posted 06-19-2001 06:51 PM               

Personnelly, I believe that if these 2 civilasation had been in contact the Europeans would have had the upper hand:

Who can resit a 20000 heavily armored knight charge???

I mean if we look in general, the europeans had much better armor and had more. Teyr swords , though not as sharp as the japanese were much harder and heavier which is an advantage when dealing with an armored foe.

Besides the europeans also seemed to be better at making fortifacation like "stone" castles.

posted 06-19-2001 07:50 PM            

This is an old question with no satisfactory answer, simply because with a very few exceptions, there's no historical evidence for either side to base opinions. Frequently it just leads to a tiresome "Yes they could / No they couldn't".

As someone thoroughly weary of hearing Asian martial arts praised (mostly because the praise is usually emphasised by derogatory comparisons to their "crude" European equivalents) I'd love to say, "Sure, armoured knights would pound those samurai (or whatever) right into the dirt.

However...

It didn't work out that way. In the one occasion when an Asian "civilization" (I use the word loosely: they were the Mongols under Subotai) met the medieval West, it was the Europeans who got hammered. Though the Mongols pulled back after the death of KhaKhan Ogotai, they were sufficiently well entrenched to remain in European Russia (the Khanate of the Golden Horde, better known to Russians as "the Mongol yoke") for nearly three centuries.

(As for who can resist a charge of heavily armoured knights, well, the English at Crecy, for one...)

European swords weren't heavier than Japanese ones, in fact they were sometimes lighter. But I definitely think that any samurai meeting a European knight wearing Augsburg or Milan full plate harness, and trained in the fighting techniques of Dei Liberi or Talhoffer, would probably not survive the encounter. The next samurai, who'd seen these techniques in action, would probably be much harder to beat - but I'd be interested to see the result of a test delivering a full-force half-sword thrust (with something like an Oakeshott type XVa) against a Japanese lamellar cuirass...

As for castles, Japan has some beauties: White Heron Castle is superb, both in appearance and as a fortification.

posted 06-20-2001 06:55 AM               

First of all, the mongols were kind of unique in Asia by their people and military tactics. They relied on huge armies of cavalry archers and light cavalry to attack their ennemies and retreat and reengage and so on. This wasn't typical of the Asian armies of the time which were more oriented towards heavy infantry. Besides the horde had conquered most of continental asia before arriving to Europe so we can argueably say that it was the best asian army of the time (which cannot be said âbout their Europeans ennemies).
When they arrived in eastern Europe they encountered divided russian kingdoms or unorganized bands of cosacks in Ukraine, Nothing that could be a real threat to the swarming horde both in numbers and in quality.
Besides we must look in what kind of environement the mongols fought and were used to fight: Large plains (or steppes in eastern Europe).
Their militray tactics weren't well suited for the woodlands of western europe (Europe was MUCH more wooded at these times than now) where their horse archers wouldn't be of much use. Plus the horde wasn't an army well prepared at taking fortifications like castles and Europe had a lot of them. Even without taking those facts into account I believe that in large fields the best way to counter the mongols horse archers and light cavalry is to have troops quick enough so that the cavalry archers don't have time to retreat or to somehow encircle them and the most capable warriors for doing that are knights!
And as when you say that the mongols won when they encountered western europeans. It might be true for some small encounters but it hasn't been always like this: When the Hun wo where similar came to Europe they got cumed during a battle near actual Paris (I forgot the name it was somrthing like the catalonic fields.?..) by German barbarians allied to a roman army which was only the shadow of what it had been. I also recall (though theses weren't Europeans) that a Mameluke army destroyed thr mongols in egypt.

As for the rest of the Asians I think that all of their foot infantry (and they had alot of them) would be obsolete vs Europeans for the same reasons they were in Europe untill the appearence of the Swiss phalanx.To speak about their fortificatons I 'd say its true they had "some" great castles however they didn't have as many and most o^f them weren't completely stone built which means they could easily be put on fire.

posted 06-21-2001 09:49 AM               

You have said 4/5 I wanted to say.

At Liegnitz If Iremember right where knights from france involved.

the teutonic Order had also knights send to the army.

The mongols had been outnumbered but have better tactics and commanders.
(If i remember a not about doubt ressource right)

Barb

Climate

A German Emperor(Staufer dynastie) "I fear only gods wrath and italys burning sky"

In the heavy european plate through india,
Thailand, Persia,

Most asian Nations could number mo´re troops due to better organisation and administration,
China, Japan.

The mongols were tactical and strategical very flexible,

The Quetion comes down for me to this

Climate and terrain in jungle and swamp hevy plate wouldn`t do you much good

Moral and discipline,

their leaders

charge of 2000 knights

any heavy welldiciplined infantery

This are opinions from me, not with the best research i fear

posted 06-21-2001 10:32 AM               

Also, the earlier Turks were renowned enemies of both the Byzantines and the Franks. They did some amazing damage at the start of the First Crusade against Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless' force. Then they fell apart against the knights of Godfrey and Bohemund. The Turks ultimately went on to become Europe's main enemies for centuries after, and they usually won too when they bothered to keep discipline in the ranks (and keep the sultans from murdering each other...)

posted 07-29-2001 01:47 AM               

There are to many ifs and maybe's here. A large, disciplined and well equiped force from pretty well anywhere in Western Europe in the very late Middle Ages would have fairly well obliterated anything in their path.

At least until they hit a change in climate. If I remmber correctly people dropped from heat exhaustion at Tewesksbury even though it was snowing. I know for a fact a knight in full plate can (and one almost did) die from heat exhaustion before even coming to blows in the middle of a Queensland summer. At Abbey Fayre some years ago I had to drag a friend from the field after he succumbed to heat even through he was only wearing a vest of lamellar armour.

As for earlier Europeans they lacked the organisation, discipline and manpower to deal with a major invasion of any sort. Even a boatload of Vikings presents major problems. It says something that the Vikings were never attacked in return. I know nothing of Asian armies at the time but as has been noticed elsewhere European infantry were not up to the task.

I think debates like this are interesting but ultimately futile. People believe what they want becasue it suits them. No one practising Kendo will ever admit to practicing a hopelessly inferior art which would have seen it's prior adherents slaughtered in large numbers by Talhoffers students or vice versa. If we could redefine it to something like Japanese vs European at around 1350 we would have a lively and probably very informative debate.

posted 08-09-2001 11:00 AM               

As for the Mongol army itself, I am sure that if they encountered an Organized west European army in Europe they would have been butchered like never before.

Why?

First of all at the time Northern Europe had woods everywhere (that is also a reason why missle warfare had never been a good business in Europe compared to the rest of the world) which prevented some large movement something the mongols desperetly needed. In Europe Cavlary was the dominant weapon and it is there that it reeached its quality peak (fully armored kights) so the hit and run tactic of the mongols which is desined to work agaisnt a much slower adversary wouldn't work well if at all. And at last Armor in Europe was much harder and complete than anywhere else so the European knights would have been virtually immune to the mongols arrows . Its needless to say that any mongol light cavalry wouldn't stand a chance vs armored knights.

posted 08-09-2001 11:44 AM               

A mighty huge if I think. Chances are probably better that some of the European nobility would have seen the chance to put one over on their neighbors and joined the invaders or at least attacked their neighbors at the same time rather then presenting a united front to the Mongols.

I guess we can come up with hypotheticals and what our "beliefs" are on this question all day long. However the fact of the matter seems to be that the few times that the Mongols did run into the Europeans it was the Europeans that lost.

Hey I don't like it either.

posted 08-09-2001 12:23 PM            

(Personal note: including that information about Nevskiy and the Mongols in The Golden Horde cost me a book sale: the Russian publisher decided not to take the third book of the Prince Ivan trilogy because that bit of history still raises welts. About as popular as pointing out to Ian Paisley that William III's 1689-90 campaign in Ireland had papal approval... Ho hum.)

posted 08-09-2001 02:55 PM               

I don't think your theory is correct: the Mongols had a very bad reputation and were not christian. exept a few cases Europeans didn't use to ally themselves with non christians to beat christian. `Besides they likely would have seen the danger that the mongols were to all of them and would have united.

Actually we can to an extent draw a line between the Ottomans and the Mongols Both were different cultures and ennemies of the Europeans. So lets look at what happened with the Turks:
They (too) beated large east European armies (and more) which if we follow your theory means they are superior militarly to all Europeans. BUT when they reached Vienna they encountered an army made up of UNITED west europeans that teared them apart.
So here we have an probable example of what would have happened to the Mongols had they come to close to us. And the European did unite.

Now, that doesn't mean it's sure they'd win 100% but I think it makes it obvious that they would more likely would have united therfore won for the reasons I mentioned before.
Actually, correct me if I wrong but didn't the Turks use lots of horse archer like Mongols ?!

//guess we can come up with hypotheticals and what our "beliefs" are on this question all day long. However the fact of the matter seems to be that the few times that the Mongols did run into the Europeans it was the Europeans that lost. //

Wrong !!
As I have already said the Hun who were very much alike did come to Europe before and were succesful until they met a roman army allied with Germanic barbarians near Paris. This army was nothing to compare with what Rome had had before (this was during the 5th century) but they still managed to beat them.

One of the mistakes you also do is to compare eastern slav/Orthodox Europe with western Roman christian one , though they were simlar they were some great differences between the two.

posted 08-09-2001 03:09 PM               

And frankly I find very hard to believe you when you say Japaneses castles were better.
I mean one only needs to look at a good European castle and compare with an Asian one to see wich ones the best. Typically, on one side you have a castle completely made of stones with maybe a first 20 meters wall with many round tours (don't know if you write it like that)stratigically positioned surrounded with a small river and a retractable bridge over it, then a second 25 meters wall also with towers and many holes in the them to shoot at the ennemy and finnally a huge tower in the center dominating all this. On the other side you might have at best a big square tower with only the bottom made out of stone and the rest of wood (which means this tower can easily be turned into a temporary light house) and "sometimes" a 10 meters wall around it .
------
What did you mean wit 20 m wall?
I think you overstimate the number of towers an european castle had.
Many castles would be full or partwise constructed from wood.
By the hungarian attack at augsburg Bishop ulric let the citizen build palsisades to defend the city.IIRC
------
As for the Mongol army itself, I am sure that if they encountered an Organized west European army in Europe they would have been butchered like never before.

Why?

First of all at the time Northern Europe had woods everywhere (that is also a reason why missle warfare had never been a good business in Europe compared to the rest of the world) which prevented some large movement something the mongols desperetly needed. In Europe Cavlary was the dominant weapon and it is there that it reeached its quality peak (fully armored kights) so the hit and run tactic of the mongols which is desined to work agaisnt a much slower adversary wouldn't work well if at all. And at last Armor in Europe was much harder and complete than anywhere else so the European knights would have been virtually immune to the mongols arrows . Its needless to say that any mongol light cavalry wouldn't stand a chance vs armored knights.
-------
Barb what do you think the mongol troops where made?
They were mounted archers, every man had 4 horses, had a clear chain of command, welldisciplined and organized.
The Battle of Liegnitz, and the Battle in Ungarn wasn`t european Victories.
I don`t see forests an to great hindrance for an army who had marched over the pamir.
--------

posted 08-09-2001 03:34 PM               

Thanks for making my point, one of the pimary way the mongols took cities and castle was by storming which prooves how bad were their logistics and siege tactics.
And anybody can take a fortress in 3 days by storming it if they outnumber the ennemy 30 to 1 the only problem is that storming isn't cost efficient at all, you lose huge numbers of men for small gain by this way. In fact the commonly accepted ratio if you wanted to take a fortification was to outnumber the ennemy 10 to 1 if you wanted reasonable chances of winning.

//I´m not sure on this but my opinion was that all chinese cities was well fortified.
(If i´m wrong would someone please correct me)
The greatest fortress of european design stood in Palestine Krak de Chevaliers from the Hospitaliers.//
-------

Yes the Krak des chevaliers was an impressive castle but it was really impressive because of its location on a small mountain. Besides this castle was built during the crusades and the mongols came near to Europe 300 years later so castle desin had improved a little. I think they were many castles at least as good in Europe but many have dissapeared.

By 20m wall I mean height. Not space between tours.

As for the mongols soldiers of course i know how they were. You seem to think that cavalry archers are an ultimate weapon... well they are as long as you stay out of reach from your ennemy but once he gets you your in world of hurt. During the crusades less advanced Europeans often met horse archers and they won quite a few times.

posted 08-09-2001 11:25 PM               

Also, Huns are not Mongols although I guess basic tactics were the same, organizational skills and leadership were not.

Of course eastern Europe and Western are not the same, however weaponry, tactics and politics were roughly equivalent.

As I believe has also been pointed out the Mongols took many fortified cities by stratagem and seige. The typically did not have protracted seiges because they did not have to. They won to quick and it was not just because they outnumbered their opponents even when faced with superior numbers they still won.

posted 08-10-2001 05:35 AM               

Oookay, first of all the byzantium wasn't exactly a European empire, + Byzantium acted pretty badly to the crusaders. However I don't recall them allying with the Saraens.

Of course, Europeans might "sometimes" have united with non Europeans to beat other Europeans but this was in the case of regional conflicts. I am sure that if the Mongols came to invaded Europe every king would have seen the danger that the Mongols were to ALL of them and therfor would have united.

As I said the best example of that are the Ottomans: In eastern Europe they encountered disorganized resistance from pretty much the same armies the Mongols had met 200 years before and destroyed them BUT when they arrived at the door of western Europe they got butchered by a UNITED European army!

///Of course eastern Europe and Western are not the same, however weaponry, tactics and politics were roughly equivalent.///

Really were they?
They had different cultures, peoples, and history. The armies the Teutonic knights encountered had nothing to do with those of Western Europe!!

Anyway judging on something like 2 battles is ridiculous, its like if the peoples of 200 BC said the celts were superior to the romans because they won 2 battles!

Or if people of the 16th century said the Turk military machine is unstopable because they have already invaded a fourth ôf Europe (eastern). Unfortunetly it turned the Turk were defenceless once they encountered an big and organized resitsance!!!

///As I believe has
also been pointed out the Mongols took many fortified cities by stratagem and seige. The typically did not have protracted seiges because they did not have to. They won to quick and it was not just because they outnumbered their opponents even when faced with superior numbers they still won.///

How many cities or castle the Mongols took in Europe (not Russsia)?????

As for numbers I am always very cautious when I speak of the, espacially during the mddle ages. What is sure is that one of the well known caracteristics of the horde was that it was huge and overwhelming.

posted 08-10-2001 08:22 AM               

Was it Byzantium that acted badly towards the crusaders or was it the other way around? I do not recall Byzantine armies plundering Europe... There was no alliance between the Saracens and Crusaders, however if you have Saracens attacking Byzantium and then you have crusaders attacking Byzantium does it really matter if they got together? My point being that Europeans had no compunction about stabbing each other in the back even when faced with a common enemy.

Of course, Europeans might "sometimes" have united with non Europeans to beat other Europeans but this was in the case of regional conflicts. I am sure that if the Mongols came to invaded Europe every king would have seen the danger that the Mongols were to ALL of them and therfor would have united.

At that time all Europe was, was a series of regions filled with petty kinglets, baronies etc. etc. These folks were always jockeying for position and if an outside invader was about to clobber their neighbor they would not have cared less. "Every king seeing the danger" shows to far to much belief in the farsightedness of European nobility. Most of them were not nearly so willing to take the long view.

"Anyway judging on something like 2 battles is ridiculous, its like if the peoples of 200 BC said the celts were superior to the romans because they won 2 battles!"

Or by one battle is even more ridiculous...
when they arrived at the door of western Europe they got butchered by a UNITED European army!

That is what makes this whole discussion hypothetical because the Mongols did not try it we will never really know. What we do know is that the Mongols had considerable success against a long string of enemies. You say that success does not matter because the Mongols did not have to face the Spanish or the French or whatever, I do not know that there was that much difference. There was nothing inherently superior in technology or tactics in Europe at that time.

How many cities or castle the Mongols took in Europe (not Russsia)?????
Well not to many but is that because they tried and failed or because they did not try. There was nothing inherently superior about a German fortified town compared to a Kievan one.

What is sure is that one of the well known caracteristics of the horde was that it was huge and overwhelming.
Well not exactly. In many cases the Mongols were outnumbered, however their superior mobility made them seem like they were everywhere and hence a "horde." Also, when you are getting your tail kicked saying that you were badly outnumbered by the "horde" seems a lot better then admitting that you were outfought by a bunch of horse nomads.

posted 08-10-2001 08:35 AM            

Respectfully,

A.