Could the Romans have stopped the Mongol Empire in its tracks?
>>293469
They could barely manage the Huns, and the Mongols were leagues ahead of the Huns in leadership, strategy and technology.
>>293469
No.
They (Byzantines?) couldn't even stop the Huns and eventually realized horse archery is King.
they did didnt they?
ie Byzantium
>>293481
Horse archery fell out of favor for a reason anon. Even the Hungarians had to adopt western tactics.
>>293489
>Horse archery fell out of favor for a reason anon.
Yeah and the reason was guns. The Mongols controlled the biggest contiguous empire of all time and horse archery was their main weapon.
>>293469
Maybe.
This is pointless to conjure and impossible to assess though.
Not a chance. It'd be like Pax Britannica taking on the modern day USA. Yeah, they kicked a lot of ass, but the Mongolians were leagues ahead in mobility and technology. What good is a sloop against a fully armed aircraft carrier? What good are swords against horse archers and mortars?
>>293469
Lol no. History's biggest mistake was the Mongols not sweeping through Europa though 2bh
The Mongols were simply competent and lucky. Every civilization they tried conquering was already in a state of decline right as they started their conquest. Also Mongolia was recieving uprecedented rainfall right up until Genghis Khan came to power. More rainfall means more horses and more Mongols. They had become downright sedentary before beginning their conquest.
>Rome at its peak fought trained and skilled horse archers in the Parthian Empire
>Rome lost catastrophically
Yeah no
What kind of question is that, there's roughly a millennium of technological difference between the two.
>>293535
I wouldn't call Pompey and his legion legion the "peak" of roman military might.
>>293469
The Khan would be fucking patrician's wives in a month.
>>293543
>there's roughly a millennium of technological difference between the two.
Although this is a valid point, before guns became a major factor, the tech difference between two warring armies matters a lot less than the leadership difference.
Genghis's Mongols, barring trebuchets and primitive cannons, would look a lot like the Huns, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, etc etc etc. The difference was leadership
>>293553
I hate always bringing this guy up but I really can't think of anyone other than maybe Julius Caesar who could compete.
>>293578
This Finngol literally conquered Russia by using the winter to his advantage.
Caesar cannot compare desu.
>>293521
Would have just gotten bogged down in Western Europe then left after looting for a bit.
>>293578
I wish the Secret History gave more detail on his campaigns.
His entire initial conquest of Europe basically goes
>And then Subutai and Jebei took two tumens and went on a raid of the west, defeated 10 kingdoms and 21 armies
or something to that effect.
>>293589
Maybe in the 14th century, but in Roman times, there were not massive stone fortresses that medieval Europe had built nor the steel plated nights to defend them.
Rome was notorious for letting Huns, Goths, Vandals, Magyars, and Franks roam free through their lands.
>>293589
>bogged down in Western Europe
Do you mean German/HRE West or France West?
>>293589
By "bogged down" do you mean they would have realized most of Europe was just a bunch of thatch hut villages with fuck all in the way of lootable booty and simply turned around? Because if so then yeah, they would have been bogged down.
>>293622
They would've sacked Vienna and Rome first.
The more I learn about how interconnected history is the more match ups like this tick me off.
>>293499
The mongols stopped ruling the battlefield once they hit central Europe. Fortresses, heavy Infantry, and heavy cavalry had a bit to do with that.
The Mongols wouldn't attack Rome. The Mongols had great respect for other powerful nations.
>>293653
Like the Song
mirite?
>>293649
They never hit central europe because their Khan died.
Up until that point they were rolling over everyone in their path and were practically set to steamroll all the way to the Atlantic coast.
>>293672
>Up until that point they were rolling over everyone in their path and were practically set to steamroll all the way to the Atlantic coast.
Didnt the Fatimids beat them? or are you talking about an earlier time in history
>>293544
>Pompey
You mean Crassus? The legions of Pompey were competent because Pompey was competent.
>>293672
>m-muh invincible mongol empire
I love to hear the clamor of "muh dead khan saved you." Face it, the mongol invasion of Europe was a failure.
>mongols will never ever touch the based HRE
>mongolaboo tears flow like ocean waves
>>293687
Nah iirc the first real victories the muslims had was against the smaller nomadic state of "Ilkhanate"
The united mongols didn't real lose many battles at all.
>>293687
The Mamluks.
>>293701
>HRE
>based
fug of, Italian city states or bust
>>293698
Sorry yeah. I was stuck between Pompey and Crassus and couldn't be assed to look it up
>>293649
They slapped the shit out of Georgia with a scouting force, raped the Kievan rus, and fought Poland and Hungary who had Teutonic knights with them.
>>293701
>the mongol invasion of Europe was a failure
They butchered every Polish, German and Hungarian army they fought and completely ravaged the latter's land. The reason the Mongols didn't push into Europe again wasn't military, it was because the Golden Horde khans became extremely lazy cunts.
>>293713
well this is embarassing, I thought Mamlukes were Fatimids
>>293724
wouldnt the climate stop them though? western europe is humid and afaik composite bows cant handle high humidity
>>293718
Its a point to note though that the success of the Roman military was entirely dependent on the commanders, just like the Mongols. A better question would be which general would win rather than which army.
>>293701
Eh, It's not like I'm saying the MOngols were a perfect state, Ogedei khan died because he drank excessive amounts of alcohol
Point is the Mongolians did fuck up Hungary, Kiev and also made some skirmishes in Poland
the mongols themselves are overrated. Steppe Empire are nothing new. Pic related
>Polish
>Hungarian
Lol.....mate. Those states in the 1200s were nothing impressive, and lacking behind Western Europe even back then
The Mongols would have gotten decimated by the English longbow or French crossbow.
> The reason the Mongols didn't push into Europe again wasn't military, it was because the Golden Horde khans became extremely lazy cunts.
The reasons are
1. They liked the Europeans
2. The European style castles would be too hard to overcome
3. They had to go fight internal wars
>>293743
Fatamids > Ayyubids (Saladin )> Mamluks (military coup)
>>293739
>implying they were fighting anything more than a rabble
Read up on the actual history and battles, Mongols took quite a bit of losses despite the enemy being horribly disorganized. Legnica was a military disaster, hardly representative of a proper military in the HRE or France
And you don't conquer through battles, it's through sieges and territorial conquest. The mongols failed both of those. This is disregarding the fact that the mongols lost a number of battles, and to their own tactics. They got dogged and ambushed in Croatian mountains, beaten with in the north by a Hungarian King (Amadé Aba) and found difficulty with combating European cavalry, at least in actual combat. Europeans mostly fell because of lack of unity/organization, not actually losing the melee. I'd argue this would stop being an issue under Louis IX who performed well in the Seventh Crusade, despite it being a failure in the end.
>>293750
Indeed they did, that does not equate to conquering Europe however, there were Hungarian Castles still holding deep within Mongolian territory.
>>293768
Obviously a bunch of arbitrary what if at this point, but at the same time it's not like they didn't have experience from sieging the Chinese capitals and the Arabs.
>>293499
>the reason was guns
>>293800
those were a bit different
>>293724
>who had Teutonic knights with them.
source? They weren't friendly with either and were pretty busy 'crusading' in prussia.
>>293800
No, they literally failed at sieging Croatian castles, nearly every single attempt was a disaster. Even the ones in Hungary proved to be an issue. Klis fortress is the one I can think of off the top of my head
>>293469
>sandal wearing infantry vs fast moving horse archers
GEE, LET ME THINK.
>>293913
romans eventually won against huns though, after they formed a joined force with some barbars (cant remember which ones)
>>293734
>failed to siege in Croatia and Hungar
Didn't they like, stick around in Hungary for a time, causing one of the sadded periods for the Hungarians and massive depopulation of Eastern Hungary and so on?
>>293924
They were in the area and held the land for a year or less, but they failed to take castles and fortified cities so it hardly constitutes a conquest, more of an occupation
Never found a direct answer as to whether it was epidemic or slaughter which killed the population but there was certainly a decline and lots of death.
This was only in a part of Hungary, the north was safe, Croatia repelled them, and the time in Poland was nominal, just a raid in the end.
>>293469
The Mongols would've won.
A lot of people make the case that "Horse archers can't into Europe". You're just simplifying a very complex argument with those words.
So put it this way;
Could the mongols have supplied their armies into Europe?
If yes, then they would've beat the romans.
If No, then they would have to send a smaller force.
Even so, a force of around 10,000 mongols would probably be enough to mop up most of what the Republic (at it's height) could muster in a battle, or a series of raids, but it would not be enough to conquer the empire - or even gain a foothold.
Had the Mongols mustered all of their resources (and just dropped everything else) and marched into Europe, would they have defeated Rome? Without a doubt - Of course they would. Don't be silly. The romans had nothing they could pit against them. And the eastern romans gradually moved toward a more cavalry based army because they saw the worth in it.
Now, could a Mongol army of equal numbers best - lets say - Belisarius' in his prime? Maybe, maybe not. The fight would be a lot tougher because of the similar use of tactics. The only significant technological upper hand that the Mongols would have are the better stirrups, but the romans WOULD have them.
>>293724
The Teutonic Knights part is disputed. The grandmaster described as dying in that battle actually died at another date according to the Teutonic Knight's own records (and no mention of the battle is made).
>>293918
Goths.
No Ghengis was the biggest factor the world has ever seen. He destroyed and enslaved countless nations. He killed 40 million people by the end of his campaign that was like 15% of the world's population and fathered like 1 percent of the world's current population. The Romans simply didn't have the army to fight. Ghengis stated himself that he was a scourge unleashed be God.
>>293481
Foot archers smash horse archers. Also cavalry is not great at holding ground.
>>294146
>where did you graduate?
>university of Rome: Total War
>>294152
True in real life lad.
Foot archers can take more powerful bows and are smaller targets. Why would horse archers be better? They have their purposes but they're not all out Gods. Not to mention armour > tiny Mongol bows.
>>293768
>>293881
>Read up on the actual history and battles, Mongols took quite a bit of losses despite the enemy being horribly disorganized. Legnica was a military disaster, hardly representative of a proper military in the HRE or France
And yet they still destroyed a formidable force that could have stopped them.
>And you don't conquer through battles, it's through sieges and territorial conquest. The mongols failed both of those.
No they're actually quiet successful at that it was only after the empire fragmented into multiple hordes that you see the Mongols becoming terrible at siege and the decline in battlefield performance. The fragmenting of the empire meant that the Golden Horde was cut off from China, which the Mongols relied on for siege engineers. It was because of Chinese siege engineers that Subotai was able to destroy Hungarian castles and forts with incredible ease, thus catching the Hungarians off by the speed of his invasion.
The death of Temujin and the consequent power struggle that occurred after turned the Mongols on each other. So instead of conquest they turned to internal politics which meant that the military was neglected and languished, turning an extremely competent and professional fighting force to nothing more than glorified marauders.
>>294165
>why would horse archers be better?
Because they're faster and can wreck your shit.
>>293768
>Read up on the actual history and battles, Mongols took quite a bit of losses despite the enemy being horribly disorganized. Legnica was a military disaster, hardly representative of a proper military in the HRE or France
This is simply not true. And if it is, please provide sources. Everything I've read indicates that both Liegnitz and Mohi were devastating defeats for the yuros
>>294165
>Why would horse archers be better?
Because horse archers were usually nomadic peoples who lived the nomadic lifestyle.
It wasn't just a couple of peasant faggots going out every couple of years to help solve some feudal bickering
Their way of life was horse archery. They learnt how to ride a horse and shoot a bow before puberty and they used it almost every single day.
>inb4 ignoring the incredibly strict poaching laws and saying peasants used bows regularly
>>294177
>speed
Are you fucking serious? You're a much larger target, foot archers have much more range, accuracy, and can volley. Plus, they have cover. Nice fucking meme
>>294184
>nomadic peoples who lived the nomadic lifestyle.
What a load of shit. That means fuck all, a trained archer is trained to use his weapon and apply tactics. He'll always be superior to an untrained nomad.
>a couple of peasant faggots going out every couple of years to help solve some feudal bickering
It was never like that, ever. Read some history faggot.
>Their way of life was horse archery
So they're now magically superior to actual soldiers? End your memeing.
>They learnt how to ride a horse and shoot a bow before puberty and they used it almost every single day
What the fuck does that mean? So they're skilled archers, that means fucking nothing when you can't hold a position, or do anything save skirmish. A formation of archers will defeat horse cavalry. It's literally how everyone beat them
>incredibly strict poaching laws and saying peasants used bows regularly
>he's a retard who applies 19th century poaching laws to a period spanning over 500 years
>he forgot that archery training was mandatory in england
>he honestly thinks there was one codified law for all of europe during the time
>>293535
They lost one battle catastrophically
Others they won
>>293469
Give the Romans 800 years of technological development, and I think the Mongols would be splattered by their field artillery alone.
>>294166
>And yet they still destroyed a formidable force that could have stopped them.
Yes, and? It was a poorly led, disorganized force, to say it represents what every battle would be or how easily the mongols would win is incredibly idiotic and outright ignores other battles.
>to destroy Hungarian castles and forts with incredible ease
You do realize most Hungarian castles were earthen works, made of wood, or poorly built stone. It's literally one of the biggest military reforms they made afterward. Despite this, the stone castles Hungary did have still stood, notably the ones with natural advantages like hills. Once more, Croatia. They had Chinese engineers and all of their equipment but it all ended in disaster.
>>294183
>This is simply not true
>History Tartarorum
>http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=battle_liegnitz
They were horrible defeats for the euros in that they lost many men and most of their army, but don't count that the mongols got out well either. They chose not to fight Wenceslaus II which means they clearly were not confident. Remember the entire purpose of Legnica was to defeat armies in the north to prevent them from aiding the Hungarians at Mohi, the fact that they didn't engage him means something.
>>294263
>http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=battle_liegnitz
Hmm.
I seem to stand corrected.
>>293701
Don't talk about something you don't know shit about, that's why this board suck
>>293481
The Byzantines (East Romans whatever) beat the Huns at Utus River. Atilla generally avoided them because they were too strong compared to the West Romans
>>294032
This. early and mid Roman army was too infantry based to contend with Mongols. Mongols had stirrups and lances this would devastate swordsmen not to mention the famed horse archers. What you say about Belisaurus is also right the late Romans may have had a chance because they were cavalry heavy.
>>294184
In England there were laws that made sure every man trained with a bow atleast once a week.
So fuck that last statement of yours
>>293587
>This Finngol literally conquered Russia by using the winter to his advantage.
How did he manage that?
>>293469
The Mongols fielded armies of hundreds of thousands of cavalry men,they were the zerg.
Romans operated on much smaller numbers.
>>294436
used the frozen rivers and the now hardened mud that made up the ground that usally bogged down people trying to do shit it in during the spring and summer.
>>293499
>the reason was guns
By the time it takes to reload a shitty early musket a nomad archer has already emptied his quiver.
Russian conquest of northern Eurasia was not achieved by guns,they had them sure but they were not decisive.
>>293535
>>Rome lost catastrophically
That's a meme,they lost one battle lead by a retard and won every single engagement after that,they even sacked their capital.
>>293881
They stayed in hungary only for 6 months before they had to return for the kurultai.
Give them some years and they will start doing some sieges.
>Legnica was a military disaster, hardly representative of a proper military in the HRE or France.
The Hre was loosing to lombard rebels in Italy all the time, they were shit militarily.
>>294228
>What a load of shit. That means fuck all, a trained archer is trained to use his weapon and apply tactics. He'll always be superior to an untrained nomad.
Peasant farmers couldn't shoot at full gallop and do 180 degree shots.
Also tell me about an archer that europe that could shoot as far as the mongols:
>While Chinggis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (East Turkestan), [Chinggis's nephew] Esungge shot a target at 335 alds (536m).
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_bow
>foot archers have much more range
NO THEY DON'T ! RETARD, EDUCATE YOURSELF!
>accuracy
Mongols could shoot at full gallop AND farther then europeans, retard
>can volley
So can the mongols, but in much larger numbers, link me an european medieval battle with 100k+ participants.
>when you can't hold a position
Nomad armies are always on the move, they don't need to defend anything you RETARD!.
In Croatia we only briefly mention Mongols. Iirc, something like ''they came to our shores, met resistance, heard their leader died, and ran back''. All this talk how they were stopped in my country is new to me. Makes me feel kind of proud, although I think it wasn't that important when even someone with interest in history barely knows anything about it. We have a tendency of blowing ancient battles and victories out of proportions and this should be huge. What's a good source to read up on mongols' conquest?
>>293469
They got rekt by the Huns, who used much more primitive technology and siege techniques.
So no, not a chance in fact.
>>293533
Luck plays a role in every conquest. To say that it's because of luck that they conquered is just plain wrong. The Mongols had tactics that were refined to near perfection under Genghis. The other empires simply couldn't compete.
Why does everyone act as if the mongols only had horse archers, they had plenty of heavy cav as well senpai.
>>295076
Mongolian (actually: Asian really) heavy cavalry holds no candle to western ones really. Just look at the fucking monster horses they breed.
In Asia Heavy cavalry often meant "This horse is heavier (than the usual ones we use) and has armor to fend off arrow attacks." Asian Heavy Cavalry are usually horse archers too.
They can do shock roles but never to the same extent as western ones can. Western heavy cavalry does nothing else but shock roles.
>>295091
>what are Nisean steeds
Parthians, Sassanids, Scythians, even the Chinese. All used Nisean horses which were WAY huger than any other breed. Hell, Alexander demanded them as tribute from every city he conquered because they were so superior to anything he had.
Since they went extinct during the early Ottoman era, its totally plausible that the Mongols used them for their heavy cavalry as well.
>>295033
>near perfection
That's where I disagree. There have been plenty of meritocratic leaders before but none of them conquered the world. The Mongols weren't a scourge that hell hath no. They were great but their amazing feats of conquest relative to past conquerors was due to luck. All the empires they conquered were already in states of decline. The Mongols didn't cause those declines and they didn't time their attacks to coincide with the declines. They simply got lucky with the timing of their attacks.
Didn't the mongols rise to power over 1000 years after the peak of Roman power? May as well give Romans guns.
Imagine the Mongols trying to break through a Flemish pike formation, or fighting guerilla warfare in the Balkans and Carpathians, where horses bog you down. Imagine them trying to cross the Alps or dealing with longbowmen or crossbowmen. Shit, picture them fighting a tercio unit.
I'd assume that after seeing them in action a couple of times, European tactics would adjust accordingly. No way they could have conquered Europe.
>>295561
>May as well give Romans guns.
MONGOLS AND ROMANS BOTH HAVE ARQUEBUSES! WHO WINS?
>>293754
>English longbow
Welsh Longbow.
>>293754
>English longbowman
You fucks win one battle with some bows because the French got stuck in some mud and now you think the English longbow has mythical qualities.
>>295612
Why would the Mongols try to break through a pike formation when they can ride around you for hours shooting you with arrows?
Why wouldnt the Mongols impress local tactictians and soldiers into their ranks so they would have something that could go toe to toe with European tactics like they did with literally every other people they conquered?
>>295692
>English longbow
Welsh Longbow.
>>293499
>horse archery was their main weapon
Not really.
Too much credit is given to the Mongols for giving military leadership positions to people of low birth. It wasn't some brilliant strategy. Mongols just happened to kill or rob everyone with money and power in the places they conquered. That only left commoners.
>>295612
>imagine the mongols trying to break through a Flemish pike formation
If I were a mongol I'd just shoot it from afar.
If they shot back I wouldn't be to worried because my arrow volleys are deadlier than their primitive guns.
>or fighting guerilla warfare in the Balkans and Carpathians
If I were a mongol I'd capture all the towns, deprive the guerilla movement of it's sustenance and press the local natives into fighting for me. I'm not dumb enough to bring horses up there.
>>294517
I'm pretty sure he was referring to Carrhae exclusively. However referring to Romans sacking Ctesiphon, literally every campaign the Romans made against the Parthians ended in logistical failure (and an unnecessary loss of soldiers). Although the Romans always gained ground against them, the Parthians quickly rebounded and regained whatever territory lost because they never invested resources into defending against forces they know they'd lose to. Ctesiphon was sacked several times but always regained its status because it was situated on multiple important trade routes.
>>293481
I don't even understand why horse archers are so op?
Couldn't Rome's heavy infantry just have formed testudos and advanced forward? Maybe stick their pila out as well to stop horses from charging them which I doubt would happen.
>>294032
>a force of around 10,000 mongols would probably be enough to mop up most of what the Republic
no
>>293469
Not if they fought like they did in Gladiator
>>295747
Because France was the only one who beat the tercio and good luck convincing them to give you the equipment and strategies to win
>>295826
Good thing you aren't because your grasp of strategy is pitiful.
>magically shoot from longer distance than crossbow and arquebus because I live in a fantasy world
>I won't get gunned down by skirmishers
>I won't get chased down immediately by cavaliers
>I will somehow orchestrate a volley using fucking horse archers
Why are you fucks so delusional?
>>295856
>I don't even understand why horse archers are so op?
On open terrain, they have a huge mobility advantage. They can ride around you and harass you with arrows until you're all dead. If you form a testudo or pike formation, they just ride away. If you chase them, they ride away while shooting at you and draw you into an ambush.
Horse Archers in general aren't necessarily OP but steppe nomad horse archers who learn to ride when they're 3 and literally live on the horse are. I remember hearing a roman chronicler saying that the Huns would walk around bow-legged because of the time they spent in the saddle. The Steppe people had a way of living off the land that other armies didn't. They had HUGE strategic mobility advantages because they didn't have big wagon trains. Each steppe warrior could bleed his horse, or milk it for nourishment. They knew how to hunt, and because of their harsh lifestyle would eat just about anything edible. They would drive their own flocks of sheep and goats with the army.
Now, at the tactical level, it's not like it was an amazing feat to beat a steppe army in a battle. Like many people in this thread have said, you can form a pike square and yadda yadda. But at the strategic level, no army in the world moved like a steppe army did. An army moves at the speed of its slowest component, and the original steppe armies led by Genghis Khan all moved at the speed of a horse. Everyone was mounted. The speed and mobility allows steppe armies to operate at a strategic level that was unseen until WWII and the advent of tanks and planes. In the hands of a great strategist, this was a very potent weapon. Genghis Khan decided when you fight him. Not the other way around. He had legions of scouts and spies, and when he knew you were moving against him and the terrain wasn't in his favor he would just ride somewhere else and pillage you there. At Legnica and Mohi, Subotai prevented a Polish army from linking with a Hungarian one WWII style.
>>293469
Probably
>>296245
Daily reminder that this battle was won by a Gothic charge and the Romans had almost nothing to do with it
The greatest strength of the Romans would be their numbers. It was through numbers that a lot of their victories were made (inb4 Alesia, just one example).
The Mongols greatest strength is their adaptability. If the legions or forts gave them trouble, they would find a way to beat them, like when they first came up against Chinese cities.
Lol no, Romans couldn't even stop barbaric scum.
It's a quiet Tuesday morning. The horse archers are prepared to kill, rape and pillage an unsuspecting polish village. The fog rolls in as the drums begin to beat. All of a sudden, a noise breaks the silence, "brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttt." The majestical a-10 warthog screams by as it releases its napalm and heads back around for another gun run. The Mongols dive for cover as they notice mysterious containers falling from the sky, oh no, the krauts are shelling them with mustard gas. Then Paul Bunyan leaps from his giant eagle that he rode into battle and chops them all to death and bangs all of the dead Mongolian dudes cause he's secretly into necrophelia and is gay
>>295692
>muh legendary longbow
>folded over 9000 times :^)
>>296623
>draw weight of over 9000 pounds
>>296658
>can kill over 9000 french soldiers with one shot
>>296679
>penetrate over 9000 inches of steel plate
>>293469
not with the shitty army they had at the moment
>>296679
>pierces 9000 war horses
>>296714
>flies over 9000 miles
That guy who does the podcast, Hardcore History, did a few episodes on the Mongols. It's not perfect, and it's by a guy who admits he's not a historian. But it addresses a lot of what was brought up in this thread, and is a pretty compelling listen.
It's a bit long.
Check it out, maybe.
>>295908
>magically shoot from longer distance than crossbow and arquebus because I live in a fantasy world
The mongols had good bows senpai. Easily a match for early era flintlocks.
>I won't get gunned down by skirmishers
That's what my horse is for.
>I won't get chased down immediately by cavaliers
They can chase me, and I can run away, shoot them and then come back.
>I will somehow orchestrate a volley using fucking horse archers
Give me one reason why this isn't possible? Their bows had excellent range, I see no reason why not?
>>297134
Did some checking -
A mongol bow could be fired up to 500 meters.
Can't find any credible source for an arquebus (we're talking what, 15th century here?) but it couldn't possibly be effective at that range. Early era firearms were low velocity projectile weapons.
>>296245
>romans have to get german savages to win their battles for them
KEK'T
>>296429
woah, any more places i can read about this battle? seems intense
>>295908
>>magically shoot from longer distance than crossbow and arquebus because I live in a fantasy world
>horse archers on fucking horses with Mongol bows can't shoot further than rubbish crossbows and the shittest guns in history
ur the one living in fantasy world, they shot like 530 metres or something
>one army that adapts and assimilates vs another that adapts and assimilates
whoever loses, we all win
>>299088
I want to be in the alternate reality where all pop music is throat singing.
>>299118
https://hanggai.bandcamp.com/
check this shit out family
>>293701
>holy
>roman
>empire
>>299168
Good stuff senpai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfXVhKZev8Y
>>295918
This guy gets it.
>>293701
>HOLY
>>297134
>Easily a match for early era flintlocks.
In a one on one? That's hardly fair, you have to factor in tactics which make up for firearm shortcomings. You're also disregarding that a gambeson could stop an arrow and it's recorded by Saladin that their bows and arrows were ineffective at killing the Crusader forces. Most horse archers in the mongol armies, at least in europe, were used to pester and pressure the enemy.
>That's what my horse is for.
Your horse is going to get shot
>I can run away
You've effectively done nothing and will most likely get shot by cavaliers
> shoot them and then come back
And get shot again. The tercio was designed to make cavalry irrelevant and to the most extent did.
>Give me one reason why this isn't possible
Volleys use mass fire, you can't get mass fire with horse archers. The entire nature of them does not allow it.
>>297166
Please, how about you give some citations. Being able to hit something does not equate to being effective. 500 meters sounds like crap. I assume the poundage of the bow is around ~180, which is the recorded strength of the strongest English Longbow we had. This would mean that they'd shoot at around the same range and be equally as effect. So tell me then, why did the transition to firearms occur? If bows could out range them, why would they bother?
>>299052
> on fucking horses
Makes no difference and pretty much means their effective range is decreased.
>Mongol bows
Overrated meme bows because of poundage.
>rubbish crossbows
Nice opinion, guess what fucked up the mongols the most in Europe?
Oh and you're honestly trying to compare windlass and crannequin crossbow to a bow?
>the shittest guns in history
Do tell how they were shitty? I presume you know fuck all
>530 metres
I see you read the wikipedia as well, too bad their only citation is crap. It's like saying that because a 9mm can hit a target at 1000 yards it must be effective at that range.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw
>>293469
That tactic was pretty hard to defeat until population growth and hand held early guns made it obsolete. Like most raiders a concerted defensive effort like Burghs in Wessex but bigger could have beaten them. If they had to siege a line of fortresses the loot would stop coming and they would go to greener pastures to burn. Laying seiges would lose them men they could not replace while Rome prepare for a chance to fight in a place where the horsemen would not have an advantage. On an open field the mongols would probably win but the Romans would win the war.
>>295692
French still butthurt
>muh Crecy
>muh Agincourt
>muh Poitiers, cordially invite the French king to London
>>293499
>Horse archery fell out of favor for a reason anon.
>Yeah and the reason was guns.
The statement you made does not hold very well at all. The very first user of the second generation of personal firearms, the hand cannon, was in all likelihood the southern Song dynasty. It likely was invented around 1170. The Jin dynasty is known to have gotten its hands on that technology very shortly after words and used it against the mongols. Both of those dynasties fell to the mongols.
Fast foreword to the Battle of Ain Jalut in late 1260. It was to be the first field battle in which hand cannons were to be recorded as being used during. Before that all recorded uses of hand cannon were during sieges. The mongol were the ones using said weapon, along with a core of traditional horse archers and local allies who know the lay of the land. The Mamluks on the other hand had a core of heavy cavalry, supporting elements of infantry and horse archers, and likely no knowledge of gunpowder. The Mamluks won that battle handily. I know that they had numbers on their side that day, but during the First Battle of Homs that same year they were out numbered and still won. They also won next few battles against the Ilkhanate mongols.
>>293469
They could barely hold against the huns.
>>297166
>A mongol bow could be fired up to 500 meters.
Just no.
I will give the distance in meter for sources that use yards to help any non-Americans reading this. The world record for longest bow and arrow shot is just under 500m, and that was using modern equipment. Note that was distance shot. The longest shot that hit what the archer was aiming for is 230 y ( 210.3 m). For battle field ranges volley shooting would start at 150 to 100 y (137 m to 91.4 m ), based on English and Japanese sources.
However that is not how the mongols used bows. They would fire at 30 to 40 y ( 27.4 m to 36.6 m), up close and personal. They wanted to get the enemy to break ranks and chase them. Their primary means of killing the enemy was the lance. Their use of the bow was mostly to get the enemy to do something stupid. They could wear down the enemy if he did not give chase, but at the end they would still have to charge them to finish them off. Doing that was a more costly way of doing thing.
>>300366
>If they had to siege a line of fortresses the loot would stop coming and they would go to greener pastures to burn.
That really depends on what era of mongols we are talking about. For example by the 1270s the mongol were tired of the southern song. In 1277 they had Arabian engineers make copy's of European counterweight trebuchets for a major offensive. The Song dynasty ended two years later.
I would bet that counterweight trebuchets would make very short work of any pre-division Roman fortress. By the way the mongols had the logistical means to make the trebuchets before hand, move them in pieces to were they were going to be used, and then assemble it on site to save time.
>>302254
>Counterweight trebuchet ended song dynasty
Howboutno.jpg.
For one thing: Chinese walls are stoned up rammed earth walls. Stone Battlements/Rammed Earth core. You're talking of a wall design that that was still highly usable through the cannon age of the 1500's-1700's. What more a trebuchet?
Song lost for various reasons.
>>293521
>Lol no. History's biggest mistake was the Mongols not sweeping through Europa though 2bh
It would make no sense for them to do it.
Western Europe was poor. China was rich. Persia was rich. Egypt was rich. India was rich.
This is like conquering modern day Zambia when you can conquer modern Switzerland.
Are you asking if say, the 1st century AD Empire could hold of the Mongols, or are you asking if a hypothetical 13th century Rome that somehow survived could hold off the Mongols?
The Mongols always struggled to get further than Eastern Europe. They were enormous but very autonomous.
In my opinon even if they did have some early success against Rome, Rome would hold out long enough to see the whole Empire fall to pieces.
Anyone who thinks the Mongols would just roll over Europe like they did in the wide empty steppe is retarded.
Could the Sassanids have stopped the Mongols if they never got weak enough/throne usurped so the arabs could conquer them and they were at their peak during Khanbowl?
>horse archers every-fucking-where
>>294575
Long bows can take down targets half a mile away.
>>295531
>Mongols
>riding horses
Pretty sure they rode ponies because they are more agile
>>295692
Half a mile dude
>>295929
Subotai has to be one of the greatest commanders in history. He and Jebe Noyon are probably favorite Mongol generals. Jebe was a former enemy of Genghis who recognized his talent and took him in as one of his own.
>>297166
Long bows have an effective range of 1/2 mile. Many European bows had ranges greater than 500 meters. Horse archers get beat by regular archers. Play some age of empires and read some history
>>302295
They never conquered all of India. Only parts in the northwest. Composite bows collapsed in the subcontinent's humidity which undid their glue.
Interestingly enough, Muslim Turkic invaders invaded India successfully centuries before. Mahmoud of Ghazni was the one who really brought India into the Islamic orbit.
>>299052
Yes and long bows and other European bows have ranges over a kilometer
>>302321
No, but the earlier Avar and Magyar raids into Western Europe indicate that a committed Mongol foray there could be devastating.
>>300366
Henry the Fowler imitated his fellow Saxon, Alfred the Great, by building forts in every crossing to hinder and deter the Magyars. It's why the HRE was able to stop the Hungarians in their tracks in the mid-10th century.
>>293469
They did. The Mogols avoided the Byzantines. Too much work
>>300234
>Makes no difference and pretty much means their effective range is decreased.
Nope.
>Overrated meme bows because of poundage.
Sorry, but that's just an opinion
>Nice opinion, guess what fucked up the mongols the most in Europe?
Oh and you're honestly trying to compare windlass and crannequin crossbow to a bow?
1st, the mongols weren't "fucked up" by anything in Europe except maybe the lack of competent resitance.
2nd, Yeah.
>Do tell how they were shitty? I presume you know fuck all
18th era muskets had an effective range of 100 meters. Arquebus were not more so.
>I see you read the wikipedia as well, too bad their only citation is crap. It's like saying that because a 9mm can hit a target at 1000 yards it must be effective at that range.
No it's not, because if you can hit a target at 500 meters then that's it's effective range.
>>300234
Forgot these;
>Your horse is going to get shot
I outrange them and am more mobile - I highly doubt that.
>You've effectively done nothing and will most likely get shot by cavaliers
I've killed many with my volleys and taken zero casualties. Meanwhile I'll just run away from the cavaliers and shoot at them while at high speed. They die, they rout, I turn around and keep shooting at the pikemen.
>Volleys use mass fire, you can't get mass fire with horse archers. The entire nature of them does not allow it.
You're an idiot. There's nothing to suggest that they can't.
>And get shot again. The tercio was designed to make cavalry irrelevant and to the most extent did.
Not ranged cavalry at these ranges.
>>302475
>Horse archers get beat by regular archers. Play some age of empires and read some history
>>302442
>Jebe was a former enemy of Genghis who recognized his talent
It probably also helped that Jebei had balls so large it was impressive he could ride a horse. According to the secret history, he shot the Khan in the neck or his horse out from under him during the unification of the tribes. And then went to the Khan and told him he did it.
>Yeah it was me, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?
>>302693
Is it simplistic? Yeah sure.
Is it wrong? No.
Foot archers can have larger bows and will always outrange horse archers.
>>302428
The native Mongolian Horse is considered a horse if you want to argue semantics. It is a small horse though.
Although I'm not a horse breeder so I have no idea where the "small horse" vs "large pony" line is drawn.
>>302743
So what? Like someone else mentioned in the thread, the advantage of expert horsemen isn't their tactical abilities. It's the strategic mobility they have.
If Genghis thought he would lose a battle with you, he wouldn't fight the battle and you wouldn't be able to bring the fight to him.
>>302757
Point being the horses were small
>>302775
See now we're going in circles.
The person said Mongols had longer range than Europeans. This is false.
Sure he can take the fight elsewhere. But if you have fortified castles brimming with archers, Genghis will conquer elsewhere. Foot archers beat horse archers cuz they're cheap and you can just plop them on land and defend it.
>>302775
>>302840
From wikipedia, but whatever, who the fuck are we kidding, guys? We're all wikidorks.
>The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with much depending on both the power of the bow and the type of arrow. It has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd (370 m)[23] but the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345 yd (315 m).[24]
>An inscription thought to be from 1226 was found on a stone stele in Nerchinsk, Siberia. It may have said: "While Chinggis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (East Turkestan), [Chinggis's nephew] Esungge shot a target at 335 alds (536m)."
(http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/mongol_1.htm)
Mongol bows outranged English longbows by far. But the question is, did mongols on horseback outrage foot archers? This we don't know and the sources do not make clear.
>>302895
Yeah but long bows didn't try to hit marks. They fired in volley which would be deadly after even half a mile. That's the point. I'm not a wiki fag I know people who /archery/
No idea
two very different strategies both worked incredibly well whenever the need for adaptation arose both in planning stages and on the fly directly in the heat of battle.
For perfect all out man to man war without siege machines and tech(ie: a straight up fight with arms and not equipment) it would be a great fight
if you wanted to see the best damn battle the likes none will ever have witnessed it would be Temüjin against Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix both with the same amount of men and calvary.
I would gladly give my left arm to see it go down
>>302907
>>302937
Not really, composite bows could fire longer and were generally smaller. They used a different method for stringing the bow than the yew bows of the welsh and english.
I'd also put "hitting a target" as a better result than shooting in a volley. There's nothing to say that you can't shoot in a volley either, but the target is much harder.
English longbowmen were very good but they could not compare to steppe bowmen.
>>302964
Long bows have the longest range of any premodern bow. That's what makes them good.
The fact that you think archers in warfare were aiming and didn't solely fire in a general "fuck everything in that area" fashion shows me that you have no understanding of the role of the archers.
Pretty much every step nomad horse archer army gets it shit stomped on by foot archers with bigger bows.
>>302666
>Sorry, but that's just an opinion
Plate armor was literally designed to deflect arros. Gambesons stop them as well. What makes this bow so great again? ROF means fuck all when the enemy is behind good cover and you can't get close
>the mongols weren't "fucked up" by anything in Europe except maybe the lack of competent resitance.
2nd, Yeah.
>can't even conquer croatia
>can't conquer hungary
>can't conquer poland
>b-but we won some battles
>Yeah
So you're an idiot who thinks a 150lbs bow compares to a 1250lbs crossbow
>18th era muskets had an effective range of 100 meters
Are you gonna source that? Or are you just going to spout idiotic shit again
>500 meters then that's it's effective range.
No, that's it's possible range, a 9mm can hit at 1,000, doesn't mean it is effective. And your source is incredibly dubious.
>I outrange them and am more mobile
You don't understand anything about shooting, do you? And no, you don't out range them, start posting sources or get out.
>killed many with my volleys
You've done no volleys and they're behind cover until you get into range
>zero casualties
In your fucking dreams, the mongols took plenty of casualties
>Not ranged cavalry at these ranges
Um, yeah.
You're a fucking idiot, do you even know how fucking long 500 meters is? Am I arguing with a fucking fanfic writer because this sounds like his estranged dreams. So far your only argument has been "no because I said so," without any actual knowledge on the subject. You're a fucking retard and you should consider not posting here ever again
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQh2RBg-eOw
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4b5IclFJ8Q
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr_1z3GwxQk
Both do a perfectly good job at shitting on you. I'm not even going to bother to address the rest of your points, can't fit them in one post
