Mongol tribesmen brought the stirrup to Europe and in the year 580 a military manual of the Byzantine emperor for the first time mentions the need for stirrups.

If you don't believe me, simply look up Mongol and Stirrup in google. They are quite famous for it.

 

[Osbern61]

You guys are so funny. This debate is funny. I have one word for you; "stirrup". It was the stirrup that allowed the Mongols to have the silmultaneous advantages of firepower AND mobility. Can you imagine? shooting at them, and they move out of your arrows path? flanking them, and they end up flanking you? What made this all possible was the technological advancement of the stirrup. Granted, they DID have good bows, and their horsemanship was great, but others had good bows, too... and good horsemen. But it was their tech advancement of the stirrup that gave them the silmultaneous edge. Here's a bit of Hyperhistory:

If you don't believe me, simply look up Mongol and Stirrup in google. They are quite famous for it.

Good post. I remember reading about 12 years ago about the emergence of the stirrup and was surprised that it took so long to be invented.

 

[Princeps]

According to the latest historical estimates the battle at Legnica was approximately equal in terms of forces:

20,000 mongols, most all horse archers

28,000 european soldiers, but only 10,000 were actually mounted at all, probably less of those actual knights. The rest were spearmen with a small number of archers.

Mongols still won three large European armies in a row, with little casualties.

And maybe archers had been tried before, but in any of those cases were they well equipped and the center of the battle strategy? They certainly weren't in any of the european cases. In the turkish cases they were fighting an army of 150,000 cavalry which was a juggernaut by any standards of the day and I doubt there were 150,000 turkish bowmen in the armies of any of the states captured.

The Turks didn't ever fight against 150,000 men Mongol army, IIRC. I said that the Mongol army which was used to invade middle east was 150,000, but it was only for a moment, untill it was shared into smaller armies, IIRC.

Of course, i have not the most knowladgeble in the Mongol conquests but this is what I've heard.

Also keep in mind that in Kublai Khan's conquests of china he used gunpowder weapons and korean pike phlanxes, hardly classical mongolian tactics and closer to alexandrian combined arms forces.

Of course Mongols could have used, their army was simply so small that they needed support, in order to defeat the enourmous Chinese army, but they still won against incredible odds. And, Gunpowder weapons were probably used in sieges.

And the phalanxes were probably used in combo with the cavalry.

 

[Dracleath]

Back to the initial subject of this thread, should not perhaps keshiks be a knight replacement instead of a horse archer replacement as camel archers are?

 

[The Last Conformist]

A Mongol invasion of Western Europe would have faced two big problems; terrain ill-suited to large-scale cavalry warfare, and a superabundance of castles and fortified cities. Horse archers have many admirable qualities, but excellence at siege warfare isn't among them.

Generally, the Mongols faired poorly when they got two far from the steppes - Japan, Burma, and Java come to mind.

 

[Princeps]

A Mongol invasion of Western Europe would have faced two big problems; terrain ill-suited to large-scale cavalry warfare, and a superabundance of castles and fortified cities. Horse archers have many admirable qualities, but excellence at siege warfare isn't among them.

Mongols faced the very same problem in China. They solved it by using local troops in combined arms with the Mongol horsemen, I see no problem for this in Europe, they could have brought foreign infantry mercenaries and local European mercenaries to besiege any forts and to fight in forests with the Mongols.

Also, the Mongols did have siege equimpent for cavalry which they used very successfully. They could raise horsemen to the walls.

And, defense of Europe would have faced far greater problems, such as Mongol diplomacy, traitors, raids, ETC.

Generally, the Mongols faired poorly when they got two far from the steppes - Japan, Burma, and Java come to mind.

In japan the Mongols were destroyed by the storms, however, the few troops which survived fought well. There was no sea between Mongols and Europe.

Also, in Java and Burma there are jungles, Europe was already rather deforestated (sp?) due to the natural economy, IIRC.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Mongols faced the very same problem in China. They solved it by using local troops in combined arms with the Mongol horsemen, I see no problem for this in Europe, they could have brought foreign infantry mercenaries and local European mercenaries to besiege any forts and to fight in forests with the Mongols.

Where'd they get foreign infantry mercenaries? Korea?

The trick would have been to get enough of the locals to side with them.

Also, the Mongols did have siege equimpent for cavalry which they used very successfully. They could raise horsemen to the walls.

I'd like a reference for this. Anyway, getting a horse archer on top of a castle wall doesn't sounds like something you'd want to do.

And, defense of Europe would have faced far greater problems, such as Mongol diplomacy, traitors, raids, ETC.

The French monarchy got out of the 100 Years War victoriously despite losing almost all major battles, having their country raided by English corps for generations, and plenty of Frenchmen fighting for the English. Medieval European kingdoms weren't structured in a way as to make them easily susceptible to being taken over in one fell swoop.

In japan the Mongols were destroyed by the storms, however, the few troops which survived fought well. There was no sea between Mongols and Europe.

They only fought well enough to fight the rather primitive Japanese to a steelmate. This can't be considered anything but unimpressive for an army that had conquered half of Eurasia.

Also, in Java and Burma there are jungles, Europe was already rather deforestated (sp?) due to the natural economy, IIRC.

Europe was at the time less deforested than today, but still much more open than a few centuries before.

Incidentally, there is more jungle in Burma than in Java, but for some reason the Mongols did better there anyway. Likely related to shorter communications, I suppose.


To summarize, a Mongol army in W Europe would probably have been well-nigh undefeatable if it got to fight on its own terms (ie. in the open terrain), but I suspect it would have been very hard pressed to bring the place under any sort of permanent control.

 

[Sorceresss]

[...You are] utterly pathetic when it comes to their History, you don't know anything about it.

Typically "mongol".

 

[Princeps]

To summarize, a Mongol army in W Europe would probably have been well-nigh undefeatable if it got to fight on its own terms (ie. in the open terrain), but I suspect it would have been very hard pressed to bring the place under any sort of permanent control.

I agree, however, not because the Europeans would have or could have done anything about, but because the Mongols would have needed troops elsewhere.

The horses on walls were very dangerous, since they could run down infantry and shoot down on the enemy afterwards. I think.

I couldn't find the article in which they explained the horse elovator-thingie, but I found stuff on the All Empires.

http://www.allempires.com/empires/mongol/mongol2.htm

"When Chingis Khan rose to power, he set a standard of organization, discipline, equipment, and most all the mentality to fight as a group. Chingis organized his army into a decimal system, with a commander for every series of 10 units elected by the troops. Military tactics were rehearsed well in preparation and each warrior was expected to know precisely what to do from the signals of the commanders, which took form in flaming arrows, drums, and banners. The Mongol horde had extremely high discipline. Failure to maintain equipment, and desertion in battle were punishable by death. The combination of skill, discipline, tactics, and some of the most brilliant commanders in history shocked all who fought against them. When the western knights fought the Mongol horsemen, they were utterly destroyed, unable to match the Mongol horde in any category. On the battlefield, the Mongols were capable of a wide array of tricks. Being an army of entirely cavalry, the Mongols could easily dictate the positional flow of the battle, particularly feigned retreats, which could easily fool an enemy into a foolish charge, and encirclement, which is difficult for the enemy to uphold due to the speed and cavalry strength of the Mongols.

Siege machines and gunpowder learned from the Chinese and Persians played an important role in the horde. Besides their use in sieges, siege weapons were widely deployed on the battlefield. The Mongols mastered the use of quick assemble catapults that could be transported on horseback and assembled on the battlefield. Learned from the Chinese, the Mongols developed gunpowder weapons such as smoke grenades (used to hide movement) and firebombs. Both of these contributed to the Mongol success in the invasion of Europe. The Mongol's acceptance and adaptations to such new methods meant that they were not only an army of the most traditionally skilled warriors, but also an army with the best technology the world has to offer."

 

[KrikkitTwo]

well the reasonable change would probably be
Mongol UU-> replace Knight
Arab UU -> replace Horse Archer. Because the Arab 'explosion' was 5-600 years Before the Mongol 'explosion' and in the time period where 'Knights' were only beginning to get started.

 

[BeefontheBone]

So, the OP reckons the game would be fun if there were only a couple of civs worth playing? Riiiiiiiight. As pointed out repeatedly on these boards, it's a game not a history simulator - if you don't like an aspect of gameplay like this, mod it and quit moaning.

 

[Hypus]

No credit to the steppe-horses though? Granted The Khan's were sound in leadership, disciplining their men, etc, but everyone has forgotten about the other 50% of the mongol army--->those little steppe horses. They had much to do with the superior mobility of the mongol hordes.

I'm no animal lover either but shame on you all

(shame on me for not remembering the exact breeed as well--too lazy to research atm...)

 

[Hypus]

A Mongol invasion of Western Europe would have faced two big problems; terrain ill-suited to large-scale cavalry warfare, and a superabundance of castles and fortified cities. Horse archers have many admirable qualities, but excellence at siege warfare isn't among them.

Generally, the Mongols faired poorly when they got two far from the steppes - Japan, Burma, and Java come to mind.

Great point there. Look at the defenses the Japanese and Chinese had to think of though when considering combating "the horde". I think the Khan's were masters of using fear; as well as tactics. Imagine them seeing just ONE Samurai castle and the setup--I imagine they admired it and simply moved on. lol

 

[weimingshi]

China didn't loose to mongol because mongol was too strong. China lost first because of corrupted central government at the time. The imperial court of china at the time don't trust their generals at all. As a result any successful gneneal was either blackmailed and killed or detached from their army. Then there were traitors among chinese that became generals under mongol. Large part of mongol army that invaded china was actually formed with chinese soldiers. And most of the advanced war technology mongols use, they got it from chinese engineers.

mongold conquered northern part of china pretty quickly, because its mostly plains. But it took them 3 generation to conquer the south, because there's too many rivers which does not suit horse archers.

And story about batu and subedei and their 20,000 men was that their orginal plan was to attack russia. But somehow they got lost on the way and ended up in europe. Temujin had no idea where the 2 went. He even thought they were died. The most impressive aspect of mongol army was actually their supply line. At that time other countries soldier needs to maintain a supply line from major cities to the frontline. Mongols are different, they carry the cattles with them, and when they conquer a place they replenish their supply on the spot. And the speed of mongol army was simply lightning fast, these man can sleep for weeks on their horses while still moving. So combine these 2 traites, you basically got a extremly mobile invisible army. It goes compeletely against the conventions of warfare of that era. as for the The many castles of europe at that time would be uselss. The mongol don't even need to bother with the castles. All they need is pillage the country side and large towns.

 

[sovarn]

please forgive my ignorance but then why did his empire fall? was it too big or was it with the death of kahn?

 

[Krobos_Maximus]

Have you guys notice that mongol horse archer in Civ4 is considerably weaker than roman legionaries? This is completely false compare to history. If any of us truely read history, we know that mongol horse archers are superior to even medieval knights(mongols defeat 150,000 teutonic knights) but here in civ 4, they cant even compare to ancient units(pratorian). Imo, if you're going to make unique unit base on history imo:

Roman UU should dominate ancient era
Mongol should dominate the medieval era
ENgland(the red coat) should dominate premodern era
and Finally Germany Panzer tank dominate the modern era

It seem that civ 4 fits all criteria EXCEPT in the case of the mongol.

Is it that hard to believe that a roman legion would be able to defeat a group of Mongol horse archers? One of the main arguments this thread seems to throw up is the inefficiency and inability of European armies of the medieval period. A Roman legion epitomizes the image of a well-trained, well-equipped and superbly organized military force. Throw in a Gaius Marius, Luciius Cornellius Sulla, Gaius Julius Caesar or a Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (just to name a few) and I'd bet my money on the Romans.

 

[Thormodr]

your utterly pathetic when it comes to their History, you don't know anything about it. The Chinese had hundreds of thousands of soldiers and heavily outnumbered the Mongols, they still won, the Kwarazmian Empire heavily outnumbered the Mongols, stey still won. The Mongols always fought even or down odd battles with incredible odds against them, don't for a minute say nobody could resist them, it was because they were so skilled they won. The Teutonic Knights did exist, and yes they had close to 150,000 heavy cavalry against Batu Khans Horse Archers.

Since you are studying to be a historian let me give you some friendly advice.
First of all, using childish insults will not win you any arguments with academians. Second of all I suggest you brush up on your spelling and grammar if you want to be taken seriously. Third of all give me proof that the Teutonic Knights had 150,000 heavy cavalry and fought the Mongols in a pitched battle. A good historian always backs up his sources rather than trashing people he debates without offering any proof of his own.

Here is a good link for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica

 

[iammanh]

Is it that hard to believe that a roman legion would be able to defeat a group of Mongol horse archers? One of the main arguments this thread seems to throw up is the inefficiency and inability of European armies of the medieval period. A Roman legion epitomizes the image of a well-trained, well-equipped and superbly organized military force. Throw in a Gaius Marius, Luciius Cornellius Sulla, Gaius Julius Caesar or a Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (just to name a few) and I'd bet my money on the Romans.

Let's be realistic here. You're equating foot soldier who's total strategy is marching forward to fight the enemy against an army who's the master of flanking and tactical retreat? Who has ten times the mobility, and the range attack would lose to a simple foot soldier? Mongol horse archer would completely and utterly annihilate roman army. Hell, even medieval knights would annihilate roman army too, if that were not true, then most european nation would still be using roman legionaires style of army instead of their medieval knight counterpart.

But anyway, Imo, mongol horse archer UU should be a replacement for knights..not just regular horse archer imo.

 

[Princeps]

Since you are studying to be a historian let me give you some friendly advice.
First of all, using childish insults will not win you any arguments with academians. Second of all I suggest you brush up on your spelling and grammar if you want to be taken seriously. Third of all give me proof that the Teutonic Knights had 150,000 heavy cavalry and fought the Mongols in a pitched battle. A good historian always backs up his sources rather than trashing people he debates without offering any proof of his own.

Here is a good link for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica

European army of 150,000 is ridcolous exaggration (sp?), Europeans never had such a large field force during the middle ages. Medieval logistics were simply way too weak and population and economy was small so raising such force would utterly crash the economy.

Roman economy was in far better condition, during the golden ages, and yet they never had such a field army, even though Roman logisitcs were incredible during those days.

In fact, I think most of the battles, where there are alleged to be over 100,000 men, are balantly exaggarated.

However, the medival army in the battle, was slaughtered completely. The Medieval army never had a realistic chance. Mongols probably didn't suffer creat casualties during the battle.

Hell, even medieval knights would annihilate roman army too,

Not really, Roman legion had great discipline, training and well armed men, combined with excellent organization. Medieval army would simply not match it. IMHO.

if that were not true, then most european nation would still be using roman legionaires style of army instead of their medieval knight counterpart.

Have you ever heard of the dark ages. Knowladge of the Roman army lost, the Roman organization, tactics were lost in medieval world.

Late Roman army fought against near-medieval armies very successfully. The Roman army remained the most effective army and the empire's problems were economical. Roman army was tactically very flexible and used very effective formations. Roman legionaries were far better than the medieval levies.

Romans had excellent anti-cavalry formations (see,see.

The reason why Roman tactics were not copied by the Medieval kingdoms was because most of the knowlandge was lost.