Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[James Hudec]

Didn't Ladislas "the Cuman" defeat the Mongols as well?

[James_Knowles]

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.

Very interesting summaries. In the 600A.D. Strategikon it instructs about training to be strong in both mounted and unmounted combat, and strong in both ranged and close combat, and how to defeat opposing enemies who are strong in one area but not the other. It created an army that was only defeated by internal politicking. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

Very interesting stuff, but it was lost in later centuries and wasn't re-applied until the last couple hundred years. I simply find it interesting to see aspects of the principles replayed in discussions like this.

[James Hudec]

"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."

Are you sure about that? I was reading an excerpt from a Profesor J.M. Smith where he writes that Mongol archers could not continously shoot accurately in all directions, but rather would have to take a long aproach, attack the target head-on, loosing one aimed shot, and then ride back again and either set up for another run or let some else have a go.

Surely there's opportunity within this scenario for the knight to gain the advantage on his opponent?

[David Craig]

"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."

Are you sure about that? I was reading an excerpt from a Profesor J.M. Smith where he writes that Mongol archers could not continously shoot accurately in all directions, but rather would have to take a long aproach, attack the target head-on, loosing one aimed shot, and then ride back again and either set up for another run or let some else have a go.

Surely there's opportunity within this scenario for the knight to gain the advantage on his opponent?

Yes, in a situation with one horsearcher vs. one heavy cavalryman, I give the edge to the horsearcher, assuming he could maintain his distance. He doesn't need to shoot in all directions. All he needs to do is kill or severely wound the knight's horse, thereby eliminating any chance for the knight to close the range. Then he can simply stay back and fire arrows at the unhorsed knight until he hits an uprotected area, or causes enough injury to induce death by blood loss. Or he could simply ride away if he wished.

But naturally, we are just speculating and talking in general terms. Of course there would be situtations where the knight could gain the advantage, even if the fight started at a distance.

David Craig

[Jake_Norwood]

My money is on the ninja with a lightsaber.





Sorry, I didn't have anything constructive to add...

Fun discussion, though.

Jake

[James Hudec]

What about the relative merits of their horses? I'm a bit fuzzy on the specifics, but couldn't a knight's mount of this period do about 35-45 mph? How would a steppe pony compare in terms of endurance and flat-out swiftness?

[Justin Blackford]

The steppe ponies were better at endurance because of their native terrain. In Mongolia, it has been known to go upwards of 110 degrees in the peak of summer and below 100 degrees in the dead of winter. Under such extreme circumstances, the Mongolian steppe horses surely must have been much better at enduring such punishment over long distance riding. Plus, Mongolia is also quite dry. Rivers, creeks, and other sources of water come and go very quickly over the course of years. I imagine that the Mongol horses were better at endurance running and that the European steeds were better at fast sprints, such as their infamous heavy cavalry charges.
Justin

[Randall Pleasant]

James Hudec wrote:
What about the relative merits of their horses? I'm a bit fuzzy on the specifics, but couldn't a knight's mount of this period do about 35-45 mph? How would a steppe pony compare in terms of endurance and flat-out swiftness?

Would not the most significant factor in regard to the endurance of the horses have been the Mongolians use of many horses per rider? Unlike a knight, was a mongolian not most often on a fairly fresh horse?

[James Hudec]

According to a study by professors J. M. Smith and David O. Morgan, the reason the Mongol riders each had several mounts was because the animals would tire out quickly at top speed.

What do you make of this?

[JeanryChandler]

I'm not sure if the European warhorses were necessarily all that fast, I believe they were out-run by Arab horses in the crusades routinely. I'm no expert on horses but I'd have to assume the the weight they were carrying, say an average of 180 lbs plus 70-80 lbs for armor, helmet and weapons, plus saddle, and possibly barding of some sort. Thats a lot of weight... the mongol warrior by contrast wore much lighter armor and was probably a smaller guy to begin with.


Jeanry

[James Hudec]

"I believe they were out-run by Arab horses in the crusades routinely."

Really? What information are you basing that on?

I know little about horses either unfortunately, but I do think the European horse would have been considerably bigger and stronger, would it not? <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Jaron Bernstein]

From my very limited understanding, European warhorses (at least the heavy cavalry kind) were purposely bred to be able to carry a lot of weight. Think Clydsdales and up. A scary thing to face in battle. But also not a horse likely to win any many speed races. If what I read is correct, a knight would have one "commuter" horse for actual day to day riding and one horse that was ridden only for battle (and training also one would assume). Kind of like how the military now moves tanks on tank transporter trucks to save wear on the tank.

[Casper Bradak]

Most of my limited knowledge on the subject if from Ewart Oakshotte, but he said that larger destriers were sometimes used in battle, but favored for joust and tourney. The common warhorse was a somewhat less expensive, smaller, faster horse called a courser.

[Jaron Bernstein]

You may very well be correct. Just something I read a few years ago.

[JeanryChandler]

I think this is correct, there were coursers, destriers, and riding horses, as well as pack-mules to carry gear. I don't think even the coursers carrying a heavy knight would necessarily be the fastest cavalry. In many of the crusades battles, which you can verify from any general source, the arabs and turks often fled the charging knights and sometimes even circled around them after feigned retreats.

The primary value of the knights warhorse was power, they were not really designed for running down light cavalry.

One of the big strengths of the Mongols incidentally was their employment of so-called "arrow riders" which were scouts and couriers who rode around the battlefield conveying messages and assessing the situation, and reporting to the leaders. This gave them a much better, in fact almost modern level of situational awareness compared to their foes.

DB