If there really are Mongol units..wouldn't they beat the hezel out of Euro troops?? I mean, every Mongolian would be like a knight, trained from birth to ride n shoot n such.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not really. Yes, both Mongols and their mounts were very hardy and resilient and their nomandic lifstyle allowed them to move with incredible speeds, but they weren "trained" from the childhood in the same way that knights were. Many of their skills were ones that they picked up while living in the steppes, though there was lot's of battle training involved too. Also, the Mongols we'll meet in CK will be 3rd or 2nd generation at the most and quality and dicipline had declined quite a bit since Chengis Khan.
Also, short of the eastern european steppes, most of the terrain in europe was quite hostile for mongols (Mountains and Forests, in both of which cavalry performs actually worse than infantry). Also, quality of european amies of the time is too often grossly underestimeted. I doubt they could have been abel to mount an offensive in germany even if they had wanted to... They weren't even abel to submit most of the fortifications in Hungary after all.
Also, short of the eastern european steppes, most of the terrain in europe was quite hostile for mongols (Mountains and Forests, in both of which cavalry performs actually worse than infantry). Also, quality of european amies of the time is too often grossly underestimeted. I doubt they could have been abel to mount an offensive in germany even if they had wanted to... They weren't even abel to submit most of the fortifications in Hungary after all.
Last edited:
Well, they wern't good at fighting fortifications, alot of cities gave up out of fear, but in open country, during this time I don't think any army could of challenged them. Although what you said about Germany is certanily true, archers don't do well in forests...
The Mameluks crushed them at Ain Jalut in Palestine which is pretty open country. A large part of Mongol success is because most were not abel to put up strong organized resistance against them.
Wasn't one of the main reasons that the Mongols were so successful, that they had sheer numbers? They were attacking isolated lands whose Christian neighbors wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, therefore it was much easier to roll right on into Europe.
Mongol armies were quite large indeed, at least when compared to european ones. Much of the male population went to war and the villages followed behind the armies. However the central asian steppes, which had provided grazing area for their horses in all other Mongol campaings, ended in Ukraine and thus too far away to act as a staging are for mongol forces on european campaing. The Hungarian plain was the only choice but it proved to be too small even to feed Batu's expeditionary force which, as I said, failed even to submit most of the forts there much less mount attack in HRE.
Actually Mongolian seige engines lead to Western Europe's infatuation with gunpowder.
Do not underestimate the Mongols, anyway. Their logisitics where impressive, and unlike most armies until the colonial age they would have to carry off the wounded under penalty of death.
Do not underestimate the Mongols, anyway. Their logisitics where impressive, and unlike most armies until the colonial age they would have to carry off the wounded under penalty of death.
I don't think I'm underestimating them, I'm just trying to be realistic. If anyone is usually being underestimetad it's the european armies of the time. Most of asia was ahead of europe on the logistical side though and mongols were very advanced for asians. The dicipline of their troops was impressive as were their command and signaling systems. Still, mongol logistics required the safe haven of the steppes to be nearby. I don't think they could have succesfully adopted tactics suitable for war in central europe - especially since they individual mongols weren't too good fighting unmounted.
Mongols used chinese siege engines btw, so there really is no concept of mongol siege engines.
Mongols used chinese siege engines btw, so there really is no concept of mongol siege engines.
Väinö, I think the European armies of the times were perhaps the worst armies in the world..But it all depends on exactly what times we are talking about and what parts of Europe. Then again, maybe they just didn't have the numbers because of the population diffrences between Europe and the rest of the world, although i'm sure most of us are pretty happy about how it all turned out..
Woah! Time for some clarification! Mongols were trained in use of composite bow and riding from a VERY young age! You are right that cavalry is at a disadvantage due to forests in East Europe, but The Mongol invasion of East Europe went flwalessly despite that. They routed Hungarians, Poles, Germans, and Lithuanians while only controlling a very small army and caused havoc in the countries. Many think that it was just a raid because their army was so small, but many in Hungary found themselves living in forests because their country was defenseless after Bela's loss to the Mongols. Mongol scouts also reached the walls of Vienna. Oh that brings me to soemthing else. The Mongols were ALWAYS outnumbered! That garbage you hear about them riding in 200,000 strong is due to inaccurate reports from the enemy. They would trick their enemy by putting dummies on spare mounts and they would also light extra torches at night to decieve the enemy. You are right that they were all warriors, but there were not that many of them. Most armies they brought to battle were around 50k at most and the ones brought to Europe and Russia were half that. There loss at Ain Jalut occured because they were outnumbered about 1:5 or 1:6 and caught off guard. The Mameluks brought their entire army expecting to meet the main Mongol army, but instead found a very small contingent of troops, so it was their main army numbering hundreds of thousands vs. like 20 thousand. That thing you said about them not using formations well is also incorrect. They were the most organized force in history up until Napoleonic times. They organized troops based on groups of 10k, 1k, 100, and 10 with 10 being the most elite troops. This mosr advanced than anything Europeans would do for a while. Their system of officers also resembles modern times. As for you saying that in CK we will face Mongols who are not strong, that is incorrect to. Mongol troops would remain an effective fighting force until the mid 1600s. Any Mongol you come across in CK will be a great warrior. Their were ill disciplined ones, but that was mostly Chagtaids and it was due to disorder in their society. When Tamerlane ruled over them they were probably one of the strongest armies in the world.
Snall, to answer your question technically Mongols should always triumph, but you guys are correct they they could not expand into Eastern or Central Europe permanately because not many horses could be supported. The Russians should always be subdued by Mongols, but I think the developers might come up with alternatives. Maybe The Mongols would be forced to turn back even earlier?
Snall, to answer your question technically Mongols should always triumph, but you guys are correct they they could not expand into Eastern or Central Europe permanately because not many horses could be supported. The Russians should always be subdued by Mongols, but I think the developers might come up with alternatives. Maybe The Mongols would be forced to turn back even earlier?
Last edited:
Atlast a voice of reason!
They probably could have adapted to a different style warfare for western Europe if they had extended their reach that far.
They probably could have adapted to a different style warfare for western Europe if they had extended their reach that far.
I think you read my posts little carelessly, chilliwilli.
I said the many skills mongols had were ones that they learned to survive in the steppes. Archery and riding are some of these.
And where did you get that formation thing. I never said that. Infact I praised their military ability... They surely were the best army of their time.
As for their success in Hungary, it was hardly perfect. Batu suffered much more casualities at Liegnitz than mongols were used to, even though they won. Russians could also have made a good stand at Kalka river had they stood united. Mongols usually were slowed down immedietly when they started to face concentrated organized resistance.
As for army sizes, I honestly can't belive Mameluks had 200 000 men at Ain Jalut, it sounds logistically impossible. And I do know the mongols didn't have similar sized armies either, but an army of 50 000 mongols is humengeous in european eyes, who were used to armies of 5000-10000 (if you read my post you'll notice that I said "at least when compared to european ones").
Quality of mongol armies definetly had decreased since Chengis, but I didn't mean to imply in any way that it was bad. They were still superior when compared to ordinary european troops.
Not to sound rude, but I don't think you said anything that proved me wrong with any of my points.
I said the many skills mongols had were ones that they learned to survive in the steppes. Archery and riding are some of these.
And where did you get that formation thing. I never said that. Infact I praised their military ability... They surely were the best army of their time.
As for their success in Hungary, it was hardly perfect. Batu suffered much more casualities at Liegnitz than mongols were used to, even though they won. Russians could also have made a good stand at Kalka river had they stood united. Mongols usually were slowed down immedietly when they started to face concentrated organized resistance.
As for army sizes, I honestly can't belive Mameluks had 200 000 men at Ain Jalut, it sounds logistically impossible. And I do know the mongols didn't have similar sized armies either, but an army of 50 000 mongols is humengeous in european eyes, who were used to armies of 5000-10000 (if you read my post you'll notice that I said "at least when compared to european ones").
Quality of mongol armies definetly had decreased since Chengis, but I didn't mean to imply in any way that it was bad. They were still superior when compared to ordinary european troops.
Not to sound rude, but I don't think you said anything that proved me wrong with any of my points.
Last edited:
I seriously doubt this. Their way of war was only really continuation (is this even a word?) of their nomandic way of life. How could they abandon these traditions just in order to conquer new land and how long would it take? Turks and Hungarians sure took their time setteling down, so the same could be expected from Mongols. And at the same time, new formidable foes, such as the Swiss, are rising in the west. If mongols would have stayed in europe, they would either have been assimilated in the general population or driven away.
Actually Väinö just like the Middle Eastern Potentates (spelling horrid prob) raised armies in the hundreds of thousands during this time it is certs possible.
There is this article at Deremilitari about mongols and mameluks. I only started reading it though, but it doesen't seem to mention anything about army sizes at Ain Jalut. Bummers... I personally don't know much about the conflict but 200 000 sounds a bit high...
The Mameluks had about 120,000. The Mongol army was about 10,000 strong.
BTW Mameluks didn't come upon the Mongols expecting a larger force, the Mongols were intentionally lured into a trap at ‘Ayn Jalut. 10, 000 was about the entire force the Mongols had in Palestine. They were totaly destroyed by the Mameluks (Also very good cavalry) and the Mongol general Kitbuga (who was a Terkic Christian) was killed in the battle.
The Mongolian army was undoubtabley the most organized sense the Caeser's, but still- thier fear tactics got them far, but in many situations united the locals. A smart conqourer would simply allow the conquerd into the lower realms of power.
Also, what point is Mongolian history? THe people were a scourge and destroyed Baghdad, not to mention a million other cities. Ther bleeded Novgorod and more or less doomed both China and Russia.
Also, what point is Mongolian history? THe people were a scourge and destroyed Baghdad, not to mention a million other cities. Ther bleeded Novgorod and more or less doomed both China and Russia.
I am impressed with how much all of you know about the Mongol military and its history--more than I do, I must admit. Our Russian sources are pretty vague as to the exact strength of the Mongol forces. Our history usually says in basic form "They came; they conquered." Especially lacking is the course of events AFTER the Mongols conquered our Russian lands. Perhaps by our bias, our story usually ends when we lost to the Mongols.
As far as Mongol impact upon history, I would caution against criticizing them too much. For the case of our Russian people, I would say that the coming of the Mongols was a brutal but necessary phase of our history that allowed us to dump our mistaken infatuation with Western ways. From the Mongols, we learned good lessons about political centralization and military organization, and our people intermixed a great deal with the Mongols as well. You can of course see very Asiatic appearance among many of our Russian people, and this is no accident.
Anyway, I do not like to criticize the Mongols too much. Some types in our country like to say "Too bad that the Mongols came--it kept us backward and far behind the West" and so forth. I think instead that the historical contribution of the Mongols was to tear down some already rotten national political structures. By this, I mean Kievan Russia, although probably this lesson could apply to wherever the Mongols went, including the Middle East, Central Asia, even China. They fell because they were weak, and they were weak because they were rotten. I realize that this is like saying that the hungry wolf keeps the reindeer herd healthy, but it is still true.
As far as Mongol impact upon history, I would caution against criticizing them too much. For the case of our Russian people, I would say that the coming of the Mongols was a brutal but necessary phase of our history that allowed us to dump our mistaken infatuation with Western ways. From the Mongols, we learned good lessons about political centralization and military organization, and our people intermixed a great deal with the Mongols as well. You can of course see very Asiatic appearance among many of our Russian people, and this is no accident.
Anyway, I do not like to criticize the Mongols too much. Some types in our country like to say "Too bad that the Mongols came--it kept us backward and far behind the West" and so forth. I think instead that the historical contribution of the Mongols was to tear down some already rotten national political structures. By this, I mean Kievan Russia, although probably this lesson could apply to wherever the Mongols went, including the Middle East, Central Asia, even China. They fell because they were weak, and they were weak because they were rotten. I realize that this is like saying that the hungry wolf keeps the reindeer herd healthy, but it is still true.
Reformation from time to time is always good, Mongols brought that. But the cost was too great in my opinion. I'm rather biased when it comes to them - in some cases i admire them, in others... well...
Anyway, this thread has bought it's ticket to history forums long ago.
Anyway, this thread has bought it's ticket to history forums long ago.