Questions About the Mongols

[Stargate Nerd]

They did not. They conquered a few fortreses, but never managed to defeat a fortress by force of arms that required trebuchets to take it - until they imported trebuchets from the west many years later. Feel free to disagree by presenting evidence that the Mongols did take castles by storm that were deemed to be the best of their day.

I just love how in your boundless arrogance you attempt to change the meaning of a siege to whatever fits your current mood and argument. A siege can conclude by storming it or by surrendering it. Funny how I didn't claim that the Mongols went around taking every castle by storm. No matter how you slice it if you end up in possession of a castle you successfully besieged it. You know this and you know that it doesn't fit your narrative which is why you attempt to strawman your way out of this argument.

By living on the grazing plains of the steppe and transitioning to a mass infantry army.

Normally I would thank someone for an insight like this. But seeing how all you've posted in this thread was bullshit, I'm gonna need a source for this.

More on the grazing situation:

So want to make the claim again that somehow, the Mongols, will be able to invade Europe? If so, prevent evidence for the abundance of grazing land.

Present evidence for claims I haven't made. Lol. Maybe instead of online posturing you should improve your reading comprehension. Questions are not statements.
But thank you for finally giving a source especially one that disagrees with pretty much everything you claimed in this thread. It's gonna be fun contradicting your claims using your own source.
Lets start with the excerpt you posted. The last few sentences indicated the withdrawal from Hungary was a temporary one so that the Mongol horses could rest, replenish and multiply on the vast steppes rather than in overgrazed and devastated Hungary. Nowhere does it state or confirm your claims of a lack of grazing lands deterring an invasion of the rest of Europe.

The Holy Roman Empire. The French. The British. The Mamluks. Any of these empires is to large to be taken down by raids, if largescale raiding is even possible (see above). If Hungary can stand up to them, the HRE certainly can. I mean, have you ever really taken stock of the castles of that time? There were over 20.000 of those in Germany alone. And surprise, surprise, the most heavily fortified area is pretty much the approach the Mongols would have to take - Bohemia. You note how the Mongols never even attempted to take it?

Except Hungary didn't stand up to no one. They were utterly crushed as described in your own source. Furthermore your own source states that

"Of course, the Hungarians could have done better; but it is beyond doubt that no ad hoc, feudal type force could have matched the well disciplined, highly trained, professional soldiers of the Mongol army. "

So unless you're gonna tell me that the English, French and Germans had non feudal armies, why don't you stop with your ludicrous personal opinions.

Also the Mamluks were not in Europe. Furthermore they won one battle at Ain Jalut and before Hulegu could retaliate he was fighting with the Golden Horde. Everything else you say is pure conjecture and opinion. Stop passing it off as fact.

There is no evidence at all for the Teutonic order to be present. None. Stop with your lies and baseless speculations and prevent evidence. Low numbers are usually to be taken more effective due to the logistical situation and the fact that Poland was not the richest of countries to start with.

No need to project your behavior unto me, I don't have any need to lie. Also your own source mentions a Teutonic presence at Liegnitz. Jesus did you even read it?

On April 9th, on the battlefield of Liegnitz, they clashed with the forces of Henry II, duke of Silesia, Bela's cousin, helped by a strong contingent of Templars. The Mongol victory was decisive, and Henry II himself lost his life on the battlefield. Nationalist German claims - which here and there surface - to the effect that, though the battle was lost, it prevented the invasion of Germany, cannot be substantiated. The Mongol aim was the encirclement of Hungary which, now that their rear was safe, they entered from the north-west, through Moravia. Time was pressing, for Orda's army was bound to operate its junction with that of Batu somewhere near Pest, which it intended to reach by going downstream, on the left bank of the Danube. There was no time to enter Bohemia, whose wise king Wenceslas I - though ready to defend his land - avoided any hostile initiative. A small Mongol force sent to reconnoiter the Austrian border withdrew as soon as contact had been made.

There you go evidence from your source. No mention of a ragtag Polish army either. Your next excuse?

As for Hungary, they lay in utter ruins the first time. The second invasion they faced was not anything like the one led by Subutai so I don't see the relevance. It's not like I claimed that the Golden Horde could have conquered Europe. I argue that the unified Mongol Empire could have conquered it. Also Nogai Khan still successfully raided Hungary, and as TC Pilot already pointed out, he was caught up in unfavorable weather conditions as well.

You can read about them in Al-Maqrizi, but he is not available online and I doubt you speak medieval arabic. Other than that, google or wikipedia might help.

Do you speak Medieval Arabic? If not how did you read his writings?

Also, when you make a claim and are asked for proof, you provide it or you concede. I don't care if there is no online source. Type it up or scan it. But you and I know very well why you're so reluctant to provide your source. Because it doesn't agree with your lofty claims. In other words you made shit up.

In addition, Wikipedia has entries on the 3rd battle of Homs and the Battle of Shaqhab. The entries don't agree with your claims either. First in both battles the Mongols were outnumbered. In once case 3 or even 4 to 1. Second one was a Mongol victory and the second a Mamluk victory. Hell the entry for the 2nd battle of Homs doesn't help you either. The entry again claims that the Mongols were massively outnumbered. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is not your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marj_al-Saffar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... -Khazandar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Homs

For total army supply? I am not comfortable making such a definitive claim as it is not my speciality. However, please note that 200.000 men was more than double of what the Romans, with a supply fleet of 600 ships engaged full time, the advantage of friendly terrains, relatively cheap infantry and comparatively few cavalry could supply.

And yet YOUR source talks about armies as big as 150k invading Hungary alone to say nothing of the total army size of 600,000 under Ogedei's command. Explain why you disagree with your source. If it's unreliable why link to it?

I assume you concede the point then?

No I don't concede anything. You made a claim. I called you on it. Its on you to provide evidence or concede your claim.

They never faced any major European power in the field either.

Your own source states that your so called major powers would have been defeated.

They conquered very few castles at all and none come to mind which they took through a real siege.

As I said above, you don't get to define siege according to your whims. Did they conquer castles? Yes. You don't even deny this. Instead youi try to obfuscate the truth.

Read the article I linked to in full, please.

I did. It doesn't at all contradict anything I said. Maybe you should follow your own advice and stop contradicting your source.

No, it never came to that because even Hungary sucked as a staging ground for an army even half the size of the Mongol force. I find it annoying that you act as if neither Hungary, nor any western nation in Europe never once thought of going mass cavalry. What, they were all too stupid, even after centuries of experience in dealing with Steppe people? Just think how utterly arrogant that argument sounds.

More opinions and conjecture.

[Thanas]

I just love how in your boundless arrogance you attempt to change the meaning of a siege to whatever fits your current mood and argument. A siege can conclude by storming it or by surrendering it. Funny how I didn't claim that the Mongols went around taking every castle by storm. No matter how you slice it if you end up in possession of a castle you successfully besieged it. You know this and you know that it doesn't fit your narrative which is why you attempt to strawman your way out of this argument.

You are one fucking idiot if you think that getting a castle to surrender by having the enemy commander tell the soldiers inside the fort to give up equals the same as storming castles.

By living on the grazing plains of the steppe and transitioning to a mass infantry army.

Normally I would thank someone for an insight like this. But seeing how all you've posted in this thread was bullshit, I'm gonna need a source for this.

Descriptions of the complete Hunnic army:

E diverso vero fuit Hunnorum acies ordinata, ut in medio Attila cum suis fortissimis locaretur, sibi potius rex hac ordinatione prospiciens, quatenus inter gentis suae rubor positus ab imminenti periculo redderetur exceptus. Cornua vero eius multiplices populi et diversae nationes, quos dicioni suae subdiderat, ambiebant. 199 Inter quos Ostrogotharum praeminebat exercitus Valamire et Theodemire et Videmere germanis ductantibus, ipso etiam rege, cui tunc serviebant, nobilioribus, quia Amalorum generis eos potentia inlustrabat; eratque et Gepidarum agmini innumerabili rex ille famosissimus Ardaricus, qui ob nimiam suam fidelitatem erga Attila eius consiliis intererat. Nam perpendens Attila sagacitate sua, eum et Valamerem, Ostrogotharum regem, super ceteros regulos diligebat. 200 Erat namque Valamir secreti tenax, blandus alloquio, dolis gnarus; Ardaricus fide et consilio, ut diximus, clarus. Quibus non inmerito contra parentes Vesegothas debuit credere pugnaturis. Reliqua autem, si dici fas est, turba regum diversarumque nationum ductores ac si satellites notibus Attilae attendebant, et ubi oculo annuisset, absque aliqua murmuratione cum timore et tremore unusquisque adstabat, aut certe, quod iussus fuerat, exequebatur.

Jordanes

Iam praefecturae perfunctus culmine tandem
se dederat ruri (numquam tamen otia, numquam
desidia imbellis, studiumque et cura quieto
armorum semper): subito cum rupta tumultu
barbaries totas in te transfuderat Arctos,
Gallia, pugnacem Rugum comitante Gelono
Gepida trux sequitur; Scirum Burgundio cogit;
Chunus, Bellonotus, Neurus, Bastarna, Toringus,
Bructerus, ulvosa vel quem Nicer alluit unda
prorumpit Francus; cecidit cito secta bipenni
Hercynia in lintres et Rhenum texuit alno;
et iam terrificis diffuderat Attila turmis
in campos se, Belga, tuos. vix liquerat Alpes
Aetius, tenue et rarum sine milite ducens
robur in auxiliis, Geticum male credulus agmen
incassum propriis praesumens adfore castris.
nuntius at postquam ductorem perculit, Hunos
iam prope contemptum propriis in sedibus hostem
exspectare Getas, versat vagus omnia secum
consilia et mentem curarum fluctibus urget.
tandem nutanti sedit sententia celsum
exorare virum, collectisque omnibus una
principibus coram supplex sic talibus infit:

For the fighting styles of those peoples, you can pretty much pick up any book from Delbrück to Hugh Elton's warfare in Roman Europe. But if you want to read first hand description, look up Ammianus Marcellinus, the battles of Strassbourg and Adrianople should suffice.

Present evidence for claims I haven't made. Lol. Maybe instead of online posturing you should improve your reading comprehension. Questions are not statements.
But thank you for finally giving a source especially one that disagrees with pretty much everything you claimed in this thread. It's gonna be fun contradicting your claims using your own source.
Lets start with the excerpt you posted. The last few sentences indicated the withdrawal from Hungary was a temporary one so that the Mongol horses could rest, replenish and multiply on the vast steppes rather than in overgrazed and devastated Hungary. Nowhere does it state or confirm your claims of a lack of grazing lands deterring an invasion of the rest of Europe.

You ARE too stupid to read. It clearly states that they had to withdraw due to lack of grazing lands.

On the completely unrealistic condition that no other animals were using these pastures, and counting five horses per Mongol horseman, the Hungarian range could provide for the mounts of 83,027 warriors, clearly far below the strength of the Mongol army. The Mongol high command found itself in a position similar to that of a commander of a modern armored division running short of fuel. Further advance to the west, into Transdanubia, would have made matters worse.

The Holy Roman Empire. The French. The British. The Mamluks. Any of these empires is to large to be taken down by raids, if largescale raiding is even possible (see above). If Hungary can stand up to them, the HRE certainly can. I mean, have you ever really taken stock of the castles of that time? There were over 20.000 of those in Germany alone. And surprise, surprise, the most heavily fortified area is pretty much the approach the Mongols would have to take - Bohemia. You note how the Mongols never even attempted to take it?

Except Hungary didn't stand up to no one. They were utterly crushed as described in your own source.

And yet the Mongols could not conquer them nor hold on to the territory.

Furthermore your own source states that

"Of course, the Hungarians could have done better; but it is beyond doubt that no ad hoc, feudal type force could have matched the well disciplined, highly trained, professional soldiers of the Mongol army. "

So unless you're gonna tell me that the English, French and Germans had non feudal armies, why don't you stop with your ludicrous personal opinions.

They actually had a small cadre of non-feudal professional soldiers - the Italian city states did for example - but that is not really the point. I never doubted that the Mongols, under ideal conditions, open field and time to prepare, could destroy a European army. The trouble with that is of course that there are no ideal conditions for the mongols in Europe.

Also the Mamluks were not in Europe. Furthermore they won one battle at Ain Jalut and before Hulegu could retaliate he was fighting with the Golden Horde. Everything else you say is pure conjecture and opinion. Stop passing it off as fact.

I take that as a concession as you did not offer up any counter evidence, nor impeached my sources. I also never claimed the Mamluks were in Europe.

No need to project your behavior unto me, I don't have any need to lie. Also your own source mentions a Teutonic presence at Liegnitz. Jesus did you even read it?

On April 9th, on the battlefield of Liegnitz, they clashed with the forces of Henry II, duke of Silesia, Bela's cousin, helped by a strong contingent of Templars. The Mongol victory was decisive, and Henry II himself lost his life on the battlefield. Nationalist German claims - which here and there surface - to the effect that, though the battle was lost, it prevented the invasion of Germany, cannot be substantiated. The Mongol aim was the encirclement of Hungary which, now that their rear was safe, they entered from the north-west, through Moravia. Time was pressing, for Orda's army was bound to operate its junction with that of Batu somewhere near Pest, which it intended to reach by going downstream, on the left bank of the Danube. There was no time to enter Bohemia, whose wise king Wenceslas I - though ready to defend his land - avoided any hostile initiative. A small Mongol force sent to reconnoiter the Austrian border withdrew as soon as contact had been made.

There you go evidence from your source.

You are a joke. The teutonic order is not the order of the knights templar. Jesus Christ, you try to argue about medieval warfare but are too dumb to recognize that these are seperate military orders.

No mention of a ragtag Polish army either. Your next excuse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica#Allies

Good summary. You might want to read it.

As for Hungary, they lay in utter ruins the first time. The second invasion they faced was not anything like the one led by Subutai so I don't see the relevance. It's not like I claimed that the Golden Horde could have conquered Europe. I argue that the unified Mongol Empire could have conquered it. Also Nogai Khan still successfully raided Hungary, and as TC Pilot already pointed out, he was caught up in unfavorable weather conditions as well.

Raiding =/= conquering. So STFU up about raids.

Do you speak Medieval Arabic? If not how did you read his writings?

Also, when you make a claim and are asked for proof, you provide it or you concede. I don't care if there is no online source. Type it up or scan it. But you and I know very well why you're so reluctant to provide your source. Because it doesn't agree with your lofty claims. In other words you made shit up.

Yes, the ignorant fucktard demands I break copyright. You are not going to get me to do that. Not unless you finally do what you evaded the whole time - present a conscise plan on how the Mongols are going to conquer Europe. List important strongholds and how the Mongols will take them. Unless you do that, your whole argument is nothing.




I'll give you a translation: Quatremère, É.M., Histoire des Sultans Mamlouks, de l'Egypte. Ecrite en arabe par Taki-Eddin-Ahmed-Makrizi. Traduite en français, et accompagnée de notes philologiques, historiques, géographiques, Paris 1808. That is what I read first.

In addition, Wikipedia has entries on the 3rd battle of Homs and the Battle of Shaqhab. The entries don't agree with your claims either. First in both battles the Mongols were outnumbered. In once case 3 or even 4 to 1. Second one was a Mongol victory and the second a Mamluk victory. Hell the entry for the 2nd battle of Homs doesn't help you either. The entry again claims that the Mongols were massively outnumbered. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is not your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marj_al-Saffar

No evidence that the Mongols were outnumbered. All wikipedia states is that the Mongols had 80.000 + a non-given number of Armenians. Certainly not as heavily outnumbered as you make it out to be. And the Mongols fell for every Mamluk trick in the book there - a very bad performance on their part here, showing the superiority of the Mamluks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... -Khazandar

the numbers are not really clear here either, seeing as how the page claims the Mamluks were the one outnumbered 3-one here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Homs

Yes the mongols were outnumbered here. Still, the Mamluks managed to catch up to them and engage them in close combat and their cavalry was chasing them away.

And yet YOUR source talks about armies as big as 150k invading Hungary alone to say nothing of the total army size of 600,000 under Ogedei's command. Explain why you disagree with your source. If it's unreliable why link to it?

I linked to it solely because it made a point about the grazing lands.

Again:

On the completely unrealistic condition that no other animals were using these pastures, and counting five horses per Mongol horseman, the Hungarian range could provide for the mounts of 83,027 warriors, clearly far below the strength of the Mongol army. The Mongol high command found itself in a position similar to that of a commander of a modern armored division running short of fuel. Further advance to the west, into Transdanubia, would have made matters worse.

No I don't concede anything. You made a claim. I called you on it. Its on you to provide evidence or concede your claim.

Where is your evidence then?

Your own source states that your so called major powers would have been defeated.

In battle? Sure. In the whole war? Not likely because the Mongols would never have gotten superior numbers or even tens of thousands into Europe proper. If you disagree with it, present evidence for abundance of grazing lands.

Read the article I linked to in full, please.

I did. It doesn't at all contradict anything I said. Maybe you should follow your own advice and stop contradicting your source.

I must have missed the part where it said the Mongols conquered the castles in their path.

No, it never came to that because even Hungary sucked as a staging ground for an army even half the size of the Mongol force. I find it annoying that you act as if neither Hungary, nor any western nation in Europe never once thought of going mass cavalry. What, they were all too stupid, even after centuries of experience in dealing with Steppe people? Just think how utterly arrogant that argument sounds.

More opinions and conjecture.

Okay. Provide evidence the Mongols would be able to supply hundreds of thousands of troops deep in Europe. Do it now, with calculations and maps of the available grazing areas, logistical chains, transport capacity available to the Mongols and road conditions. You made the claim that the Mongols could conquer Europe, now prove it.

[hongi]

Main problem with the Danube is that it can only be crossed at few points. For most of its lenght, it is too deep or has extremely steep cliffs at the sides ( = No crossing with horses possible). And the few places that allow crossing usually are already heavily fortified on both sides, as Thanas mentioned.

Are there places where you can build a bridge over it?

[Thanas]

Yes, if you have a crossing and the required engineering expertise. As the first is not a given, one has to consider other options.

For example, there is the option of building a ship bridge. To do that you need a lot of ships and a weak current to do so, coupled with expertise in doing those things. If either is not a given, the bridge will collapse or easily be destroyed. One can cross the danube via such a bridge at a few places - the problem is, those places are generally known and the Mongols would have a very hard time bringing up ships to the danube anyway, considering it flows through quite a few fortresses.

Even if by magic these would disappear, any bridge (whether it be a ship bridge or a conventional one) is vulnerable to the enemy harrying it. Even the mighty Roman Army wasted one whole campaign season because the German tribe they wanted to invade simply set firefloats and logs downriver in sufficient volume to just destroy any bridging attempt over the Danube.

So even if one would credit the mongols with the engineering expertise (they built quite impressive dams if need be so this might be within their capabilities) I very much doubt they would take their chances.

[Sea Skimmer]

A military will cross a river that's hard to bridge with ferries, that's pretty basic. It just takes a lot more time and you need more men to spare as oarsmen then bridge engineers. Given that the Mongols crossed much larger rivers then the Danube in such as the Volga and Yangtze, both are about twice as wide on average they pretty much must have used ferries before. Taking a castle on the other side could be a problem; but its rather impossible that anyone covered all the possible crossing sites with heavy castle like fortifications. A low wall, or more likely an abbatis, sure that might be done. Early Russia had some abbatis barriers over a thousand kilometers long as I recall.

[Thanas]

A military will cross a river that's hard to bridge with ferries, that's pretty basic. It just takes a lot more time and you need more men to spare as oarsmen then bridge engineers. Given that the Mongols crossed much larger rivers then the Danube in such as the Volga and Yangtze, both are about twice as wide on average they pretty much must have used ferries before. Taking a castle on the other side could be a problem; but its rather impossible that anyone covered all the possible crossing sites with heavy castle like fortifications. A low wall, or more likely an abbatis, sure that might be done. Early Russia had some abbatis barriers over a thousand kilometers long as I recall.

Against a contested crossing ferries really suck and the Danube is not real easy to ferry over in the first place, especially not if you got 3 horses per man to take care of.

Do we know for sure that the Mongols used ferries?

[Sea Skimmer]

It'd be kind of absurd to build a bridge in the first place without ferrying men across first to secure the far side, even if it is undefended at that moment. If you are building a pontoon bridge then by default you already have ferries in the form of the pontoons.The Mongols learned most engineering from China, and China was a land of ferries back then, still is in large part. Many major Chinese rivers had no bridges for hundreds of miles until well into the Communist era; even if they could be built huge floods would wash them away. I fail to see why anyone would bring three horses per man in a contested crossing. You bring one and start fighting. The lead wave will all die before they'd need another horse if its that serious a situation.

Anyway I did some examining of the Danube in the Carpathian basin just now on Google Earth and Panoramino and I am finding large stretches which have nothing like cliffs along the shoreline. Slopes in some cases, but hardly cliffs. If anything is an issue, it would be the marshy ground of the flood plain on each side which I would be sure was far worse in the time of the Mongols then it is now. But then if the marsh is bad enough after a heavy rain then ferries would just float across it all the same. One could also throw down brushwood as a mat to make a basic causeway. If the Mongols could make trebuchets it is rather implausible they could be so stupid as to not be able to figure stuff like this out.

That marshy ground also precludes building much in the way of heavy fortifications close to the waters edge without very intensive efforts driving pilings by hand, and it looks like a lot of the river is only 350m wide. I suspect most of the fortifications along the crossing points were indeed earth ramparts reinforced by logs and abbatis, even if supported by stone works, given the combination of soft ground and long distances to cover. I cannot see the Danube being any overwhelming barrier any more so then a dozen other rivers might or might not be. Also remember that many crossing sites were known as such because they had the most favorable conditions, not because crossing elsewhere was actually impossible, though it could be. An assault crossing might cover a much wider front then a follow up bridging effort. Depends on how many men they really have and how many local civilians can be rounded up to help with wood cutting.

Edit: hey looks like the Mongols actually did cross the Danube in real life, it appears by simply waiting for the thing to freeze over in winter! I'd totally forgotten about that... though deep snow and cold weather is a serious problem for horses stamina and health in its own right so it is a mixed blessing.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_1241.png

[Thanas]

That's strange. What are the sources for that map?

That said, I am still wondering if you are not overestimating the accessibility of the Danube. After all, if it were that easy to cross with an army how did both sides of the Danube defend themselves from such crossings succesfully for several hundred years with barely 150.000 troops stationed alongside the entire length of the danube, which is a laughable force for such a length?

[Sea Skimmer]

That's strange. What are the sources for that map?

A history of Hungary: millennium in Central Europe, by László Kontler - 2002 according to wiki.

That said, I am still wondering if you are not overestimating the accessibility of the Danube. After all, if it were that easy to cross with an army how did both sides of the Danube defend themselves from such crossings succesfully for several hundred years with barely 150.000 troops stationed alongside the entire length of the danube, which is a laughable force for such a length?

That's not really a small force when the considerable majority would be concentrated along the Carpathian Basin length of the river. Good intelligence would be key, if you know the movements of the enemy army and it lacks the strength or will to attack at multiple points at once your defensive task is not that hard, all the more so if neither side has a major sustained advantage in numbers. Nor did armies in that era really like to fight large scale battles when they could avoid them. I certainly don't think it would be easy to cross, but it seems like its status as a barrier would fall more into the more trouble then its worth category more so then the impossible category. Its not like Europe had an overwhelming population sucking up all possible land back then. Beyond that it isn't a period or place I much study.

[Thanas]

That's not really a small force when the considerable majority would be concentrated along the Carpathian Basin length of the river. Good intelligence would be key, if you know the movements of the enemy army and it lacks the strength or will to attack at multiple points at once your defensive task is not that hard, all the more so if neither side has a major sustained advantage in numbers. Nor did armies in that era really like to fight large scale battles when they could avoid them. I certainly don't think it would be easy to cross, but it seems like its status as a barrier would fall more into the more trouble then its worth category more so then the impossible category. Its not like Europe had an overwhelming population sucking up all possible land back then. Beyond that it isn't a period or place I much study.

Doubtful - for example, look at the Romans. They more or less held the frontier of the entire Danube with less troops than that against threats encompassing the entire Danube and who also had the habit of attacking alongside its entire length. And who had numerical superiority, in some cases three to one.

[bz249]

Modern maps might not be so informative since quite an amount of civil engineering altered the landscape along the Danube. The Carpathian Basin was something like this before that

http://www.kincseslada.hu/aktualis/e107 ... zrajza.jpg

(deepest blue: current lakes, middle blue: permanent lakes or under water in most of the year, light blue: regularly flooded area)

It represents a state around the middle of the XVIIIth century and the population of the Hungary could have been less than the time of the Mongol invasion, but the general picture should be similar.

So in reality the regions with the gentle slopes were most probably wide marshlands by then thus natural barriers themselves.

[Sea Skimmer]

Doubtful - for example, look at the Romans. They more or less held the frontier of the entire Danube with less troops than that against threats encompassing the entire Danube and who also had the habit of attacking alongside its entire length. And who had numerical superiority, in some cases three to one.

But against troops who had what, ten times the quality and a much higher degrees of organization on the defending side? Three to one at the point of contact means something, three to one overall isn’t so grand if you spread it out ineffiecently and may as a result have little degree of superiority at the point of contact at all. Having enough organization to build and stage a bridge or ferry train also becomes crucial. None of the early Romans opponents seem very formidable in that respect, while later barbarian enemies most certainly did cross the Danube against them. This is after all one of those reasons why Rome built paved roads to move its troops, and nobody else on earth did on anything like the same scale. Organization is key for river crossing operations.

Modern maps might not be so informative since quite an amount of civil engineering altered the landscape along the Danube. The Carpathian Basin was something like this before that

http://www.kincseslada.hu/aktualis/e107 ... zrajza.jpg

(deepest blue: current lakes, middle blue: permanent lakes or under water in most of the year, light blue: regularly flooded area)

It represents a state around the middle of the XVIIIth century and the population of the Hungary could have been less than the time of the Mongol invasion, but the general picture should be similar.

So in reality the regions with the gentle slopes were most probably wide marshlands by then thus natural barriers themselves.

I dunno, it appears that in real life the Mongols did get to the banks of the Danube, which already means they already got past most of those added flood plains, and the Danube flood zone itself doesn’t seem much wider then I was expecting. Some areas do have added lakes which would block of easy crossings but still clearly some prime crossing spots exist which could not be defended by a single or even several castles, it’d have to be something boarder and less elaborate to block them. ‘Regular’ floods is a very variable thing. Is that once a year, three times a year, every five years? How marshy regularly flooded land will become is totally dependent on soil conditions. Lots of the modern Danube doesn’t appear to have levees either from the pictures I was looking at; though this might be because the land itself has been built up in recent centuries.

Extensive flooding also kind of puts a damper on how much fortification could have existed at the waters edge unless it was being constantly rebuilt, which makes me all the more interested in just what was really being used and what choices were made in siting defenses.

[Thanas]

Doubtful - for example, look at the Romans. They more or less held the frontier of the entire Danube with less troops than that against threats encompassing the entire Danube and who also had the habit of attacking alongside its entire length. And who had numerical superiority, in some cases three to one.

But against troops who had what, ten times the quality and a much higher degrees of organization on the defending side?

Ten times is way too much. I would be very hesitant to give the romans more than 2:1 odds in open fighting, especially considering the tribes they were up against were quite advanced and had much, much better cavalry.

(Also, crossing it in winter is not a good idea considering the supply difficulties).

That said, what are your sources regarding the possibilities of danube crossings? Considering I am doing research in that area, such things would be quite appreciated.

Three to one at the point of contact means something, three to one overall isn’t so grand if you spread it out ineffiecently and may as a result have little degree of superiority at the point of contact at all. Having enough organization to build and stage a bridge or ferry train also becomes crucial. None of the early Romans opponents seem very formidable in that respect, while later barbarian enemies most certainly did cross the Danube against them. This is after all one of those reasons why Rome built paved roads to move its troops, and nobody else on earth did on anything like the same scale. Organization is key for river crossing operations.

I do not dispute that, but from all accounts the Barbarians were more often to be able to concentrate larger forces than the Romans. Heck, the Romans oftentimes did not have enough manpower to fight against one tribe offensively, but defensively they were able to pull off a lot of victories. As for crossing the danube, it was done, yes, but mostly only when the troops stationed there were pulled to deal with a crisis elsewhere or wracked by plague.

BTW, the danube tribes were generally very formidable opponents. They are, after all, the only opponent which managed to defeat the Praetorian Guard in open combat and it took very bloody campaigns of almost twenty years of low intensity and ten years of high intensity warfare before the Romans had pacified one single such tribe.

Terrain certainly featured into it and given the disposition of Roman forts, the Romans knew very well the places where a large army could conceivable cross. They also had fleets sweeping the Danube, something which the Mongols would also lack.

Note that the map of yours does not show largescale penetration of the danube as well - there is nothing to think that this was anything more than a smallscale raiding force.

[bz249]

I dunno, it appears that in real life the Mongols did get to the banks of the Danube, which already means they already got past most of those added flood plains, and the Danube flood zone itself doesn’t seem much wider then I was expecting. Some areas do have added lakes which would block of easy crossings but still clearly some prime crossing spots exist which could not be defended by a single or even several castles, it’d have to be something boarder and less elaborate to block them. ‘Regular’ floods is a very variable thing. Is that once a year, three times a year, every five years? How marshy regularly flooded land will become is totally dependent on soil conditions. Lots of the modern Danube doesn’t appear to have levees either from the pictures I was looking at; though this might be because the land itself has been built up in recent centuries.

Extensive flooding also kind of puts a damper on how much fortification could have existed at the waters edge unless it was being constantly rebuilt, which makes me all the more interested in just what was really being used and what choices were made in siting defenses.

The crossing of the Danube happened around the Buda region, where the river is confined because of the hills (the left bank is part of the flood plains, but it was dry enough to allow small towns to prosper) and in general the Mongols (and the later Ottomans also) avoided the marshlands. Also the winter of 1241 was unusually harsh (for the period, later in the Little Ice Age this was more frequent) and so the defenders could not break the ice to deny the crossing.

About floods: there is usually two floods per year, one in March (as a result of melting) and one in late May-early June (this is the wettest period in the mild continental climate), though the intensity varies year to year. Before the extensive river engineering the flood wave was way slower which meant longer floods.

The levees are quite extended, they are more than 1000 km long within the current day Hungary (the main works are somewhat farther from the river).

[bz249]

Note that the map of yours does not show largescale penetration of the danube as well - there is nothing to think that this was anything more than a smallscale raiding force.

Nope the main force crossed the Danube led by Batu himself (the arrow which points toward Pecs in the south west of the Danube) the other one going in the direction of Croatia is a small scale raiding force which was intended to capture the King of Hungary (who was captured earlier by Friedrich II the Warlike since he decided it is a good time to expand into Hungary).

[Thanas]

Note that the map of yours does not show largescale penetration of the danube as well - there is nothing to think that this was anything more than a smallscale raiding force.

Nope the main force crossed the Danube led by Batu himself (the arrow which points toward Pecs in the south west of the Danube) the other one going in the direction of Croatia is a small scale raiding force which was intended to capture the King of Hungary (who was captured earlier by Friedrich II the Warlike since he decided it is a good time to expand into Hungary).

Hmmm. I'd have to check the primary sources on how they managed that....do you know who talks about this?

[bz249]

Hmmm. I'd have to check the primary sources on how they managed that....do you know who talks about this?

Rogerius of Apulia, the later bishop of Varad (current day Oradea) wrote a work called Carmen Miserabile in 1243. In that book he described his personal story and some general picture about the destruction of the Mongols.

About the river crossing he wrote that the Mongols used a trick to leave a large number of animals on the left bank and when the Hungarian defenders crossed the river to grab them they had shown which part of the ice is strong enough to support a mounted army. Though I do not know how much of this is accurate (since he was in another part of the country).

[Thanas]

Ah, okay. That makes sense.