posted 08-11-2001 12:39 AM               

1. The forces the Mongols met at Liegnitz included Poles, Germans, and the famed Teutonic knights. This force was as good, qualitatively, as any in Europe. It was also as "united" as they were likely to get.

2. The Mongols were outnumbered at both Liegnitz (about 2:1) and at the Sajo River in Hungary. Overwhelming numbers were never part of their strategy. It was their success that made the word "horde" seem so terrifying, not the other way around.

3. The Mongols won several more battles, but the two named above were the decisive ones. In Poland, four other armies were beaten, including the royal army of Boleslav V at Cracow; three victories in Transylvania, and breaking through the Hungarian frontier in the Carpathians.

"In four months they had overwhelmed Christian armies totalling five times their own strength." Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History

posted 08-11-2001 08:15 AM            

It's Old French, derived from Türkic (NB, this is not the same as Turkish) orddû, and meant "camp, encampment." The language "Urdu" gets its name from the same source, as being "the trade dialect which developed so several tribes in the same camp could understand each other".

"Farsi" and "lingua franca" developed the same way, as a means of easing communication along international trade routes. There are also the various dialects of Switzerland's fourth official language, Romansch (yup, "Roman-ish") such as Ladine (yup, "Latin" as was) which are descended in direct line from the Latin of the Roman Army. This is a result of Helvetian ex-legionaries taking their retirement land-grants in the same area, so as to keep contact with other vets; those areas were mountainous enough that they tended not to travel much, resulting in a language "preserved in amber" to the delight of linguistic historians.

Army Latin was almost a sub-dialect of the language, with a lot of the subtlety rubbed off (typical grunt-speak, Tommy-slang or Landser-Jargon in fact) so that non-Italian recruits from Germania, Gaul, Hispania and Helvetia could learn it easily. I imagine the centurion's vine-staff, vigorously employed, was a great encouragement to study...

What has this to do with Euro-vs-Asian or Race Factors? Absolutely nothing - but I hope you find it an interesting digression. The only race I'm interested in is the one where my horse comes in first at 100-1.

posted 08-11-2001 06:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barb:

Thanks for making my point, one of the pimary way the mongols took cities and castle was by storming which prooves how bad were their logistics and siege tactics.
And anybody can take a fortress in 3 days by storming it if they outnumber the ennemy 30 to 1 the only problem is that storming isn't cost efficient at all, you lose huge numbers of men for small gain by this way. In fact the commonly accepted ratio if you wanted to take a fortification was to outnumber the ennemy 10 to 1 if you wanted reasonable chances of winning.

---

Sorry not full description, their artillery shot a large Hole(in German called a Bresche) in the Wall of the citadel, an Genghis was under pressure and his Grandson was killed by the chorezm.
Normally they weakened the defenders through cadavers, Artillery, flooding and such and then send the “First Wave“ prisoners to serve as living shield and to fill the Graben, German don`t know translation.

Pease answer me this Question?

How would you conquer Asia From China to Persia to russia(don`t forget the Krim and Georgien) with bad logistics?

Yes the Krak des chevaliers was an impressive castle but it was really impressive because of its location on a small mountain. Besides this castle was built during the crusades and the mongols came near to Europe 300 years later so castle desin had improved a little. I think they were many castles at least as good in Europe but many have dissapeared.

By 20m wall I mean height. Not space between tours.
[/QUOTE]

I couldn`t name them but a few Castles were Build on Mountains like Edingurgh castle, but Krak des chevaliers was very large and wellmanned for the order it belongs to IMHO.
A castle wall 20 m high, maybe you mean the donjon, could you nama a few Castles with walls so high?

As for the mongols soldiers of course i know how they were. You seem to think that cavalry archers are an ultimate weapon... well they are as long as you stay out of reach from your ennemy but once he gets you your in world of hurt. During the crusades less advanced Europeans often met horse archers and they won quite a few times.
[/QUOTE]
Against the europe Knight yes, remember the Knights and even his serjeants dàrmes aren`t the mass of an eurpean army only it`s core.
The charge with the lance is devastating but the victories of the crusaders depents on the abilities of their leaders to hold them under control.
And the Lance wouldn`t do you much good if you couldn´t reach your enemie.
Mongol light encumbered 5 hard warponies, knight 1 destrier(if any) and one travel horse useless in combat IMHO.

By 20m wall I mean height. Not space between tours.
[/QUOTE]

The unified armies of the first crusades had such a mess of intrigue and backstabing on their “holy Quest for God“ and the third crusade didn`t fare better with Richard Lionheart and the french king or the duke of austria.

Richard throw his banner in a latrine from a bastion the austrians took after hard fighting and Leopold took him Prisoner for ransom.

posted 08-13-2001 02:08 AM               

The Turks were stopped not by any "united Western army" but rather by those Eastern Europeans who you seem to despise so much. In 1683, Vienna would have fallen had not the Polish contingent under Jan Sobieski arrived just in time to relieve the defenders.

Western Europeans never really knew how to deal with the Turks. To be honest, they didn't have to fight them neither because the dirty work was already done in the northern Balkans and central Europe. It was the people from modern-day Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia who were best versed in combat against the Turks. For centuries, they were directly exposed to the Ottoman threat and had to defend their homes against the ruthless raiders on their own.

One of the most decisive battles in the Turkish wars was the battle of Sisak in 1593. It was there that an Austrian army (the bulk of which was actually composed of Slovenian and Croatian troops) managed to crushingly defeat a large Turkish force for the first time.

Of course, I could also mention the 2nd battle of Kosovo polje in 1448 where the Hungarians under Hunyadi destroyed a Muslim army by using highly inventive tactics to compensate for their deficiency in numbers.

As you may have noticed, none of the two battles was won by an army from Western Europe. And just to dispel that myth of yours, are you aware that the only encounter in which anything like a united Western army (crusaders from all over the Christian world) fought the Turks was Nicopolis in 1396? May I remind you that the battle was a shocking catastrophe for the Christians and that very few of them made it back alive?

Secondly, your point that Christians would never ally with non-Christians against other Christians is just plain false. During the Crusades, there were numerous cases when Christian rulers made pacts with either Saracens or Mongols to fight other Christians.

Thorsten is very correct in noting that the third crusade (and all the subsequent ones) were plagued by backstabbing and false play at all times. It simply boiled down to who was going to get a bigger share of the pie. And even as great a commander as Richard the Lionheart (just a couple of days ago, I was actually standing on the ruins of Dürnstein where he was imprisoned ) could not make up for the horrible disunity among the Christian ranks.

posted 08-13-2001 04:20 AM               

----
And even as great a commander as Richard the Lionheart (just a couple of days ago, I was actually standing on the ruins of Dürnstein where he was imprisoned ) could not make up for the horrible disunity among the Christian ranks.
---
Richard maybe a great war commander but uniting the christian ranks?

He threw the austrian Banner in a sewer or dungpit, an insult for an european noble without border.
He was at least in getting the best out of it as every other.
He is very romanticed but wasn`t such an good king as the tales would tell us.

posted 08-14-2001 05:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tomaz:
Thorsten, I think you've missed my point. I entirely agree with you that Richard was far from a good king. he was a strange, complex character very unlike the popular image perpetuated by fairy tales and Sir Walter Scott. His leadership, bravery and military expertise are undisputed. But Richard was a very poor organizer with little regard for tact. His enterprises began boldly, yet few ended successfully. But what I was trying to say was merely that Richard the Lionheart's competence in military matters could not compensate for the disunity among the crusaders.

[This message has been edited by Tomaz (edited 08-13-2001).]

---

Tomaz

Half and half I believe.

I don`t believe he united really something, and tactless is not the best word to describe his insults.

Rex

Thanks for your translations.

Thorsten

posted 08-17-2001 02:55 PM               

Thomaz, what your doing there is just taking things I said out of context: I talked about the Turks just to proove my point about Europeans being able to unite when needed.
The same goes with the Huns who were also beaten by a united army. Besides the Huns were VERY similar to the mongeols, they came from the same place , used the same weapons...

///The Turks were stopped not by any "united Western army" but rather by those Eastern Europeans who you seem to despise so much. In 1683, Vienna would have fallen had not the Polish contingent under Jan Sobieski arrived just in time to relieve the defenders.///

Being yourself an Eastern European I understand you don't like me saying they were generally inferior. However as you said we souldn't let national pride overcome fact

Fact 1. Eastern Europeans were slav / Orthodox and Western Europeans were Germano Latin / Roman Catholic

Fact 2. Since the Dark ages Western Europe has never been invaded by non western powers Where Eastern Europe has always been in a semi indepandent state being invaded by Mongols, Turks, Cossacks ... and even Teutonic knights.

My point here is that even with the best will I find hard to say that Western and Eastern Europe were identical... and in this case although I might be wrong my common sense tells me the military standards weren't the same between the East and the West .

///Western Europeans never really knew how to deal with the Turks. To be honest, they didn't have to fight them neither because the dirty work was already done in the northern Balkans and central Europe. It was the people from modern-day Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia who were best versed in combat against the Turks. For centuries, they were directly exposed to the Ottoman threat and had to defend their homes against the ruthless raiders on their own.///

Really... Westerners never knew how to fight against the Turks??? Thats a new one.

It would mean all the crusaders (espacially during the first crusade) swam to Jerusalem. To arrive to the Holly land the only direct invasion route goes through Turkey! The westerners not only fought the Turks but beated them on the first time without adapting to their Tacticts.

///One of the most decisive battles in the Turkish wars was the battle of Sisak in 1593. It was there that an Austrian army (the bulk of which was actually composed of Slovenian and Croatian troops) managed to crushingly defeat a large Turkish force for the first time.

Of course, I could also mention the 2nd battle of Kosovo polje in 1448 where the Hungarians under Hunyadi destroyed a Muslim army by using highly inventive tactics to compensate for their deficiency in numbers.///

Here the question lies not in how they got them out of Eastern Europe but in how could they let them penetrate so deep in Europe, to the frontier of the western World!

I never feel reconquering land is glorious simply because it implies you lost it before. It usually means that when you fought defensivly on your own territory with the maximum factors on your side you lost.

////ou may have noticed, none of the two battles was won by an army from Western Europe. And just to dispel that myth of yours, are you aware that the only encounter in which anything like a united Western army (crusaders from all over the Christian world) fought the Turks was Nicopolis in 1396? May I remind you that the battle was a shocking catastrophe for the Christians and that very few of them made it back alive?///

I already answered this before

///ondly, your point that Christians would never ally with non-Christians against other Christians is just plain false. During the Crusades, there were numerous cases when Christian rulers made pacts with either Saracens or Mongols to fight other Christians.///

Yes, But here we are talking about the survival of a whole Continent, a whole Culture, a whole Religion. Nothing like a regional conflict about having that piece of a dessert somewhere.

Besides, there lies in man an instinct that makes him regroup with those alike him to fight a coomon ennemy.
Have you ever noticed when you were a kid that when boys from another school, class, neighberhood came looking for trouble you 'd tend to regroup with people from you school, class , neighberhood to go fight them even if you didn't get along with them before.

///rsten is very correct in noting that the third crusade (and all the subsequent ones) were plagued by backstabbing and false play at all times. It simply boiled down to who was going to get a bigger share of the pie. And even as great a commander as Richard the Lionheart (just a couple of days ago, I was actually standing on the ruins of Dürnstein where he was imprisoned ) could not make up for the horrible disunity among the Christian ranks.///

As I said crudade is one thing Total war is something else

///ally, although Western Europe had the most feared heavy cavalry in the whole known world, it was not necessarily the most tactically flexible and technologically advanced. During the ultimately successful siege of Constantinople in 1453, the Turks had by far the most advanced artillery on the planet. They conquered Constantinople not by storming the walls in overwhelming numbers but rather by skillful deployment of heavy guns, which were actually made by an Hungarian smith

This final point is correct though I don't see any reason why the Europeans knights weren't the most technologically advanced heavy cavalry in the World.

[This message has been edited by Barb (edited 08-17-2001).]

posted 08-17-2001 09:06 PM               

I always figured Slovenia for part of Central Europe.

posted 08-18-2001 06:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felix:
To: Barb

I always figured Slovenia for part of Central Europe.

I'm pretty sure it is Catholic.

---

Slovenia is a slavic country that was part of the ex Yugoslavia and is now on the border of Italy, Austria, and Hungaria.
I am not sure about the religion and exuse myself if I did a mistake in considering them Orthodox.

Anyway central Europe is just a geographic subdivision of Europe but it doesn't mean much ethnicly, culturely and religiously.

For example, I am a Swiss and Switzerland is considered to be in central Europe too.
However I feel more closely related to the Germans who live in Northern Europe than to the Hungarians and other central Europeans countries.

Western Europe and Eastern Europe haven't been divided for geographicall reasons but for religious and culturall ones.

posted 08-18-2001 10:11 PM               

The whole column was followed by enormous well-organized support units --- ox draw carts carying equipment , food, and fodder.

Ghengis consrcipted all Mongol men from the ages of seventeen to sixty, and he himself rode against Khwarizm at the head of some 200000 men, including about 10000 seige engineers from China.

Source: The Mongol Conquests, Time Life Books.

posted 08-19-2001 04:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barb:
///
[b]Barb: I'm afraid the debate has all but deteriorated into some sort of a slugging match where you put the Mongols in the same basket with the Turks, Huns or just about any other nomadic people around. That's just too simplistic a standpoint to be taken seriously.///

Thomaz, what your doing there is just taking things I said out of context: I talked about the Turks just to proove my point about Europeans being able to unite when needed.
The same goes with the Huns who were also beaten by a united army. Besides the Huns were VERY similar to the mongeols, they came from the same place , used the same weapons...
---
-----
which united european army?
sorry germanic and gothic forces fight on both sides of the field.
Feix Dahn "the raw strength of the Gepides weights heavy on the field" for the huns.
The westgoths avenged their fallen king with terrible fury on the ostgoths securing victory on the cataulanic fields.
----

///The Turks were stopped not by any "united Western army" but rather by those Eastern Europeans who you seem to despise so much. In 1683, Vienna would have fallen had not the Polish contingent under Jan Sobieski arrived just in time to relieve the defenders.///

Being yourself an Eastern European I understand you don't like me saying they were generally inferior. However as you said we souldn't let national pride overcome fact

Fact 1. Eastern Europeans were slav / Orthodox and Western Europeans were Germano Latin / Roman Catholic

Fact 2. Since the Dark ages Western Europe has never been invaded by non western powers Where Eastern Europe has always been in a semi indepandent state being invaded by Mongols, Turks, Cossacks ... and even Teutonic knights.

My point here is that even with the best will I find hard to say that Western and Eastern Europe were identical... and in this case although I might be wrong my common sense tells me the military standards weren't the same between the East and the West .
---
Spain from the arabs, Charlemagnes forces get kicked in Ronvescalle by the basqs.
----
///Western Europeans never really knew how to deal with the Turks. To be honest, they didn't have to fight them neither because the dirty work was already done in the northern Balkans and central Europe. It was the people from modern-day Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia who were best versed in combat against the Turks. For centuries, they were directly exposed to the Ottoman threat and had to defend their homes against the ruthless raiders on their own.///

Really... Westerners never knew how to fight against the Turks??? Thats a new one.

It would mean all the crusaders (espacially during the first crusade) swam to Jerusalem. To arrive to the Holly land the only direct invasion route goes through Turkey! The westerners not only fought the Turks but beated them on the first time without adapting to their Tacticts.
---
Anbd the turks know nothing from their tactics.
---
///One of the most decisive battles in the Turkish wars was the battle of Sisak in 1593. It was there that an Austrian army (the bulk of which was actually composed of Slovenian and Croatian troops) managed to crushingly defeat a large Turkish force for the first time.

Of course, I could also mention the 2nd battle of Kosovo polje in 1448 where the Hungarians under Hunyadi destroyed a Muslim army by using highly inventive tactics to compensate for their deficiency in numbers.///

Here the question lies not in how they got them out of Eastern Europe but in how could they let them penetrate so deep in Europe, to the frontier of the western World!

I never feel reconquering land is glorious simply because it implies you lost it before. It usually means that when you fought defensivly on your own territory with the maximum factors on your side you lost.
---
Is there anything glorious about war??
Europe never united really to stop the turks, sorry the french kings had a tradition to encourage the turks against vienna and habsburg.
Logistics i think, the eastern europeans stopped the turks.
Remember Malta was there any western european crusade to save the faithful defenders from the turks?
----

////ou may have noticed, none of the two battles was won by an army from Western Europe. And just to dispel that myth of yours, are you aware that the only encounter in which anything like a united Western army (crusaders from all over the Christian world) fought the Turks was Nicopolis in 1396? May I remind you that the battle was a shocking catastrophe for the Christians and that very few of them made it back alive?///

I already answered this before

///ondly, your point that Christians would never ally with non-Christians against other Christians is just plain false. During the Crusades, there were numerous cases when Christian rulers made pacts with either Saracens or Mongols to fight other Christians.///

Yes, But here we are talking about the survival of a whole Continent, a whole Culture, a whole Religion. Nothing like a regional conflict about having that piece of a dessert somewhere.

Besides, there lies in man an instinct that makes him regroup with those alike him to fight a coomon ennemy.
Have you ever noticed when you were a kid that when boys from another school, class, neighberhood came looking for trouble you 'd tend to regroup with people from you school, class , neighberhood to go fight them even if you didn't get along with them before.
---
No i experienced very personally very very different!!!
---
///rsten is very correct in noting that the third crusade (and all the subsequent ones) were plagued by backstabbing and false play at all times. It simply boiled down to who was going to get a bigger share of the pie. And even as great a commander as Richard the Lionheart (just a couple of days ago, I was actually standing on the ruins of Dürnstein where he was imprisoned ) could not make up for the horrible disunity among the Christian ranks.///

As I said crudade is one thing Total war is something else
---
War in the name of god to punish the heathen and sáfe the holy sepulcheries from them!
Sorry i don`t believe in this day were the excommunication of the pope could cost king or even empereor his crown and definitley the oath of his vassals, could there be more unifying.
///ally, although Western Europe had the most feared heavy cavalry in the whole known world, it was not necessarily the most tactically flexible and technologically advanced. During the ultimately successful siege of Constantinople in 1453, the Turks had by far the most advanced artillery on the planet. They conquered Constantinople not by storming the walls in overwhelming numbers but rather by skillful deployment of heavy guns, which were actually made by an Hungarian smith

This final point is correct though I don't see any reason why the Europeans knights weren't the most technologically advanced heavy cavalry in the World.
---
Technology adavanced, could you specify this a bit more.
I f you use superior weapons not effective they wouldn`t use that much.
e.g. The french Tank B and the german Tank Pzkw 3, german tanks came in amor corps french tank every division had one bataillon or so.
[This message has been edited by Barb (edited 08-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Barb (edited 08-17-2001).]

---

posted 08-19-2001 04:07 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triton2:
Just to put closed to the idea that the Mongols did not know what they were doing when it came to logistics or seige a few quotes:

The whole column was followed by enormous well-organized support units --- ox draw carts carying equipment , food, and fodder.

Ghengis consrcipted all Mongol men from the ages of seventeen to sixty, and he himself rode against Khwarizm at the head of some 200000 men, including about 10000 seige engineers from China.

Source: The Mongol Conquests, Time Life Books.

---

Triton2

I never intendeed to say the mongols had bad logistics.

My intention was to know the reasons why barb believe this.

Because IMO it`s false someone here could have the arguments to correct her.

Thorsten

posted 08-19-2001 06:55 AM               

Thorsten I read you think that the Pope was a very respected authoririty during the middle ages. I think if we look at all the MA 's history we'll see contless numbers of times where the Pope or his orders weren't respected. If many Europeans left for the crusade it wasn't by fear of the Pope (who alone had very little power) but to gain glory and new lands in the middle east. Many Kings didn't actually go there.
If you need examples well... you just need to open any history book about the middle ages but I can give you a few like this: During a period there were two popes one in rome one in Avignon which to what degree the pope was respected, King of England who just because he wanted to divorce and marry a girl left the church and invented his own etc....

What we must understand is that middle ages people were very down to earth ones, they only did something if it was in their direct interest, they wouldn't waste time and go help a neighboring king if they felt it wasn't in their interest. However if they saw that their existence itself was dangereously threatened I think its more than likely that they would have done the only sensible thing to survive which is : gather up together and fight the mongol hordes with the energy of the man who knows he has two solutions: Fight or Die

The only "real" question I think is not IF or HOW they would have united but "When"? I think a plausible scenario would have been the mongols tearing down the isolated east Eurpeans armies until they arrive to the the borders of the Habsburg and others at which point the West Europeans would have finally identified the Mongols as a very dangereous threat to their survival and sent large armies to meet them.
Meanwhile the Mongols would have continued their advance in Europe probably all the way to Bavaria where the mongol horde would have met the armies of France, England, Burgundy, Switzerland, possibly of spain,Italy and remainments of the remaining german kingdoms. At this point the Mongols would propably be outnumbered 3:1 by a combined army made out of Longbowmen, crossbowmen, infantry , Pikemen and of course knights. The only but not least problem of that army would be "Command". However mixed Europeans armies had already existed during the Crusades and though command wasn't their strong point they did manage somehow to be Okay. I think its obvious the Mongols would be completely annihilated by such an army.

This is of course one of the best scenario having nearly all countries united but I think it is very possible that it could have happened like that. Even if it didn't I think only one third of the kingdoms I mentioned could have done smashed the Mongol Horde.

To answer some of your arguments Thorsten,
The battle of Ronceveau involved only the rear guard of charlemagne's army which was coming back from war against the moor (see they did help each other sometimes) being ambushed between two mountains by Basqs (who are not Moor invaders). This was a minor battle involving a few hundred knights, the only reason we actually know about it is that the fool who wrote the book "la chanson de Roland" changed the story to make it an epic battle where his hero dies.

As for Malta, Its main Fort was precisly defended by the last existing real templars who fought fought the Turks to the last man so I don't think it was a good example.

posted 08-19-2001 05:13 PM               

Comparing the Mongols to the Huns of Attila is faulty. Surviving chronicles indicate the Huns had been strongly influenced culturally by their German and Sarmatian subjects before they shifted their base of operations into Europe. Once they left the Russian steppes and settled in the Hungarian plains (which can’t support large horse herds), the Huns seem to have almost completely lost their nomadic lifestyle, including typical nomadic steppe warfare, and to have become more like the Germanic warrior bands of their Goth allies/subjects. Roman sources stopped referring to massed Hun cavalry, and by Attila’s last campaigns rarely mentioned Hun cavalry at all. Accounts of the Huns fighting summer campaigns, using wagon forts, fighting as infantry archers and using large shields are further evidence. In fact, the word “Hun” as used by the Romans probably denoted a political rather than ethnic group. The “Hun” army of Attila was made up of a small number of Huns, many of whom fought on foot, and a much larger contingent of Germans and other subject peoples, the vast majority of whom fought as infantry. The army commanded by Attila at the battle of Campus Mauriacus in 451 was probably almost identical to the “Roman” army lead by Aetius, and almost nothing whatsoever to do with the traditional nomad steppe “horde.”

The point has already been made that there is no reason to think the Mongols would have had any trouble in the forests of Western Europe, as they had no trouble maneuvering and fighting in mountainous and heavily wooded terrain in Asia, or the deserts of the Middle East. Kublai Khan’s armies faced dense jungle and tropical heat during their campaigns against the kingdoms of Anam (North Vietnam), Champa (South Vietnam), Khmer (Cambodia), Burma, and Java, compared to which the forests of Europe would have seemed a walk in the park.

Which brings up another point. It’s often forgotten that by the end of the 13th century a population explosion seems to have increased Europe’s inhabitants to something like 75 million. Finding the farmland to feed these numbers was incredibly difficult, and to do so farmers were forced to drain swamps, cut down forests, and even plant on rocky mountain slopes (some of this land was so poor it has never been reclaimed for farming). One result, besides soil erosion and thin crops, was massive deforestation, which became so bad that in some areas the penalty for cutting down a tree was death. Fortunately (for the forests if not the people), the Black Plague wiped out enough of the population, and kept it down long enough, that the forests managed to recover. In fact, with few exceptions, all the great forests of Europe date from the late Middle Ages. Therefore, how much trouble the Mongols would have had maneuvering around “forested” Europe is, I feel, in question.

More later…

posted 08-20-2001 01:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Yup, that "siding with the enemy" bit happened in Russia, so there's no reason to assume it wouldn't have happened in Western Europe too. Aleksandr Nevskiy (yes, the Great Russian Hero) got so chummy with the Khanate of the Golden Horde that Batu Khan provided an entire tuman of Mongol cavalry to help him fight the Teutonic Knights - though rest assured, you will not see any evidence of this in Eisenstein's movie...

---

Peter -

I'm familiar with the theory that Alexandre Nevskii had a contingent of Asian horse archers with him at the battle of Lake Peipus, but it was my understanding that the origin of these horse archers was in question. They may just as well have been Kipchaq Turks, or the Chernye Klobuki, either of which may have been fleeing north away from the Mongols. Carpini noted at least one Kipchaq in Nevskii's Druzhina. Though it may be true that the allied horse archers at Lake Peipus were in fact Mongols sent by Batu Khan, Nevskii didn't actually submit to Khan Batu until 1256, four years after the battle.

Also, the idea that Batu sent an entire tuman of mongol horse archers doesn't quite fit with the numbers of combatants as I understand them. From what I've read, the Crusader force couldn't have totaled three thousand, and the Russian force not much more than five thousand, if that. And a tuman, as I'm sure you know, is ten thousand men.

Gregg

posted 08-20-2001 01:45 AM               

Alex.

posted 08-20-2001 05:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barb:
First of all I'd like to point out that I m not a girl (what does IMHO means by the way).

Thorsten I read you think that the Pope was a very respected authoririty during the middle ages. I think if we look at all the MA 's history we'll see contless numbers of times where the Pope or his orders weren't respected. If many Europeans left for the crusade it wasn't by fear of the Pope (who alone had very little power) but to gain glory and new lands in the middle east. Many Kings didn't actually go there.
If you need examples well... you just need to open any history book about the middle ages but I can give you a few like this: During a period there were two popes one in rome one in Avignon which to what degree the pope was respected, King of England who just because he wanted to divorce and marry a girl left the church and invented his own etc....
---
Barb you are a bit wrong in the time line, Urbann II initiated the crusades and sent in his legat as the official leader, the bann/excommunication of an Pope has more than once fired rebellion against german empereors, "this was the hand i`ve sworn my Lord Henry loyality" said one German Lord and wouldbe King.
Another German empereor must go to canossa.

---
What we must understand is that middle ages people were very down to earth ones, they only did something if it was in their direct interest, they wouldn't waste time and go help a neighboring king if they felt it wasn't in their interest.
---
Peasants crusade, childrens crusades,
MA europe was interwoven with familiar ties from the royalty,
---
However if they saw that their existence itself was dangereously threatened I think its more than likely that they would have done the only sensible thing to survive which is : gather up together and fight the mongol hordes with the energy of the man who knows he has two solutions: Fight or Die
---
O' surrender and live,
---
The only "real" question I think is not IF or HOW they would have united but "When"? I think a plausible scenario would have been the mongols tearing down the isolated east Eurpeans armies until they arrive to the the borders of the Habsburg and others at which point the West Europeans would have finally identified the Mongols as a very dangereous threat to their survival and sent large armies to meet them.
---
Which isolated easteurope armies, french, and german knights fought under the duke of liegnitz, including knights of the teutonic order.
You overestimate highly the speed of communcation between the higher nobility and kings were possible.
BTW which Borders of Habsburg?
---
Meanwhile the Mongols would have continued their advance in Europe probably all the way to Bavaria where the mongol horde would have met the armies of France, England, Burgundy, Switzerland, possibly of spain,Italy and remainments of the remaining german kingdoms.
---
Only Bavaria, i can see no reason the mongols would send their main attack thruogh Bavaria.
Switzerland at this time the swiss don`t exist IIRC.
Which remainig german Kingdoms??
---

At this point the Mongols would propably be outnumbered 3:1 by a combined army made out of Longbowmen, crossbowmen, infantry , Pikemen and of course knights. The only but not least problem of that army would be "Command". However mixed Europeans armies had already existed during the Crusades and though command wasn't their strong point they did manage somehow to be Okay. I think its obvious the Mongols would be completely annihilated by such an army.
---
3:1 outnumbered, only if you would get such an force together, but
Logistics made this very unlikely, (speaking of an great mongolian army)
this force would be as mobile as an old turtle,
and the mongols would flank them out and let them hunt them until they choose an Battlefield.
Pikemen don`t exist to this time, and normal infantry wouldn`t be of much use against the mongols in the open field.(arrow fodder at best)
the time of the long and croosbow was to come if i remebered right(if not would someone please correct me)
Command: that wouldn`t be a problem, an nightmare at best, every King would want command, every Lord wouldn`t bow for another, only the empereor would have nominal command over the whole army, if they exist.
---
This is of course one of the best scenario having nearly all countries united but I think it is very possible that it could have happened like that. Even if it didn't I think only one third of the kingdoms I mentioned could have done smashed the Mongol Horde.

To answer some of your arguments Thorsten,
The battle of Ronceveau involved only the rear guard of charlemagne's army which was coming back from war against the moor (see they did help each other sometimes) being ambushed between two mountains by Basqs (who are not Moor invaders). This was a minor battle involving a few hundred knights, the only reason we actually know about it is that the fool who wrote the book "la chanson de Roland" changed the story to make it an epic battle where his hero dies.
---
Europena uniting against foreign invaders, sorry. Charlemagne attack spain only wit his own troops, his sword red from saxon blood, and the christian european basqs attacked him hard.
---
As for Malta, Its main Fort was precisly defended by the last existing real templars who fought fought the Turks to the last man so I don't think it was a good example.
---
Knights of st John, not the templars, and no european ruler, no european force send them help.

[This message has been edited by Barb (edited 08-19-2001).]

---

posted 01-13-2002 03:55 PM               

Hmmm... I have to say that the comment about Asian castles being inferior to European castles has to come from someone that hasn't stood at the Imperial Palace grounds.
The walls and moats are VERY impressive (I'm sure there are plenty of pics on the net), and equal to anything I never saw in Europe ;-)

As for burning down castles- hey, it happed everywhere- Even in Europe.

So for Castles, I would say it is a tie.

For the Mongols... Well, they DID WIN, right up until they lost. So saying that they are inferior to European armsmen is plain wrong.
It took the combined efforts of the Europeans to turn back the "mongol whorde", right? So the Europeans had to adapt thier strategies and tactics to defeat their enemy.

Sounds to me like "at the beginning of the Mongol invasion the Mongols were superior. However, by the end of the invasion, the Europeans had adapted to overcome the Mongols, making the Europeans the superior force." Sound good?

-gotta love that Japanese vs. European thread. Sorry I missed that one.

Mike B.

posted 01-13-2002 10:27 PM               

As far as I have read, you are correct, the Mongols won right up until they lost but they did not lose in Western Europe at all. In Western Europe they won until the great Khan (Mongke? I disremember which one now) died back in Asian and so they all turned around and went back home rather then driving to the English Channel. As far as I can tell the Europeans never did adapt to Mongol tactics or strategy.

The only hugely significant Mongol defeat that I am immediately aware of was at the hands of Babyars the Mameluke Sultan of Egypt.

The Mongols were not defeated militarily really, rather it was culturally that they were defeated mostly through assimilation.

posted 01-15-2002 03:38 AM               

It reminds me of when I was kid, and I poked a stick down an ants' nest so I could watch them storm out in confusion and anger.

I really find it difficult to take your assertions seriously. Saying something loudly and often doesn't make it true.

Whether the Western Europeans could have defeated the Mongols if they'd got that far is impossible to prove - they never met up, so it's an academic question. But the arguments you've marshalled don't prove anything at all, least of all the proposition you advance.

Sorry if I sound rude, but I get annoyed when I see ignorance combined with a refusal to look at the evidence put forth by others who seem, from reading the previous posts, to be a lot more familiar with the issues at hand than you are.

More in sorrow than in anger,