posted 02-24-2002 02:42 AM               

After a quick analysis, it can be said the chronicler is clearly biased and cannot be trusted in every detail. He consistently exaggerates the Mongol numbers, isn't ready to acknowledge their tactical superiority (the Polish defeat at Liegnitz is attributed to sorcery), praises the Poles whenever possible but gives little credit to the rest, including the Hungarians and Germans.

All that said, his account of the Mongol campaign seems for the most part quite convincing, allowing for the personal bias, of course. I can't completely agree with your observations, though. While it's obvious that the Poles weren't quite equal to the Mongols, they were apparently able to organize some serious resistance. I've been surprised by the number of engagements in which the Mongols were either defeated or reportedly suffered heavy casualties. Chmielnik, Church of St. Andrew near Cracow, Duke Mieczyslaw's attack on an isolated Mongol contingent, even Liegnitz.

When studying primary sources, there is always a danger of reading too much into the text. Nevertheless, several passages have caught my attention because they might contain some valuable hints.

"These then waver and finally fall beneath the hail of arrows, like delicate heads of corn broken by hail-stones, for many of them are wearing no armour."

An interesting description of the effect of Mongol archery on the Polish infantry. The chronicler stresses their lack of armor. Better armed infantry could perhaps survive that hail of arrows without taking significant casualties.

"Now two Polish ranks are fighting three Tatar units; indeed, have overcome them, for the Polish crossbowmen protect them from the Tatar archers, but then someone from the Tatar ranks starts running hither and thither between the two armies shouting "Run, run!" to the Poles and encouragement to the Tatars. The Duke of Opole, thinking the shouts come from a friend, not an enemy, withdraws his men."

The effect of crossbowmen against the Mongol horse archers. It mirrors the situation in Outremer perfectly, which would support several arguments made by Marshal and myself in the previous posts.

"Then, impaling Prince Henry's head on a long lance, they approach the castle at Legnica ... and display it for those inside to see, calling upon them ... to open the gates. The defenders refuse, telling them that they have several other dukes, sons of good duke Henry, besides Henry."

This demonstrates that the Mongol strategy of indimidation didn't work particularly well in Europe.

Another very interesting piece of information is that at least some of the Mongol warriors apparently brought their families with them (see the treatment of prisoners after the battle of Pest).

As for the Mongols staying in Hungary for "almost two years", that is perhaps not as entirely off as one might think. The Mongols arrived to Hungary in 1241 and left the Balkans in 1242. That would make two years, not one, according to the Roman perception of time which medieval chroniclers readily adopted (or at least that's what my Latin teacher used to claim).

Regarding the geography issue, the Balkans are too varied to fall under one specific category. In Slavonia and much of northern Serbia low plains are prevalent. Central Serbia, Bosnia and large parts of Bulgaria are hilly and heavily wooded. Istria and Dalmatia are characterized by dry, broken terrain and relatively low limestone plateaus (the Dinaric Alps). Montenegro, Kosovo and most of Albania and Greece (Pindus) are similar to the Dinaric alps but mountain peaks can reach much higher altitudes, up to 2500m, sometimes more.

The Alps on the other hand are very different. Elevation can reach all the way to 4500m. Communication routes are very few and far between, limited to a small number of mountain passes. Control of these passes was of critical importance to medieval soldiers and merchants alike. Many mountain passes could be safely crossed only in summer because they were snowed in other times of the year. Mountain slopes are for the most part very steep and heavily wooded up to 2000m. Traffic is generally only possible along the valley floors, which are again perfect places for an ambush. Incidentally, the place where the Balkans meet the Alps is Slovenia, my homeland.

The Balkans are not easily passable - far from that. The combination of hills, mountains, woods and the hot, dry climate near the Adriatic and Mediterannean coast are a serious obstacle to any army, particularly if as reliant on horses as the Mongols. However, the Alps are without doubt an even more difficult region when it comes to conducting military operations.

Your last observation is completely valid, yet Hungary was obviously an exception. Its field army was destroyed and the king fled. One would expect a complete collapse. Yet exactly the opposite happened - the remaining Hungarian fortresses refused to surrender and kept on fighting.

posted 02-26-2002 07:22 AM            

about Hungarian chronicles: are you aware of Thomas of Spalato? I ran into his work in http://www.arts.uwo.ca/florilegium/volumes/vol2/sweeney.html . Could be interesting.

Another thing - does anyone have any reliable source on the participation of the Teutonic Knights in the battle of Liegnitz? In the literature it's pretty much an established fact that there was a German contingent and that it was led by Poppo von Osterna, but there are some who don't buy this. Myself, I don't have enough info either way to say anything.

Cheers,
Ango

posted 02-26-2002 08:39 PM               

I will trade you one link for another. If you look up my last post, Jan Dlugosz's "Annals" do indicate the presence of the Teutonic knights in the army at Liegnitz. The paper you found is quite interesting; I wonder if the relevant text of Thomas of Spalato is available anywhere? The summary of the narrative in the appendix is intriguing, as Thomas's idea of the battle of Mohi seems to differ somewhat from other:

quote:

---

C. Battle of Mohi [11 April 1241] (ch 36)
1. King Bela in pursuit of retreating army made camp on the banks of the Sajo near Mohi while the Mongolian army was partly concealed in the woods.
2. Batu ascended a nearby hill.
3. Batu made a speech to his men.
4. The Mongolian army made an unsuccessful night attack on bridge over the Sajo.
5. Using siege engines at dawn, Mongols took control of the bridge.
6. Mongols surrounded the Hungarian camp.
7. Valiant defense efforts of three Hungarian leadeers failed.
8. Hungarian camp was overwhelmed.
9. Mongols opened ranks to permit Hungarians to flee.
10. Fleeing army hemmed in by Mongols who massacred stragglers.
11. Remnantof fleeing army perished in marsh.

---

Sweeney's paper (see Ango's post) also points out some comments made by Thomas of Spalato and Carpini about the Mongol equipment:

quote:

---

The Mongols, however, were also skilled warriors whose abilities Thomas respected. He declares, “There are no poeple in the world that have such skill in warfare, that know so well how best in the struggle on the battlefield--whether by strength or by cunning--to fight and vanquish the enemy.” He describes their armour as “made from layers of bull’s hide, usually thick, impenetrable and very secure.” Other western writers, John of Plano Carpini for example, make similar observations.28

Thomas describes the Mongols’helmets, swords, knives, and bows, and shows a particular interest in their arrows.
One suspects that his description is based upon personal examination:

Their arrows are four digits longer than ours, and arrowheads of iron, bone, and horn have been seen. The slit ends of their arrows have been so tightly wound that they rarely accept our bowstrings.29

In passages describing military engagements Thomas frequently attributes a decisive role to the Mongol bowman and his arrows. The first approach to Pest was accompanied by “a hail of arrows”. Several showers of arrows fell upon th defenders at Mohi, as well as upon the fleeing survivors of that battle. About the siege of Pest he writes, “The deadly arrows of Tartars, unfailingly piercing, brought certain daeth. Indeed there was no breastplate, shield, or hauberk which was not penetrated by the blow delivered by the Tartar hand.”30

John of Plano Carpini also commented upon these arrows, three full quivers of which were carried by every Mongol horseman.31

---

These comments raise the question of whether the typical Mongol horseman was truly the equivalent of the light horsemen the Crusaders faced in Outremer, or were the Mongols more armored, and possibly had more effective bows and arrows?

I believe Tomaz is correct, that the Mongols in the Balkans didn't move through the southern, most difficult portion of that region. This fellow Thomas indicates they got as far as Split, though.

Thanks, Tomaz, for the notion of two "numerical" years of Tatar occupation of Hungary. I wasn't aware of that way of counting.

posted 02-27-2002 05:47 AM            

the reason I raised the question of Teutonic knights in Liegnitz is an old discussion I found from the archives of a Usenet newsgroup. Someone claimed there that it is not certain whether the local chronicles talk about the Teutonic (Germanic) Order or German knights in general. The wording may not differ that much, and this is something that might escape the translator's attention. But again, I don't have any first-hand information about this, I'm just throwing the stuff in the air.

posted 02-27-2002 11:40 AM               

I find the passage regarding the merits of the Mongol bow equally intriguing. As with any other such source, it's very difficult to draw a clear line between fact and fabrication without a careful cross-examination of all the sources available. One important fact to consider is that Thomas of Spalato was not a soldier nor did he witness the great battles in Hungary himself.

We do know that the composite bow used in the Middle East was ineffective against mail. A number of detailed accounts of combat in Outremer confirm that; many of those accounts were written by men with more experience in military matters than Thomas of Spalato. There is little reason to think that the Mongol bow was much different. If anything, archaeological evidence suggests the bows used by the Mongols were similar in design, but of an inferior quality so that many horsemen reportedly carried several bows into battle as a contingency measure.

Another equally critical factor are the arrows, heavier ones being better suited to penetrating armor, albeit with reduced range. It's clear that the Mongol arrows differed a good deal from those used in Europe. However, all evidence seems to suggest that the Mongols used basically the same arrow types as all the other steppe nomads, Turks included.

The quality of arrowheads themselves might be of some importance, but I wonder if the Mongol ones were indeed made of such superior materials. Thomas of Spalato apparently has to say that: "Their arrows are four digits longer than ours, and arrowheads of iron, bone, and horn have been seen." Archaeological finds seem to confirm that. Now, a nation that was using bone and horn for arrowheads in the 13th c. can't have been particularly technologically advanced. The state of metalworking is also important. The Mongols were not renowned for it and it's doubtful if they were actually capable of making high-end steel. Now, even an arrowhead made of the worst iron can be honed to a very sharp edge (holding it is of course another matter). But I haven't seen any evidence this far confirming that the Mongol arrowheads were indeed so superior to the ones used elsewhere. In any case, the sharpness of the arrowhead is largely irrelevant for armor penetration. What really matters is the weight of the arrow and its kinetic energy on impact.

These facts considered, Thomas of Spalato may have overstated the efficiency of the Mongol bow. It's easy to imagine how deadly it was against bodies of lightlly armored men. However, the image of Mongol arrows going through hauberks like a hot knife through butter is in my opinion suspect.

It's a well known fact that the Mongols reached Split on their way. Split is conveniently located in central Dalmatia, which is still a long way from the difficult mountain ranges of the southern Balkans (Montenegro, Albania, Greece)...

posted 03-02-2002 01:13 AM               

I don't know if these have been mentioned yet, but what the heck:

The Mameluke army that defeated the Mongols highly outnumbered them; part of the Mongol army had left, it was really just a scounting force.

The reason Eastern Europe was the invaded the most was because it is in the EAST! (duh!) Also, they had already dealt with Asian nomads before, they had experience but still failed.

There's a HUGE thread at a different forum, but I suggest reading the posts made by "_BlackRider_" and "Doug Thompson," _BlackRider_ by far knows the most about the subject, an expert so to say. I think Doug started out "pro-europe" but reason/learning got the better of him.

Mongols in Europe

I LOVE Medieval warfare, lifestyles, etc. but you can't ignore the facts (or presidents in this case). I'd have to go with the Mongols, but this is way to hypothetical to have a concrete answer.

------------------
tHe fReAk
Empire Earth Oracle Staff
It was the cats, I swear!
Zone Name: AOKB_tHe_fReAk

[This message has been edited by tHe fReAk (edited 03-02-2002).]

posted 03-02-2002 08:33 PM               

Thanks guys.

posted 03-03-2002 04:34 AM               

Since the Mongols were so fond of archery, it seems reasonable that they devoted more time to making arrowheads than the Europeans. But this alone doesn't mean much. What about the quality of the metal itself? So far, most experts seem to suggest that the Mongol metallurgy was generally inferior to that known in Europe and some regions of the Middle East. Availability of good iron ore might also be an issue.

Carpini was an excellent observer. His report is lucid and very well written. However, Carpini was not a fighting man as he himself acknowledged. Nor did he necessarily have any direct experience with the power of the Mongol bow against the European armor of the day. He says the Mongols hardened their arrowheads by quenching them in saltwater and suggests the Europeans to follow that same practice. He also proposes wearing two layers of armor for better protection against arrows. However, this is still far from conclusive evidence that the Mongol bow (and arrow) was indeed able to pierce mail easily.

If we're already into Carpini, let's throw in a couple of fresh thoughts related to his account...

- The real goal of Batu's raid may not have been reconaissance at all as it is now commonly assumed. The Mongols apparently intended to conquer new territories in Europe, not just raid them. They themselves thought the raid of 1241/2 was a failure and wanted to repeat their attack again, striking Poland and Hungary in the first wave just like in 1241. It may have been more bravado than real military power, though, for the second expedition never took place.

- Despite the arrogant tone with which the Khans addressed the Western rulers, the Mongols did not really perceive the Europeans as such inferior soldiers. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, they felt Batu's raid had fallen way short of the objective. And they had grown to respect the qualities of the contemporary European armies, particularly the crossbow, which was much feared. All speculations on the quality of arrowheads aside, it's quite clear that the crossbow in its standard mid-13th c. configuration was well able to defeat the best Mongol armor of the day and was thus a highly effective weapon against them.

Alex - It depends on what is available to you. What can you find in your libraries? Or are you thinking about buying the books online?

posted 03-06-2002 07:46 AM               

Of these, the first chapter is the longest by far and much of it concentrates on the battle of Mohi. The entire description of the battle is highly detailed and covers almost 6 pages. It's clear that Thomas of Spalato compiled a good deal of information about it even though he did not witness the events in Hungary personally. His account seems reliable, based on well-researched reports of multiple witnesses.

The entire text regarding the Mongols is very interesting and well worth further study. Due to time constraints I'll only try to give a brief but reasonably accurate summary of the battle of Mohi as described by Thomas plus a few intriguing observations. [Note: the spelling of Hungarian names might be off.]

In the beginning, Thomas describes the situation in Hungary before the Mongol raid. The Hungarians reportedly didn't take the Mongol threat seriously. Instead of preparing for war, the majority foolishly neglected serious preparations.

King Bela was similarly slow to react. When the threat finally became too clear to be ignored, he ordered large forests to be cut down and obstacles be made out of the wood to hamper any advance from the north. Then he summoned his men. The two major leaders were archbishops Matthew and Hugrin; Bela's brother Koloman also played an important role. The assembly was a fiasco, though, as there were several major fractions, each proposing a different strategy. Suddenly the news arrived that the Mongols were rapidly approaching the country, so the king took his army to intercept the invaders.

The Mongols had 40.000 (!?) workers equipped with axes who quickly cut their way through the obstacles previously created according to Bela's order. When the two armies met, several probing attacks took place. The Mongols were reluctant to commit themselves to the fighting. Bela was convinced of his superiority and decided to attack. The Mongols crossed the river Sajo over a bridge and encamped themselves partly hidden in a forest. The Hungarians camped on the other side of the river. They fortified the position with stakes and shields and pitched tents very closely to each other for greater safety, which made movement difficult.

Batu allegedly observed that from a nearby hill with great satisfaction, saying that the enemy troops, even though superior in numbers, were like a herd without a shepherd. The Mongols prepared for a night attack over the bridge, but some spies informed the Hungarians about the plan. Koloman and Hugrin gathered their troops and attacked as night fell. A chaotic struggle ensued on the bridge as a Mongol contingent, trying to quietly cross the bridge, was taken completely by surprise. Many Mongols were killed, even more drowned in the river. The Hungarians secured the bridge and celebrated victory back in their camp.

The Mongols made seven catapults and used them to recapture the lightly guarded bridge. Then some of them crossed the river over the bridge, some forded it. At sunrise, the Mongols launched an attack on the Hungarian camp. The Hungarians did not respond immediately as one would expect. Instead of getting armed right away, many of them carelessly wasted time washing themselves, combing their hair and doing other such daily chores. Koloman, Hugrin and the Templar leader (there was apparently a contingent of Templar knights) quickly gathered their men and launched an immediate counterattack in a single formation.

However, as they were badly outnumbered (the majority of the Hungarian force still being back in the camp), they were driven back to the camp. Hugrin made a speech, criticizing the king (in this instance I think Thomas is referring to Koloman, not Bela) and the other noblemen, accusing them of cowardice and laziness. Rallying the men, Hugrin, Koloman and the Templar leader launched another attack, this time much more effectively. A fierce battle ensued in which both sides took heavy casualties. Eventually, Koloman and Hugrin had to retreat, badly wounded. The Templars fought to the last man and many Hungarians lost their lives. On the "second hour of the day" (meaning two hours after the battle broke out at dawn) the entire Mongol army surrounded the Hungarian camp. Firewood was piled all around the camp and set on fire to subdue the Hungarians. These panicked and their battle order collapsed. Unable to maneuver inside the camp, the Hungarians fell easy prey to Mongol arrows and javelins.

posted 03-11-2002 10:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tirtan:
i think i'm going to side with the asians here... they had many more troops and they were all (not including the barbarian tribes and such... i mean, like imperial armies) trained in some kind of martial art in those camps. so, the result is en masse blenders. many asian armies would be able to survive a cavalry charge with the simple use of polearms. they just use them as the europeans used them, but they could also use them for classic melee. only, they did not use them to really keep their opponent(s) away from them, they used them in close combat. swinging them side to side and and such with their fancy moves. they're samurai, as well, would be very talented as they basically, devoted their life to practice and discipline. i have read that the many of the soldiers in europe were fat and unhealthy, but could take a lot of hits.
the asian armor was meant to be light and very manueverable (i spelled that wrong) so that they're offense was very affective. European armor was mostly designed for the maximum protection with the most manuevablility (also spelled wrong i think) possible. this caused them to be slower. overall, i think the asian armies were the superior.

---

posted 03-11-2002 10:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tomaz:

Since the Mongols were so fond of archery, it seems reasonable that they devoted more time to making arrowheads than the Europeans. But this alone doesn't mean much. What about the quality of the metal itself? So far, most experts seem to suggest that the Mongol metallurgy was generally inferior to that known in Europe and some regions of the Middle East. Availability of good iron ore might also be an issue.

[This message has been edited by Tomaz (edited 03-03-2002).]

---

posted 04-13-2002 08:29 PM               

Armies wise, well mongols were a nomadic warrior race, they all had to fight, opposed to small numbers of porffesional soldiers in the west. They avoided open battle and preffered to skirmish with horse archers. Thats one area the aisans had over the west, lots of excellent horse archers. hypothetically though, if there were longbows in the west then they would have not been able to use this tactic against a weapon with far more range power and accuracy. Just my two cents.

posted 04-14-2002 04:31 AM               

Hmm.

"But isnt the real question how a top european knight would stand up to the japanese samurai on foot?"

No, I think it's not. And it really doesn't belong here. We're all sick of that Japan vs. Europe debate anyway.

posted 04-17-2002 10:54 AM               

What I'm truly sick of is high school aged, pimply-faced, gothy-punk Dungeons and Dragons geeks coming up to me at public demos and loudly proclaiming to everyone within earshot that they have a katana at home that would 'go right through that armour like a hot knife through butter'. For the record, I fight in the SCA in a nice 15th century Milanese full-plate harness from Tom Justus. I'd play in something other than the SCA if it weren't the only game in town.

The western world has been hoodwinked by Bruce Lee, Sho Kosugi, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and most strip-mall martial arts dojo instructors, just to name a few. We've been suckered into believing that everything our ancestors produced in Europe was crap compared to something some other culture had elsewhere, especially when it comes to close combat. Our college students chant that "Western Civ has got to go!" on campuses in the U.S. I'm sick of _that_.

I say, bring on the knight vs. samurai topic. I want more of it. If someone wants to knock the vaunted east down a little bit and boost the west's flagging morale, I'm all for it. Turnabout is fair play.

In my opinion, the knight would win at least nine times out of ten. He'd eat the samurai alive. I don't care what period the each fighter comes from. The samurai's equipment didn't really change appreciably until the arrival of the Europeans with their guns. If the knight is from an earlier period, then the samurai has the knight's shield to contend with. In any period, but especially the later periods, the knight's armour, IMO, exceeds that of the samurai in protective capability. At no point in history did the samurai have anything whatsoever on the knight. Not training, not weaponry, and certainly not armour.

It seems to me that we tiptoe around this topic just to avoid hurting the feelings of the practitioners of Asian martial arts. Why? They and their allies in Hollywood have dragged our traditions through the mud.

posted 04-17-2002 11:01 AM               

I wrote the above post in anger and haste. I had just gotten through talking to my neighbor, who is heavily into the Asian martial arts. He frustrates me with his closed-mindedness toward European culture everytime I speak with him. He thinks 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' was a good book. The above post reflects my fury and consternation.