Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[James Hudec]

I'm not sure whether this falls into the posting parameters here, but anyway, I was recently engaged in a debate in another forum regarding the relative merits of Western vs Eastern martial traditions. My problem was that whenever I'd made a point, someone would bring up some example about the Mongols and then claim victory.

What I'd like is are there any objective essays published regarding the relative merits of Mongols and Europeans? I'd like to believe that the Europeans were the superior soldiers, but that, of course, is my personal prejudice.

[David Craig]

I like historical "what if" speculation as much as anyone, but this is way too broad a question to even attempt to answer. What Europeans from what time period? Which Mongols? What do you mean by "superior soldiers" ? Superior individual warriors or members of a superior armies? Infantry or cavalry? You need to narrow the question down, and even then, unless your selected example soldiers actually fought each other any answers are pretty much pure speculation.

David Craig

[James Hudec]

Well, I guess 15th century Teutonic Knights against the Golden Horde is a comparison that comes to mind. I'm really try to find examples of the Mongols actually being beaten, information about which, apart from their failed invasion of Japan, seems to be in short supply.

[Mike Cartier]

Indeed its a rather wide question, the epic conflict between nomads and city dwellers went on for a very long time, the Mongols are just one name for these people who came out of the steppe and harrassed the city dwellers for almost a thousand years.

Man to man i would say the nomads led a sturdier life and lived closer to the weapons they used in war. However the European soldiers were of course superior in martial discilpline and tactics but the nomads had mobility on their side and so the advantage. The nomads won more often than not, but once the city dwellers got their acts together the nomads were halted. Still they were remarkably effective, the most successful of the nomads in war being the mongols but they had a very limited effect culturally, the Turkman was much more successfull culturally after they conquered Persia and the surrounds they made a concious effort to civilize and shed their nomadic past.

The final hurrah of the nomad in his great wars against Eurpoe was the Hun defeated by a Roman/Barbarian army. The turks of course attacked later but were by then civilized into city dwellers themselves.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Actually, I can think of 2 cases where the Mongols were defeated, but in different ways:

1. The Vietnamese beat them. Think of the US and French indochina wars, only without guns.

2. The Chinese beat them...in the sense that one generation after the conquest, the Mongols in China had become so culturally assimilated into China that they acted more as orthodox confucians than the Chinese themselves.

[David Craig]

The Mongols suffered far more than only 2 defeats. Just some that I can think of offhand, other than the ones already mentioned:

Defeated by the Egyptian Mamluks in 1260
Several defeats by Indian armies in the 13th century
Defeated by a Russian army at Kulikovo in 1380
Defeated by the Chinese in the 1360s when the Mongol Yuan dynasty was overthrown.
Karakorum, the Mongol capitol, was sacked/destroyed by the Chinese in I think 1388, if I remember correctly.
The defeats get much more numerous when you get into the 15th century.

As for the Teutonic Knights, I don't recall them fighting any battles with the Mongols other than Liegnitz (in which they fought only as a part of an army made up of other Germans, Templars, Hospitalers, and Poles). Of course they lost at Liegnitz, but I'm not sure that's enough to generalize about Teutonic knights vis a vis 13th Century Mongols.

David Craig

[JeanryChandler]

There were two fights against the mongols in Europe, Liegnitz in the north with the Poles and Teutonic knights in 1241 (as well as several smaller contingents of Templars, Hospitalars and numerous others) and a second battle shortly after in Hungary against a combined force of Hungarian, Bohemians, and more of the military orders..

In both battles the Mongols basically won due to superior strategy and organization, but contrary to the popular clift notes version of the story they suffered quite heavy casualties and in the battle of Liegnitz two thirds of the European force actually remained unscathed. The Western army was divided into three sections, one of which fell for a feigned retreat and charged, only to be covered by a smoke screen (burning trees dragged behind horses) surrounded and massacred.

The mongols suffered several smaller defeats, at Grobnok against the Croatians, and near Silesia by the Bohemians.

The thing was, the Mongols superior discipline, mobility and (particularly) command and control, battlefield intelligence and reconnisance allowed them to flee from battles if they were losing, and to massacre their enemies when they won.

From the detailed accounts I have read, the Mongols suffered in close combat against European heavy cavalry (primarily knights) and they themselves also mention having a lot of trouble from crossbows.

An example of the former was in the fighting against the hungarians, at one point the Mongols attempted to block a bridge. The Bohemians and Hungarians eagerly charged into the fray and massacred the Mongolian armored heavy (or perhaps medium) cavalry in the close quarters and they had to give up that strategy.

Most of the time though the mongols fought their own fight for the most part however and did it masterfully. The Europeans suffered from a lack of discipline and military organization. If not for the presense of the military orders which were disicplined, the western armies might have truly collapsed as they did in the various legends.

DB

[David Craig]

Jeanry,

Good points. Also, from what I remember, the Battle of Sajo River could have gone either way, had the Hungarians realized the true situation and been able to bring their numerical superiority to bear. It is also important to note that the Mongol Army that invaded Europe was a cohesive veteran force, with tried and tested leaders who had been thru several campaigns further east. On the other hand, the European armies at Liegnitz and Sajo River were ad hoc groupings with a variety of troops and no real central command.

David Craig

[JeanryChandler]

Very true. At Sajo river, the Mongols were basically at a stalemate. They won the day with another trick, this time by partially surrounding the hungarians and harrying them with their archers, while leaving what appeared to be a single escape route. Ingenius in terms of psychology. One by one and then in driblets some knights took this exit out of the frustrating battle, eventually a flood tried to retreat and thats when the trap was sprung.


I believe however as you say, the Europeans didn't have a real army, just a bunch of feudal forces pasted together. They showed signs of learning quickly though and I think it would have been a short time indeed before they congealed into a more effective combined arms army.

Those who fought the mongols learned lessons very quickly or died. The Japanese for example reformed many apsects of their fighting strategy, down to the design of their sword, from facing the mongols. The Europeans demonstrated through history that one of their greatest assets was flexibility and adaptibility. They also had assets, the heavy crossbows, heavy armor and the heavy cavalry specificaly, which could be used against the mongols (I believe this was the only time up to that point that the Mongols faced an opponent that they could not out muscle in the open field with their own formidable medium cavalry)

I think it's quite apparent that a more combined arms approach would have quickly developed, probably around the military orders, which would have been more than capable of repelling the mongols. The idea that Europe was saved when Bhatu and Khaidu turned the horde around to choose a successor Khan is the usual sort of hyperbole one encounters in certain contraversial places in history, due to the political implications and overtones of the issue.

DB

[Justin Blackford]

Hello.
If I may interject, the Mongols nearly lost the battle of Mohi against the Hungarians. Apparently Batu and Subotai were really at odds as far as strategy goes. Subotai wanted to flank the Hungarians from farther north of the Sajo river, but couldn't find a place to ford, so he had his men build a temporary bridge between the villages of Girines and Nady Czek. He crossed the bridge just in time to meet up with the rest of Batu and Shiban's men and together they surrounded the Hungarian knights and mounted men-at-arms who refused to run from the battlefield like so many of the drafted peasants did. Most of the numerical superiority of the Hungarians came from the peasants that they drafted in the event of the national emergency. They weren't really trained to fight and ended up running when they saw the Mongols break open their ranks temporarily. It was just a trap set up by the Mongol cavalry who then closed in around them and cut them down as they were routed.
The group of knights and mounted sergeants who stayed behind formed a circle which faced out toward the Mongols and then repeatedly charged outward and withdrew back into the circle. The strategy employed by the Hungarians there was devastating the Mongol ranks, who then withdrew into a single column and surrounded the Hungarians again. This time they fired their arrows at the horses of the knights. Particularly well-aimed shots in their knees, dropping the horses instantly. Those knights who didn't break their necks from falling from a moving horse ended up being trampled to death or cut down. The skilled Mongol archery tactics is what won that day. When they went hand-to-hand against the European forces, they were getting hammered. So, I would also have to say that the Europeans had better individual warriors, but the Mongols ultimately had better group discipline and archery tactics.
Sorry for the lecture. <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Just thought I'd share some knowledge with you guys.

Justin

[JeanryChandler]

Interesting data Justin, thanks for posting. I wasn't aware of some of those details.

There is a pretty good link on Leignitz here:

http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/bl3mongolinvasion.htm

Jeanry

[James Hudec]

Thanks for the help everyone. I really appreciate it. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[David Craig]

So, I would also have to say that the Europeans had better individual warriors, but the Mongols ultimately had better group discipline and archery tactics.

I think this is a reasonable generalization if you are talking about close combat. And yes, Mongol discipline, organization and leadership was superior to the European armies they faced in the 13th Cen. But archery also counts as an individual warrior skill. In a 1 on 1 situation, where both a Mongol and a Knight are on horseback, and not already at close range, I give the edge to the Mongol. But ultimately we are just speculating, since it would still depend on skill of the individuals involved and other details of the situation.

David Craig

[David Craig]

I think it's quite apparent that a more combined arms approach would have quickly developed, probably around the military orders, which would have been more than capable of repelling the mongols. The idea that Europe was saved when Bhatu and Khaidu turned the horde around to choose a successor Khan is the usual sort of hyperbole one encounters in certain contraversial places in history, due to the political implications and overtones of the issue.

Jeanry,

Interestingly, the idea that Europe was wide open to invasion and almost miraculously saved by the great Khan's death is still out there among historians. I just read an article written in 1997 that took that position. Like you, however, I find this argument pretty weak, given that it is based on too many assumptions. The fact that the Mongols could defeat European armies, does not necessarily mean that they could have conquered, let alone held, large sections of western Europe. And since they never actually tried, we really have no idea what might have happened.

David Craig

[Justin Blackford]

Interestingly, the idea that Europe was wide open to invasion and almost miraculously saved by the great Khan's death is still out there among historians. I just read an article written in 1997 that took that position. Like you, however, I find this argument pretty weak, given that it is based on too many assumptions. The fact that the Mongols could defeat European armies, does not necessarily mean that they could have conquered, let alone held, large sections of western Europe. And since they never actually tried, we really have no idea what might have happened.

Actually, the real reason that the Golden Horde withdrew was kind of complex.
Apparently, Batu and Subotai were really at odds at each other. At their victory feast over the Hungarians, the commander of the European conquest was supposed to have the first drink from the horn. Batu assumed that it was himself, but his brother Shiban refrained from letting him drink first, saying that the honour was Subotai's. Batu threw a huge fit over all of this. This seems to imply that the real commander and brains behind the whole operation was actually Subotai, even though Batu was officially declared "in charge".
Then, Ogedai Khan drank himself to death. He was known for being a bad alcoholic. His brothers tried to talk him into drinking less than three glasses of wine a day. Ogedai conveniently avoided this by drinking from unusually large glasses.
When he died on December 11, 1241, Batu was quickly informed and he wanted to stake his claim for the election of the next Khakhan. And since he was already at odds with Subotai, he decided to withdraw his own forces with him back to Mongolia. Subotai's army shrunk nearly 35%.
Then, as Mattheu of Paris informs us, Frederick II(Stupor Mundi) of the Holy Roman Empire and St. Louis IX of France had made the crusader's oaths to retake and liberate Central Europe. It was going to take time, because Frederick's forces had been exhausted from fighting the Pope in Rome, and Louis' forces had shrunk from the wars against England. Therefore, word was sent all across the Western world, to repel the Mongols was going to take a massive force and they would need every volunteer they could get. Men from as far as Norway, Ireland, Spain, and Sicily were making the crusader oaths to depart to Central Europe and fight the Mongols back into Russia. Mattheu also says that since Frederick was too old to do battle himself, he was going to send his ingenious (and also illegitimate) son, Enzio of Sardinia, to lead his army against the "Tartars".
Louis IX, still a young headstrong man, and also quite pious, was asked by his mother, "What shall you do against the Tartars in battle?"
He replied, "We shall send them back to Hell from whence they came."
Then his mother asked, "What if it is they who defeat you?"
Louis replied, "Then they shall send us to Paradise!"
All of his men laughed and at that moment were psychologically relaxed enough to resume stockpiling the weapons and supplies needed for the expedition.
Then, when news reached the Europeans that the Mongols had withdrawn in the winter of 1242, the whole crusade was cancelled.
Subotai took his forces out of Hungary and Poland and withdrew into Russia, with some quick stops in Dalmatia and Bulgaria to pick up some more loot. Since Subotai knew of the coming invasion from the West, and had no reinforcements to back him up, he probably assumed that there was no way he could conquer Europe if the West was going to unite to repel him and so just gathered up enough plunder to justify the invasion.
But, in the one year the Mongols spent in Hungary, over 75% of the Hungarian people had been exterminated. When King Bela returned, he had to invite the nearby nomad tribes of Cumans and Pechenegs to settle on Hungarian land in order to repopulate the country.
Certainly, this horrible war which lasted only a year still rings in the minds of the Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian people to this day. If the Mongols had continued to attack into Europe and the crusade had been fought, there would have been a lot more bloodshed than would have been necessary.
So, the whole invasion of Europe was one major bloodbath which began in earnest but ended up going nowhere for either side. Just imagine how history would have changed if the Mongols won!
Some food for thought,
Justin