StarDestroyer.Net BBS

(Inspired by talk in the GoT thread, didn't want to clutter it up)

So I've heard for most of my education that the Mongols pretty much ran roughshod over Europe and Asia before the Khan died and they had to head back to Mongolia (or wherever they went) to pick a new one. I don't know the extent to which this is true, having spent about five minutes in total studying the Mongols outside of wikipedia articles. So my questions are:

-Why did the Mongols turn back in Eastern Europe?
-What tactics, equipment, etc... made them so effective against the opposition (I'm particularly curious about the European component of this question)
-How and by whom were they defeated? (Interested primarily in Europe again, but also curious about how the Muslims did it)

Kingmaker wrote:-Why did the Mongols turn back in Eastern Europe?

Allegedly because the Khan died. The better tactical reason (and it also answers why they never returned or did not go on) is because Western Europe is not a good place to wage mass cavalry raiding warfare due to a lot of castles, comparable few grazing land compared to the Steppe and due to stronger empires being able to resist them.

-What tactics, equipment, etc... made them so effective against the opposition (I'm particularly curious about the European component of this question)

Superiority in numbers in some battles, superior discipline (such as units actually following commands), superior weapon tech as compared to the opponents (using massive horse archers armed with compound bows tend to give you an advantage when the enemy is only fielding a few relatively short-ranged crossbowmen), effective use of terror as a weapon and professional officers/leaders.

-How and by whom were they defeated? (Interested primarily in Europe again, but also curious about how the Muslims did it)

The Mamluks did it via better and more disciplined troops, especially with heavily-armored cavalry and foot crashing into the massive Mongol army and then slicing them up in close combat. People think horse archers can move fast and evade such a charge, but this is only true to an extent. If your army is numbering in the thousands or tens of thousands, you cannot move them all at an instant and you would need so much ground to evade a charge that it becomes very unlikely you will be successful (and also you are utterly screwed if the terrain does not favor you).

As for Europe, eventually the Russians overthrew their Mongol Masters and defeated the last remains of them. The Mongols had long ceased being "mongols" by then however. Historically any steppe people that have attacked Europe quickly adapted a more infantry-based setup due to the different challenges and supply issues. The same is the reason why no army in European history has ever relied on cavalry alone to win a campaign. Eventually you will not win if you cannot take castles like these and forest-covered hill/mountain terrain is murder for Steppe horses.

Kingmaker wrote:-Why did the Mongols turn back in Eastern Europe?

The conquest of Europe was given to Batu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan through his eldest son Jochi (who may not have actually been his son) by the reigning Khan, Ogedei (Genghis' third son). Ogedei died in late 1241, by which point Batu had flattened Russia and Hungary. During the campaign, Batu had apparently had a rather pronounced falling out with some of his lieutenants, including Ogedei's son Kuyuk, who was recalled back to Mongolia prior to Ogedei's death, so that when he eventually did die he was in an advantageous position to press his claim to the title of Great Khan. Batu withdrew to defend his own interests, if not to even try pressing his own claim (Kuyuk eventually won out in the end). The other important departure was of Subotai, Genghis Khan's chief lieutenant (and probably just as good a general), who was recalled to take part in the invasion of China.

J.J. Saunders, from whose History of the Mongol Conquests I got this information from, believes there's no real reason why the Mongols would have done any worse in a divided Germany and Italy than they did in Hungary and Russia if Ogedei had lived longer and/or Batu had determined to press on. But it's not clear what the Mongol aims really were, and whether or not there was really any intention of pressing further west than they had already gone. They did not, for instance, really bother to establish an administration of the region outside Russia, though Kayuk did later demand submission from the Pope.

-What tactics, equipment, etc... made them so effective against the opposition (I'm particularly curious about the European component of this question)

Thanas basically covered this. Historically, nomadic nations have been very effective and lethal military forces when unified under a single leader.

TC Pilot wrote:J.J. Saunders, from whose History of the Mongol Conquests I got this information from, believes there's no real reason why the Mongols would have done any worse in a divided Germany and Italy than they did in Hungary and Russia if Ogedei had lived longer and/or Batu had determined to press on.

How does he answer the problem with sieges?

He doesn't. He confines himself to the chronology of the invasion and brings up the possibility of the Mongols pressing on into Germany and Italy only in the context of Europe being spared the same devastation inflicted upon Russia, Poland, and Hungary (note the difference: pillage and destruction, not conquest). He does, though, speculate very briefly that Batu's extended lines of communication and supply (and the difficulty of supplying his army) might have served as discouragement.

Though, given that the Mongols were able to, for instance, take Kiev by assault and eventually conquer China and much of the Middle East, I don't think siege warfare would have posed a major problem had they put the effort into it.

It was a problem for them. Most cities they took had either laughable defences (Moscow) or were surprised. Not much of a chance of that happening in Germany, which is fractured into hundreds of little fiefdoms, all with at least one castle. Castles which resisted the best of European siegecraft for months. Besides, if you lug around a real siege train, you lose mobility.

Thanas wrote:It was a problem for them. Most cities they took had either laughable defences (Moscow) or were surprised. Not much of a chance of that happening in Germany, which is fractured into hundreds of little fiefdoms, all with at least one castle. Castles which resisted the best of European siegecraft for months. Besides, if you lug around a real siege train, you lose mobility.

Wasn't the Chinese cities walls also pretty hard to take down as well? Though it took the Mongols a fair number of years before they develop the proper siege techniques via the captured Chinese engineers.

Wasn't the Mongol attack on Hungary a reprisal for harboring the Kipchaks?

Thanas wrote:It was a problem for them. Most cities they took had either laughable defences (Moscow) or were surprised.

Moscow? Moscow was an unimportant village in the 13th Century.

The Mongols routinely captured cities, real cities like Beijing, Baghdad, and Kiev. I would like to see some evidence that all of these were taken by surprise or had terrible defenses.

Not much of a chance of that happening in Germany, which is fractured into hundreds of little fiefdoms, all with at least one castle. Castles which resisted the best of European siegecraft for months.

Not much chance of what? Surprise attacks and weak defenses? Please explain. The weak, disunited nature of Germany and Italy would seem to naturally lend itself to meager defenses and mutual hostility and skepticism. It would also seem to lend itself to these fiefdoms surrendering en masse rather than risk the vengeance of a force that just slaughtered three kingdoms in quick succession.

Furthermore, castles of what quality? I highly doubt these tiny fiefdoms of yours could throw up a fortification comparable to those of huge, wealthy capital cities.

And finally, what difference does it make? Castles and fortified towns are of little use when Mongol armies are running roughshod over your whole country. The Mongols did bypass several towns during their campaign in Eastern Europe, and it left the region in ruins. You seem to be presuming conquest, which is something the Mongols didn't even attempt in the regions they had utterly crushed. Russia, for all the catastrophic defeats it suffered, was "merely" vassalized.

Besides, if you lug around a real siege train, you lose mobility.

Siege engines, I believe, were usually broken down into pieces and reassembled on-site.

Elfdart wrote:Wasn't the Mongol attack on Hungary a reprisal for harboring the Kipchaks?

Nope, no Kipchaks for Hungary. You mixed them up with the Cumans who has been granted asylum some years before the invasion.

TC Pilot wrote:

Not much of a chance of that happening in Germany, which is fractured into hundreds of little fiefdoms, all with at least one castle. Castles which resisted the best of European siegecraft for months.

Not much chance of what? Surprise attacks and weak defenses? Please explain. The weak, disunited nature of Germany and Italy would seem to naturally lend itself to meager defenses and mutual hostility and skepticism. It would also seem to lend itself to these fiefdoms surrendering en masse rather than risk the vengeance of a force that just slaughtered three kingdoms in quick succession.

Furthermore, castles of what quality? I highly doubt these tiny fiefdoms of yours could throw up a fortification comparable to those of huge, wealthy capital cities.

The Kingdom of Hungary didn't have too many stone castles before the invasion, but the many west of the Danube never fell, along with many fortified cities. After the Mongol's retreat the king's new defense policy centered around building more castles and fortifying cities. These proved their worth when the subsequent Mongol invasions has been checked with relative ease in the 1280s.

And finally, what difference does it make? Castles and fortified towns are of little use when Mongol armies are running roughshod over your whole country. The Mongols did bypass several towns during their campaign in Eastern Europe, and it left the region in ruins. You seem to be presuming conquest, which is something the Mongols didn't even attempt in the regions they had utterly crushed. Russia, for all the catastrophic defeats it suffered, was "merely" vassalized.

They can preserve more of your population and soldiers for a short time. Has to be blockaded to prevent them launching raids against your supply trains and make themselves a nuisance otherwise. Granted this only works when your supply lines are long like the Mongols back then when they reached Hungary back then but it didn't worked for Russia.

Besides, if you lug around a real siege train, you lose mobility.

Siege engines, I believe, were usually broken down into pieces and reassembled on-site.

A wagon train still slower than your mounted troops, especially the ones used by the Mongols where every rider has a handful of horses attached to allow them changing to a fresh horse regularly.

Apart from the point Thanas raised about the problems of available grazing grounds, as far as I recall (and with some personal experience) Mongol warfare also suffered from the more humid climate in western Europe. The more humid the air becomes, the weaker their bows did become, and long periods of rain could cause warping or even complete de-lamination.

There's also the matter of leadership; after Genghis Khan died and divided his empire among his sons, there was no clear leader of the whole Khaganate. It mostly went on through inertia rather than on clear leadership (Ogadei wasn't nearly the leader his father was, and Kubilai was content to stay in China and try to conquer Japan while not being particularly concerned with the other Khanates). After a few dozen years, the various descendent factions were independent nations with their own goals; hence the wars between the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde or other such wars between the Khans. Without such unity, they were relying on their own local supports and couldn't expect to get things like Chinese siege engineers. This represented a loss of some technical expertise that was difficult to get back. Otherwise, the Mongols were still forces to be contended with for hundreds of years, but they were not the unified force of years prior.

folti78 wrote:The Kingdom of Hungary didn't have too many stone castles before the invasion, but the many west of the Danube never fell, along with many fortified cities.

The Mongols never attacked west of the Danube. They swung south into Croatia and Dalmatia in pursuit of Bela.

After the Mongol's retreat the king's new defense policy centered around building more castles and fortifying cities. These proved their worth when the subsequent Mongol invasions has been checked with relative ease in the 1280s.

How much of the Mongol failure is really the result of improved fortifications? My own source cites Nogai's failure as a result of a lack of coordination between the invading armies and getting caught in bad weather.

They can preserve more of your population and soldiers for a short time. Has to be blockaded to prevent them launching raids against your supply trains and make themselves a nuisance otherwise. Granted this only works when your supply lines are long like the Mongols back then when they reached Hungary back then but it didn't worked for Russia.

That seems more like a way to survive a Mongol attack, not to defeat it.

A wagon train still slower than your mounted troops, especially the ones used by the Mongols where every rider has a handful of horses attached to allow them changing to a fresh horse regularly.

Again, according to my source, the Mongols threw up thirty catapults to take the town of Gran (Esztergom). So their siege train does not seem to have hampered their speed in any substantial way.

While the Mongols took a large number of fortified cities relatively quickly, this was largely because of their use of terror as a weapon against the populace. The mere arrival of a Mongol army - with the guarantee of extermination if the city resisted - often meant that cities would surrender without a fight.

In terms of actual siege warfare however, the Mongols were no better than anyone else in the world. Most of their siegecraft knowledge came from captured Chinese engineers anyway, and even with the use of ruthless tactics like using prisoners as human shields it still took the Mongols many months (if not years) before taking major fortified cities like Beijing.

I would also put forward that European castles would in fact be less suceptible to terror tactics. The fortifications that quickly surrendered to the Mongols usually had large civilian populations. It's likely that these cities were surrendered because the civil authorities wanted to spare their citizenry the death and suffering that armed resistance would entail from the horde.

By contrast, a castle that is mostly manned by soldiers would have much less reason to surrender and fewer panicky civil authorities to contend with. These guys know they can hold out for a few months. And they know it's their job to sit it out until the relief army arrives.

TC Pilot wrote:

folti78 wrote:The Kingdom of Hungary didn't have too many stone castles before the invasion, but the many west of the Danube never fell, along with many fortified cities.

The Mongols never attacked west of the Danube. They swung south into Croatia and Dalmatia in pursuit of Bela.

Croatia and Dalmatia is waaay west of the Danube. We can agree that they didn't commit too many troops to properly invade the west and northwest part of the country. Southwest got raped on their way to the Adria though.

After the Mongol's retreat the king's new defense policy centered around building more castles and fortifying cities. These proved their worth when the subsequent Mongol invasions has been checked with relative ease in the 1280s.

How much of the Mongol failure is really the result of improved fortifications? My own source cites Nogai's failure as a result of a lack of coordination between the invading armies and getting caught in bad weather.

I don't have much information about it, except that they weren't caused as much a trouble than the 1241 invasion. Other causes already mentioned, like the fragmentation of the empire helped.

They can preserve more of your population and soldiers for a short time. Has to be blockaded to prevent them launching raids against your supply trains and make themselves a nuisance otherwise. Granted this only works when your supply lines are long like the Mongols back then when they reached Hungary back then but it didn't worked for Russia.

That seems more like a way to survive a Mongol attack, not to defeat it.

Yup and the utility of it depends on the actual situation.

A wagon train still slower than your mounted troops, especially the ones used by the Mongols where every rider has a handful of horses attached to allow them changing to a fresh horse regularly.

Again, according to my source, the Mongols threw up thirty catapults to take the town of Gran (Esztergom). So their siege train does not seem to have hampered their speed in any substantial way.

Esztergom lies at the right bank of the Danube and the Mongols have been stopped at the river temporarily, until it froze enough during the harsher than usual winter to allow them to cross it in force. They had plenty of time to bring the siege equipment close. I don't dispute, that given enough time (Ogadei lives a bit longer than he did historically), the unoccupied castles and cities were either starved out or taken by siege one-by-one as siege engine equipped forces work their way through the country. Somewhat like the siege of Kiev (I know wikipedia), where the fast moving scout force blockaded the city for some time, until Batu's siege equipped main force showed up.

Also, Mongols often used the less refined version of the Trebuchet, which is man-pulled, instead of a counter weight. They didn't have a lack of trees, rope or troops to pull, the few needed parts are easily stowed, transported and quickly assembled. That was usually enough to breach a fortification.

If they found a hardened target, or REALLY wanted it, they'd haul in everything the Chinese had taught them.

edit:
Forgot to mention it - Of course, they'd first take control of most of province before starting an earnest siege, making reinforcement unlikely, and amassing slave labour who would man the engines for them, while they'd mostly wait in their tents, out of range of the defenders.

Another boon - nomadic people are at home wherever they are - they had no problems with prolonged camping during a siege.

History also shows that when a nomadic army starts to siege, they will often have to face a field army of the other side, with usually disastrous results. See for example Attila.


As for compound bows - you are right, they are not used in western Europe. The Romans for example never used their compound bow units in the west, precisely due to wetness concerns.

Exactly, the siege was always the weak link in nomadic warfare. The Mongols actually understood that (after their clash with china) and approached that weakness by a specific tactic.

At first, they ignored strongholds and go for weak targets (towns and small, barely fortified cities), sometimes leaving a force behind that kept the people within the target, if necessary.

They did this extensively until they had control over a a good portion of the invaded country. This had many advantages.

First, they got control over the produce and workforce, so they could eliminate much of the potential for a relief army. An eventual relief army had to actually carry full provisions instead of rushing to the defence, and would be found early.
Second, the fleeing population tried to find shelter in the fortified areas. The Mongols usually allowed that to happen, in order to stress the supply situation in that city even more, shortening the siege duration. Also, the more civilians were in the target, the more likely a surrender became if mercy was granted.
Third, they used the population under their control as human shields and to actually lay the siege, while the more valuable Mongol troops were held back until the breach was made.

Yeah, but it is not as if Europe has no experience with similar tactics. The english tried heavy cavalry raids etc as well which had the only goal of destroying the French. They failed as well.

Hmm.

So, looking at this, I would think the Mongols could certainly have caused considerable economic damage had they pressed invasions of Europe more seriously- that's almost a default condition, large armies invading your country will cause damage. But it sounds like most of the experts wouldn't expect them to conquer all that much more land than they did historically, and would expect the Mongols to be putting themselves at much greater risk of defeat than usual if they tried to pillage their way deeper into Europe.

Am I missing anything?

Simon_Jester wrote:Hmm.

So, looking at this, I would think the Mongols could certainly have caused considerable economic damage had they pressed invasions of Europe more seriously- that's almost a default condition, large armies invading your country will cause damage. But it sounds like most of the experts wouldn't expect them to conquer all that much more land than they did historically, and would expect the Mongols to be putting themselves at much greater risk of defeat than usual if they tried to pillage their way deeper into Europe.

Am I missing anything?

I think it, in large part, depends on how long they opt to stay in Europe. If it's for a short time, then, yeah, it's just a bit of pillage and getting defeated or moving on. If they stay for the long-haul, I'd imagine they would become similar to the Ilkhanate or the Timurids/Mughals, in that they would essentially blend into the local population and adopt local practices in warfare.

Thanas wrote:It was a problem for them. Most cities they took had either laughable defences (Moscow) or were surprised. Not much of a chance of that happening in Germany, which is fractured into hundreds of little fiefdoms, all with at least one castle. Castles which resisted the best of European siegecraft for months. Besides, if you lug around a real siege train, you lose mobility.

How did the quality and density of both military fortresses and fortified cities in central/western Europe compare to the other areas that the Mongols invaded? Also, I would think that a large city would be harder to defend, both because it would have a larger population than a castle (and thus require more supplies) and because the defended would have a much larger front to cover. Not to mention, cities and castles are almost polar opposites when it comes to ideal locations.

Also, was the problem with massed cavalry armies in Europe one of terrain or logistics or both? I can imagine that there would be fewer horses, and thus fewer horsemen. And how did the armies of Germany differ from the Hungarians in a way that make a difference in their ability to oppose the Mongols (Thanas mentioned in the GoT thread that the Mongols were eventually beaten by professional soldiers in Europe--who?)?

Professional soldiers in the levante, not Europe. I think you misread that one.

My bad. Did Europe have any substantial bodies of professional troops at the time of the Mongol invasion?