Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[James Hudec]

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

Should probably keep in mind though, that English longbowmen were not average.

[JeffGentry]

Hey James

Should probably keep in mind though, that English longbowmen were not average.

Even Olympic archer's using recurve's, only use a draw weight of 25-30 lbs because a recurve much heavier than that the accuracy tend's to go down as it is held at full draw while aiming, and these aren't typical archer's either it depend's on whether you want accuracy or distance, a volley of 200 hundred arrow's at 200 hundred yard's alot of people and thing's are going to get hit.

Jeff

[Justin Toliver]

James

no they Wer trained bow men and thus 80 to 100# might be viable but 260# is unlikely shure if you had a man that could pull it you would have a devastating bow but after 2 or 3 pulls his arms would be rubber you haft to balance accuracy, power, and endurance

to help answe the quostion of acuricy it was much mor dependint on the bolt than the bow but i have seen a person (I cant remember the name) hit an asprin that was tosed in the air by his wife its ben a long time since i saw it so i do not remember the distance this was acomplished with a repraduction of an American Indian bow if Im not mistaken

[Stacy Clifford]

Guys, there was a thread about archery just within the last couple of months that extensively discussed draw weights and such of war bows. Take a look at that discussion for more info before this thread gets too derailed.

[James Hudec]

Guys, there was a thread about archery just within the last couple of months that extensively discussed draw weights and such of war bows. Take a look at that discussion for more info before this thread gets too derailed.

Right, I'm sorry about that. Back to the Mongols.

P.S. The more time I spend here, the more I realize I know absolutely nothing of what I'm talking about. <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[James Hudec]

So what exactly is the best way to deal with horse archers in the opinion of you guys?

[Brian Hunt]

Shoot the horse out from under them with your own bow. Then kill the guy on foot.

just a thought.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[James Hudec]

Shoot the horse out from under them with your own bow. Then kill the guy on foot.

Gotcha. Crossbows it is. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

I read somewhere that yhe mongols actually reported having a very tough time with Heavy Crossbows in their two major battles against Europeans.

Jeanry

[James Hudec]

I read somewhere that yhe mongols actually reported having a very tough time with Heavy Crossbows in their two major battles against Europeans.

Yes, I believe you mentioned their own records state as much.

[Filip Pobran]

bad spelling... <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> it wasn't Grobnok, but Grobnik (in croatia)
mongols suffered also some minor defeats in ukraine in "Zakarpattja", in the ukrainian part of Carpat mountains (due to rough and unknown terrain)

[Logan Weed]

Well to compare individual merits is a rather endless and inconclusive discussion. I think what it comes down to is the Mongols fought like a Napoleonic era army in the 13th century. Beyond tactics they had a number of other advantages:

Mongolia is the horse capital of the world. Whether dismounting in battle or not, Cavalry is always at an advantage against infantry. Mongol armies could not only field a 100% cavalry army but afford multiple horses per soldier, compounding this advantage. While the horses themselves were relatively small they're quite hardy, able to live on very little food and perform well in just about any envirornment they came across the the exception of dense jungle.

From Mamluke to Cataphract, mounted archers have always been the elite of an army, the mongols didn't just train as cavalry archers, the lived that way (not to say this isn't true of several other highly successful nomad civilizations.

Due to great size of the mongol empire their armies had exposure to an immense diversity of fighting styles and military technologies.

Religious diversity - No state religion and a policy respecting and learning from all religions translates to significant diplomatic advantages.

Clearly Mongol armies hold a significant advantage over a European army on the scale of entire campaigns in the 13th century!

In single combat things seem to be significantly more even. Mounted the lance is dominant and widely used by both sides. The Mongol's bow gives him an opportunity to weaken or defeat his opponent before closing to lance range but the likelyhood of this happening is rather low.

On foot I'd say it's utterly impossible to tell.

When talking of such things I think it's extremely important to avoid turning this into an ethnic/cultural superiority discussion. If Mongol armies seem martially superior (in the 13th century!) it certainly does not mean this is true in other time periods or that Mongolians are inherently superior to Europeans. The defining factor in this situation is GEOGRAPHY! Nothing more. Speaking of things in terms of eastern vs western inevitably leads to people defending the cultures they identify with which is rather irrelavent to the discussion.

[Logan Weed]

Yes, those extremely long distance shots were made with flight arrows - Flight arrows being nearly useless in actual combat.

It seems the 'average' draw strength for ANY war bow of that time period lies between 70 and 120 pounds. I seem to remember a 'muzzle velocity' of about 170-210 fps in one test with modern replicas of about half that draw strength.

I'd located a number of studies concerning the efficiency of various bows a few months ago but I can't seem to find them now, will have to find that information again some time. If I remember correctly the english longbow and steppe hornbow were pretty close, the hornbow ending up with a slight lead. The main advantage of a hornbow is that it can do what a longbow can in a significantly smaller space, this is why so many crossbows were horn/composited/laminated in Europe. The disadvantage of this construction technique being considerably higher expense and construction time. The english bow allows competitive performance at a much lower cost while only sacrificing its compactness, not a problem if you're using foot archers anyway but requires a naturally composite wood such as (only?) yew. The best wood for english longbows actually grows in central european mountains, the supply of which it seems could barely meet englands demands for the wood.

Oh, and an english longbow of (I believe) 50 lbs can pierce a combination of plate, chain, and cloth armor, penetrating to an acceptably lethal depth at a range of around 20m.

[Filip Pobran]

well.. i didn't wanted to say that europeans were superior to mongols. i ment to say that mongols were a bit weaken when they came deeper in europe.

i think that mongols "didn't succeed" because of such great area they covered. there was no phones or such things. it is hard to keep empire of that size in one piece.

imagine! "i wanna send this postcard of this beautiful chinese town to my friend in kiev" <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[James Hudec]

well.. i didn't wanted to say that europeans were superior to mongols. i ment to say that mongols were a bit weaken when they came deeper in europe.

I wouldn't have objected if you did. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

i think that mongols "didn't succeed" because of such great area they covered.

Castles too, or so I've heard, and terrain, and greater population density.