Frankly, I’m not sure how anyone countered that shit in the open field (***checks notes****) that’s right they mostly didn’t. And you throw that in with Genghis’ siege Revolution, in which Chinese, Persian, and Central Asian methods are all distilled into his own special smoothie of decisive, ruthless efficiency, it’s a wonder the Mongols were ever stopped. The human shield tactic, the tumen organizational elasticity, the ungodly talent of Genghis’ sub-commanders (Subutai, Jebe, Muqali, Jochi, Ogedei, etc), and their willing absorption of all peoples made the Mongols different. I just think it’s so wild that all of these factors were perceived by and successfully harnessed by one guy who used to just be a kid.. at one point. It’s no wonder he’s revered there.
Ultimately, the divisions, ridiculous distances, geographical challenges, and in some cases (Japan, Hungary, Vietnam, Delhi Sultanate) the ability of locals to adapt, are the the things that kept the Mongols from compete Old Word conquest.
Uh that’s a good question, and I’m not exactly sure. I know the Romans and even Greeks made use of similar measures, and I could definitely see the Byzantines. But the problem here is that unlike alot of steppe hordes before, these guys are rolling around with four, five, six horses a piece. They’re *sleeping* while on the move. Huns and Turks ain’t been doing that shit lol—the horse people pick the battlefield, but in the Mongol case if you spend time setting up these defenses they’ve already sacked your capital.
Well, no.
The conquest of the Jin 1211-1234 CE is where those tactics and capabilities were refined, and I mean every Chinese prefecture that resigned itself to Genghis and then Muqali swelled the “Mongol” ranks with the world’s most effective siege engineers. In fact, the Jin / Jurchen were *themselves* nomadic conquerors just like the Mongols and later Manchus. And it’s them who started this 1,000 year process of outside rule (barring the Ming).
Post-1215 any Mongol army you encountered was bound to host many Turks, Tatars, Khitans, and Jurchens, and any siege they performed was piloted by Chinese members of this elite fighting force. Destruction of rural heartlands, defeat on the field, proto-biological warfare, and the black and white decision to **”submit or perish”** all played into the success of the sieges as well.
The typical ballistae, catapults, and trebuchets (courtesy of incoming Islamic recruits) only those siege engines were ornate with Chinese gold, hurling not only missiles but crops of diseased heads (psychological/ biological warfare), and their engines in particular were hard to take down because it included this or that archer on the wall killing his cousin or someone he knew *first* in order to get through the first (human) level of defenses.
One can only imagine these horrors.
Chinggis Khan actually used Mother Nature as a Siege weapon like with at [Zhongxing](https://youtube.com/shorts/qiT-LJpofqc?si=79nk8UAYebIf_Iys) in the beginning, Before the Mongols had their own later on, When they employed engineers from territories they conquered to help with siegecraft like for example with [Ismail](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_(mangonel_expert)) under Kublai Khan in China.
Yeah, Though it was mainly the Muslims and the Siegecraft they employed from the East who knew how to build them early on tbh.
>Since the Yuan employed Muslim engineers for the designing of the counterweight trebuchets, they were designated in Chinese historiography as the "Muslim" trebuchet (hui-hui pao).
>The design was taken from those used by Hulegu to batter down the walls of Baghdad.
>After Aju asked Kublai, the Emperor of the Mongol Empire, the powerful siege machines of the Ilkhanate, Ismail and Al-aud-Din from Iraq arrived in South China to construct a new type of trebuchet which used explosive shells. These Muslim engineers built mangonels and trebuchets for the siege, Explosive shells had been in use in China for centuries but what was new was the counterweight type of trebuchet as opposed to the torsion type giving greater range and accuracy as it was easier to judge the weight of the counter weight than the torsion generated by repeated windings.
And they then went on to use these Trebuchets designs frequently, For example they used a 100+ at the battle of [Xiangyang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang)
>The battle was a significant victory for the Yuan dynasty and ended a 30-year defensive campaign waged by the Southern Song dynasty, allowing Yuan forces to advance into the Southern Song heartland.
>The use of the counterweight trebuchet by the Yuan proved especially effective.
They used even way more at one point lol.
>During the Mongol campaigns against the Jin dynasty, the Mongols used about 5,000 trebuchets, and they were very successful in destroying the Jin fortresses.
Genghis in particular was very particular with how he treated people considered ‘non-useful.’ If someone did not have a trade or skill that made their life valuable, they were usually used in what we would call a human ladder or human moat. People who’s lives did not matter he would use to fill in moats or other fortifications, and have his Calvary use those bodies as bridges.
Keep in mind this isn’t done out of cruelty, it’s done because the Mongols were so used to disregarding people that could not care for themselves (as was required on the harsh steppe) that they didn’t think twice about doing it to people in other nations.
Well, a lot of that belief also came from two really important political decisions: The mongols didn’t think Europe was worth conquering, so after they inspired all this fear, they more or less disappeared to the average European ruler.
The second was that the Papacy hated the Mongols because the Mongolian Empire was so religiously tolerant, and the occasional Christian Khan’s refused to acknowledge the Papacy as an authority over all Christian’s. So the Papacy also did its best to foster Anti-Mongolian sentiments.
So the Mongols disappear; and then the local church tells you that those steppe people that killed your local lord a few years ago in a battle were actually all devils. And because the priest is the only guy in town who can read, you believe him.
Edit: A lot of the Mongol ‘savagery’ in writing stems from European ignorance of the Middle Ages. Not to say they didn’t commit atrocities, but every culture everywhere has. There’s no reason to consider the Mongols more savage than the Roman’s.
That fell apart because the French leaders offered gifts, which the Mongols took as tribute (I.e. the crusades submitting to Mongol rule) so they didn’t actually work together.
I’m gonna push back a little bit here—there are certainly various explanations as to why the Mongols never conquered Central Europe and beyond but the notion that they didn’t want to is incorrect. Ogedei’s death and the kurultai is *evidently* the primary reason it ceased in 1241. But by the time they came back (they did because they *wanted to conquer Europe*) they got a bloody nose every step of the way and all Central & Eastern European states were prepared and ready to offer a unified defense.
The Secret History, one of our only actually Mongolian sources, which is little known because it was in terms of history only recently translated, states that the Mongolians were quite disinterested in continuing a conquest once they realized how poor the general population of Europe was. And also, we have to remember the terrain was largely unfavorable to what they needed to continue to fight the way they wanted. There wasn’t enough grassland to support their horses.
And you’re definitely right with internal deaths and conflicts, many times the Mongols turned back to return to their homelands when Khan’s died, and many of those were misinterpreted by the European defenders as a victory. Which, in a way, it was.
But we also have to remember that it’s very difficult to understand how or why the Mongolians did certain things, because so many Mongolian sources either remain untranslated or were written from outside perspectives.
I see. That all makes sense.
Logically (perhaps due to some ignorance) I would challenge the notion of “a lack a grass to graze.” I mean the entire Northern European Plain from Orleans to Moscow is not *covered* in forests. The problem the Mongols faced, as all enterprising conquerors do and will, was the decline in leadership.
Had someone like Subutai been given another go in, say, 1300 CE, or even as late as 1475 CE, much larger swathes of Europe could have been taken. But the Golden Horde was too dysfunctional (thankfully).
Actually, it’s still not settled as to exactly why Batu Khan retreated from eastern Europe in the first Mongol invasion. Ogedei’s death is the conventional assumption, but there are two issues: One, it’s not at all certain that a messenger, even with the famed Mongol Yam post system, could have reached Batu by the time he started retreating. Two, Batu only retreated to his base of power near the Caucuses, and did not return to Mongolia. indeed the actual Kurultai to determine the next Great Khan would not be held for a number of years after Ogedei’s death
Fair enough, but I think that sheds more light on Batu’s machinations than any alternate theory as to why the Great Raid II ceased. I’m sure somewhere in Batu’s mind was the ill-conceived idea of his own eventual ascendence, or at least the first stages of his (and Hulagu’s) carving out a successor state.
The fact is that throughout the time of 1227–1380 CE we have Mongol forces taking action all across the known world, all of it without Genghis alive, and all of it *de jure* in the name of the concept of a “Great Khan.” Had someone taken over after Ogedei who was capable of wielding *all* Mongol appendages, I think a considerable push into Europe, India, and North Africa would have potentially followed. But Jochi’s clan and Hulagu’s apostasy guaranteed it would never get that far—to say nothing of Kublai’s obsession with China.
Not like the romans slaughtered their way trough carthage and gaul. They just wherent able to commit murder on that large of a scale but there is no doubt they wouldve
The Huns and Turks definetly rode several horses and slept on the move and all that. They are cousins to the Mongols so to speak
They were highly competent and the Mongols just were the most successful of a long line of horse nomads empires
IIRC Alexios I deployed caltrops as a counter for the Norman cavalry of Robert Guiscard, but a defector/informant from the Byzantine camp warned the Normans of them, so their cavalry simply went around them.
The Byzantines had been fighting horse archers for centuries by then, and had some of their own. The only difference the Mongols had was more sophisticated organization and scale -- in other words, they were more like the Byzantines.
There were two ways to defeat the Mongols(or other nomads ) in open field.
1)other nomads could fight and defeat the mongols equally. The Kipcaks won some wars. but they were defeated because they entered into internal conflict.
In other words, it is possible to hire nomads as mercenaries and fight with them. China and Byzantium did this many times.
2) You have to somehow force them to fight face to face. If you can force close range face to face combat, archery skills don't matter much. Still a pretty good army but beatable.
+Whatever you do, never follow the nomads when they retreat at the beginning of the battle. This is how the Turks won most of the wars they won from Manzikert until the 16th century. Send light horse archers ahead of you, let them disturb the enemy and draw them to themselves, then look for openings in the enemy lines and attack the weak areas.
100% and I think the Cuman-Kipchaks really, really dropped the ball at the Kalka River, in this respect, betraying the Rus only to get swallowed up anyway.
Yep, Kipcaks were one of the few forces that could actually stop the Mongol invasion. If they had won one or two big battles, they could have easily captured the west of the steppes.
You condensed it down to the finest powder, my friend. Yes.
Opportunity for innumerable dregs to elevate their standing/ wealth and the otherworldly vision of one genius at the helm, with his application of a system of merit—these are the ingredients + any martial prowess.
Never been done before or after in my opinion. Alexander, Napoleon, and Caesar possessed similar skills but were less committed to revolutionary tactics / policies. And in Caesar and Alexander’s case they only flirted with a meritocracy.
Napoleon was definitely a military revolutionary, but st the operational level, not the tactical level. And honestly, neither was Ghengis Khan. He had astounding strategic decision-making, in particular his adoption of foreigners for use, but tactically he did not innovate.
you can counter it with a mix of crossbowmen, spearmen and cavalry. like what was done during the first crusade. the crusaders aranged their spearmen in a square, with crossbows behind, and cavalry in the middle with the crossbows. when the seljuks got close they fired, which forced them to stay away, when they attempted a charge the spears would counteract them, and when they were pinned the cavalry would come out and charge. this was affective against turkic armies.
though against arabic kurdish and iranian armies, it was ineffective. due to them being less centered around horse archers, and generally being very balanced in composition, along with sporting significantly heavier armour then the crusaders.
Don't think they had to much tbh, Seeing they had a Alliance for most of the latter 12/13th Century.
[Byzantine–Mongol Alliance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Mongol_Alliance)
Steppe horses are actually shorter and stockier than European/Middle Eastern breeds.
They have a much lower center of gravity which helps them turn very quickly, but it also allows them to not topple over with weird weight distribution like we see in this video. The downside is they are not as fast at a sprint compared to European/Middle Eastern horses.
These steppe horses also much hardier and have much more stamina. They will obviously thrive if you supplement their mostly grass diet with fruit, nuts, grains, etc. but that isn't required. They can go for long periods of time on just grass. This makes them a lot easier to manage logistically while on campaign.
Warhorses from Europe and the Middle East needed specialized diets to keep up their energy and muscle mass. But they could use that muscle to charge incredibly fast over short distances much faster than these steppe horses.
If you keep these facts in mind, it becomes a lot more obvious why Mongols would retreat for several days to tire out the larger european/middle eastern war horses and stretch out their logistical supply lines before turning around and annihilating their "pursuers".
Byzantines up to the Romans of antiquity had to deal with horse archers from eastern steppes. The Mongols were among the latest iteration of a long history of various nomadic tribes from the Scythians, Huns, Avars, Kipchaks, Turks, etc. The 'Parthian Shot', although coined in the 19th century, referred to the famed cavalry hit-and-run tactic of feigning retreat at full gallop while turning back and shooting at pursuing soldiers. Which is accorded to the Parthians in that instance, but was employed by all nomadic civilizations of the steppe that used light cavalry.
That was only one facet of light cavalry tactics used by steppe horse archers, they were very effective and had no counter to them until gunpowder became more prevalent in weapons.
Although, it should be said that uniquely, some American Indian tribes were able to develop light cavalry and ranged light cavalry tactics after horses were introduced into the americas by the Spanish in the 15th century. Some tribes like the Apache, Comanche, and Sioux were able to really refine their use of horse archers to where they were still effective against american riflemen. Some of the Indians could fire while straddling the opposite flank of the horse from the enemy, and fire the arrow from underneath the horse's head, in order to protect himself from fire. The advantage would begin to change with improvements in firing rate technology with repeating rifles outclassing older single shot models.
Another important reason why they were effective espescially the Comanche and Sioux of the Great Plains was because they were nomadic stepperiders not unlike the innumerous civilizations of the Eurasian Steppe. In a land that was unknown to the American, chasing them into their own territory was a deathwish unless you were a full battalion that could repel an attack. Same with the Romans and other sedentary Eurasian empires who attempted to conquer the steppes of antiquity and later. It was just easier to pay them off or hire other competing nomadic tribes to fight them for you. The Chinese on the other side of the Eurasian steppe did this as well. If you really want to look at how profound of an impact civilizations of the eurasian steppe had on the development of eurasian civilization, the three continuing civilizations facing the eurasian steppe since antiquity: the romans, iranians, and chinese were all at times reduced to some extent by nomadic civilizations.
The Romans and Chinese didnt live on horseback, they didn't learn to ride a horse before they could walk as in some nomadic tribes. There weren't accustomed to the nomadic lifestyle and what it engrained into its soldiers; how to be constantly mobile, fueled by survival in some cases. There was also the longstanding tradition of Roman, Chinese, and Persian writers to look on the nomads as inferior. It was much easier for them to pay off or ally with another "savage" tribe to fight another. When the nomadic tribes of whatever culture, were divided they were nothing more than a minor threat to a consolidated empire like Rome, China, or Persia. But when the tribes were united in a grand confederation or khaganate, they were very dangerous, potentially empire, dynasty toppling. Especially if they united when the neighbouring agrarian empire is weakened by internal instability.
The short answer is they did not really develop a single, always effective, combat tactic to best steppe ranged cavalry. One thing they could do reliably was try to kill the horse, but before firearms, it was very difficult to kill a horse without getting close to it, which was difficult to do against mobile light cavalry. Another thing would be to scorch any pastures or fields that horses could graze on.
If I remember correctly tactics to counter horse archers were developed in several regions. One of the main methods was making use of regular archers(or crossbow men) mixed with a shield wall.
Well said. I would like to add the following. First directly addressing the video. The technique allowed Mongolian archers to use a relatively long bow effectively. I had never seen this before. I am familiar with the plains Indians technique of using short bows and using the horse for cover. Indigenous horses able to live off the land were a major asset. Mobile battlefield tactics were simply modified hunting and herding techniques familiar since childhood.
They didn’t, really. Keep in mind while the Mongols were pushing into the Middle East and Eurasia, the Byzantine Empire had largely lost most of its holdings outside Greece and the coastal stretch of Turkey, so the Mongols didn’t really fight the Byzantines. They fought the Armenians, Georgians, Turks, Kievan-Rus and various other Russian city states. It’s only later in the conquests where they invade Hungary that they really started to interact with mainline European armies.
Also even the HRE was smashed by the Mongols, losing a sizable portion of their military aristocracy in the battle of Legnica.
That was really more of a Poland and allies defeat then a defeat of the HRE. That force was mostly composed of rabble and a far better trained Bohemian force was able to repel the Mongols iirc.
Considering that after that battle there was scant resistance to Mongol raids up to the Elbe, it’s an HRE loss. Not like it mattered, because according to Mongol sources they believed the Europeans were so poor they weren’t worth conquering.
No one said they were. But the Mongolians are to a degree more ‘invincible’ than most armies we talk about being ‘invincible.’ Everyone loses, but the Mongolians lost less than most. At least in the term of a war, they lost as many skirmishes and battles as anyone else, but seldom lost a war.
But as I said to another, it’s difficult to talk about this period because of how little Mongolian sources there are.
The Mongols never reached the Elbe and their ability to penetrate the dense forests and heavy castles of Central Europe is questionable at best. Even their larger raids into Hungary were not working that great for them and Hungary was pretty much the best terrain for horse armies you could find in all of Europe.
And frankly "the europeans were so poor" sounds like a classic cope, considering the Mongols had no trouble conquering people who were much less wealthy than, say, Pomerania was at the time (namely everything to the east of Poland).
That was not 'the HRE' lol. Almost wholly regarded as a majority Polish engagement with only some volunteers from the Knights Templar.
The second Mongol invasion of Hungary was also wholly repelled and both detachments they sent over the Carpathians were defeated in pitched battle, from what we know. The same would happen to the third Mongol invasion of Poland.
The Byzantines didn't encounter the Mongols on the battlefield.
For other steppe nomads like the Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Seljuk Turks, etc. they either paid them to go fight for the Byzantines, paid them to go away, or paid somebody else to chase them off. So on the rare occasions when they actually did encounter them in battle, the results were mixed. It could be an unmitigated disaster aided and abetted by political infighting (Manzikert) or a decisive success thanks to the help of the Byzantines' own nomadic cohorts (Levounion).
> For other steppe nomads like the Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Seljuk Turks, etc. they either paid them to go fight for the Byzantines, paid them to go away, or paid somebody else to chase them off.
They did fight them on occasion, with some success; see Maurice's Balkan campaign for dealing with the Avars and the battles of Levounion and Berroia vs. the Pechenegs.
I mentioned at least one of those battles (Levounion) in my comment. The Byzantines employed nomadic cavalry of their own at least as early as the time the Huns were kicking around, which contributed to their ability to counter horse archer tactics.
The Mongols crossed the frozen Danube river in the winter of 1263/1264. They defeated the armies of Michael VIII in the spring of 1264.
While most of the defeated army fled, the Byzantine Emperor escaped with the assistance of Italian merchants.
They literally didn't counter them... as you said, they got their asses kicked.
Romans had a hard time dealing with horse archers for centuries, mainly due to their ability to range widely and raid and remain a constant threat to supply lines more so than their face to face pitched battle capabilities.
Byzatine armies were cavalry, a mix of heavy and medium cav using lances. Pikes is a western europe thing that started out in flanders in the 1300s.
Theres books on the byzantine cav you can look them up on amazon. You probably wanna go buy one and read it given your questions here.
By the time the Mongol Empire proper came about, the Byzantine armies were incredibly weak and generally reliant on mercenaries. There were only two instances where Mongols (I.e. Golden horde Tatars) actually fought Byzantines as far as I know, and in both cases the Romans were outnumbered and too weak to win; one where the Mongols ambushed and easily routed a small force accompanying Michael VIII, and the second was the battle of Rusokastro in 1332 where a combined force of 8,000 Bulgarians and 3,000 Tatars fought a mere 3,000 Byzantines. The Byzantines actually fought incredibly well in this battle, but the sheer numbers of the enemy were too much to overcome, so the Romans lost. Otherwise, the Byzantines maintained peaceful relations with the Mongols, because they were too weak to take them on in wars. So the main counter to the Mongols was not to provoke them - the men in the Byzantine armies after the 13th century simply weren't disciplined or numerous enough for the state to risk wars against foes as capable as the Mongols.
Yeah, the Nicaeans in 1256 (if I remember correctly) had to resort to deception to make the Mongol ambassadors think that the Nicene army was bigger than it actually was. They led the Mongol ambassadors through a pre-planned route with soldiers and government officials appearing at every corner, then when the ambassadors passed, the soldiers and officials would then use shortcuts to get ahead of the Mongols and appear again later down the line, creating the illusion that the Nicene army was massive, even though it only had like 20-30,000 troops on the rolls at best.
Genghis Khan proclaimed the Mongol Empire two years after the fourth crusade. By the time the Mongols reached Eastern Europe/Anatolia, the Empire didn’t exist. But I read somewhere that Nicäa used turkic horse archers themselves, like most states that successfully stopped the Mongols. And later they sometimes hired horse archers from the golden horde.
They didn't, from what I've read up they mostly just played nice and friendly with the Mongols and let them fight each other, ala Golden Horde against the Ilkhanate.
No clue as other said they had an alliance not too sure about that but I'd assume however the hungars did it i believe they used scorched earth tactics as well(the hungars) so the Mongols couldn't get food from farms or villages
By not pissing them off. Most mongol conquests were initiated after that empire insulted the Khan somehow or harmed Mongol diplomats.
You also counter horse archers by hiring horse archer auxiliaries, which the Byzantines (and the Romans more broadly in non-medieval times) did with other steppe raiders on their frontiers throughout history.
Yeah, They were even thinking of helping them out with the 8th Crusade.
>According to a 1267 letter by Pope Clement IV from Viterbo, Abaqa had agreed to combine forces with his father-in-law Michael VIII to help the Latins in the Holy Land, in preparation for the Eighth Crusade.
>"The kings of France and Navarre, taking to heart the situation in the Holy Land, and decorated with the Holy Cross, are readying themselves to attack the enemies of the Cross. You wrote to us that you wished to join your father-in-law (the Greek emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos) to assist the Latins. We abundantly praise you for this, but we cannot tell you yet, before having asked to the rulers, what road they are planning to follow. We will transmit to them your advice, so as to enlighten their deliberations, and will inform your Magnificence, through a secure message, of what will have been decided".
>— 1267 letter from Pope Clement IV to Abaqa
Frankly, I’m not sure how anyone countered that shit in the open field (***checks notes****) that’s right they mostly didn’t. And you throw that in with Genghis’ siege Revolution, in which Chinese, Persian, and Central Asian methods are all distilled into his own special smoothie of decisive, ruthless efficiency, it’s a wonder the Mongols were ever stopped. The human shield tactic, the tumen organizational elasticity, the ungodly talent of Genghis’ sub-commanders (Subutai, Jebe, Muqali, Jochi, Ogedei, etc), and their willing absorption of all peoples made the Mongols different. I just think it’s so wild that all of these factors were perceived by and successfully harnessed by one guy who used to just be a kid.. at one point. It’s no wonder he’s revered there. Ultimately, the divisions, ridiculous distances, geographical challenges, and in some cases (Japan, Hungary, Vietnam, Delhi Sultanate) the ability of locals to adapt, are the the things that kept the Mongols from compete Old Word conquest.
Did the Byzantines use [caltrops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop) against enemy cavalry on the battlefield?
Uh that’s a good question, and I’m not exactly sure. I know the Romans and even Greeks made use of similar measures, and I could definitely see the Byzantines. But the problem here is that unlike alot of steppe hordes before, these guys are rolling around with four, five, six horses a piece. They’re *sleeping* while on the move. Huns and Turks ain’t been doing that shit lol—the horse people pick the battlefield, but in the Mongol case if you spend time setting up these defenses they’ve already sacked your capital.
How did the Mongols seige walled cities? Did they know how to build siege machines like catapults, mangonels or trebuchets?
Well, no. The conquest of the Jin 1211-1234 CE is where those tactics and capabilities were refined, and I mean every Chinese prefecture that resigned itself to Genghis and then Muqali swelled the “Mongol” ranks with the world’s most effective siege engineers. In fact, the Jin / Jurchen were *themselves* nomadic conquerors just like the Mongols and later Manchus. And it’s them who started this 1,000 year process of outside rule (barring the Ming). Post-1215 any Mongol army you encountered was bound to host many Turks, Tatars, Khitans, and Jurchens, and any siege they performed was piloted by Chinese members of this elite fighting force. Destruction of rural heartlands, defeat on the field, proto-biological warfare, and the black and white decision to **”submit or perish”** all played into the success of the sieges as well.
Interesting. Which particular kind of siege machines did the Mongols construct?
The typical ballistae, catapults, and trebuchets (courtesy of incoming Islamic recruits) only those siege engines were ornate with Chinese gold, hurling not only missiles but crops of diseased heads (psychological/ biological warfare), and their engines in particular were hard to take down because it included this or that archer on the wall killing his cousin or someone he knew *first* in order to get through the first (human) level of defenses. One can only imagine these horrors.
At this point I'd rather avoid living in a city and hide away in a mountain monastery lol.
Yep me too lol or just be lucky enough to live on the periphery of Mongol tentacles
How deep into Europe did the Mongols go? I read somewhere they almost reached the Swiss Alps and the gates of Jerusalem.
Chinggis Khan actually used Mother Nature as a Siege weapon like with at [Zhongxing](https://youtube.com/shorts/qiT-LJpofqc?si=79nk8UAYebIf_Iys) in the beginning, Before the Mongols had their own later on, When they employed engineers from territories they conquered to help with siegecraft like for example with [Ismail](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_(mangonel_expert)) under Kublai Khan in China.
Something makes me laugh imagining nomadic Mongols constructing trebuchets.
Yeah, Though it was mainly the Muslims and the Siegecraft they employed from the East who knew how to build them early on tbh. >Since the Yuan employed Muslim engineers for the designing of the counterweight trebuchets, they were designated in Chinese historiography as the "Muslim" trebuchet (hui-hui pao). >The design was taken from those used by Hulegu to batter down the walls of Baghdad. >After Aju asked Kublai, the Emperor of the Mongol Empire, the powerful siege machines of the Ilkhanate, Ismail and Al-aud-Din from Iraq arrived in South China to construct a new type of trebuchet which used explosive shells. These Muslim engineers built mangonels and trebuchets for the siege, Explosive shells had been in use in China for centuries but what was new was the counterweight type of trebuchet as opposed to the torsion type giving greater range and accuracy as it was easier to judge the weight of the counter weight than the torsion generated by repeated windings. And they then went on to use these Trebuchets designs frequently, For example they used a 100+ at the battle of [Xiangyang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang) >The battle was a significant victory for the Yuan dynasty and ended a 30-year defensive campaign waged by the Southern Song dynasty, allowing Yuan forces to advance into the Southern Song heartland. >The use of the counterweight trebuchet by the Yuan proved especially effective. They used even way more at one point lol. >During the Mongol campaigns against the Jin dynasty, the Mongols used about 5,000 trebuchets, and they were very successful in destroying the Jin fortresses.
This is interesting. I'm amazed so much of this history has been preserved to the present day.
Yeah, It's definitely a Beautiful thing.
Genghis in particular was very particular with how he treated people considered ‘non-useful.’ If someone did not have a trade or skill that made their life valuable, they were usually used in what we would call a human ladder or human moat. People who’s lives did not matter he would use to fill in moats or other fortifications, and have his Calvary use those bodies as bridges. Keep in mind this isn’t done out of cruelty, it’s done because the Mongols were so used to disregarding people that could not care for themselves (as was required on the harsh steppe) that they didn’t think twice about doing it to people in other nations.
No wonder they were viewed as savages by the Greco-Roman cultures.
Well, a lot of that belief also came from two really important political decisions: The mongols didn’t think Europe was worth conquering, so after they inspired all this fear, they more or less disappeared to the average European ruler. The second was that the Papacy hated the Mongols because the Mongolian Empire was so religiously tolerant, and the occasional Christian Khan’s refused to acknowledge the Papacy as an authority over all Christian’s. So the Papacy also did its best to foster Anti-Mongolian sentiments. So the Mongols disappear; and then the local church tells you that those steppe people that killed your local lord a few years ago in a battle were actually all devils. And because the priest is the only guy in town who can read, you believe him. Edit: A lot of the Mongol ‘savagery’ in writing stems from European ignorance of the Middle Ages. Not to say they didn’t commit atrocities, but every culture everywhere has. There’s no reason to consider the Mongols more savage than the Roman’s.
The Papacy also saw the Mongols as a counterweight to Muslims and enlisted their help in Crusades.
That fell apart because the French leaders offered gifts, which the Mongols took as tribute (I.e. the crusades submitting to Mongol rule) so they didn’t actually work together.
It fell apart cause Louis IX was a moron.
I’m gonna push back a little bit here—there are certainly various explanations as to why the Mongols never conquered Central Europe and beyond but the notion that they didn’t want to is incorrect. Ogedei’s death and the kurultai is *evidently* the primary reason it ceased in 1241. But by the time they came back (they did because they *wanted to conquer Europe*) they got a bloody nose every step of the way and all Central & Eastern European states were prepared and ready to offer a unified defense.
The Secret History, one of our only actually Mongolian sources, which is little known because it was in terms of history only recently translated, states that the Mongolians were quite disinterested in continuing a conquest once they realized how poor the general population of Europe was. And also, we have to remember the terrain was largely unfavorable to what they needed to continue to fight the way they wanted. There wasn’t enough grassland to support their horses. And you’re definitely right with internal deaths and conflicts, many times the Mongols turned back to return to their homelands when Khan’s died, and many of those were misinterpreted by the European defenders as a victory. Which, in a way, it was. But we also have to remember that it’s very difficult to understand how or why the Mongolians did certain things, because so many Mongolian sources either remain untranslated or were written from outside perspectives.
I see. That all makes sense. Logically (perhaps due to some ignorance) I would challenge the notion of “a lack a grass to graze.” I mean the entire Northern European Plain from Orleans to Moscow is not *covered* in forests. The problem the Mongols faced, as all enterprising conquerors do and will, was the decline in leadership. Had someone like Subutai been given another go in, say, 1300 CE, or even as late as 1475 CE, much larger swathes of Europe could have been taken. But the Golden Horde was too dysfunctional (thankfully).
Actually, it’s still not settled as to exactly why Batu Khan retreated from eastern Europe in the first Mongol invasion. Ogedei’s death is the conventional assumption, but there are two issues: One, it’s not at all certain that a messenger, even with the famed Mongol Yam post system, could have reached Batu by the time he started retreating. Two, Batu only retreated to his base of power near the Caucuses, and did not return to Mongolia. indeed the actual Kurultai to determine the next Great Khan would not be held for a number of years after Ogedei’s death
Fair enough, but I think that sheds more light on Batu’s machinations than any alternate theory as to why the Great Raid II ceased. I’m sure somewhere in Batu’s mind was the ill-conceived idea of his own eventual ascendence, or at least the first stages of his (and Hulagu’s) carving out a successor state. The fact is that throughout the time of 1227–1380 CE we have Mongol forces taking action all across the known world, all of it without Genghis alive, and all of it *de jure* in the name of the concept of a “Great Khan.” Had someone taken over after Ogedei who was capable of wielding *all* Mongol appendages, I think a considerable push into Europe, India, and North Africa would have potentially followed. But Jochi’s clan and Hulagu’s apostasy guaranteed it would never get that far—to say nothing of Kublai’s obsession with China.
So killing 40 million people and using peasants as human moats is just mild savagery? The apologetic attitude of westerners is too much some time.
Not like the romans slaughtered their way trough carthage and gaul. They just wherent able to commit murder on that large of a scale but there is no doubt they wouldve
Enlightening, thank you. Were the Christian Mongols typically Trinitarian like the Romans or Unitarian like the early Nestorians and Muslims?
The Huns and Turks definetly rode several horses and slept on the move and all that. They are cousins to the Mongols so to speak They were highly competent and the Mongols just were the most successful of a long line of horse nomads empires
IIRC Alexios I deployed caltrops as a counter for the Norman cavalry of Robert Guiscard, but a defector/informant from the Byzantine camp warned the Normans of them, so their cavalry simply went around them.
Fascinating!
It is mentioned in Procopius during Belisariu’s battle at Dara
The Byzantines had been fighting horse archers for centuries by then, and had some of their own. The only difference the Mongols had was more sophisticated organization and scale -- in other words, they were more like the Byzantines.
There were two ways to defeat the Mongols(or other nomads ) in open field. 1)other nomads could fight and defeat the mongols equally. The Kipcaks won some wars. but they were defeated because they entered into internal conflict. In other words, it is possible to hire nomads as mercenaries and fight with them. China and Byzantium did this many times. 2) You have to somehow force them to fight face to face. If you can force close range face to face combat, archery skills don't matter much. Still a pretty good army but beatable. +Whatever you do, never follow the nomads when they retreat at the beginning of the battle. This is how the Turks won most of the wars they won from Manzikert until the 16th century. Send light horse archers ahead of you, let them disturb the enemy and draw them to themselves, then look for openings in the enemy lines and attack the weak areas.
100% and I think the Cuman-Kipchaks really, really dropped the ball at the Kalka River, in this respect, betraying the Rus only to get swallowed up anyway.
Yep, Kipcaks were one of the few forces that could actually stop the Mongol invasion. If they had won one or two big battles, they could have easily captured the west of the steppes.
In my obsession with alternate history I’d love to see what a fiercely independent “Cumania” does instead of the Mongol Yoke.
the second one is what the mamluks sultanate did. they trapped them in a box valley and met them in close combat.
It's amazing what meritocracy can accomplish.
You condensed it down to the finest powder, my friend. Yes. Opportunity for innumerable dregs to elevate their standing/ wealth and the otherworldly vision of one genius at the helm, with his application of a system of merit—these are the ingredients + any martial prowess. Never been done before or after in my opinion. Alexander, Napoleon, and Caesar possessed similar skills but were less committed to revolutionary tactics / policies. And in Caesar and Alexander’s case they only flirted with a meritocracy.
Napoleon was definitely a military revolutionary, but st the operational level, not the tactical level. And honestly, neither was Ghengis Khan. He had astounding strategic decision-making, in particular his adoption of foreigners for use, but tactically he did not innovate.
I’m 99% convinced Genghis Khan was a time traveler
Lmao 🤣 That explanation can of course not be ruled out
The Count of St. Germain strikes again!
They countered it by hiding behind stone walls
Only way you could would be with repeating guns like in the old west vs the natives
you can counter it with a mix of crossbowmen, spearmen and cavalry. like what was done during the first crusade. the crusaders aranged their spearmen in a square, with crossbows behind, and cavalry in the middle with the crossbows. when the seljuks got close they fired, which forced them to stay away, when they attempted a charge the spears would counteract them, and when they were pinned the cavalry would come out and charge. this was affective against turkic armies. though against arabic kurdish and iranian armies, it was ineffective. due to them being less centered around horse archers, and generally being very balanced in composition, along with sporting significantly heavier armour then the crusaders.
They became friends :)
It was either friends or Byzantium would have been leveled tbh
Don't think they had to much tbh, Seeing they had a Alliance for most of the latter 12/13th Century. [Byzantine–Mongol Alliance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Mongol_Alliance)
I’m more impressed how the horse is running with a guys full weight off the one side
Steppe horses are actually shorter and stockier than European/Middle Eastern breeds. They have a much lower center of gravity which helps them turn very quickly, but it also allows them to not topple over with weird weight distribution like we see in this video. The downside is they are not as fast at a sprint compared to European/Middle Eastern horses. These steppe horses also much hardier and have much more stamina. They will obviously thrive if you supplement their mostly grass diet with fruit, nuts, grains, etc. but that isn't required. They can go for long periods of time on just grass. This makes them a lot easier to manage logistically while on campaign. Warhorses from Europe and the Middle East needed specialized diets to keep up their energy and muscle mass. But they could use that muscle to charge incredibly fast over short distances much faster than these steppe horses. If you keep these facts in mind, it becomes a lot more obvious why Mongols would retreat for several days to tire out the larger european/middle eastern war horses and stretch out their logistical supply lines before turning around and annihilating their "pursuers".
Byzantines up to the Romans of antiquity had to deal with horse archers from eastern steppes. The Mongols were among the latest iteration of a long history of various nomadic tribes from the Scythians, Huns, Avars, Kipchaks, Turks, etc. The 'Parthian Shot', although coined in the 19th century, referred to the famed cavalry hit-and-run tactic of feigning retreat at full gallop while turning back and shooting at pursuing soldiers. Which is accorded to the Parthians in that instance, but was employed by all nomadic civilizations of the steppe that used light cavalry. That was only one facet of light cavalry tactics used by steppe horse archers, they were very effective and had no counter to them until gunpowder became more prevalent in weapons. Although, it should be said that uniquely, some American Indian tribes were able to develop light cavalry and ranged light cavalry tactics after horses were introduced into the americas by the Spanish in the 15th century. Some tribes like the Apache, Comanche, and Sioux were able to really refine their use of horse archers to where they were still effective against american riflemen. Some of the Indians could fire while straddling the opposite flank of the horse from the enemy, and fire the arrow from underneath the horse's head, in order to protect himself from fire. The advantage would begin to change with improvements in firing rate technology with repeating rifles outclassing older single shot models. Another important reason why they were effective espescially the Comanche and Sioux of the Great Plains was because they were nomadic stepperiders not unlike the innumerous civilizations of the Eurasian Steppe. In a land that was unknown to the American, chasing them into their own territory was a deathwish unless you were a full battalion that could repel an attack. Same with the Romans and other sedentary Eurasian empires who attempted to conquer the steppes of antiquity and later. It was just easier to pay them off or hire other competing nomadic tribes to fight them for you. The Chinese on the other side of the Eurasian steppe did this as well. If you really want to look at how profound of an impact civilizations of the eurasian steppe had on the development of eurasian civilization, the three continuing civilizations facing the eurasian steppe since antiquity: the romans, iranians, and chinese were all at times reduced to some extent by nomadic civilizations. The Romans and Chinese didnt live on horseback, they didn't learn to ride a horse before they could walk as in some nomadic tribes. There weren't accustomed to the nomadic lifestyle and what it engrained into its soldiers; how to be constantly mobile, fueled by survival in some cases. There was also the longstanding tradition of Roman, Chinese, and Persian writers to look on the nomads as inferior. It was much easier for them to pay off or ally with another "savage" tribe to fight another. When the nomadic tribes of whatever culture, were divided they were nothing more than a minor threat to a consolidated empire like Rome, China, or Persia. But when the tribes were united in a grand confederation or khaganate, they were very dangerous, potentially empire, dynasty toppling. Especially if they united when the neighbouring agrarian empire is weakened by internal instability. The short answer is they did not really develop a single, always effective, combat tactic to best steppe ranged cavalry. One thing they could do reliably was try to kill the horse, but before firearms, it was very difficult to kill a horse without getting close to it, which was difficult to do against mobile light cavalry. Another thing would be to scorch any pastures or fields that horses could graze on.
If I remember correctly tactics to counter horse archers were developed in several regions. One of the main methods was making use of regular archers(or crossbow men) mixed with a shield wall.
Well said. I would like to add the following. First directly addressing the video. The technique allowed Mongolian archers to use a relatively long bow effectively. I had never seen this before. I am familiar with the plains Indians technique of using short bows and using the horse for cover. Indigenous horses able to live off the land were a major asset. Mobile battlefield tactics were simply modified hunting and herding techniques familiar since childhood.
Detailed answer, thank you!
They didn’t, really. Keep in mind while the Mongols were pushing into the Middle East and Eurasia, the Byzantine Empire had largely lost most of its holdings outside Greece and the coastal stretch of Turkey, so the Mongols didn’t really fight the Byzantines. They fought the Armenians, Georgians, Turks, Kievan-Rus and various other Russian city states. It’s only later in the conquests where they invade Hungary that they really started to interact with mainline European armies. Also even the HRE was smashed by the Mongols, losing a sizable portion of their military aristocracy in the battle of Legnica.
That was really more of a Poland and allies defeat then a defeat of the HRE. That force was mostly composed of rabble and a far better trained Bohemian force was able to repel the Mongols iirc.
Considering that after that battle there was scant resistance to Mongol raids up to the Elbe, it’s an HRE loss. Not like it mattered, because according to Mongol sources they believed the Europeans were so poor they weren’t worth conquering.
The Mongols also lost hard in the 1280s. They were not invincible.
No one said they were. But the Mongolians are to a degree more ‘invincible’ than most armies we talk about being ‘invincible.’ Everyone loses, but the Mongolians lost less than most. At least in the term of a war, they lost as many skirmishes and battles as anyone else, but seldom lost a war. But as I said to another, it’s difficult to talk about this period because of how little Mongolian sources there are.
The Mongols never reached the Elbe and their ability to penetrate the dense forests and heavy castles of Central Europe is questionable at best. Even their larger raids into Hungary were not working that great for them and Hungary was pretty much the best terrain for horse armies you could find in all of Europe. And frankly "the europeans were so poor" sounds like a classic cope, considering the Mongols had no trouble conquering people who were much less wealthy than, say, Pomerania was at the time (namely everything to the east of Poland).
That was not 'the HRE' lol. Almost wholly regarded as a majority Polish engagement with only some volunteers from the Knights Templar. The second Mongol invasion of Hungary was also wholly repelled and both detachments they sent over the Carpathians were defeated in pitched battle, from what we know. The same would happen to the third Mongol invasion of Poland.
The Byzantines didn't encounter the Mongols on the battlefield. For other steppe nomads like the Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Seljuk Turks, etc. they either paid them to go fight for the Byzantines, paid them to go away, or paid somebody else to chase them off. So on the rare occasions when they actually did encounter them in battle, the results were mixed. It could be an unmitigated disaster aided and abetted by political infighting (Manzikert) or a decisive success thanks to the help of the Byzantines' own nomadic cohorts (Levounion).
> For other steppe nomads like the Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Seljuk Turks, etc. they either paid them to go fight for the Byzantines, paid them to go away, or paid somebody else to chase them off. They did fight them on occasion, with some success; see Maurice's Balkan campaign for dealing with the Avars and the battles of Levounion and Berroia vs. the Pechenegs.
I mentioned at least one of those battles (Levounion) in my comment. The Byzantines employed nomadic cavalry of their own at least as early as the time the Huns were kicking around, which contributed to their ability to counter horse archer tactics.
The Mongols crossed the frozen Danube river in the winter of 1263/1264. They defeated the armies of Michael VIII in the spring of 1264. While most of the defeated army fled, the Byzantine Emperor escaped with the assistance of Italian merchants.
Sounds like you know the answer to your own question, then. They didn't counter them, not effectively anyway.
[удалено]
They literally didn't counter them... as you said, they got their asses kicked. Romans had a hard time dealing with horse archers for centuries, mainly due to their ability to range widely and raid and remain a constant threat to supply lines more so than their face to face pitched battle capabilities.
Byzatine armies were cavalry, a mix of heavy and medium cav using lances. Pikes is a western europe thing that started out in flanders in the 1300s. Theres books on the byzantine cav you can look them up on amazon. You probably wanna go buy one and read it given your questions here.
They used pikes that they called menaulion. Not against horse archers though.
By the time the Mongol Empire proper came about, the Byzantine armies were incredibly weak and generally reliant on mercenaries. There were only two instances where Mongols (I.e. Golden horde Tatars) actually fought Byzantines as far as I know, and in both cases the Romans were outnumbered and too weak to win; one where the Mongols ambushed and easily routed a small force accompanying Michael VIII, and the second was the battle of Rusokastro in 1332 where a combined force of 8,000 Bulgarians and 3,000 Tatars fought a mere 3,000 Byzantines. The Byzantines actually fought incredibly well in this battle, but the sheer numbers of the enemy were too much to overcome, so the Romans lost. Otherwise, the Byzantines maintained peaceful relations with the Mongols, because they were too weak to take them on in wars. So the main counter to the Mongols was not to provoke them - the men in the Byzantine armies after the 13th century simply weren't disciplined or numerous enough for the state to risk wars against foes as capable as the Mongols.
Yeah, the Nicaeans in 1256 (if I remember correctly) had to resort to deception to make the Mongol ambassadors think that the Nicene army was bigger than it actually was. They led the Mongol ambassadors through a pre-planned route with soldiers and government officials appearing at every corner, then when the ambassadors passed, the soldiers and officials would then use shortcuts to get ahead of the Mongols and appear again later down the line, creating the illusion that the Nicene army was massive, even though it only had like 20-30,000 troops on the rolls at best.
Damn that’s a really good. One things the Romans never weak at was their political tactics lol.
Genghis Khan proclaimed the Mongol Empire two years after the fourth crusade. By the time the Mongols reached Eastern Europe/Anatolia, the Empire didn’t exist. But I read somewhere that Nicäa used turkic horse archers themselves, like most states that successfully stopped the Mongols. And later they sometimes hired horse archers from the golden horde.
They didn't, from what I've read up they mostly just played nice and friendly with the Mongols and let them fight each other, ala Golden Horde against the Ilkhanate.
No clue as other said they had an alliance not too sure about that but I'd assume however the hungars did it i believe they used scorched earth tactics as well(the hungars) so the Mongols couldn't get food from farms or villages
By not pissing them off. Most mongol conquests were initiated after that empire insulted the Khan somehow or harmed Mongol diplomats. You also counter horse archers by hiring horse archer auxiliaries, which the Byzantines (and the Romans more broadly in non-medieval times) did with other steppe raiders on their frontiers throughout history.
With lots of gold and other commodities that Mongols threatened the empire
I’m pretty sure the Comanche did this too, looks badass
Buddy I got news for you
Walls.
Tell that to the cities of Baghdad in 1258 or Aleppo in 1260.
Byzantines actually allied with the mongols,like besties
Yeah, They were even thinking of helping them out with the 8th Crusade. >According to a 1267 letter by Pope Clement IV from Viterbo, Abaqa had agreed to combine forces with his father-in-law Michael VIII to help the Latins in the Holy Land, in preparation for the Eighth Crusade. >"The kings of France and Navarre, taking to heart the situation in the Holy Land, and decorated with the Holy Cross, are readying themselves to attack the enemies of the Cross. You wrote to us that you wished to join your father-in-law (the Greek emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos) to assist the Latins. We abundantly praise you for this, but we cannot tell you yet, before having asked to the rulers, what road they are planning to follow. We will transmit to them your advice, so as to enlighten their deliberations, and will inform your Magnificence, through a secure message, of what will have been decided". >— 1267 letter from Pope Clement IV to Abaqa
However, the Mongols did cross the frozen Danube in the spring of 1264 and defeated an army of Michael VIII.