Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[Logan Weed]

You may not have a lot of faith in Wikipedia's information but they do have something to say about this conversation.

"The name 'Cossacks' was also given to a kind of light cavalry in the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The name is derived from the Turkic word quzzaq, "adventurer", "freeman". This term is first mentioned in a Ruthenian document dated 1395. Cossacks (Qazaqlar) were also border keepers in the Khanate of Kazan.

The Cossacks should not be confused with the Kazakhs (people of Kazakhstan). (Kazakh is spelled Qazaq (Қазақ) in their native language)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack

You may not have a lot of faith in Wikipedia's information but they do have something to say about this conversation.

[Andrzej Rosa]

"The name 'Cossacks' was also given to a kind of light cavalry in the
army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Exactly. They were Poles, though. Also named "armored" or "mailed" banners.
Quality of equipment and quality of horses required to serve there was lower
than in "higher banners" and there was more of those "cossack banners".

Why they called it thus I do not know, but funny as it may be, they named one
formation after one Ruthen nation which was generally regarded as nation of
thieves and liars, and there also served mostly Poles. They named some
formations "foreign" yet there also served Poles, so this "misnaming" was
sorta common.

Here some better than me informed guy said pretty much what I said, namely than
registered cossacks of early 17c were predominantly infantry.

In the early 17th C. most -the great majority- of registered
cossacks were infantry. That switched to more cavalry later, I did
mot think it was a majority by mid century but I really don't know.

Here is some next "opinion", that registered Cossacks of Zaporozhe were mainly musket
armed infantry.

I'll be pretty honest. I did not read all those registers where it must be
written what kind of army they were, but like I said, this opinion about
Cossack infantry is quite common and I guess it must be based on existing
sources. They had some cavalry, but it was supposed to be no good, so maybe
we simply had no use for it?

Don Cossacks were different matter and they seemed to have good cavalry
earlier. I think, earlier than I formerly wrote.

Back to tactics of mounted combat.
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowImpact.htm

Some links for anyone who wants to read what people think about supposed
tactics of mounted troops against infantry and other opponents. Not many
things are known for sure, of course, but general picture can be drawn with
reasonable accuracy, IMHO of course.

Best regards.

[Logan Weed]

Fascinating articles Andrzej.

[Duosi Ji]

The Mongol invasion of Europe is currently still relatively unstudied (after over a century of "research"). If anyone tries to dig up the real history of the invasion, they will find a completely different picture than what the popular "historians" will tell.

The reality was, that the Europeans were always way outnumbered on the battlefield, thus basically being swarmed by the large hordes of Mongols.

Also, the Mongol defeats in Europe during the 1240-1242 invasion were plenty, just that no historian bothered to write about them in English. If you could read German though, you will find treasure chest you are looking for.

About the Mongol army, man to man they were inferior to the Medieval Europeans, but their numbers and their zeal meant that they could swarm down small numbers of enemies who were more elite than them.

For better analyses of the Mongol military technology, John M Smith offers a better view (although somewhat biased against the Mongols) than what the early historians claimed. It is clear that those historians did not know a thing about military technology, and were trained in "literature" and "social sciences" who tried to cross over to the field of military history.

J.M. Smith, 'Mongol Society and Military in the Middle East: antecedents and adaptations', in Y. Lev (ed.) War and society and the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th centuries (1997), pp. 249-66.

The above is a good starting point, he really went hard on the Mongols, but that is understandable backlash to over a century of romanticizing and inflations.

For the European theater, I would say that if the Mongols went any further, they would be crushed as the Huns had been at Chalons. This is supported by the unusually high number of defeats at the hands of the Germans, Austrians and Italians. They have "crossed" into Central Europe, the "boss lair". [/b]

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, it's true that the Mongols' number have usually been downplayed too much in most modern historical books about them--and it's actually one of their greatest achievements: to logistically manage such huge armies without either starving them or scattering them all over the countryside. And it's definitely not an achievement unique to them; Chinese armies regularly managed it, and the best European armies of the Middle Ages also did so. Other than that, tactically and strategically speaking, the Mongols did have an advantage in sheer aggressiveness during Temujin's reign--they just wouldn't acknowledge defeat, and would keep throwing their men in again and again even after being repeatedly beaten on the same front--but this impetus was already mostly gone by the time of the European expedition. So the Mongols still had a fair chance of victory because they were no worse than most of the armies they would have faced, but this chance wouldn't have been appreciably higher than what we can expect from European armies of comparable size, discipline, and organization at the time. In fact, the Hungarians did fight the Mongols to a stalemate by taking advantage of the increasing distance between the Mongol vanguard and their supply bases in the steppes.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

[quote="Andrzej Rosa"]Re: Knights no good.

Ease up guys. Knights were not pros. They could be good for their time, but faced with pros they often failed.

They also not "lived to fight". quote]

You have GOT to be kidding! Not professionals? So, you're saying that men who recieved instruction from seasoned warriors, as well as from one or more fechtmeister, from the age of 6\7, and on into their adult lives somehow weren't professionals?

Men who trained diligently in the arts of unarmed combat, weaponed combat with all manner of arms, combat in and out of armour, combat on foot and on horseback, these guys - according to you - supposedly weren't professionals?

These men, whose skills we can still see and re-create thanks to the various fechtbucher, who regularly faced other trained combatants in mortal combat, these SAME men WEREN'T professionals? I hardly think so.

My friend, the medieval social ladder is quite clear: men who fight (knights and other noblemen), men who pray (clergy), and men who work (yeomanry\artisans\merchants\peasantry). There's NOBODY else going at the time. Now, who do you think ranks as the "professional" warriors amongst those?

There's a story about one of these "non-professionals" in England, during the time of Tyler's peasant uprising. This self-same "non-professional" was out hunting (hunting, of all things - shouldn't he have been ceaseless fighting), when he got cornered by a mob of peasants, who ended up attacking him. With every stroke of his sword, he severed limbs, hands, and heads, slaying dozens of these peasants (who were armed), before they finally killed him by STONING HIM TO DEATH (because they couldn't kill him hand-to-hand). Oh, yes...very unprofessional!


And yes, as many others have said, individually the Mongols were no match for the knights. It was sheer numbers that brought about their victories. And no, they wouldn't have gotten much further than they already had, either.

My man, I do believe you need to re-evaluate your stance.

-B.

[Duosi Ji]

Well, it's true that the Mongols' number have usually been downplayed too much in most modern historical books about them--and it's actually one of their greatest achievements: to logistically manage such huge armies without either starving them or scattering them all over the countryside. And it's definitely not an achievement unique to them; Chinese armies regularly managed it, and the best European armies of the Middle Ages also did so. Other than that, tactically and strategically speaking, the Mongols did have an advantage in sheer aggressiveness during Temujin's reign--they just wouldn't acknowledge defeat, and would keep throwing their men in again and again even after being repeatedly beaten on the same front--but this impetus was already mostly gone by the time of the European expedition. So the Mongols still had a fair chance of victory because they were no worse than most of the armies they would have faced, but this chance wouldn't have been appreciably higher than what we can expect from European armies of comparable size, discipline, and organization at the time. In fact, the Hungarians did fight the Mongols to a stalemate by taking advantage of the increasing distance between the Mongol vanguard and their supply bases in the steppes.

Well, this is all true. But I was going against their fighting abilities rather than their persistence through endless attempts. The Mongols is probably the biggest hoax of the field of military history of today. Somehow a bunch of nomads can be more "advanced" than the Western Europeans who built the cathedrals and mechanical clocks is just preposterous. I agree with you in that the Hungarians fought them to stalemate, and further if you look into the engagements of their vanguard with the Central Europeans, their defeats are probably more numerous than their victories (I haven't counted the exact numbers, but right now I can't think of a single victory that they have won in Central Europe).

And yes, as many others have said, individually the Mongols were no match for the knights. It was sheer numbers that brought about their victories. And no, they wouldn't have gotten much further than they already had, either.

Their despicable terror tactics also helped. The Hungarian chroniclers recorded that they have raped and killed Hungarian girls and children and shoved very large stakes from beneath into them, and erected them up that way on their side of the river to scare the defenders on the other sides of the river. The reason of the Mongol success was a combination of luck, hardiness both mentally and physically, effective diplomatic treachery and psychological warfare as said above. But the last tactic stopped working when people knew that they are going to massacre the defenders weather they surrendered or not. Towards the end of their campaign in Hungary no castle would open the gates for them anymore because they broke their promises to not harm the inhabitants every time they accepted surrender. The news of this spreaded quicker than their army could advance.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I hear the Mongol use archeries as the main weapon and I hear their bow can fire the arrows farther and with more force than the English longbow. I think the Mongol would have had an advantage because they seem to use the arrows a lot. I believe the Roman had the same problem when fighting the Huns due to them using a lot of their bows and arrows on horse back. Their calvary is also another secret to their sucess. With the fast moving calvaries, that fire arrows from the horse back, this would allow them to use the arrows to attack the enemies from virtually anywhere; hence the formation would have been useless. I believe their calvary is the key also. Back in Southeast Asia in Northern Thailand, they couldn't use their calvary as the main attack force so they fail to invade Thailand due to the thick jungle; that and the horses were terrified of the war elephants so they wouldn't even go anywhere near the them. I don't know if anyone has seen the movie Alexander, but in one of the last battle scene when he was fighting the Indians, his horses just stop in the middle nowhere and refused to go near the elephants. At first I didn't know why, but my mom told me about the Thai history that the Mongol army couldn't invade Thailand because the horses were terrified of the elephants, so they couldn't use them against the Thai army which had a lot of big war elephants.

[Randall Pleasant]

...has seen the movie Alexander....my mom told me...

Sripol

How old are you?

I do not mean to sound insulting in any manner but what mom says is not considered data that can be referenced.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Oh, no, I'm not young by the way. The reason I said what I said is because my mom went to college in Thailand (the best in Thailand and very hard to get into), so she got the info from there I assume. I could be wrong. If you wonder, I'm 31 by the way. Just turned 31 on Sunday! That's what they say in Thailand. The Mongol horses were afraid of the elephants...that and it was a thick jungle so they couldn't use their calvary to their advantage.

[Bartosz Zasepa]

Re: Knights no good.

Ease up guys. Knights were not pros. They could be good for their time, but faced with pros they often failed.

They also not "lived to fight". quote]

[cutted]
My man, I do believe you need to re-evaluate your stance.

-B.

My man, you could find regarding reading all the posts .
All what Andrzej is saing is the European medieval knights weren`t good at tactics. His opinion has nothing to do with (high and good, I agree with you) quality of personal military training.
Knights weren`t famous for their discipline and obedience, both things rather important on a battlefield (sometimes I wonder, how many times knights were 'infantrised' because commander wanted them to be less independent
).
Some of famous victories of infantry based armies over the knight-cavalry ones seem to confirm this point of view. Well, that`s the reason of existence of the Switzerland.
I agree, to say 'knights no good' is asking for the hell to unleash , but please, there is a context to it.

P.S. My first post here: hello to everybody.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

My man, you could find regarding reading all the posts .
All what Andrzej is saing is the European medieval knights weren`t good at tactics. His opinion has nothing to do with (high and good, I agree with you) quality of personal military training.
Knights weren`t famous for their discipline and obedience, both things rather important on a battlefield (sometimes I wonder, how many times knights were 'infantrised' because commander wanted them to be less independent

Unfortunately, this was clearly not true for the majority of the knightly warrior class. The Carolingian caballarii--the warriors most often named as the immediate predecessors to the medieval knights and men-at-arms--showed a great deal of discipline, and there is evidence that they engaged in regular drills of maneuver, attack, and disengagement on horseback. Sophisticated tactics like flank attacks and oblique approaches were also present on battlefields throughout medieval Europe. Of course, just like any period in history, the Middle Ages had its share of incompetent commanders, and these commanders' failures are often exaggerated in modern literature about medieval warfare at the expense of the brilliant tacticians like Harold Godwinson (yes, he lost the Battle of Hastings, but he won a spectacular victory at Stamford Bridge not long before that), Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid), or Edward I of England.

Dismounting was also a common practice from the earliest days. The 10th-century King Arnulf dismounted his men when he needed to assault a Viking stronghold in a swampy area; the English knights willingly dismounted in the 12th-century battle of Bremule to hold off a French charge; and the notoriously hard-headed French knights and men-at-arms did not seem to have had any troubles dismounting in most of the battles in the Hundred Years' War. They might even have dismounted at Crecy if they had the time.

Some of famous victories of infantry based armies over the knight-cavalry ones seem to confirm this point of view. Well, that`s the reason of existence of the Switzerland.

Unfortunately not. If we look at those victories...well, let's start at the Scottish triumph at Stirling Bridge. Who led the army? Sir William Wallace, a Scottish knight--not the kilted Highlander we see in Braveheart. The Flemish burghers who won the battle of Courtrai included many urban knights and gentry who willingly fought on foot. As for the Swiss...come on. Just look at their leaders. These people were knights. And one of the most remarkable incidents in 15th-century warfare was when a Swiss knight formed his German allies into a deep cavalry wedge and then used it to smash the forces of poor Albrecht Achilles (another German neighbor who happened to have the bad luck of being on the other side of the fight).

(As an additional proof that medieval people were not bad tacticians, Albrecht Achilles was smart enough to steal the idea of the wedge and use it in at least one of his later battles.)

I agree, to say 'knights no good' is asking for the hell to unleash , but please, there is a context to it.

No, there's none. Some medieval knights and men-at-arms were bad tacticians, but then there were bad tacticians in every region of the world and every period in history. Go check this new forum thread: http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23423 and click the link contained in it. The three articles contained therein will disabuse you of any notion that medieval commanders, knight or otherwise, were any worse than the commanders we'd find in any other period of history.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

My man, you could find regarding reading all the posts .
All what Andrzej is saing is the European medieval knights weren`t good at tactics. His opinion has nothing to do with (high and good, I agree with you) quality of personal military training.
Knights weren`t famous for their discipline and obedience, both things rather important on a battlefield (sometimes I wonder, how many times knights were 'infantrised' because commander wanted them to be less independent

Unfortunately, this was clearly not true for the majority of the knightly warrior class. The Carolingian caballarii--the warriors most often named as the immediate predecessors to the medieval knights and men-at-arms--showed a great deal of discipline, and there is evidence that they engaged in regular drills of maneuver, attack, and disengagement on horseback. Sophisticated tactics like flank attacks and oblique approaches were also present on battlefields throughout medieval Europe. Of course, just like any period in history, the Middle Ages had its share of incompetent commanders, and these commanders' failures are often exaggerated in modern literature about medieval warfare at the expense of the brilliant tacticians like Harold Godwinson (yes, he lost the Battle of Hastings, but he won a spectacular victory at Stamford Bridge not long before that), Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid), or Edward I of England.

Dismounting was also a common practice from the earliest days. The 10th-century King Arnulf dismounted his men when he needed to assault a Viking stronghold in a swampy area; the English knights willingly dismounted in the 12th-century battle of Bremule to hold off a French charge; and the notoriously hard-headed French knights and men-at-arms did not seem to have had any troubles dismounting in most of the battles in the Hundred Years' War. They might even have dismounted at Crecy if they had the time.

Some of famous victories of infantry based armies over the knight-cavalry ones seem to confirm this point of view. Well, that`s the reason of existence of the Switzerland.

Unfortunately not. If we look at those victories...well, let's start at the Scottish triumph at Stirling Bridge. Who led the army? Sir William Wallace, a Scottish knight--not the kilted Highlander we see in Braveheart. The Flemish burghers who won the battle of Courtrai included many urban knights and gentry who willingly fought on foot. As for the Swiss...come on. Just look at their leaders. These people were knights. And one of the most remarkable incidents in 15th-century warfare was when a Swiss knight formed his German allies into a deep cavalry wedge and then used it to smash the forces of poor Albrecht Achilles (another German neighbor who happened to have the bad luck of being on the other side of the fight).

(As an additional proof that medieval people were not bad tacticians, Albrecht Achilles was smart enough to steal the idea of the wedge and use it in at least one of his later battles.)

I agree, to say 'knights no good' is asking for the hell to unleash , but please, there is a context to it.

No, there's none. Some medieval knights and men-at-arms were bad tacticians, but then there were bad tacticians in every region of the world and every period in history. Go check this new forum thread: http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23423 and click the link contained in it. The three articles contained therein will disabuse you of any notion that medieval commanders, knight or otherwise, were any worse than the commanders we'd find in any other period of history.

My sentiments exactly. The simple fact is that medieval warfare is poorly understood, and has become riddled with misconceptions and ouright falacies (thanks in large part to Hollywood). One only has to examine the battles of Richard I of England in the Holy Land to grasp just how resourceful and efficent medieval European armies were. There are of course numertous other examples.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we still hear about how knights were supposedly illiterate, oafish nitwits who only understood brute force. Utter nonesense!



The Mongol hordes overran China...but the Europeans sent them packing (eventually). Granted, there were instances of overrzealous knights hungry for glory, who unfortunately took some very unwise courses of action. But this in NO WAY APPLIES to all knights, and nor was it the standard.

Want examples of knights who were brilliant military tacticians? How about Sir John Hawkwood (both in the Hundred Years War between England and France and in the "Italian Wars"), and Sir William Marshall. Contrary to popular belief, mediedval klnights never lost the tried-and-true tactics of the Roman Empire (Vegitius was read through the "dark ages" and the later middle ages).

Rubbish! Knights were TRAINED TACTICIANS.

-B.

[Awesome King.]

Aye, but how worthwhile was Vegetius?...sorry...classics geek here. Not all knights were expert tacticians and fighters anymore than all samurai or all mughals were etc.

However, bear in mind that as the warrior class the vast majority would have simply had to be capable. Also, knighthood was something that could also be awarded to capable men at arms as well.

[Duosi Ji]

The Mongol hordes overran China...but the Europeans sent them packing (eventually).
-B.

Actually, if the Chinese weren't so corrupt they would have resisted the Mongols, or more accurately annihilated the Mongols easily. So the Song loosing like a bunch of cowards was not just bad for China itself, but also bad for people as far West as Europe.

The Chinese actually had a very well supplied and equipped army with over a million men. About 600,000 of these were heavily armored and armed. Could easily have crushed the Mongols.

I actually would not worry so much about how well trained the Knights were, they were such a small fraction of the army that victory often did not depend on them. It's actually more useful to have higher quality infantry and archers and powerful war engines than a few elite horsemen.