Languish.org

A colleague just advanced the thesis that "the Mongols were over rated. They were just a bunch of disorganized guys on horses who never fought against organized enemies, like the English."

Discuss.

I heard the Mongols have a problem getting to islands.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 31, 2012, 02:55:15 PM
I heard the Mongols have a problem getting to islands.

Yeah.

Apparently the Armenians were being stupid because they didn't dig trenches and fill them with caltrops when they fought the Mongols.

It depends on location.  If Mongols manage to take the battle to the open fields, then Mongols would win decisively, since their open field tactics had no counter at the time.  In the woods, I would definitely bet on the English.

The Mongols were extremely organized.

The better angle your colleague could have taken is how would the Mongol horse archers have faired against an army with large numbers of bowman who outranged them.

So basically you opened this thread to backhandedly complain about how stupid your colleagues are?

I bet those guys that make the "Pirate Vs. Medieval Knight" kind of shows have made this fight.

Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
It depends on location.  If Mongols manage to take the battle to the open fields, then Mongols would win decisively, since their open field tactics had no counter at the time.  In the woods, I would definitely bet on the English.

Yes, this is perhaps the key determinant, given how mobile the Mongols were wouldn't they have a greater opportunity to choose the battlefield than the slow moving English on foot ?

I voted English out of Shakespearian patriotism, but I think the shock of encountering Mongols and their tactics, for the first time would be greater for the Engilsh than the potential novelty the Mongols might face.

Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2012, 03:01:52 PM
So basically you opened this thread to backhandedly complain about how stupid your colleagues are?

Nothing gets by you, eh?

You colleague is a clod and should hand over all his options and his hottie secretary to you.

Well obviously if the English had tons of Longbowmen in a heavily fortified position and the Mongols launced a series of suicidal frontal assaults they might win but the Mongols would never do that.

Really this seems like an absurd question.  The Mongols would win easily.  I mean how many 10,000 man armies could 13th century England field?

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 03:03:06 PM
I bet those guys that make the "Pirate Vs. Medieval Knight" kind of shows have made this fight.

:mad:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemedepot.com%2Fuploads%2F1500%2F1951_morbo.jpg&hash=de7c28e690e9c4979ded9487993f8c8665362ab1)

HISTORY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2012, 03:16:43 PM
You colleague is a clod and should hand over all his options and his hottie secretary to you.

He's still on probation, but since he's a programmer his history related foibles won't be held against him.

I'm sure Somali pirates could take an equal number of medieval knights.  :pirate

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 03:17:07 PM
Well obviously if the English had tons of Longbowmen in a heavily fortified position and the Mongols launced a series of suicidal frontal assaults they might win but the Mongols would never do that.

Really this seems like an absurd question.  The Mongols would win easily.  I mean how many 10,000 man armies could 13th century England field?

Well, the mongols were never tested against an organized Western army like the one fielded by Richard the Lionheart. That, apparently, is the crux of the argument.

I'd like to fire your colleague.

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 03:21:27 PM
Well, the mongols were never tested against an organized Western army like the one fielded by Richard the Lionheart. That, apparently, is the crux of the argument.

Um the Battle of Legnica?

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 31, 2012, 03:22:37 PM
I'd like to fire your colleague.

I'm a softie, I'd go for reeducation. You know, dump three or four relevant history books and expect him to read them as research for the next project.

Besides before the professionals of the 15th and 16th centuries come along is there really anything particularly formidable about western armies?  I mean just because your great-great-great-great Grandchildren are going to be worldbeaters does nothing for you.

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 03:25:20 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 03:21:27 PM
Well, the mongols were never tested against an organized Western army like the one fielded by Richard the Lionheart. That, apparently, is the crux of the argument.

Um the Battle of Legnica?

East Europeans don't count, it seems, and that includes Germans.

I don't know how widespread the use of Longbows was in the mid 13th century.  The "Bill and Bow" era of English warfare didn't come until a later I think.  I imagine the Chinese were fairly well organized during the time period, and they didn't do that well against the Mongols.

The English were so well organized around 1200 that they were ruled over by a pack of French-speaking neo-Vikings.  At least when they weren't plunged into one of their recurrent civil wars.

Tough question. The guys who spread their DNA around like saliva on poetry night vs the guys who define homosexuality?

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 02:50:03 PM
A colleague just advanced the thesis that "the Mongols were over rated. They were just a bunch of disorganized guys on horses who never fought against organized enemies, like the English."

Discuss.

you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki ;)  It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

Anyway... I think the Mongols could have defeated the English for various reasons:
1- open field, they have mobility, something the English lacked.
2- English were good to fight heavy cavalry with their longbows, in a tiny road, not an open field.  With horse archers arriving quick from multiple directions, combined with light cavalry raids, they would be outmatched.
3- English had strong heavy cavalry, but these were good when fighting non spear infantry and other cavalry using the same tactics.  the Mongol "strategy" was to circle around their ennemy and shoot arrows at them.
4- Mongols had numbers, numbers superior to those of the English.  With superior numbers, the English maybe would stand a chance.  Otherwise, they'd be toasted.

Quote from: viper37 on January 31, 2012, 04:00:43 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 02:50:03 PM
A colleague just advanced the thesis that "the Mongols were over rated. They were just a bunch of disorganized guys on horses who never fought against organized enemies, like the English."

Discuss.

you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki ;)  It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

Anyway... I think the Mongols could have defeated the English for various reasons:
1- open field, they have mobility, something the English lacked.
2- English were good to fight heavy cavalry with their longbows, in a tiny road, not an open field.  With horse archers arriving quick from multiple directions, combined with light cavalry raids, they would be outmatched.
3- English had strong heavy cavalry, but these were good when fighting non spear infantry and other cavalry using the same tactics.  the Mongol "strategy" was to circle around their ennemy and shoot arrows at them.
4- Mongols had numbers, numbers superior to those of the English.  With superior numbers, the English maybe would stand a chance.  Otherwise, they'd be toasted.

Toasted by the Mongols?

It would seem to me the biggest problem for Mongols in Western Europe would not be longbows, but castles.  Private castles were everywhere in the period and warfare at the time revolved around sieges rather then pitched battles.  Each siege took a lot of guys, and a lot of time.
  Something the Mongols wouldn't have much of.  The private castles arose from poor organization rather then good, and this might be what would defeat the Mongols.

EDIT:  I do not care for the new boards formatting.  I'm having quite a bit of difficulty with it.

Quote from: viper37 on January 31, 2012, 04:00:43 PM
you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki ;)  It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

I suspect this is probably pretty close to the truth.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 04:04:17 PM
It would seem to me the biggest problem for Mongols in Western Europe would not be longbows, but castles.  Private castles were everywhere in the period and warfare at the time revolved around sieges rather then pitched battles.  Each siege took a lot of guys, and a lot of time.
  Something the Mongols wouldn't have much of.  The private castles arose from poor organization rather then good, and this might be what would defeat the Mongols.

EDIT:  I do not care for the new boards formatting.  I'm having quite a bit of difficulty with it.

The Mongols did quite well at taking walled cities, I believe. I'm pretty sure they had plenty of experience besieging castles too.

Quote from: viper37 on January 31, 2012, 04:00:43 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 02:50:03 PM
A colleague just advanced the thesis that "the Mongols were over rated. They were just a bunch of disorganized guys on horses who never fought against organized enemies, like the English."

Discuss.

you colleague has probably read "Game of Thrones" and confused the Mongols for the Dothraki ;)  It's the same argument made by Robert or one of his advisors.

Anyway... I think the Mongols could have defeated the English for various reasons:
1- open field, they have mobility, something the English lacked.
2- English were good to fight heavy cavalry with their longbows, in a tiny road, not an open field.  With horse archers arriving quick from multiple directions, combined with light cavalry raids, they would be outmatched.
3- English had strong heavy cavalry, but these were good when fighting non spear infantry and other cavalry using the same tactics.  the Mongol "strategy" was to circle around their ennemy and shoot arrows at them.
4- Mongols had numbers, numbers superior to those of the English.  With superior numbers, the English maybe would stand a chance.  Otherwise, they'd be toasted.

Why would you assume an open field?

Presuming equal numbers in northern france with a Angevin leader fielding a force of heavy cav, longbow archers and various melee infantry with command experience on crusade against steppe nomad type opponents against a mongol commander who just a few months ago penetrated germany since in this alt-history 'verse the Khan didn't die.

That really depends, has that mongol force really spent it's impulse and is set up to be charged or is it a ruse to lure the heavy cav into a Carrhae style trap?

Because their greater mobility gives them much more of an opportunity to decide where the battle takes place. 

The English can keep hoping from forest to forest, narrow lane to hedged countryside.

I like to assume an English army invading Mongolia.

Quote from: The Brain on January 31, 2012, 04:11:00 PM
I like to assume an English army invading Mongolia.

Which maybe one of the few places on this planet an English./British army hasn't fought.  :)

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 04:05:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 04:04:17 PM
It would seem to me the biggest problem for Mongols in Western Europe would not be longbows, but castles.  Private castles were everywhere in the period and warfare at the time revolved around sieges rather then pitched battles.  Each siege took a lot of guys, and a lot of time.
  Something the Mongols wouldn't have much of.  The private castles arose from poor organization rather then good, and this might be what would defeat the Mongols.

EDIT:  I do not care for the new boards formatting.  I'm having quite a bit of difficulty with it.

The Mongols did quite well at taking walled cities, I believe. I'm pretty sure they had plenty of experience besieging castles too.

Castles can hold out longer then cities.  Castles only hold a small group of men all of them are well armed and trained.  Assaulting them is the only quick way to take the castle and that leads
to lots of casualties.  And unfortunately for the Mongols there were a lot of castles.  If the Mongols bypass the castles, the soldiers inside would ride out and harass the mongol army and
it's foragers.

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 03:21:27 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 03:17:07 PM
Well obviously if the English had tons of Longbowmen in a heavily fortified position and the Mongols launced a series of suicidal frontal assaults they might win but the Mongols would never do that.

Really this seems like an absurd question.  The Mongols would win easily.  I mean how many 10,000 man armies could 13th century England field?

Well, the mongols were never tested against an organized Western army like the one fielded by Richard the Lionheart. That, apparently, is the crux of the argument.

By that standard every single European army was disorganized, and Richard the Lionheart wasn't a particulary good commander anyway.

Quote from: mongers on January 31, 2012, 04:10:04 PM
Because their greater mobility gives them much more of an opportunity to decide where the battle takes place. 

The English can keep hoping from forest to forest, narrow lane to hedged countryside.

The problem is that the Mongols don't really know where they are going.

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 04:15:59 PM
By that standard every single European army was disorganized, and Richard the Lionheart wasn't a particulary good commander anyway.

Huh?  Richard was a great commander.  I mean to the extent there were great commanders in the 12th century.

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 04:05:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 04:04:17 PM
It would seem to me the biggest problem for Mongols in Western Europe would not be longbows, but castles.  Private castles were everywhere in the period and warfare at the time revolved around sieges rather then pitched battles.  Each siege took a lot of guys, and a lot of time.
  Something the Mongols wouldn't have much of.  The private castles arose from poor organization rather then good, and this might be what would defeat the Mongols.

EDIT:  I do not care for the new boards formatting.  I'm having quite a bit of difficulty with it.

The Mongols did quite well at taking walled cities, I believe. I'm pretty sure they had plenty of experience besieging castles too.

A Walled city is a juicy targe worth taking the fall of which end resistance. A castle is a place where if you really really need to take it you'll have to trade 200 or your own men for 20 of the enemy for no gain. A Castle is also a risky proposition for a Mongol style army. The city is surrounded and the enemy army is hiding inside it, the castle is surrounded, but the enemy army is deep inland behind five more castles.

Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e)

Quote from: Viking on January 31, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e)

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Viking on January 31, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e)

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

If I recall, the English lost that war as well.  So that doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.  You weaken your enemy but you don't gain any territory and you leave your army open to being
destroyed in detail.  I believe the Mongols and their successors tried this strategy in Eastern Europe for a long time with mixed results.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 04:26:19 PM
I believe the Mongols and their successors tried this strategy in Eastern Europe for a long time with mixed results.

The Golden Horde?  They never intended to conquer anybody just to exact tribute IIRC.

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Viking on January 31, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e)

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

Would Mongols really stoop to slaughtering civilian population outside of castles?

Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 04:39:11 PM
Would Mongols really stoop to slaughtering civilian population outside of castles?

:lol:

Of course not -_-

Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 04:39:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Viking on January 31, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
Taking castles is just too hard and takes too long and is not worth it. The English had realized this against France and the HYW degenerated into a series of Chevaucheé  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e)

And that is pretty much what the Mongols would have done as well.

Would Mongols really stoop to slaughtering civilian population outside of castles?

Would the Angevins rise to caring if the peasants got slaughtered?

I think that Jake's friend may be muddling up the rather good English armies of c.1350 with the more mundane forces of 1200  :hmm:

The problem with our medieval wars with the French is that by the time the English had a clear military advantage our king had ceased to be a Frenchman, at which point it becomes 4m Englishmen vs 18m French; no doubt Dr Johnson would reckon that gave us the advantage but IMO it doomed us to failure as soon as the French got their act together.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 31, 2012, 05:07:19 PM
I think that Jake's friend may be muddling up the rather good English armies of c.1350 with the more mundane forces of 1200  :hmm:

Is this true?  All I know is that in the Joan of Arc movies the English are always hard faced and well armored whereas in the Agincourt movies they're skinny and dressed like peasants.

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 04:27:25 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 04:26:19 PM
I believe the Mongols and their successors tried this strategy in Eastern Europe for a long time with mixed results.

The Golden Horde?  They never intended to conquer anybody just to exact tribute IIRC.

Some of their raids also got clobbered.  And of course, the Golden Horde has long since ceased to exist.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2012, 05:14:36 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 31, 2012, 05:07:19 PM
I think that Jake's friend may be muddling up the rather good English armies of c.1350 with the more mundane forces of 1200  :hmm:

Is this true?  All I know is that in the Joan of Arc movies the English are always hard faced and well armored whereas in the Agincourt movies they're skinny and dressed like peasants.

"English"* armies in the mid 13th century wouldn't have been that different from French armies in the same time period.

*They were English in the sense they were led by the King of England.  They spoke French and largely distinct from the English peasantry.  What language the Infantry spoke
I do not know, but it was often made up of foreign mercenaries.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 04:14:56 PM
Castles can hold out longer then cities.  Castles only hold a small group of men all of them are well armed and trained.  Assaulting them is the only quick way to take the castle and that leads
to lots of casualties.  And unfortunately for the Mongols there were a lot of castles.  If the Mongols bypass the castles, the soldiers inside would ride out and harass the mongol army and
it's foragers.

Recently read a book on the Albigensian Crusades which is around the same period.  There were a lot of sieges.  What I found interesting is that even where castles were strongly defensible, a lot of them fell surprisingly quickly - usually because the guy in charge lost hope and sought terms or simply ran away.  It seemed that where the besiegers has a clear numerical superiority, a castle would only hold out if there was strong, determined leadership and an experienced garrison - which was often not the case.  And even where it was unexpected problems arise - like one defiant castle that replenished its cisterns with rainwater, only to have the commander and large swaths of the garrison die off from a nasty case of dysentary.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 05:17:59 PM
Some of their raids also got clobbered.  And of course, the Golden Horde has long since ceased to exist.

They had a nice run.  And the ruriks didn't exactly endure forever either.

There was a certain code about the sieges then.  You would hold out for so long, to satisfy certain obligations, and then could surrender.  If you surrendered before certain periods
of time they couldn't execute you or hold you for ransom.  I don't know the specifics about these codes, but Mongols would not likely observe them, (and probably wouldn't be able to
communicate their demands very effectively).  After word gets out of a few massacres I imagine resolve would stiffen fairly quickly.

It's also worth noting that the Albigensian Crusades lasted a long time.  Like a couple of decades over a fairly small bit of territory.  The Mongols couldn't spend 20 years sieging this castle
and that one.

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2012, 04:18:08 PM

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 04:15:59 PM
By that standard every single European army was disorganized, and Richard the Lionheart wasn't a particulary good commander anyway.

Huh?  Richard was a great commander.  I mean to the extent there were great commanders in the 12th century.

Don't know, he seems to me like a vastly overrated figure. At least he had a great PR team, I guess.

I just want to point out that I have consistently used Angevin rather than English. Though, I really should not have use the word Longbow at all.

To be honest it is pretty silly to compare Mongol Horse Archers of 1250 with Welsh Longbowmen of 1350.

So the Mongols didn't encounter castles with garrisons in any of the places they conquered? Were they a unique feature of the European military landscape?

The 'English'.
Such a fight would obviously be a Mongol invasion of France, no way would the English be over on the Eurasian steppe. Hence lots of forests and castles and other nastyness against which the mongols won't do particularly well.

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 06:03:50 PM
So the Mongols didn't encounter castles with garrisons in any of the places they conquered? Were they a unique feature of the European military landscape?

Considering they reached friggin' Hungary during their 20 year campaig in Europe, I think it's mightily naive to think that they didn't encounter a single castle/walled city/fortified outpost/whatever surrounded by big walls on their way there.

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 06:13:04 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 06:03:50 PM
So the Mongols didn't encounter castles with garrisons in any of the places they conquered? Were they a unique feature of the European military landscape?

Considering they reached friggin' Hungary during their 20 year campaig in Europe, I think it's mightily naive to think that they didn't encounter a single castle/walled city/fortified outpost/whatever surrounded by big walls on their way there.

That's kind of what I think, yeah.

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 06:17:03 PM

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 06:13:04 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 06:03:50 PM
So the Mongols didn't encounter castles with garrisons in any of the places they conquered? Were they a unique feature of the European military landscape?

Considering they reached friggin' Hungary during their 20 year campaig in Europe, I think it's mightily naive to think that they didn't encounter a single castle/walled city/fortified outpost/whatever surrounded by big walls on their way there.

That's kind of what I think, yeah.

AFAIK what really hampered the Mongols more in their European campaign was terrain rather than fortifications. For instance, after the battle of Legnica the king of hungary escaped to Croatia, with the Mongols hot in his trail, and even if they got to burn Zagreb down they got really bogged down in Dalmatia with its rugged terrain and being harassed by the local troops at all times, so they ultimately abandoned that part of their campaign. The Mongol tactics worked great in the great plains and in pitched battles, which was to what they were geared for, but once they got into cavalry-unfriendly terrain things got more difficult for them.

I think the issue is more that due to its fractured political nature western Europe had castles everywhere, rather than people elsewhere in the world not building forts.

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 06:13:04 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 06:03:50 PM
So the Mongols didn't encounter castles with garrisons in any of the places they conquered? Were they a unique feature of the European military landscape?

Considering they reached friggin' Hungary during their 20 year campaig in Europe, I think it's mightily naive to think that they didn't encounter a single castle/walled city/fortified outpost/whatever surrounded by big walls on their way there.

Fortunately nobody said that. :)  Castles are fairly unique in that they were built privately and not by a central government.  Every lord who could afford a castle would build one.  So you would have lots and lots of castles.  A better organized government would only build a few fortifications, usually at strategic points.  This saves money, and reduces the number of strong points a potential usurper could take.  After the Initial Mongol invasion the Hungarians developed a fortification program in which the country faired much better against subsequent attacks by the Mongols.

Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2012, 06:03:50 PM
So the Mongols didn't encounter castles with garrisons in any of the places they conquered? Were they a unique feature of the European military landscape?

Actually, yes.  It's also worth remembering that the Mongols mostly fought either other tribes on the vast steppe, or centralized empires.  It's the irony of your friend's statement that it's not good organization that protects Western Europe, but the lack thereof.  It was lack of central authority and the endemic warfare that resulted in every guy with some peasants building his own personal castle and small army.  A well organized state wouldn't stand for that kind of thing.  In fact, as European states became better organized the government would often tear down those annoying castles.

Quote from: Viking on January 31, 2012, 04:45:52 PM
Would the Angevins rise to caring if the peasants got slaughtered?

Depends on how hungry they got.

What would the mongols have fed their tens of thousands of horses with once they got to France?  IMHO, the mongols couldn't have sustained their operations beyond
North Germany due to a lack of feed for their horse armies.

Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
It depends on location.  If Mongols manage to take the battle to the open fields, then Mongols would win decisively, since their open field tactics had no counter at the time.  In the woods, I would definitely bet on the English.

They won in the woods against the Rus, who at the time had as good forces as western Europeans. Heck, they won against German knights at Liegnitz.

Fuck that question.

How many m50 wielding soldiers would it take to destroy the Mongols horde?

The Mongols didn't vanish after 1241; they maintained a significant presence in Eastern Europe, invading Hungary in the 1280s, the Balkans in the 1290s, and invading Lithuania  on a couple of other occasions.

And they lost quite a few of those battles, frankly. This should caution us against fearing the invincible Tatar.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2012, 05:30:11 PM

Recently read a book on the Albigensian Crusades which is around the same period.  There were a lot of sieges.  What I found interesting is that even where castles were strongly defensible, a lot of them fell surprisingly quickly - usually because the guy in charge lost hope and sought terms or simply ran away.  It seemed that where the besiegers has a clear numerical superiority, a castle would only hold out if there was strong, determined leadership and an experienced garrison - which was often not the case.  And even where it was unexpected problems arise - like one defiant castle that replenished its cisterns with rainwater, only to have the commander and large swaths of the garrison die off from a nasty case of dysentary.

Jonathan Sumption's?

Quote from: Faeelin on February 01, 2012, 09:02:06 AM
The Mongols didn't vanish after 1241; they maintained a significant presence in Eastern Europe, invading Hungary in the 1280s, the Balkans in the 1290s, and invading Lithuania  on a couple of other occasions.

And they lost quite a few of those battles, frankly. This should caution us against fearing the invincible Tatar.

I wouldn't call medieval Hungary "Eastern Europe". Both geographically and culturally they were Central Europe.

Quote from: Solmyr on February 01, 2012, 06:31:19 AM

Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
It depends on location.  If Mongols manage to take the battle to the open fields, then Mongols would win decisively, since their open field tactics had no counter at the time.  In the woods, I would definitely bet on the English.

They won in the woods against the Rus, who at the time had as good forces as western Europeans. Heck, they won against German knights at Liegnitz.

Silesian knights. At at Legnica. :contract:

Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2012, 09:20:31 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on February 01, 2012, 06:31:19 AM

Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
It depends on location.  If Mongols manage to take the battle to the open fields, then Mongols would win decisively, since their open field tactics had no counter at the time.  In the woods, I would definitely bet on the English.

They won in the woods against the Rus, who at the time had as good forces as western Europeans. Heck, they won against German knights at Liegnitz.

Silesian knights. At at Legnica. :contract:

Stop trying to spread your filthy language all over the place.  Liegnitz is the correct name.

I swear, between this and that disgusting map of European youth unemployment, you really come off as retarded.

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 06:25:52 PM
AFAIK what really hampered the Mongols more in their European campaign was terrain rather than fortifications. For instance, after the battle of Legnica the king of hungary escaped to Croatia, with the Mongols hot in his trail, and even if they got to burn Zagreb down they got really bogged down in Dalmatia with its rugged terrain and being harassed by the local troops at all times, so they ultimately abandoned that part of their campaign. The Mongol tactics worked great in the great plains and in pitched battles, which was to what they were geared for, but once they got into cavalry-unfriendly terrain things got more difficult for them.

There is some truth to this, but it can easily be overstated. The Mongols campaigned successfully in many cavalry-unfriendly places, such as when they overcame the Sung in southern China.

One of the achievements of the Mongol empire at its height was its willingness to incorporate non-Mongol elements into its war machine to make it more balanced. It is a mistake to think of it as a horde of steppe nomads and nothing else. For example, the conquest of the Sung could not have happened without the incorporation of northern Chinese siege engineers - the Sung defences easily dwarfed the relatively primitive defences of Europe (I've seen the walls of Xi'an, which were rebuilt at a slightly later date by the Ming but on the basis of a wall that existed in Sung times - and that sucker is seriously huge)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Xi'an

They were also quite willing to move foreign experts around - for example, Hungary was first accurately mapped by Chinese engineers working for the Mongols.

This is of course not a unique characteristic of the Mongols - for example, it is well known that the Turks took Constantiople with the help of Hungarian cannon experts.

What changed with the passing of the united Mongol empire is that the resultant bits reverted to being once more a steppe horde without as much access to foreign experts and engineers - with a consequent degredation on their ability to besige fortifications.

Quote from: Neil on February 01, 2012, 09:41:06 AM
Stop trying to spread your filthy language all over the place.  Liegnitz is the correct name.

Who would have thought putting in a 'z' would make something less Polish?

Quote from: Malthus on February 01, 2012, 09:45:43 AM

Quote from: The Larch on January 31, 2012, 06:25:52 PM
AFAIK what really hampered the Mongols more in their European campaign was terrain rather than fortifications. For instance, after the battle of Legnica the king of hungary escaped to Croatia, with the Mongols hot in his trail, and even if they got to burn Zagreb down they got really bogged down in Dalmatia with its rugged terrain and being harassed by the local troops at all times, so they ultimately abandoned that part of their campaign. The Mongol tactics worked great in the great plains and in pitched battles, which was to what they were geared for, but once they got into cavalry-unfriendly terrain things got more difficult for them.

There is some truth to this, but it can easily be overstated. The Mongols campaigned successfully in many cavalry-unfriendly places, such as when they overcame the Sung in southern China.

One of the achievements of the Mongol empire at its height was its willingness to incorporate non-Mongol elements into its war machine to make it more balanced. It is a mistake to think of it as a horde of steppe nomads and nothing else. For example, the conquest of the Sung could not have happened without the incorporation of northern Chinese siege engineers - the Sung defences easily dwarfed the relatively primitive defences of Europe (I've seen the walls of Xi'an, which were rebuilt at a slightly later date by the Ming but on the basis of a wall that existed in Sung times - and that sucker is seriously huge)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Xi'an

They were also quite willing to move foreign experts around - for example, Hungary was first accurately mapped by Chinese engineers working for the Mongols.

This is of course not a unique characteristic of the Mongols - for example, it is well known that the Turks took Constantiople with the help of Hungarian cannon experts.

What changed with the passing of the united Mongol empire is that the resultant bits reverted to being once more a steppe horde without as much access to foreign experts and engineers - with a consequent degredation on their ability to besige fortifications.

You are missing the point about fortifications.  It's not the quality of the fortifications, it's the quantity.  That and the lack of any real gain from taking a castle.  Most the castles were
still probably wood in the 13th century (though stone ones were increasingly common).  The Mongols can't bypass the castles without risking their foragers being attacked.  They are to many
to take all of them and the castles themselves have no intrinsic worth.  The fortification around the city of Xi'an are protecting something valuable.  Castles protect money poor but mean spirited
guys with with metal clothes and pointy bits of steel.  The Mongols were likely badly outnumbered in Europe, so they really can't risk sieges or assaults on petty castles.  One outbreak of disease will
devastate them.  They need to move quickly to prevent spread of disease and running out of food in any given area.  When they siege something it needs to be worth the
risk.  A fat target like a major city.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2012, 05:39:26 PM
There was a certain code about the sieges then.  You would hold out for so long, to satisfy certain obligations, and then could surrender.  If you surrendered before certain periods of time they couldn't execute you or hold you for ransom.  I don't know the specifics about these codes, but Mongols would not likely observe them, (and probably wouldn't be able to communicate their demands very effectively).  After word gets out of a few massacres I imagine resolve would stiffen fairly quickly.

The Albi crusade actually started out with a horrific massacre that took out the entire fortified city of Beziers.  The immediate impact was not to stiffen resolve - rather a bunch of fortified places were abandoned in panic and some of those that remained surrendered quickly.

QuoteIt's also worth noting that the Albigensian Crusades lasted a long time.  Like a couple of decades over a fairly small bit of territory. 

it covered most of the South of France.  The entire thing went for a while but there were a lot of sudden reversals.  Montfort subdued much of the region in a few years.  And because the main crusader army disbanded within months, he managed to do it with only a few hundred soldiers at any given time.  At the battle of Muret - one of the biggest he fought - he only had about 1000-2000 men.  The wars lasted longer because there was a massive rebellion in 1215, Montfort was killed and the region descended into endemic warfare for a couple more decades.  But the reality was that a fairly minor player like Montfort with limited resources was able to take down dozens of fortified castles in a pretty quick time frame by medieval standards.

Quote from: Gups on February 01, 2012, 09:17:29 AM
Jonathan Sumption's?

Mark Gregory Penn.
Odd little book but has its points.

Quote from: Malthus on February 01, 2012, 09:45:43 AM
There is some truth to this, but it can easily be overstated. The Mongols campaigned successfully in many cavalry-unfriendly places, such as when they overcame the Sung in southern China.

One of the achievements of the Mongol empire at its height was its willingness to incorporate non-Mongol elements into its war machine to make it more balanced. It is a mistake to think of it as a horde of steppe nomads and nothing else.
. . .
This is of course not a unique characteristic of the Mongols - for example, it is well known that the Turks took Constantiople with the help of Hungarian cannon experts.

The same was also true of the Huns, who operated quite effectively throughout Europe for a time.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 10:07:47 AM
You are missing the point about fortifications.  It's not the quality of the fortifications, it's the quantity.  That and the lack of any real gain from taking a castle.  Most the castles were
still probably wood in the 13th century (though stone ones were increasingly common).  The Mongols can't bypass the castles without risking their foragers being attacked.  They are to many
to take all of them and the castles themselves have no intrinsic worth.  The fortification around the city of Xi'an are protecting something valuable.  Castles protect money poor but mean spirited
guys with with metal clothes and pointy bits of steel.  The Mongols were likely badly outnumbered in Europe, so they really can't risk sieges or assaults on petty castles.  One outbreak of disease will
devastate them.  They need to move quickly to prevent spread of disease and running out of food in any given area.  When they siege something it needs to be worth the
risk.  A fat target like a major city.

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true and what evidence there is, tends to disprove it.

For example, take the Mongol campagin against the Ismalis of Alamut (known as the "Assassins") by the Mongols. The Ismalis, a hated minority that ruled the majority by what we would now call terrorism, had carefully defended themselves by building what amounts to castles in very inaccessible mountanous locations, specifically to avoid being rooted out by military campaigns (hence the leader of the Ismailis was sometimes mythologized as the "Old Man of the Mountain").

This did not prevent the Mongols from, essentially, wiping them out - even though their castle strongholds were relatively small, numerous, inaccessible and poor.

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

What they did to the Assassins, presumably they could do to Europeans.

I think the biggest obstacle to Mongols conquering Europe is the fact that there wasn't a lot of stuff worth conquering here. Unlike the rich Middle East, Europe was a poor backwater for at least two centuries more.

Incidentally, I thought the most common theory was that the battle of Legnica wasn't even a proper attempt at a conquest but more of a small exploratory expedition that just happened to wipe the flower of chivalry in the area. Was this theory disproved?

Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2012, 05:47:53 PM
I think the biggest obstacle to Mongols conquering Europe is the fact that there wasn't a lot of stuff worth conquering here. Unlike the rich Middle East, Europe was a poor backwater for at least two centuries more.

The biggest obstacle to the Mongols conquering Europe was the fact that Europe was comparatively distant from the centre of Mongol power, and the Mongols could not keep their empire from fragmenting before they got around to it. They were definitely considering it at one point, though. Odegai's untimely death from booze poisioning screwed up their plans.

The battle of Legnica was a consequence of the Mongol plan to prevent anyone comming to the aid of Hungary while it was being invaded. No-one knows whether the Mongols would have gone further had Odegai not drunk himself to death (though of course, historians are full of theories). One historian seriously suggests they stopped because Germany was too wet for Mongol bows! (It must be a surprise to him to learn that the Mongols seemed to have no trouble with their bows in south China).

Another theory is that they lacked grazing for horses. This fellow discounts the notion that the death of Odegai had anything to do with it:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/sinor1.htm

QuoteAccording to John of Plano Carpini the death of Ogedei prompted the Mongols' withdrawal from Hungary. Valuable though the Friar's account may be, it does contain many mistakes, of which this explanation is a prime example. Unfortunately, the mistake has been perpetuated by generations of historians (including the present writer), who, for a long time, never pondered on the inherent weakness of this theory. Ogedei died on December 11, 1241, and it had been argued that when the news reached him, Batu, who might have had personal, imperial ambitions, decided either to return to Mongolia or, at least, to move closer to it. The fact is that Batu showed no signs of any desire to travel to Mongolia, but after the evacuation of Hungary remained on the South Russian steppe, still very far from the center of power. Whether Batu ever harbored ambitions to become the Great Khan is a moot question, but his behavior certainly did not reveal anything of the sort. Available evidence suggests that he was content to be the de facto ruler of the western part of the Mongol empire, and that he showed great loyalty to Ogedei's successor, Guyuk. The reason for the Mongol withdrawal from Hungary must be sought elsewhere; it was caused by logistical imperatives.

To which the reply is: the significance of Ogedei's death is not limited to the desire to become great Khan on the part of Batu, but on the fact that Batu became as it were more interested in intra-Mongol affairs than on expanding the overal Mongol imperium. This culminated in the de facto, and then de jure, carving up of the Mongol territory into personal fiefdoms (Batu's became known as the "Golden Horde"). Only a united and centralized Mongol empire could pursue the conquest of whole continents and the uncertainty at the centre put paid to these ambitious plans.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2012, 02:18:41 PM
The same was also true of the Huns, who operated quite effectively throughout Europe for a time.

True enough, though you get the same sorts of arguments about their wandering style having to do with lack of grazing etc.

Quote from: Malthus on February 01, 2012, 05:43:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 10:07:47 AM
You are missing the point about fortifications.  It's not the quality of the fortifications, it's the quantity.  That and the lack of any real gain from taking a castle.  Most the castles were
still probably wood in the 13th century (though stone ones were increasingly common).  The Mongols can't bypass the castles without risking their foragers being attacked.  They are to many
to take all of them and the castles themselves have no intrinsic worth.  The fortification around the city of Xi'an are protecting something valuable.  Castles protect money poor but mean spirited
guys with with metal clothes and pointy bits of steel.  The Mongols were likely badly outnumbered in Europe, so they really can't risk sieges or assaults on petty castles.  One outbreak of disease will
devastate them.  They need to move quickly to prevent spread of disease and running out of food in any given area.  When they siege something it needs to be worth the
risk.  A fat target like a major city.

I haven't seen any evidence that this is true and what evidence there is, tends to disprove it.

For example, take the Mongol campagin against the Ismalis of Alamut (known as the "Assassins") by the Mongols. The Ismalis, a hated minority that ruled the majority by what we would now call terrorism, had carefully defended themselves by building what amounts to castles in very inaccessible mountanous locations, specifically to avoid being rooted out by military campaigns (hence the leader of the Ismailis was sometimes mythologized as the "Old Man of the Mountain").

This did not prevent the Mongols from, essentially, wiping them out - even though their castle strongholds were relatively small, numerous, inaccessible and poor.

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

What they did to the Assassins, presumably they could do to Europeans.

My evidence is the subsequent raids into Eastern Europe some of which were disasters for the Mongols.  The Invasion of Hungary a few decades after the initial one resulted in the Mongols being pretty badly beaten up.  In fact the first invasion was a failure.  Despite appointing a governor for Hungary, and badly defeating the Hungarian army, they could not subdue it due to numerous fortified strongholds.  There were similar incidents in Serbia, Croatia and Poland.  The failed assault on Klis is indicative of the Mongols difficulty with European siege warfare.  They may have had more success if Europe was closer to their base of operations, but they were fighting in an unknown land, against unknown peoples far, far from home.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 08:20:49 PM
My evidence is the subsequent raids into Eastern Europe some of which were disasters for the Mongols.  The Invasion of Hungary a few decades after the initial one resulted in the Mongols being pretty badly beaten up.  In fact the first invasion was a failure.  Despite appointing a governor for Hungary, and badly defeating the Hungarian army, they could not subdue it due to numerous fortified strongholds.  There were similar incidents in Serbia, Croatia and Poland.  The failed assault on Klis is indicative of the Mongols difficulty with European siege warfare.  They may have had more success if Europe was closer to their base of operations, but they were fighting in an unknown land, against unknown peoples far, far from home.

The first raid was a failure because the Mongols did not stay - for political reasons having to do with events in Mongolia. They effectively destroyed the Hungarian army and its potential allies, but reducing fortifications takes time. However, fortifications are really *only* good for buying time, they must eventually be relieved by a field army. None such existed.

Subsequent Mongol raids into eastern Europe were of a very different character. The unity which had fueled the Mongols explosive expansion was gone, and with it went the Chinese and Middle Eastern siege experts that had been attached to the Mongol army. No longer were the Mongols really interested in or capable of creating a universal empire - now the Golden Horde was more concerned with enriching itself through predation on settled kingdoms. In fact, they reverted to more resemble the typical nomad state.

The question, though, is whether at their height the Mongols in their unified empire could take territory they coveted that was heavily covered by castle-like fortifications. There is no question about it - they could and did, as the example of their destruction of the Ismaili "state" demonstrates. The reason they could is that, contrary to their rep., they were *not* simply a horde of predatory steppe nomads - they had adopted many ideas from the settled states they preyed on, which is exactly what made them so very dangerous.

It was simply Europe's luck, luck that they were far away from the Mongol heartlands and so were late on their list, luck that Mongol unity did not last, that saved 'em. Not any inherent superiority of arms (Mongols handily defeated every Euro army sent against them), not some supposed inhospitality to horses, not some inability to take castles. The Mongols in Europe were at the limits of overstreach and when their unity came into question, they simply lacked the resources for further expansion.

But they didn't defeat every European army, no? They lost in their subsequent invasion of Hungary, they didn't defeat Lithuania....

And it's not like the Mongols didn't continue to expand elsewhere. Ayn Jalut wasn't until 1260; the Song didn't fall entirely for decades.

Quote from: Faeelin on February 02, 2012, 09:20:12 AM
But they didn't defeat every European army, no? They lost in their subsequent invasion of Hungary, they didn't defeat Lithuania....

And it's not like the Mongols didn't continue to expand elsewhere. Ayn Jalut wasn't until 1260; the Song didn't fall entirely for decades.

I'm speaking of at their height as an empire, which lasted a fairly short time and came to an end in different places at slightly different times. Obviously the Mongols existed past their height, but split between different territories - the Golden Horde, the Yuan, the Il-Khans, etc. These factions fought against each other as well as against outsiders, and often lost to outsiders - for example, Ain Jalut was a Mongol defeat, and the Yuan suffered many defeats in its attempts to expand beyond China (famously against Japan, but also against Vietnam and Java).

Past their height, the successor "Golden Horde" Mongols fairly often re-invaded into Eastern Europe, but they were not the same and their goals were not the same - they were more interested in plunder than expansion.

Ain Jalut is instructive - once again, the enemies of the Mongols were saved by the death of a great Khan (in this case, Möngke). While the golden horde had gained more or less autonomy on the death of Ögedei, the Il-Khans of Persia gained more or less autonomy on the death of Möngke. The effect was startlingly similar: it put an immediate end to Mongol expansion in the middle east.

At the battle of Ain Jalut, the Mongols were decisively defeated because they were only a part of the Mongol army - the main part had retreated to contest the election of a new Khan.

In summary, as the Mongol empire gradually broke up, the bits that broke away became incapable of the massive, explosive expansion that had characterized them at their height. This happened first with the Golden Horde, saving Europe, then with the Il-Khans, saving the ME. Last was the Yuan, which remained powerful for a long time - but which suffered a series of defeats when attempting further expansion.  Mongols post-peak could invade and defeat armies, but could not take over whole continents, and largely did not try.

Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2012, 09:05:37 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 08:20:49 PM
My evidence is the subsequent raids into Eastern Europe some of which were disasters for the Mongols.  The Invasion of Hungary a few decades after the initial one resulted in the Mongols being pretty badly beaten up.  In fact the first invasion was a failure.  Despite appointing a governor for Hungary, and badly defeating the Hungarian army, they could not subdue it due to numerous fortified strongholds.  There were similar incidents in Serbia, Croatia and Poland.  The failed assault on Klis is indicative of the Mongols difficulty with European siege warfare.  They may have had more success if Europe was closer to their base of operations, but they were fighting in an unknown land, against unknown peoples far, far from home.

The first raid was a failure because the Mongols did not stay - for political reasons having to do with events in Mongolia. They effectively destroyed the Hungarian army and its potential allies, but reducing fortifications takes time. However, fortifications are really *only* good for buying time, they must eventually be relieved by a field army. None such existed.

Subsequent Mongol raids into eastern Europe were of a very different character. The unity which had fueled the Mongols explosive expansion was gone, and with it went the Chinese and Middle Eastern siege experts that had been attached to the Mongol army. No longer were the Mongols really interested in or capable of creating a universal empire - now the Golden Horde was more concerned with enriching itself through predation on settled kingdoms. In fact, they reverted to more resemble the typical nomad state.

The question, though, is whether at their height the Mongols in their unified empire could take territory they coveted that was heavily covered by castle-like fortifications. There is no question about it - they could and did, as the example of their destruction of the Ismaili "state" demonstrates. The reason they could is that, contrary to their rep., they were *not* simply a horde of predatory steppe nomads - they had adopted many ideas from the settled states they preyed on, which is exactly what made them so very dangerous.

It was simply Europe's luck, luck that they were far away from the Mongol heartlands and so were late on their list, luck that Mongol unity did not last, that saved 'em. Not any inherent superiority of arms (Mongols handily defeated every Euro army sent against them), not some supposed inhospitality to horses, not some inability to take castles. The Mongols in Europe were at the limits of overstreach and when their unity came into question, they simply lacked the resources for further expansion.

Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2012, 11:07:34 AM
Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

Alamut much larger than any castle? I beg to disagree. What are you basing that on?

The reason they could not hold territory has been explained: it was because their "expansion phase" came to an end during the invasion itself with the death of their khan. Had he lived another year, Hungary would have been Mongolified.

And since Hungary is named after the Huns it just would have been logical to do so.

Mongolary?

Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2012, 11:20:43 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2012, 11:07:34 AM
Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

Alamut much larger than any castle? I beg to disagree. What are you basing that on?

The reason they could not hold territory has been explained: it was because their "expansion phase" came to an end during the invasion itself with the death of their khan. Had he lived another year, Hungary would have been Mongolified.

I base it on the fact that records show it have a garrison of several thousand.  Possibly much more.  And no, the "expansion phase" did not come to an end in that period.  The Mongols went on to conquer southern China.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2012, 12:53:04 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2012, 11:20:43 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2012, 11:07:34 AM
Time was simply not on their side.  And we are talking about the Mongols at their height.  Or more precisely their expansion phase.  If they can't hold territory during this phase they can't hold it ever.  And of course they didn't win every battle. And Alamut was much larger then any castle.

Alamut much larger than any castle? I beg to disagree. What are you basing that on?

The reason they could not hold territory has been explained: it was because their "expansion phase" came to an end during the invasion itself with the death of their khan. Had he lived another year, Hungary would have been Mongolified.

I base it on the fact that records show it have a garrison of several thousand.  Possibly much more.  And no, the "expansion phase" did not come to an end in that period.  The Mongols went on to conquer southern China.

Have a look at pictures of the actual site. If it held "several thousand", they must have been packed in like subway commuters.  :D

This account, by someone who visited the site, comments on how tiny the place was:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RTyTn4ErwRIC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=alamut+castle+garrison&source=bl&ots=OJSSgHIXOb&sig=7Wp7RMyjQaTH35qAy2yezHAWaHo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=69UqT4u-IOeIsQLs8rGSDg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alamut%20castle%20garrison&f=false

As noted above, different bits of the Mongol empire gained de facto independance from the great khananate at different times. First to go was what became the Golden Horde. Then came the Il-Khans. That left the Yuan plus the Mongol homelands as the 'core'.

Quote from: Grey Fox on February 01, 2012, 08:55:06 AM
Fuck that question.

How many m50 wielding soldiers would it take to destroy the Mongols horde?

What's an M-50?

Even if you are right you are talking about a group of fortification in a small part of Iran.  I'm talking about hundreds of fortifications across an entire continent.  The numerous invasions after the initial one that did not claim territory indicates to me not that that they had no desire to take these lands, but the inability to do.

Quote from: Siege on February 02, 2012, 10:07:35 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on February 01, 2012, 08:55:06 AM
Fuck that question.

How many m50 wielding soldiers would it take to destroy the Mongols horde?

What's an M-50?

A .45 acp submachine gun produced in limited numbers back in 1940, for the US Army?...  :huh:

He's probably thinking of an M-60

For some reason I keep think of some Swedish SMG.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2012, 06:56:15 AM
For some reason I keep think of some Swedish SMG.

Well, there is also classical Danish Madsen M/50 submachine gun...

Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2012, 06:56:15 AM
For some reason I keep think of some Swedish SMG.

I can't believe I haven't fired that bad boy in 15 years.

I was probably thinking of the m-60 but we can use the Reising submachine gun too.

This is way bigger than you now, son.

Quote from: Mr.Penguin on February 03, 2012, 07:12:57 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2012, 06:56:15 AM
For some reason I keep think of some Swedish SMG.

Well, there is also classical Danish Madsen M/50 submachine gun...

That might be it.

Quote from: Grey Fox on February 03, 2012, 07:35:41 AM
I was probably thinking of the m-60 but we can use the Reising submachine gun too.

I think you were thinking of the M2 Browning .50 MG
Belt fed, .50 cal machinegun?
That would stop horse cavalry before getting within bow range.

Submachine guns have a very short range and are notoriously unaccuarate.

Modern day IDF vs Mongol horde: Who wins?

I believe that they would have ripped them off within 5 minutes and given them a bad deal for all their horses and bows.

Yo FB. Sup?

Quote from: Fireblade on February 03, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Modern day IDF vs Mongol horde: Who wins?

I believe that they would have ripped them off within 5 minutes and given them a bad deal for all their horses and bows.

Crushing IDF victory in the field leading to UN ceasefire saving the mongols from the consequences of their genocidal actions effectively freezing conflict for three generations. Who wins? Nobody.