Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[James_Knowles]

War horses also had to be conditioned, trained, and retrained.

Horses don't naturally run over, into, or through things like masses of shouting, screaming people with long pointy objects. Horses have to be trained to do that.

I don't have any reference matrial handy right now, but I did find it interesting reading the early period training regimen about selecting and training horses.

I have no idea about the differences in training practices between the two different cultures, but it'd be an interesting read.

[TimSheetz]

This is an intersting discussion, but I think the primary Power of the horse is in the advantage of maneuverabilty, collectively.

The advantage of moving large groups of warriors on the battlefield faster than the units dismounted can react to them is where cavalry really helps. The other is that heavy cavalry charging may have been more effective at BREAKING a line of troops than KILLING a line of troops - a matter of SHOCK. The level of discipline and esprit required to stand up to a larger faster mass of horses is waaaay above the average person. Even if they logical understand that staying together is the best way, who wants to be the guy out front? Having the intestinal fortitude to stay put and work collectively against the onslaught is a much harder thing to ingrain into folks I think.

For the mongols, wasn't their modus basically riding into range and shooting and then riding back out of range of return firers? Not so much creating a SHOCK, but chipping away at the forces. They can hit from numerous angles so that a standard shield formation won't work so the dismounts have to spread out to mitigate the archer';s effectiveness - leaving them vulnerable to a sudden charge - or tighten it in and make some sort of overhead shield wall - not easy unless you are well trained. Then how long can the average guy take being shot at and seeing fellow troops go down before losing it and breaking to run? Once that happens the cavalry can ride them down at their leisure.

Once the charging cavalry breaks the will of the ground troops, then they, too, can ride them down. They add Maneuverability on the field so fleeing troops are pressured - no chance to rally and regroup and return.

So horse sizes, etc.. matter less I'd think than the organized collective use of them for maneuver and shock.

Just a few of my thoughts..

Tim

[James Hudec]

Replicating Richard's battle formation at Arsouf would seem to be a good counter to that.

(to my mind at least)

[Casper Bradak]

I don't think that's just a tactic of the mongols. I think the idea of knights charging and penetrating deep into enemy formations with charges at 90 degrees is very exagerrated, especially for the early middle ages, when we see evidence of them charging an enemy line, throwing spears or striking, and wheeling about to reform, to open their lines and cause casualties.
We know in the later middle ages as well, knights with true lances would maneuver up to the enemy lines, and harrass them about a certain area, probing their lines and striking with lances (maneuverability is extremely important with this, not big horses trained only to run straight into the enemy). They were highly effective in ground where it was even impossible to "charge", such as forest ambushes, where maneuverability was more important. The charge is simply very overrated for its neccessity.
We know lance wielding cavalry could break lines and produce significant enemy casualties compared to infantry, but they didn't have to use a stereotypical charge to do so. If they did, that would likely be their only maneuver of the battle unless it caused a rout, because they'd either be stuck in combat after they made a hole for the infantry to exploit, or killed in the middle of the enemy formation.
Needless to say, it would be nearly suicidal for cavalry to charge "into" an enemy line if it were bristling with polearms, which they often were.

[Stacy Clifford]

That pretty much goes to what I said about picking the right horse to facilitate your plan of attack. More running and maneuvering - smaller horse. More crashing, kicking and stomping - bigger horse. I'm sure any knight who could afford more than one horse probably did this.

[Casper Bradak]

Absolutely. Any knight who could in fact afford to be a knight had several horses, was legally required to have several horses in fact.

[Jason_Daub]

The truth of late medieval cavalry tactics is rather comlex, most of the chroniclers were of the same social class as the knights themselves. This has coloured their observations to an extent which often gives a distorted view of the battlefield. You can see the same distortion of historical record by reading regimental or personal memoirs of something as recent as WWII.
The most recent research that I have come across seems to imply that the man-at-arms was actually used as part of a an early combined arms force. If you are to look at the south German campaigns and the French invasions of north Italy you will see that infantry was used as a solid base for the cavalry. The infantry as a whole seemed to be used to try to harass the enemy cavalry into doing something rash while at the same time fix the opponents infantry into a position to be hit with a heavy cavalry charge.
As to the size of the horses most of the heavy coldbloods today have the "North European warhorse" as an ancestor with various different crossbreeding and the introduction of successive strains of warmblood to the mix. In a rambling sort of way what I am saying is that something along the lines of a Percheron or Belgian is not entirely off the mark as a heavy cavalry mount.
The difference between destriers for the joust and for the field of battle were more of a matter of training than breeding, the large breeds today are actually surprisingly nimble. I personally believe that the problem with determining the type of horse used is more a matter of semantics, the medieval noble had a name for everything, depending on the circumstance he could be riding a destrier, a courser, a palfrey, or a hack ( I am sure that I have forgotten a couple )
Basically I would agree with most of what has been said, as to the tactics, but at the same time the cultural conditioning of the commanders and of the elite troops is shouting CHARGE!, which would explain some of the more notable disasters that the armies of the time found themselves in.
- Jason

[James Hudec]

don't think that's just a tactic of the mongols. I think the idea of knights charging and penetrating deep into enemy formations with charges at 90 degrees is very exagerrated, especially for the early middle ages, when we see evidence of them charging an enemy line, throwing spears or striking, and wheeling about to reform, to open their lines and cause casualties.
We know in the later middle ages as well, knights with true lances would maneuver up to the enemy lines, and harrass them about a certain area, probing their lines and striking with lances (maneuverability is extremely important with this, not big horses trained only to run straight into the enemy). They were highly effective in ground where it was even impossible to "charge", such as forest ambushes, where maneuverability was more important. The charge is simply very overrated for its neccessity.
We know lance wielding cavalry could break lines and produce significant enemy casualties compared to infantry, but they didn't have to use a stereotypical charge to do so. If they did, that would likely be their only maneuver of the battle unless it caused a rout, because they'd either be stuck in combat after they made a hole for the infantry to exploit, or killed in the middle of the enemy formation.
Needless to say, it would be nearly suicidal for cavalry to charge "into" an enemy line if it were bristling with polearms, which they often were.

Fascinating. I learn something new here everyday. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[David Craig]

We know lance wielding cavalry could break lines and produce significant enemy casualties compared to infantry, but they didn't have to use a stereotypical charge to do so. If they did, that would likely be their only maneuver of the battle unless it caused a rout, because they'd either be stuck in combat after they made a hole for the infantry to exploit, or killed in the middle of the enemy formation.
Needless to say, it would be nearly suicidal for cavalry to charge "into" an enemy line if it were bristling with polearms, which they often were.

I agree to a large extent, assuming the infantry is in good order and well-disciplined. The ideal cavalry charge attacks the flanks of an infantry formation, disordering them and rolling them up from the side, rather than hitting them head-on. But I wouldn't underestimate the power of a frontal charge by heavy cavalry -- let alone by armored lancers. Given the right conditions, those types of charges could break infantry, even later in the age of the musket. This was particularly true when the cavalry was supported by combined-arms tactics. For example, at Falkirk in 1298, when the Scottish schiltrons were broken by a cavalry charge, after their formations had been greatly weakened by longbow fire.

David Craig

[Casper Bradak]

I agree to a large extent, assuming the infantry is in good order and well-disciplined. The ideal cavalry charge attacks the flanks of an infantry formation, disordering them and rolling them up from the side, rather than hitting them head-on. But I wouldn't underestimate the power of a frontal charge by heavy cavalry -- let alone by armored lancers. Given the right conditions, those types of charges could break infantry, even later in the age of the musket. This was particularly true when the cavalry was supported by combined-arms tactics. For example, at Falkirk in 1298, when the Scottish schiltrons were broken by a cavalry charge, after their formations had been greatly weakened by longbow fire.

Good points. An ideal attack of any kind by any unit never went head to head, and combined arms was always the preferred method (just not always available).

[TimSheetz]

I was trying to say that the point of cavalry was mobility, not that the Euopean knights just charged (which is the sterotype).

It seemed like that is what folks are saying in reply to me. So I agree


Tim

[James Hudec]

Has anyone got any accurate information on Mongol bows and their ranges and draw-weights? I've looked about, but I haven't found much beyond wildly over-enthusiastic claims that it could out-shoot an English longbow.

[Jason_Daub]

James,
The composite recurved bow actually does have a substantially longer cast than the longbow. The records on the shooting grounds of Constantinople list ranges of 625 to 838 yards. If you check Stone he quotes shots of 462 and 482 yards made using a "turkish bow". This would be using a specially made flight arrow of the longest possible length and the lightest weight. As for draw weights the only information I have come across lists draw weights of about 80lbs.
-Jason

[James Hudec]

James,
The composite recurved bow actually does have a substantially longer cast than the longbow. The records on the shooting grounds of Constantinople list ranges of 625 to 838 yards. If you check Stone he quotes shots of 462 and 482 yards made using a "turkish bow". This would be using a specially made flight arrow of the longest possible length and the lightest weight. As for draw weights the only information I have come across lists draw weights of about 80lbs.
-Jason

Thanks for the response Jason.

A draw weight of around 80lbs is about what I'd expect from a bow that size, but the use of a special lightweight target-style arrow doesn't really really give me an idea of how far the normal arrow used for war would travel.

Admittedly, I don't have much of a clue what the draw weights and ranges of medieval longbows were; I've seen estimates ranging from 60 to 120 to 260 pounds, and not having archery experience myself, I have no way of knowing which one may be closest to the truth (though I tend to gravitate towards the 260 mark). As for the range, I've read that the longest shot achieved with a reproduction longbow was a distance of 462 yards 9 inches achieved by a Inigo Simot in 1914 on this site.

[Justin Toliver]

I don't have much archery experience but I do have somand a 260# pull sounds exaggerated to me. Long bows on average have a pull of about 40 to 60#, that is a modern hand made composite long bow not a re curve they can get into 100# range but you haft to be built like a tank to draw it

80# IMO is more than the average male can accurately handle

if i am off on theis numbers i apologize this is all from memory and personal experience