Turning Points that Failed to Turn

[crazy canuck]

A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.

Nonsense.

The Richard III called for a horse when he lost his - and then died because of the lack of it... I agree.  He should have had a trusted squire nearby.

Depending on the period we are talking about the weight of a knights armour was too heavy to make walking around - never mind fighting  - problematic at best.

[Malthus]

A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.

Nonsense.

The Richard III called for a horse when he lost his - and then died because of the lack of it... I agree.  He should have had a trusted squire nearby.

Depending on the period we are talking about the weight of a knights armour was too heavy to make walking around - never mind fighting  - problematic at best.

Nope. The image of knights being winched up onto their horses is a modern invention.

It is true that some tournament armour was exceptionally heavy, but that was a late development. War armour was tiring to fight in, but you could walk in the stuff no problem - it was no heavier, and probably lighter, than the infantryman's kit these days.

[The Minsky Moment]

there were enough Nestorian Christian Mongols about to make the notion of "Mongol Crusaders" non-laughable. Historically, the Pope never ceased his attempts to convert the Mongols. It would not stretch credulity that Mongols could as easily "Christianize" as they could "Sinicize" and (as Il-Khans) "Islamify".

It seems a little stretchy to me.  It's true that the Pope and other European leaders dreamed of Mongol alliances and had fantasies about "Prester John" and his anti-Islamic hordes, but those ideas were more a function of western ignorance and sheer desperation given the precarious position of the late crusade states.  Also its one thing for Mongols in Syria to ally themselves with crusaders; another for Mongol khans and their vast retinues to set themsleves up as French monarchs or Italian city councillors.

Sure, but the European ability to use light-horse techniques was minimal. Unlike the Mamluks, they did not import young central asian lads as soldiers, and culturally light horse was not how they fought.

The problems that the Mongols would face in Europe would be different though.  I agree with you that the Mongols were more than successful in learning the arts of siegecraft (or at least exploiting the services of those who did).  But the problem in European warfare in the Middle Ages wasn't capturing a castle - given time and effort, the castle would almost always fall.  The problem for an invading army was always how to deal with garrisoning the inummerable small and midsize fortifications throughout the countryside without quickly diluting your force - or alternatively, choosing not to garrison and thus allowing the hostile population to reoccupy centers of resistance.   Medieval European states weren't able to mobilize large striking forces of the size the Chinese empire could but at the same time their very segmentation made them difficult to permanently subdue.

[Malthus]

It seems a little stretchy to me.  It's true that the Pope and other European leaders dreamed of Mongol alliances and had fantasies about "Prester John" and his anti-Islamic hordes, but those ideas were more a function of western ignorance and sheer desperation given the precarious position of the late crusade states.  Also its one thing for Mongols in Syria to ally themselves with crusaders; another for Mongol khans and their vast retinues to set themsleves up as French monarchs or Italian city councillors.

The ideas did have a certain basis in reality, though - Mongols had a very adaptable attitude towards religion, many were in fact Christian (if Nestorian), and were often astute enough to know about their victim's perspectives (and make use of them for their own ends).

The problems that the Mongols would face in Europe would be different though.  I agree with you that the Mongols were more than successful in learning the arts of siegecraft (or at least exploiting the services of those who did).  But the problem in European warfare in the Middle Ages wasn't capturing a castle - given time and effort, the castle would almost always fall.  The problem for an invading army was always how to deal with garrisoning the inummerable small and midsize fortifications throughout the countryside without quickly diluting your force - or alternatively, choosing not to garrison and thus allowing the hostile population to reoccupy centers of resistance.   Medieval European states weren't able to mobilize large striking forces of the size the Chinese empire could but at the same time their very segmentation made them difficult to permanently subdue.

The Mongols had some solutions that were not readily available to Europeans for various reasons (at least, usually) - such as committing large-scale genocide in regions that were tough to govern. Kill everyone you can catch and there is no "hostile population" to resume resistance when your back is turned - the traumatized survivors are not in a position to mount effective resistance. This is what the Mongols did, for example, in Kwarzarim - also to a lesser extent in parts of Hungary. In fact, at one point the Mongols used distinctly Nazi-like methods to get the subject population to report for "work" then killed them all.

On occasion, Europeans were willing to do the same - William the Bastard's "scouring of the north" springs to mind, or earlier, Charlemagne and the Saxons - but usually a combination of self-interest (dead people pay no taxes), fear of consequences, and lack of systemic ability prevented truely wholesale countryside suppression by these means.

[Josquius]

But we are talking about the Lancastrians here not Edward III.  They were pretty English in culture would they have gone native so readily?

I doubt Henry would have gone native but he would likely devote most of his time to France and his children would likely have most of their upbringing there.
His kids would probally be more French than English, his grandkids...not English at all.

As political-diplomatic iniatives, the Zheng voyages may have had some meaningful purpose, but the notion that they could have been "followed up" as some kind of useful commercial trading venture doesn't make a lot of sense.  It would have required a radical transformation of ideology and cultural presuppositions.

You're thinking of it as something planned however.
The voyages were indeed all about tribute, diplomacy, etc...
Once they are succesful and better links are established with other parts of the world however, then, despite it not being part of the original plan, traders would likely follow.

[Martinus]

The battle of Grunwald of 1410.

[The Minsky Moment]

What turning point didn't turn with Grunwald?  The Teutonic Knights declined into irrelevancy, and the the P-L commonwealth emerged as a major power for centuries, exactly what one would expect.

[Faeelin]

I doubt Henry would have gone native but he would likely devote most of his time to France and his children would likely have most of their upbringing there.
His kids would probally be more French than English, his grandkids...not English at all.

Why? The Habsburgs didn't all end up speaking Spanish.

This is what I mean by poor little England. England was one of Europe's richest and most powerful states consistently between 1300 and 1800. Yet somehow its culture would be swallowed up because of France?

But I don't see how Henry V would be ale to do better than his son's regents, who were pretty damn capable OTL. The real problem was that the English base depended on Burgundy, who had no desire to be neighbors with a Frenglish superstate.

[Josquius]

I doubt Henry would have gone native but he would likely devote most of his time to France and his children would likely have most of their upbringing there.
His kids would probally be more French than English, his grandkids...not English at all.

Why? The Habsburgs didn't all end up speaking Spanish.

This is what I mean by poor little England. England was one of Europe's richest and most powerful states consistently between 1300 and 1800. Yet somehow its culture would be swallowed up because of France?

Yes they did.
Phillip II was quite thoroughly Spanish.
And for a more apt comparison you have the Norman English kings becoming steadily more English.

England's culture would be swallowed up by France? Why do you say that? That seems pretty unlikely to me.

But I don't see how Henry V would be ale to do better than his son's regents, who were pretty damn capable OTL. The real problem was that the English base depended on Burgundy, who had no desire to be neighbors with a Frenglish superstate.

Established monarchs usually do better than regents. Pretty sure I recall there was a fair bit of politicalinfighting amongst Henry VIs council.
Even keeping up the momentum without having to set up a new government would put him quite far ahead to begin with. Having the king there leading from the front with a clear vision is a far more inspiring thing than fighting for some baby in London, whose will is being given to you buy a bunch of different men looking out for their own interests.
Its far from a certain thing that Henry V would have continued to be succesful in France, but then nothing is certain. It certainly seems likely however.

[Cecil]

A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.

Nonsense.

The Richard III called for a horse when he lost his - and then died because of the lack of it... I agree.  He should have had a trusted squire nearby.

Depending on the period we are talking about the weight of a knights armour was too heavy to make walking around - never mind fighting  - problematic at best.

Nope. The image of knights being winched up onto their horses is a modern invention.

It is true that some tournament armour was exceptionally heavy, but that was a late development. War armour was tiring to fight in, but you could walk in the stuff no problem - it was no heavier, and probably lighter, than the infantryman's kit these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=player_embedded   

Its a well established fact though that although the modern soldier carries a heavier load since much of it rests on the hip the body expends less energy moving it around. Having armour on your legs and feet is apparently extremely cost inefficient for the body.

[Malthus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=player_embedded   

Its a well established fact though that although the modern soldier carries a heavier load since much of it rests on the hip the body expends less energy moving it around. Having armour on your legs and feet is apparently extremely cost inefficient for the body.

True enough - and fighting in armour for any length of time, never mind being forced to run over bad terrain, would certainly wear you out.

For example, at the battle of Agincourt one of the reasons the French were defeated so badly is that their dismounted knights had to trudge through fresh mud to fight the English, and could not even open their visors for fear of the arrow-storm. When set upon by more lightly armoured and thus less encumbered English archers after they had fired off all their arrows, these tired and encumbered knights, whose breathing and vision had been impaired, made easy targets - the English smashed em over with mallets and stuck daggers in their visor-slits.

So armour encumberance could certainly be a problem when fighting, given the right (or wrong) conditions - but this is as you know much exaggerated in modern mythology.

[Razgovory]

Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry?  I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest.  I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.

Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles.  It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.

Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain.  The perfect thing for fuedal society.

I think it has more to do with the mobility then anything else.  Knights grew out of mounted infantry which were used after the fall of the Roman empire to fight barbarian raiders.  Because armies were fairly small, warriors needed to be quick to react to threats over a large geographic area.  Fighting on horseback and the increased status of being a knight didn't come till later.

[Cecil]

So armour encumberance could certainly be a problem when fighting, given the right (or wrong) conditions - but this is as you know much exaggerated in modern mythology.

Tell me about it. Every time I see it I go "Not this crap AGAIN" and do a Picard facepalm impression.

[CountDeMoney]

So armour encumberance could certainly be a problem when fighting, given the right (or wrong) conditions - but this is as you know much exaggerated in modern mythology.

Worked on the Eastern Front.

[Malthus]

I think it has more to do with the mobility then anything else.  Knights grew out of mounted infantry which were used after the fall of the Roman empire to fight barbarian raiders.  Because armies were fairly small, warriors needed to be quick to react to threats over a large geographic area.  Fighting on horseback and the increased status of being a knight didn't come till later.

There has always been more to it than that.

Being charged by horsemen is damned frightening. Unless you are trained and experienced, most people when faced with a line of charging horse will run - which is of course fatal (on the level, a man wearing armour generally cannot actually outrun a horse carrying an armoured rider; and it is very easy for that rider to strike down any number of fleeing enemies).

It is this effect - getting people to run - which forms a large part of "shock". Not so much actually having the horse physically slam into infantry. In point of fact, that rarely happens - the horse will typically refuse to actually run into a line of infantry carrying sharp pointy things.