Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[Filip Pobran]

i said "simple" as for base tactic, advantage over "one-purpose" units.

as why and how roman legions pushed phalanx away on the margin of history (and why phalanx came back with swiss army)



and i must to point out: i am not expert <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Andrzej Rosa]

Cavalry has it place on the battlefield, but it cannot hold ground nor take ground from determined infantry.

Why so? How about mounted infantry, like dragoons, for example?

Disciplined and determined infantry is not beatable by cavalry.

Even outnumbered? Strange things you've written.

As a sidenote - There are many examples of succesful cavalry actions against disciplined professional infantry regimens armed with pikes.

Here is an example of such a case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm

No horse will charge into a wall of spears.

You are wrong. Sorry.

It seems to me, that advantages of infantry over cavalry quite often are those of well disciplined army over less well disciplined. Often it was the case, but not allways. Also infantry is way cheaper, takes less training to become succesful and so on.

But it does not mean that well disciplined cavalry doesn't have it's own good points. Philip of Macedonia was supposed to prefer Phalanx, yet it is Alexander who conquered half the world with his brillant cavalry charges.

Regarding Mongols.

When someone say's mongol, I "see" Tatar. They are mongols and my country had them as neighbours for several centuries. They were not so efective when people learned how to fight them.

Really, Legnica was not the only battle Poles fought against mongol warriors. Actually very far from that. And at least Tatars were no match for our typical cavalry forces, and they knew it very well too.

Regards.

[Logan Weed]

Yet isn't the whole reason (well half of it) the Mongols were successful due to their willingness to adopt the tactics and technologies of others?

Isn't it a bit pointless to argue about the merits of cavalry when it's pretty obvious they'd simply stop using horses if it were to become inneffective?

I see no reason their superior intelligence, organization and psychological warfare tactics would not continue to lead them to victory with an entirely infantry army. Their great supply of horses would still be quite useful in assuring their army remains highly mobile as mounted infantry.

I still don't see how mounted infantry is not inherently superior to the variety without access to horses for transportation.

[Justin Lompado]

Andrzej,

In reply to:
Disciplined and determined infantry is not beatable by cavalry.


Even outnumbered? Strange things you've written.

--> You might want to check out the Battle at Poiters against the muslims.


"It seems to me, that advantages of infantry over cavalry quite often are those of well disciplined army over less well disciplined. Often it was the case, but not allways."

--> Often enough, I think, that Europe was largely able to keep itsel free from invasion/occupation for most of its history. The fact that Europe was the pre-eminent leader in military arts and discipline, and that they never had any cavalry comparable to those of their invaders (or, that their armies were mostly heavy infantry) evidences this.

"But it does not mean that well disciplined cavalry doesn't have it's own good points. Philip of Macedonia was supposed to prefer Phalanx, yet it is Alexander who conquered half the world with his brillant cavalry charges."

--> That is all true, but remember that Alexander also commanded strong pike formations to support his cavalry, and that he used the phalanxes of pikemen that his father Philip built to conquer the hoplite armies of the other Greek city-states.

[Justin Lompado]

Andrzej,

In reply to:
Disciplined and determined infantry is not beatable by cavalry.


Even outnumbered? Strange things you've written.

--> You might want to check out the battle at Poiters against the Muslims.


"It seems to me, that advantages of infantry over cavalry quite often are those of well disciplined army over less well disciplined. Often it was the case, but not allways."

--> Often enough, I think, that Europe was largely able to keep itself free from invasion/occupation for most of its history. The fact that Europe was the pre-eminent leader in military arts and discipline, and that they never had any cavalry comparable to those of their invaders (or, that their armies were mostly heavy infantry) evidences this.

"But it does not mean that well disciplined cavalry doesn't have it's own good points. Philip of Macedonia was supposed to prefer Phalanx, yet it is Alexander who conquered half the world with his brillant cavalry charges."

--> That is all true, but remember that Alexander also commanded strong pike formations to support his cavalry, and that he used the phalanxes of pikemen that his father Philip built to conquer the hoplite armies of the other Greek city-states.

[Justin Lompado]

<img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" /> Sorry for the double post!!

[Andrzej Rosa]

In reply to Logan.

Isn't it a bit pointless to argue about the merits of cavalry when it's pretty obvious they'd simply stop using horses if it were to become inneffective?

It depends on which level we want to discuss it. Tactical advantages of cavalry are quite obvious to me, but importance of tactics, it seems, is often vastly overrated in this kind of discussion. In the West cavalry was not relegated to supplementary status to make their armies less efective. Their warfare was much more static than in the east and horses were just an additional cost, like during prolonged siege for example.

But it nohow means that cavalry is inferior to infantry in the open field assuming similar levels of training and discipline. And charging pike formations was quite possible and generaly succesful tactic in the open field.

I see no reason their superior intelligence, organization and psychological warfare tactics would not continue to lead them to victory with an entirely infantry army.

Well, this kind of encounter happened almost daily in Ukraine. Cossacs were premium infantry and they managed pretty well against Tatars. Mainly using mobile fortifications; carts arranged in a way similar to what you see often in western movies. Such a fortified camp (sitch) is very hard to conquer without artillery.

But this way all you can do is stand ground, which does not help much against Tatar raid. To stop them from pillaging your country calls for something faster. Most effective strategy is "zagon", which can be translated as "counter raid".

I remember I read somwhere in the sources, that fighting Tatars was compared to fighting sparrows. The biggest problem was not to beat them, but to catch them.

Most typical tactics of Tatars was to flee and later turn around and sorround attackers and then beat them with archery while riding around them in circles. The bad point of such tactics is that Tatars tended to run away from loughably small forces. I could give couple of examples when it happened and was used to the full advantage of Europeans.

Yet, in the west, Tatars were feared quite much. I know of one example when Polish cavalry pretended to be Tatars to use this fear against western forces. I mean, both can play the game, and what Tatars did Europeans could do too, if they needed/wanted.

C'mon. Mongols were "just" Tatars. They could easily win against someone who had no idea how to fight them, but this is very far from some mythical invincible mongols who sparred Europe due to their whim.

One more thing about Teutonic Knights.
Their presence at Legnica in remarkable numbers is not 100% sure. Their heroic last stand is quite probably just propaganda. Their supperior discipline and organisation is also questionable. What I read about Tannenberg battle suggests that big armies of Teutonic Order were very similar in quality and organisation to big armies of just about anyone else in contemporary Europe. Most of fighters were not members of Order, for example. Just your oridinary knights.

Let us remember, that it took 50 years and similar number of castles to conquer Prussia and their Lithuanian crusades were much less succesful. They faced exactly the same realities which others faced at this time, so one can not reasonably assume big differences of quality and organisation.

Regards.

[Andrzej Rosa]

Often enough, I think, that Europe was largely able to keep itself free from invasion/occupation for most of its history.

But not all it's history, which is an important exeption. When they lost badly it was against good cavalry.

The fact that Europe was the pre-eminent leader in military arts and discipline,

This needs to be proven somehow. I guess that Turks would have differrent opinion about this supposed European predominance.

and that they never had any cavalry comparable to those of their invaders

Do you include Poland or Hungary into Europe? If so, then Europeans indeed had some cavalry comparable in quality to those of their invaders. I'd venture writing, that the quality was rather better than that.

(or, that their armies were mostly heavy infantry) evidences this.

It does not evidence this. It merely hints at that.

Why it happened so is comlicated matter which maybe bags to be discussed, but this guy

as painted by Rembrandt van Rijn proves that good cavalry armed with bows and cold steel remained effective on the battlefield well into gunpowder era.

Regards.

[TimSheetz]

HI Andrzej Rosa


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cavalry has it place on the battlefield, but it cannot hold ground nor take ground from determined infantry.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why so? How about mounted infantry, like dragoons, for example?

Well that IS INFANTRY. There are always exceptions to anything involving humans.

Combined arms is what makes having cavalry successful... and this definitely applies to Alexander - he had TIMED CHARGES that broke his opponents. Did an of his phalanxes ever get ridden under hoof by any of his enemies' cavalry while they remained in ranks and disciplined?

Horses charging into spears... I am wrong? OK, where did a force of horses charge into a wall of spears? not a bunch of dudes standing in a pack, but a bona fide disciplined unit with pikes/spears/pole arms? I am sceptical on this but if you have an origianl or reputable source I am willing to hear it... If it proves true, I am sure it will be an exception rather than the rule.

Dude, citing wikipedia is like just saying it yourself. It, in the past, has proven very unreliable.. but lets look at the battle:

"The Swedes under Charles thought that the Poles were retreating and therefore advanced, spreading out their formations to give chase."

OK, giving chase is not orderd, they were spread out... that is when it vulnerable to cavalry...


Another point."...the Swedes were in panic, and the whole army collapsed in flight. It was at this point that the Swedes suffered their heaviest casualties."

Of course, this is where cavalry reigns.. when an enemy is in flight. That is what they are good for... a broken bunch of units hardly counts as disciplined infantry. They were not disciplined, they were in disorder. The commander of the other unit was better at using COMBINED ARMS. He got the other units to make errors leaving them vulnerable to his cavalry.

This is an example of superior leadership - with excellent timing.

We are also discussing a battle that is using firearms and cannon... This significantly changes the dynamics.

Does this clear up what I meant in my earlier post?

Obviously if a force is amazingly outnumbered it changes the dynamic and affects the outcome.

Peace,

Tim

[Logan Weed]

I think that's where you're wrong. By this point in time Mongols aren't just Tatars, they're Russian, Turkish, Chinese and a whole lot of other peoples. From my understanding Mongol armies of that time contained relatively few ethnic Mongols.

For instance: Originally the Mongols did not employ artillery at all, having no tradition of it. Once they'd pushed into China though, they made extensive use of field artillery since a great many Chinese engineers had joined them.

[TimSheetz]

Logan,

I was replying to Andrzej Rosa who references a specifc battle. I did not mention the Mongols at all.

Tim

[Andrzej Rosa]

First, there are things about which we obviously agree. I do not dispute general advantage of having well cooperating infantry, cavalry and engeneers in the army. I do not dispute, also, that good timing and leedership can win many battles.

So let's discuss what remains differing and interesting.

Horses charging into spears... I am wrong? OK, where did a force of horses charge into a wall of spears? not a bunch of dudes standing in a pack, but a bona fide disciplined unit with pikes/spears/pole arms? I am sceptical on this but if you have an origianl or reputable source I am willing to hear it... If it proves true, I am sure it will be an exception rather than the rule.

I will search for what is available on the net in English later. Now I will write what I can and I hope that this will make some sense too. Even without support of original texts.

I do not fully understand what you mean by "disciplined infantry". I assumed, it means well drilled and high quality infantry which was prepared to break cavalry charges. If so, it simply happened many a time.

If you mean that retreating infantry is "undisciplined" than this is not possible to show that cavalry can win against "disciplined" unit, because as cavalry wins the unit stops being "disciplined". From what I read, every time cavalry charge broke pikemen ranks infantry was done for good. Panic and all. They either died or stood ground, no in between.

Dude, citing wikipedia is like just saying it yourself. It, in the past, has proven very unreliable..

Not below other encyclopedias (was some test on acuracy, and Wiki was all right), but Wiki has an advantage of doubt, which I like. Nobody expects Wiki to be totaly right, which makes sense, if you asked me.

Anyway - it was the first text in English about this battle Google gave me. It seems to be all right, but since then I found also this.

"The Swedes under Charles thought that the Poles were retreating and therefore advanced, spreading out their formations to give chase."

OK, giving chase is not orderd, they were spread out... that is when it vulnerable to cavalry...

They advanced, not chased in disorder. As I understand it, before this they had a very strong strategic possition, so it took a trick to take them out of it. Here is a picture

Sweeds are yellow, Poles red. Solid squares are infantry, striped ones cavalry. Not much solids among Poles, which means, if I understand you well, they should not be able to gain and hold any ground. Lucky us, they still could win battles.

Anyway- flanks of sweedish infantry were supposed to be covered with reiter cavalry, which obviously points that infantry is vulnerable at least at flanks. Polish cavalry after whipping the floor with reitars attacked southern flank of Sweedish infantry from couple of sides, which broke them. Rest of army followed what southern flank did, which means they broke, fleed and died.
That is how I understand it now. Maybe I will learn something later, but they charged professional infantry, broke it and killed it. And very fast too!

Another point."...the Swedes were in panic, and the whole army collapsed in flight. It was at this point that the Swedes suffered their heaviest casualties."

Of course, this is where cavalry reigns.. when an enemy is in flight. That is what they are good for... a broken bunch of units hardly counts as disciplined infantry. They were not disciplined, they were in disorder. The commander of the other unit was better at using COMBINED ARMS. He got the other units to make errors leaving them vulnerable to his cavalry.

Clarify, please, what you really mean. If you mean that cavalry is no good for wining battles at all, I will give up.

This is an example of superior leadership - with excellent timing.

Sure! Poles were outnumbered by 3/1, so it takes some cleverness to win. No other way around it, that is life.

We are also discussing a battle that is using firearms and cannon... This significantly changes the dynamics.

But in favor of whom? Cavalry did not use much fire, if any.

Does this clear up what I meant in my earlier post?

It does, to an extent. But I'm still obviously pouzzled at some finer points.

But I also enjoy this discussion, so no problem at all.

Best regards.

[Andrzej Rosa]

think that's where you're wrong. By this point in time Mongols aren't just Tatars, they're Russian, Turkish, Chinese and a whole lot of other peoples. From my understanding Mongol armies of that time contained relatively few ethnic Mongols.

You can believe what you prefer. If you like to think that mounted archers of Tatar were not real mongols (whatever it might mean) I can do nothing about it.

What still holds ground is that Tatars did pretty much the same what mongols did, that this strategy was quite sofisticated and effective against unprepared opponent, and that Poles were not unprepared.

Poles also learned a lot form Tatars and used their tactics effectively, for example during 30 years war.

Best regards.

[Randall Pleasant]

Tim Sheetz

Can you please remind me what it was that you did at West Point? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

Horses charging into spears... I am wrong? OK, where did a force of horses charge into a wall of spears? not a bunch of dudes standing in a pack, but a bona fide disciplined unit with pikes/spears/pole arms? I am sceptical on this but if you have an origianl or reputable source I am willing to hear it... If it proves true, I am sure it will be an exception rather than the rule.

Tim, while I have immense respect for your knowlege and agree with you probably 90% of your points, I think the above depends a heck of a lot on the length of the 'spears' of each side. Surely you realise that there are numerable examples where spear armed infantry was smashed by heavy cavalry with longer spears (lances). This is a principle reason why the Swiss for example switched from 7' halberds to 18' pikes in the 14th century...

Sometimes the generlazations in military theory can be a bit misleading. The use of Cavalry changed a lot during the past depending on kit (armor and weapons) of both sides, just as it has today.

A more modern example would be the vast changes in the way tanks can be used in the 20th century. When they first appeared in WWW I they caused a severe shock, and would often drive right into infantry formations, but were in fact quite vulnerable simply because of their overal design weaknesses, relatively poor reliability, and by their limited automotive performance and range. By the beginning of WW II however much smaller more efficient medium tanks like the Panzerkamfwagen III were able to wreak havoc on infantry, riding right into and through infantry formations almost with impunity. Things evened out somewhat with improved Anti Tank gun designs but the balanced see-sawed continually. Tanks reached ascendency again for example in late 1942 with advent of the Soviet T-34 and Kv tanks, which were notorious for plunging deep into German formations.

By the end of WW II however major improvements in anti-tank guns and especially, the individual hand held shaped charge anti-tank rocket (starting with the US bazooka, arguably perfected in the German Panzerfaust and Panzershriek) made it very, very dangerous for tanks to operate close to infantry, woodlands and towns became scary places for tank crews, they had to stay hundreds of meters away to remain safe. When circumstances forced them to closer ranges, they were knocked out in alarming numbers. This continued into the Vietnam era when U.S. Cold War oriented Mechanized forces (and Doctrine) proved largely ineffective due to the prevalence of anti-tank weapons such as Soviet RPG- rocket propelled grenades, Chinese B-10 rockets, and other similar devices (recoillesss rifles and such). All those expensive M48 and M60 tanks and M113 APC's, shipped at great cost half way across the world were essentially useless in most of the local terrain since any lone Vietnamese militia or infantryman had an excellent chance of killing APC's and good chance of knocking out even the heaviest tanks with a cheap RPG or B-10 rocket.

By the Gulf War this balance had changed yet again. Due to the advent of British pioneered Chobbham Laminate armor, the heavier tanks (M1 Abhrams, Challenger, Leopard II, Leclerc etc.) are now MUCH less vulnerable to shaped charge rocket warheads, and even mines and IED's. This makes them much more terrifying to infantry. As a result the "field expedient" tactical doctrine seems to be changing yet again and heavy Tanks are being used much closer to enemy infantry in Iraq to this very day, even as the lighter APCs, HMVEES and other conventionally armored vehicles still have to step very gingerly.

My point is the technology of warfare has a massive influence on which doctrine makes sense at a given time, and that technology changes constantly. (In fact I think the balance of technology has a lot to do with Strategic issues, who is attacking, who is winning in a given era...)

Jr