Poll of the Day > Why did mongols stomped knights if Knights had better armor?

(+) Yeah! (+)

So every place I read says that Mongols were much better fighters and stomped European knights, but if the knights were also trained warriors and had better armos it's hard to believe mongols were that much better.


was there anything else?

Horse archers

DrChocolate posted...

So every place I read says that Mongols were much better fighters and stomped European knights, but if the knights were also trained warriors and had better armos it's hard to believe mongols were that much better.

was there anything else?

Better weapons, tactics, mobility and speed, battlefield experience...pretty much literally every other factor other than armor?
Even the armor advantage is questionable. Mongol composite bows were top weapons of their time and could (not 100%, but often enough for it to matter) punch through the knights' armor, or at least the barding of their steeds. At that point, the armor's just a plate of metal making it harder to get the arrow out from the wound. Meanwhile, Mongols had light armor, but wore silk underneath specifically because it wouldn't break from the point of an arrow, making it much easier to deal with injuries from enemy missile fire.

The Mongols weren't even the first prolific cavalry archers to WTF-PWN heavily armored mounted European warriors. Read about the Parthians and the "Parthian Shot" (later becoming "parting shot") and what they did to the Romans at Carrhae with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

That same tactic was bread and butter for the Mongols with their "feigned retreat" and the knights fell into the trap just as readily as the Romans before them.

streamofthesky posted...

Better weapons, tactics, mobility and speed, battlefield experience...pretty much literally every other factor other than armor?

Logistics too, which is often sorely underrated in what is required to win a war.

Better armour doesn't mean anything if your enemy just runs away from you and showers you with arrows until you die.
---

the armor slows you down. it also doesn't stop blades everywhere. their weapons were heavier too.
---

higher level
---

LtCommanderData posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Better weapons, tactics, mobility and speed, battlefield experience...pretty much literally every other factor other than armor?

Logistics too, which is often sorely underrated in what is required to win a war.

Yes, logistics were also a big advantage for the Mongols. They were also the first army to make major use of psychological warfare and spying. They'd intentionally let wild rumors that exaggerate their cruelty to those who opposed them spread in order to shake their enemies and get some groups to surrender without a fight or have some soldiers flee rather than fight.

It's hard to briefly summarize all the ways the Mongol army was just superior to anything else at the time, they really thought about every aspect of war and innovated it in some way. It's why Genghis Khan will always be the most impressive historical figure to me, when you combine all the civil and social reforms and advancements he also made for his people.

streamofthesky posted...

It's why Genghis Khan will always be the most impressive historical figure to me, when you combine all the civil and social reforms and advancements he also made for his people.

I'd put Napoleon above him honestly given the closer military parity of the time and the Napoleonic code.

Imagine you're on a horse, and you're a pretty big dude because you've been fighting all of your life in that armor, now imagine adding over a hundred pounds of weight on your body, then add multiple weapons to that. That horse is going to have to be massive in order to move at all.

Now imagine a dude in some leather with a bow and arrow who has been trained since birth to go on a horse, and would literally drink a horse blood-milk mixture (point being, they were pretty dependent on horses).

Go to the battlefield: knights can't charge on a horse for more than 20 minutes or so (no clue on actual distances) on a slow ass horse, the other guy, just rides away and shoots arrows.

genghis kahn still conquered the most of the world ever. idk why people think alexander the great did more.

genghis kahn would have taken japan too, but he used captured villagers to make his boats and they sabotaged them.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

genghis kahn would have taken japan too, but he used captured villagers to make his boats and they sabotaged them.

Oh, do you mean a typhoon that hit him?
Or the second typhoon that hit him when he tried again?

Speed + arrows that pierce armor > heavy plate

It's similar to how gunpowder basically made plate armor entirely obsolete in combat.


---

shadowsword87 posted...

Oh, do you mean a typhoon that hit him?

Or the second typhoon that hit him when he tried again?

You're confusing Genghis with Kublai Khan.

At least assuming you're referring to the Kamikaze.


---

Competent mounted archers roflstomp any infantry without cavalry support. The mobility differential allows them to circle out of the infantry's range, firing arrows with almost complete impunity. It's pre-gunpowder battle tactics 101.

The catch is that firing arrows from horseback is quite difficult, and takes a lot training (time+money investment). Infantry, on the other hand, just requires press ganging farmers and handing them pointy sticks. Just because the movies show thousands of dudes in heavy armor doesn't mean it was true. Only the rich dudes had armor, and they either hung at the back or died pretty quick.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Speed + arrows that pierce armor > heavy plate

It's similar to how gunpowder basically made plate armor entirely obsolete in combat.

I had always assumed it was simply the sheer volume of arrows that allowed for victory, not that it could penetrate plate. That is, if you fire 100 arrows per soldier, a few arrows are going to find gaps and many more are going to kill horses rendering them even more useless. Add to that that most soldiers in European armies were levies and not fully plated knights and its a recipe for disaster.

Admittedly I am not extremely well-versed in this subject. Is there historical evidence that the Mongol bow could punch clean through plate and the underlying gambeson? Even early guns had trouble doing that given that one of the tests of a good armor was to literally shoot it and display the dent as a mark of quality: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-rdfeP1gCp4k/T9USX79XvrI/AAAAAAAACiQ/HfNSlvJyd2U/s640/DSCN0894.JPG

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You're confusing Genghis with Kublai Khan.
At least assuming you're referring to the Kamikaze.

Probably.

Arrows can punch through armor, but it depends on a lot of factors. What kind of head is on the arrow? What angle does it hit the armor, and where on that armor? Arrows are dangerous because their mass is in a line. When the head hits and decelerates, the shaft behind it is still pushing, so it's like a double hit. But if the hit is at an angle, then the shaft isn't pushing straight to cause that penetration.
---

MasterGakke posted...

Infantry, on the other hand, just requires press ganging farmers and handing them pointy sticks.

Shitty infantry that will rout immediately requires that. Excellent heavy infantry, like Roman Legionaries, required significant training.

LtCommanderData posted...

MasterGakke posted...

Infantry, on the other hand, just requires press ganging farmers and handing them pointy sticks.

Shitty infantry that will rout immediately requires that. Excellent heavy infantry, like Roman Legionaries, required significant training.

There have only been a handful of societies in history to be able to field heavily trained armies like that, though. Most of the actors in military conflicts are terrified, untrained peasants only there because they'd be killed otherwise.

Plus, any society who can afford to field an army like that has cavalry, unless they're really dumb or in a very bad way logistically.
---

MasterGakke posted...

There have only been a handful of societies in history to be able to field heavily trained armies like that, though. Most of the actors in military conflicts are terrified, untrained peasants only there because they'd be killed otherwise.

That is mostly true, but it does not change what I said. I was not saying you were wrong about peasant levies being easy to train, just that there are levels of infantry and that is the lowest level.

MasterGakke posted...

Plus, any society who can afford to field an army like that has cavalry, unless they're really dumb or in a very bad way logistically.

The Romans, though, had comparatively shitty cavalry to their neighbors. That is why so much of their cavalry arm later on was composed of foreign auxiliaries. The Romans were heavy infantry men at the core.

Yeah, we're not disagreeing. I'm just bsing about stuff. The Romans were great about stealing the best parts of their conquered foes and integrating it into their love for short shields and big ass shields.
---

VeeVees posted...

higher level

lol

Krazy_Kirby posted...

genghis kahn still conquered the most of the world ever. idk why people think alexander the great did more.

Because Alexander dragged the Oracle of Delphi around by her hair until she declared him invincible.
You don't manhandle the mouth of god! Unless you're Alexander.
---

Actually, initially the Europeans struggled against the Mongols as they were using light armour and cavalry, being the 1200s this was chain, armour not well suited to protecting against arrows.

However when they changed tact and utilised Heavy cavalry the Mongol invasion was pretty much halted. they did not get that far into Europe though remember, they got as far as Poland (Still respectable though!)

Nothing beats mobility. Even if you have a small army, if you can flank and trap them, you will have a significant chance of winning
---

ha21nagamas posted...

Nothing beats mobility. Even if you have a small army, if you can flank and trap them, you will have a significant chance of winning

Apart from less mobile heavy cavalry though clearly.....

Another aspect worth noting about European armour at the time is that middle-ages metallurgy was kind of shit compared to what we know today. Their steel was of awful quality, so it tended to be weak and brittle - much easier to puncture with an arrow than the steel of today.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Another aspect worth noting about European armour at the time is that middle-ages metallurgy was kind of shit compared to what we know today. Their steel was of awful quality, so it tended to be weak and brittle - much easier to puncture with an arrow than the steel of today.

That and the real anti arrow protection rampped up around the 100 yr war. We Brits fucked up the French with our longbows.

Babbit55 posted...

However when they changed tact and utilised Heavy cavalry the Mongol invasion was pretty much halted. they did not get that far into Europe though remember, they got as far as Poland (Still respectable though!)

Over time, the Mongol hordes became less effective, if you want to look well past Genghis and Ogedai Khan. But for decades, the only thing saving European areas from the Mongols was sheer distance away and the Mongols withdrawing after a raid or death of the Khan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe#European_tactics_against_Mongols

The New Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 29 says that "Employed against the Mongol invaders of Europe, knightly warfare failed even more disastrously for the Poles at the Battle of Legnica and the Hungarians at the Battle of Mohi in 1241. Feudal Europe was saved from sharing the fate of China and Muscovy not by its tactical prowess but by the unexpected death of the Mongols' supreme ruler, Ögedei, and the subsequent eastward retreat of his armies."

Babbit55 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Another aspect worth noting about European armour at the time is that middle-ages metallurgy was kind of shit compared to what we know today. Their steel was of awful quality, so it tended to be weak and brittle - much easier to puncture with an arrow than the steel of today.

That and the real anti arrow protection rampped up around the 100 yr war. We Brits fucked up the French with our longbows.

More specifically, the bodkin arrow heads. But yes, the Battle of Agincourt was glorious (wide open, muddy fields helped, too).

when ghengis khan attacked europe, it was unlikely the entire continent could have feilded more than ~15-20000 knights

vs a mongol army that numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

Noop_Noop posted...

when ghengis khan attacked europe, it was unlikely the entire continent could have feilded more than ~15-20000 knights

vs a mongol army that numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

The Mongol army in that time was seldom that large, partly because they were waging wars on multiple fronts simultaneously, or at least leaving small forces to "maintain pressure" while focusing on one front before returning later.

Numbers wouldn't have mattered anyway, Genghis Khan was outnumbered in nearly every battle (and when he wasn't, it was usually a siege, where typically you need far more attackers than defenders to overtake a walled castle/city) and still rolfstomped.

Same reason the Dothraki curb stomped the Lannisters in GoT.

They were just that good.

gravy posted...

Same reason the Dothraki curb stomped the Lannisters in GoT.

They were just that good.

lol seems like a fair compariso n