If Mongols were light horsemen how did they defeat heavy infantry?

[Ravenblade]

I was talking mostly about knights themselves, who almost never used bows in battle, whether on horse or on foot. Bows weres not considered to be knightly weapons. Hunting and shooting for sport were another thing entirely, though.

Knights actually made use of all weapons if needed. There was no "honourable" thing, this "honour" thing is usually stuff of legends, actual knights were actually more pragmatic than honourable. A lot people mistake devoutness and loyalty for honour but in reality they couldn't have been successful if their behaviour in combat was truly dictated by an honour code which may have existed in written form but that was one more piece of paper to ignore and there were rarely repercussions against knights who were particularly brutish.
Pope Innocent II issued a ban of ranged weapons against Christians which was not fully upheld though because knights were still reported to use it in various defensive campaigns and the battle of Grunwald saw many Teutonic knights fielding crossbows. The problem was rather technical, mounted knights - given the prevalent tactics used for them - were more effective in flanking and melee charges, it was only until 15th-16th century were tactics were changing and mounted crossbowmen became a thing.

[Devonitar]

Pretty much discipline, higher mobility, greater numbers, lifelong experience of survival and mounted combat, and a surprisingly good espionage.

The way I see it, the Mongol Horde countered undisciplined nature of feudal world of that time. Army of almost every nation back then was decentralized and hard to rise against such united and swift force. Wars in Europe and Middle East were waged slowly, with an ineffective levy system, and corrupted hierarchy.

[shrunken]

Especially if the monguls used bows.

which they did, exceptionally well.

[ParanoiD84]

Well they did have amazing generals to like Subutai

He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.[1] He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.

Now that boys are some crazy feats.

[Airlick]

So Mongols were famous for horse archery, mostly lightly armored and using their famous Mongol recurve bows. Can light cavalry be that effective against heavy infantry?

It's just the common lack of knowledge of Mongol military organisation that makes people believe they only had horse archers. Mongols had shock cavalry, which they did use to break the lines of enemies previously weakened by horse archers. They even did that to enemy heavy cavalry, which they would first bait with their archers. Mongols also used the inventions of all the nations they have conquered and used their troops as auxiliaries. For example, they couldn't beat Song China until they took Baghdad and Arab engineers with it, whom they used to build trebuchets that outranged those used by defenders of Xiangyang and Fancheng, two cities that blocked access to southern China. After they conquered China, they started using Chinese explosives and war gases in the west, as noted in, for example, the account of battle of Legnica. Then there was also the psychological factor, the troops were often completely demoralized by the fact they would be fighting the infamous Mongol devils. All in all, Mongols were so flexible that you really can't give all, or even most of the tribute for their military success to horse archers. It was a combination of many factors, horse archers were obviously important, but they wouldn't accomplish anything on their own.

[Nathreim]

Mongols never ran into heavily armored opponents like you found in western Europe. Most of their enemies used light armor of leather or if they were lucky scaled metal but never heavy plate.

You do know that's like complaining that heavy artillery almost never uses handguns right?

There was no "oh well we won't be doing that, it's not Knightly enough!" It was all "well, we don't train or use those and our bows are gigantic and can't properly be drawn while on horseback."

Knights didn't use guns cause they sucked at the time. A crossbow or longbow had far better accuracy and penetrating power. Guns for the longest time often couldn't pierce plate armor and they were way slower to reload.

It had nothing to do with being knightly.

[Kuntantee]

- Not everyone wore heavy armor
- Altaic composite bows were able to pierce heavy armor

[Kaleredar]

I was talking mostly about knights themselves, who almost never used bows in battle, whether on horse or on foot. Bows weres not considered to be knightly weapons. Hunting and shooting for sport were another thing entirely, though.

When you're in a war you're in it to win it, not be "knightly."

[Halyon]

Skill and strategy.

[Kuntantee]

Europeans did use horse archers and horse crossbowmen, they just did not form the bulk of the shock troops.

The pike square was a defense against heavy cavalry charges, not from archers. In fact, it made it easier for archers to hit the infantry....

Mounted Archery is unique to West-Mid/Central/South Asian nomads/civilizations. Huns brought the technique to Eastern Europe/Central Europe (Hungary) but no further. It seems that Europe did not adopt the technique.

[Airlick]

Mongols never ran into heavily armored opponents like you found in western Europe. Most of their enemies used light armor of leather or if they were lucky scaled metal but never heavy plate.

They also couldn't have ran into knights using plate armor in Europe, because Mongol Empire didn't exist (or was largely irrelevant anymore) by the time european knights started using plate armor. They still used mail armor at the time.

[Shibito]

Good question, been wondering myself.

Basicly the mongols was the best horsemen AND archers ever.

Actually the huns were better, especially unter Attila

[Kuntantee]

Actually the huns were better, especially unter Attila

Better in what way?

[Deleted]

So Mongols were famous for horse archery, mostly lightly armored and using their famous Mongol recurve bows. Can light cavalry be that effective against heavy infantry?











History shows Mongols were very difficult to defeat on the battlefield.

Even if the Mongols had bows, heavy infantry with their shields and armor was able to withstand arrows to a great extent.

Actually the huns were better, especially unter Attila

Better in what way?

Ive been reading a lot about it as its facinates me:

Genghis Khan is a conqurer, who wanted to conqurer whole China and surrounding areas(why Great Chinese Wall was built).
Attila is a raider against Romans(born 500 years later with different interest, but same warfare style).

Genghis Khan is a general with a military structure, like any other nation back then, when he unites the tribes like a politician as well. Atilla is a rebel/outlaw and less organized from start, picking up the pieces left from Genghis Khan(but would get as much power as Genghis Khan later on). The character Khal Drogo(from the series GoT), would clearly be inspired from Atilla.

What would had worked against the huns/mongols was 2-handed weapon wielders, who would could strike thier horses down, but they would simple get shot on sight.

Basicly mongols/hun had a very special bound with thier horse. While child, they would grow up, taking care of the horses. The horse had a very important role in their culture as well.

While being masters at riding, they had extremely skilled archers(basicly what they invested in). Even today, unless you are competing in Olympics, you can't have that kind of skills in archery(already tested in a youtube show). They were the cowboys back then and knights was kinda like the native americans, when it came to warfare(they always struggled to maintain a good defensive posistion).

So it was very difficult times for Romans and eastern countries.

Fun fact: the reason for why Centaurs in WoW looks like asians in thier face, is because of the inspiration of these times(where you have incarnation of a human/horse body, picturing the mindset of thier warriors). Always liked this detail.

[Kuntantee]

Ive been reading a lot about it as its facinates me:

Genghis Khan is a conqurer, who wanted to conqurer whole China and surrounding areas(why the chinese wall was built).
Attila is a raider against Romans(born 500 years later with different interest, but same warfare).

What would had worked against the huns/mongols was 2-handed weapon wielders, would could strike thier horse, but they would simple get shot on sight.

Basicly mongols/hun had a very special bound with thier horse. While child, they would grow up, taking care of the horses. The horse had a very important role in their culture.

While being masters at riding, they had extremely skilled archers(basicly what they invested in). Even today, unless you are competing in Olympics, you can't have that kind of skills in archery. They were the cowboys back then and knights was kinda like the native americans, when it came to warfare(they always struggle to maintain a good defensives posistion).

So it was very difficult times for Romans and eastern countries.

Fun fact: the reason for why Centaurs in WoW looks like asians in thier face, is because of the inspiration of these times.

The Great Wall of China was not built for Genghis Khan. First, it predates Genghis Khan for like a millennium or so and second the fortifications were done in early medieval period, which is again not the period Genghis Khan lived. There is a continuation of military culture in the region, from Scythians to Huns, then to Turks, then Mongols.

[Deleted]

The Great Wall of China was not built for Genghis Khan. First, it predates Genghis Khan for like a millennium or so and second the fortifications were done in early medieval period, which is again not the period Genghis Khan lived. There is a continuation of military culture in the region, from Scythians to Huns, then to Turks, then Mongols.

My bad, thanks for correcting.

[Deleted]

Where in the hell are you coming up with a source for this horse shit?

The reason european knights didn't use mounted bowmen was purely technological.

They couldn't make a short laminate recurve bow from horn, the mongols could.

Nope.
They could make the re-curve bows, its just that the Glue deteriorated in the damp - it lasted on the steppes.

[Deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yehuling

This battle is one of the bloodies in the mankind history, when the mongols invaded China.

Basicly the 300K(some sources say more than 500K)chinese army gets erased by the mongols(and they were not even capable of using horses), showing superior morale in warfare, but also against light infantry, as the chinese army didnt have the tradional roman/western heavier armor

- - - Updated - - -

Ironically, Genghis Khan falls from a horseback during his pension years and dies.

Graveyards of both Attila and Genghis Khan is still unknown.

[Tierbook]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yehuling

This battle is one of the bloodies in the mankind history

Basicly the 300K chinese army gets erased by the mongols(and they were not even capable of using horses), showing superior morale in warfare, but also against light infantary, as the chinese army didnt have the tradional roman/western heavier armor

- - - Updated - - -

Ironically, Genghis Khan falls from a horseback during his pension years and dies.

Graveyards of both Attila and Genghis Khan is still unknown.

Seems odd that the mongols weren't able to use cavalry there when it says they had about 100k heavy cavalry.


Not related to the huns/mongols but there is the Battle of Carrhae between Rome and Parthia, 40k Roman forces vs 10k parthians, Romans like 1000 times as many men as the Parthians. 30k to 38

[ParanoiD84]

Seems odd that the mongols weren't able to use cavalry there when it says they had about 100k heavy cavalry.


Not related to the huns/mongols but there is the Battle of Carrhae between Rome and Parthia, 40k Roman forces vs 10k parthians, Romans like 1000 times as many men as the Parthians. 30k to 38

Check put sulla vs pontus battles those kill ratios where insane, though thats what happens when a proffesional army faces a not so proffesional army.