Post: #26

Great video.

(01-24-2015 08:16 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  Finally, the Scythians were fucking badass group of steppe nomad, but if I remembered correctly they got ass kicked by the romans. Why?

There are a few reasons that have somewhat been covered already, but I'll go into a little more detail here.

The first is that historically, there's always been somewhat of a waxing and waning between static, defensive type warfare and dynamic, offensive type warfare. For a period, one will be in ascendancy until people respond to that, either with technology or new tactics (often with the latter following from the former). This back and forth has always occurred, even in the modern era. A classic example is the differences both in terms of technology and tactics between WW1 and WW2.

Another trend in warfare has been that until the modern advent of guerrilla warfare and the ethical constraints placed upon large, powerful nations, the advantage has continually shifted towards the population of settled people with heavily centralised states. Basically, agriculture produces more calories per square kilometre (even if from less diverse food sources), and those regions also tend to be more bountiful in other resources such as wood. People want to live where there's reliability, even if they're serfs and so on. This means you can have a much larger population in a smaller area. Obviously, that means more soldiers, so unless the nomadic enemy has vastly superior technology (including siege weapons) and tactics, they're simply going to be unable to compete head to head and recover their losses after each battle. In relative terms, they may lose fewer people, but in absolute terms, they just won't be able to sustain the losses. For example, imagine the nomads lose two out of their ten soldiers and the settled people lose three out of their twenty. The nomads can't keep that up for long.

Now, for a while the nomads could inflict greater casualties because of their technology (and tactics). However, eventually they lost that technological edge (and thus, tactical edge) for another very simple reason. Nomads simply couldn't produce enough excess resources to enable a highly specialised and stratified society with a strong division of labour. At some point, they just couldn't keep up with innovating new military technology, and at a point beyond that, they couldn't even keep up the ability to simply steal/copy someone else's technology because their nomadic lifestyles prevented them from building and maintaining production facilities. When they conquered settled peoples, they often ended up becoming assimilated into the culture they conquered (e.g. the Mongols conquering China and founding the Yuan Dynasty) in order to rule the territory and its people.

Also, whilst settled people are not immune to succession crises, nomadic people seem to be more susceptible and often more deeply affected. This is probably due to the fact that the cultural values of nomads make them fierce warriors but not good governors. In turn, they tend more towards cults of personality than institutions that can far more easily weather succession crises.

Post: #27

There is several YouTube videos that show how to make these types of bows with PVC pipe. Not as elegant, but achieves the same performance for the cheap.

Post: #28

Now that guy should have been Hawkeye in the Avengers Movie.

Post: #29

I don't want to be 'that guy', but the part when he splits the incoming arrow looks like bullshit. Watch any slow motion video of an arrow traveling through the air and you'll see how much it wiggles. Splitting it full length with another flying (and wiggling too) arrow is nearly impossible. My guess is the arrow was already damaged and cracked and he just had to hit it. His other stuff is really impressive tho.

Post: #30

Wow, what an amazing video!

I love the term 'war archer'

This is badassery of the highest level.

Post: #31

(01-24-2015 11:05 PM)rebelofbabyloin Wrote:  I've dabbled a little in traditional bow building. I noticed in the vid his more complex shots (fast, moving) are a mongol convex style recurve. Considered of all traditional bows the fastest, most powerful, and above all, energy efficient. Look at modern compounds...basically same design

Primitive archery is a subject very near and dear to me.

Your standard Turkish bow is no more energy efficient (or powerful?!) than a regular English or American style longbow. This is a very common misconception. In all seriousness the opposite is often the case.

The weapon itself only evolved as a response to the need for a bow that could be used from horseback (long bow limbs are no longer an option) but could be drawn 28-32" without stacking, meaning that you couldn't simply shorten the limbs without recurving the ends.

Since regular lumber has difficulty at those parameters (maybe only 18" of "working" limb and six-eight inches of sharp recurve to eliminate stacking near the end of the draw length), the Turks had to develop composite materials (horn, wooden core, sinewed back, significant quantities of hide glue) that had a higher elastic limit to compensate. They tended to live in arid regions so the weather was not an issue.

Pretty much all successful horseback archers in history used some variation of Turkish recurve.

The best (modern day) slash-draw style flight archers (in the world of primitive archery) wouldn't consider using a Turkish recurve because there are certain engineering aspects of ELBs that are less finicky and overall superior. Total energy storage is technically lower per draw length, but there is significantly less mass towards the tips of the bow that could have otherwise delivered energy to the arrow, instead of being pissed away as inertia during the release. You can't avoid this energy loss with a Turkish recurve because the unit is incredibly unstable even at brace.

A simple primitive archery heuristic has made the claim that the ratio of overall "working mass" (i.e; that which pertains to energy storage) of the bow itself with respect to total energy storage (area under the force/draw curve) is the only relevant factor, bow style being irrespective. I have not found evidence to the contrary. I have found that the more complicated the profile gets (reflex, deflex/reflex, etc) inevitably the more difficult it is to keep total working mass down to make the increased energy storage worth it. Simpler literally is better.

If you're reading ancient accounts of "unparalleled" feats of shooting for distance with Turkish bows or about "how strong" these Turkish bows were, note that the flight arrows they were shooting were generally very light, maybe only 200 or 300 grains. Naturally you're going to get some ridiculous quasi-compound feet per second if you're practically dry firing a Turkish bow. Unfortunately for fanboys, the gold standard for modern flight shooting is 10 grains per pound. If a Turkish bow of the day used this standard they would require probably 1000-1200 grain arrows, way more massive than the ones they were using. At this sort of arrow mass the apparent mystique of the Turkish bow is quickly grounded back to reality.

Also note that replicas of the Mary Rose English Longbows draw in the neighborhood of 140-200 pounds at 30", just as heavy if not heavier than the Turkish recurves. However it is worth noting that the ancients, particularly the Mongols, used very heavy recurves to strength train (basically strand pull) with, that they didn't actually use for warfare. The listed weights of their weapons is probably not their 'one-rep max', lol.

For reference, modern hunting bows are considered "heavy" at 50-60 pounds. In many states you only need a 35 pound bow to legally kill a deer. These were not bitch weights the ancients were slinging.

That all being said, the engineering spectacle that is a modern compound defies comparison to traditional archery tackle.

Post: #32

(01-25-2015 09:48 AM)Hades Wrote:  However it is worth noting that the ancients, particularly the Mongols, used very heavy recurves to strength train (basically strand pull) with, that they didn't actually use for warfare. The listed weights of their weapons is probably not their 'one-rep max', lol.

For reference, modern hunting bows are considered "heavy" at 50-60 pounds. In many states you only need a 35 pound bow to legally kill a deer. These were not bitch weights the ancients were slinging.

What would have been the theoretical draw weight for the traditional mongol recurve that they would use during war?

Quote:That all being said, the engineering spectacle that is a modern compound defies comparison to traditional archery tackle.

What would be a fairly compact modern compound equivalent to the traditional mongol recurve that is immediately superior in every way?


Anyways, very interesting post.

Post: #33

(01-25-2015 10:23 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 09:48 AM)Hades Wrote:  However it is worth noting that the ancients, particularly the Mongols, used very heavy recurves to strength train (basically strand pull) with, that they didn't actually use for warfare. The listed weights of their weapons is probably not their 'one-rep max', lol.

For reference, modern hunting bows are considered "heavy" at 50-60 pounds. In many states you only need a 35 pound bow to legally kill a deer. These were not bitch weights the ancients were slinging.

What would have been the theoretical draw weight for the traditional mongol recurve that they would use during war?

Quote:That all being said, the engineering spectacle that is a modern compound defies comparison to traditional archery tackle.

What would be a fairly compact modern compound equivalent to the traditional mongol recurve that is immediately superior in every way?


Anyways, very interesting post.

100 pounds of draw would be a fair guess for a Mongol recurve.

Compound bows are pretty strange. They have a similar force draw curve to a recurve, in that they're hard to pull in the first part of the draw, but draw smoothly to the cheek afterwards (compounds actually have let-off, which no traditional bow can have). That's how they're similar to a recurve. However, the working limbs of a compound, while short, barely deform from brace to full draw, and the full mass of the limbs move little from full draw back to brace. In that respect it's actually similar to a longbow.

So I guess to answer your other question, superior to what exactly?

Post: #34

Simply astonishing. It was inspiring to say the least. I've become very interested in archery ever since I started watching the arrow television show; and because I've never stayed in a state allowing possession of a firearm.

Post: #35

Very impressive. The really great (and manly) historical fiction books about the Genghis Khan and the art war by archery and horsemanship are the Conn Igulden books Wolf of the Plains and Lords of the Bow. These books trace the growth of Genghis Khan from a boy to the leadership of the Mongol nation. Its compelling reading, highly recommended.

Post: #36

(01-25-2015 12:10 PM)Swooper Wrote:  Simply astonishing. It was inspiring to say the least. I've become very interested in archery ever since I started watching the arrow television show; and because I've never stayed in a state allowing possession of a firearm.

Seen this mentioned a couple times in this thread, we also have a thread going for "Arrow" the show, feel free to post up any comments, clips, memes, etc.

/thread-28963.html

Post: #37

(01-24-2015 08:16 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 07:51 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Mongols by far were the best I think. Then probably other steppe/nomad groups.

Wouldn't doubt that but can anyone go into details why they were the best?

I get the whole idea of being born and live as a hunter, your survival depends on the bow. But hunting alone wouldn't require you to have the kind of mastery like that shown in the video, and I bet mongolian archers were much more badass.

I mean, think about it, why would you need to learn to ride at full gallop and shoot 5 arrows in under 1 sec? What you being chased by a pack of panthers? A lot of the techniques in the video, like fast-shooting and shooting while moving and arrow catching are very battle-field oriented, not something that a hunter would need.

Then again there's a lot of tribal warfares between the nomad people, but those were never full scale and largely skirmishes. It wouldn't require a hunter to develop his skills with the bow into a fine art of deadly weaponry. If one was to become a warrior archer and his life depended on it like the samurai or English retinue longbowman, then I could understand why they would need to fine tune techniques with the bows.

Finally, the Scythians were fucking badass group of steppe nomad, but if I remembered correctly they got ass kicked by the romans. Why?

As far as I know the Scythian never faced the Roman Army in any pitched battle. On this same subject, the Roman Legions that the Scythians faced would have been far more professional than what the Huns, in effect the Mongols, faced.

Had the Huns faced the legions of Cesar or Marius they likely would have been crushed far easier than they were against Arminius.

The legions of the late Roman Empire were a pale shadow of their former selves.

Post: #38

Ghenghis Khan and his line made the Mongols what they ascended to be. Truly Ghenghis Khan was one of if not THE baddest mother fucker to ever walk the earth. We are fortunate to not know where his grave is because if someone were to clone that guy we would all be dead.

Post: #39

(01-25-2015 05:52 PM)DChambers Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:16 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 07:51 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Mongols by far were the best I think. Then probably other steppe/nomad groups.

Wouldn't doubt that but can anyone go into details why they were the best?

I get the whole idea of being born and live as a hunter, your survival depends on the bow. But hunting alone wouldn't require you to have the kind of mastery like that shown in the video, and I bet mongolian archers were much more badass.

I mean, think about it, why would you need to learn to ride at full gallop and shoot 5 arrows in under 1 sec? What you being chased by a pack of panthers? A lot of the techniques in the video, like fast-shooting and shooting while moving and arrow catching are very battle-field oriented, not something that a hunter would need.

Then again there's a lot of tribal warfares between the nomad people, but those were never full scale and largely skirmishes. It wouldn't require a hunter to develop his skills with the bow into a fine art of deadly weaponry. If one was to become a warrior archer and his life depended on it like the samurai or English retinue longbowman, then I could understand why they would need to fine tune techniques with the bows.

Finally, the Scythians were fucking badass group of steppe nomad, but if I remembered correctly they got ass kicked by the romans. Why?

As far as I know the Scythian never faced the Roman Army in any pitched battle. On this same subject, the Roman Legions that the Scythians faced would have been far more professional than what the Huns, in effect the Mongols, faced.

Had the Huns faced the legions of Cesar or Marius they likely would have been crushed far easier than they were against Arminius.

The legions of the late Roman Empire were a pale shadow of their former selves.

You really can't compare steppe tribes over periods like that and deduce their capabilities.

Mongols were far better at asymmetric warfare and integrated foreign expertise at a significant level. They learned and adapted fairly quickly and learned skills like how to siege european style fortifications which was previously unfamiliar to them. They were also pretty good at subterfuge (spying) and diplomacy unlike the Huns and Scythians.

The Scythians were not the Huns were not the Mongols. Each were very different. The only thing they had in common was horse archery.

Post: #40

(01-25-2015 07:32 AM)funkyzeit Wrote:  I don't want to be 'that guy', but the part when he splits the incoming arrow looks like bullshit. Watch any slow motion video of an arrow traveling through the air and you'll see how much it wiggles. Splitting it full length with another flying (and wiggling too) arrow is nearly impossible. My guess is the arrow was already damaged and cracked and he just had to hit it. His other stuff is really impressive tho.

Have you ever used a bow and arrow?

G

Post: #41

Not to be a spoilsport, but that video has a lot of bullshit info in it. It gives the impression that ancient archers fought similarly to how this guy fires, but in reality firing those fast bursts, you have no power on the draw to do damage. In combat you wanted to have a heavy bow, and draw it fully. That bow of his wouldn't penetrate historical gambeson+mail, unlike shown in the video - if that was so easy why would people spend their whole lives practicing their strength to draw as powerful bows as they can - or alternately why would people have bothered with armor if it was so useless?

Bows are good obviously, but it's not an ultimate weapon - a lot of extremely succesful armies did not utilize bows much, or used crossbows instead and so on.

This is extremely impressive trick archery, integrating some historical, forgotten techniques, but it's not the same as training like a historical archer. Sensationalism is understandable when doing a hit piece like this, but it should be put into proper context still by the viewers.

Post: #42

For a general PSA, traditional archery is more science than art these days.

(01-25-2015 09:01 PM)Blobert Wrote:  Not to be a spoilsport, but that video has a lot of bullshit info in it. It gives the impression that ancient archers fought similarly to how this guy fires, but in reality firing those fast bursts, you have no power on the draw to do damage. In combat you wanted to have a heavy bow, and draw it fully. That bow of his wouldn't penetrate historical gambeson+mail, unlike shown in the video - if that was so easy why would people spend their whole lives practicing their strength to draw as powerful bows as they can - or alternately why would people have bothered with armor if it was so useless?

Bows are good obviously, but it's not an ultimate weapon - a lot of extremely succesful armies did not utilize bows much, or used crossbows instead and so on.

This is extremely impressive trick archery, integrating some historical, forgotten techniques, but it's not the same as training like a historical archer. Sensationalism is understandable when doing a hit piece like this, but it should be put into proper context still by the viewers.

Contemporary accounts of English longbowmen suggest that they didn't often exceed shooting six arrows per minute in battle (wikipedia).

The bolded comment makes little sense. Are you suggesting that holding a bow at full draw will somehow increase it's stored kinetic energy? The opposite is the case.

Even considering the "trick shooting", deer can be killed very effectively using a 40 pound bow and a 400 grain arrow (10 grains/pound of draw). I wouldn't doubt that this guy is using something similar (though likely lighter arrows), so given decent hunting arrows at medium to short range it would definitely be a man killer, provided they're not armored. If you put this Danish guy in a mini mall of pedestrians he could surely rack up an impressive kill count in short order.

Crossbows themselves were developed as a response to armored knights. Staffing an army of vassals had a lot more to do with economics than actual combat effectiveness.

It was much cheaper and more effective for feudal lords to arm low ranking peasants with crossbows and teach them how to kill knights than it was for them to house and provide for expensive knights (or archers) to counter other knights. Low skill ceiling, relative ease of ammunition production, effectiveness against armor, interchangeability of crossbowman, lots of factors for why crossbowmen are an attractive option for any feudal lord, particularly in times of siege when fire rate is not a huge concern.

Your general cast of Mythbusters or Spike TV variety dinguses oftentimes fudge historical details. Maybe a bodkin arrow would be stopped by a plate of armor, but you can always kill a knights horse, upset their charge, and have them all get trampled to death by each other in the mud. Then you can wander through the killing field with a hammer and spike or a dagger and kill them off at your leisure. Again, why those idiots on Deadliest Warrior voted the samurai over the viking is beyond me.

Post: #43

(01-25-2015 07:32 AM)funkyzeit Wrote:  I don't want to be 'that guy', but the part when he splits the incoming arrow looks like bullshit. Watch any slow motion video of an arrow traveling through the air and you'll see how much it wiggles. Splitting it full length with another flying (and wiggling too) arrow is nearly impossible. My guess is the arrow was already damaged and cracked and he just had to hit it. His other stuff is really impressive tho.

He can only split DAMAGED arrows being shot at him in midflight? What a pussy! Not impressive at all.

Post: #44

Can a mongolian horse archer firing a recurve penetrate mail armor?

Post: #45

Point of order- you don't 'fire' a bow, you shoot a bow. 'Fire' denotes a gunpowder weapon.

I have few bows from 35 to 70lbs draw weight. Including one Mongolian replica. This has inspired me to make archery part of our 'flip tractor tyres over and fuck about' gym day.

Bear in mind I live in the UK where anything over a 12ft/lbs air rifle requires a license. I think it's cool I can still buy or even make something very capable of killing a deer with ease. Although bowhunting is illegal here.

Post: #46

(01-25-2015 07:43 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 05:52 PM)DChambers Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:16 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 07:51 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Mongols by far were the best I think. Then probably other steppe/nomad groups.

Wouldn't doubt that but can anyone go into details why they were the best?

I get the whole idea of being born and live as a hunter, your survival depends on the bow. But hunting alone wouldn't require you to have the kind of mastery like that shown in the video, and I bet mongolian archers were much more badass.

I mean, think about it, why would you need to learn to ride at full gallop and shoot 5 arrows in under 1 sec? What you being chased by a pack of panthers? A lot of the techniques in the video, like fast-shooting and shooting while moving and arrow catching are very battle-field oriented, not something that a hunter would need.

Then again there's a lot of tribal warfares between the nomad people, but those were never full scale and largely skirmishes. It wouldn't require a hunter to develop his skills with the bow into a fine art of deadly weaponry. If one was to become a warrior archer and his life depended on it like the samurai or English retinue longbowman, then I could understand why they would need to fine tune techniques with the bows.

Finally, the Scythians were fucking badass group of steppe nomad, but if I remembered correctly they got ass kicked by the romans. Why?

As far as I know the Scythian never faced the Roman Army in any pitched battle. On this same subject, the Roman Legions that the Scythians faced would have been far more professional than what the Huns, in effect the Mongols, faced.

Had the Huns faced the legions of Cesar or Marius they likely would have been crushed far easier than they were against Arminius.

The legions of the late Roman Empire were a pale shadow of their former selves.

You really can't compare steppe tribes over periods like that and deduce their capabilities.

Mongols were far better at asymmetric warfare and integrated foreign expertise at a significant level. They learned and adapted fairly quickly and learned skills like how to siege european style fortifications which was previously unfamiliar to them. They were also pretty good at subterfuge (spying) and diplomacy unlike the Huns and Scythians.

The Scythians were not the Huns were not the Mongols. Each were very different. The only thing they had in common was horse archery.

They did not. The style of fortifications in China were rather different than the multiple layers of defense and citadels of the West. Which is why when the Mongols invaded Hungary twice they could only defeat the poor feudal levies in the field. Even after over running the country they had to leave scores of well defended towns and castles behind them, still held by Hungarian troops.

The Mongols operated in a vacuum. They were essentially the only professional army left in the world at the time.

Post: #47

(01-26-2015 09:05 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 07:43 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 05:52 PM)DChambers Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:16 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 07:51 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Mongols by far were the best I think. Then probably other steppe/nomad groups.

Wouldn't doubt that but can anyone go into details why they were the best?

I get the whole idea of being born and live as a hunter, your survival depends on the bow. But hunting alone wouldn't require you to have the kind of mastery like that shown in the video, and I bet mongolian archers were much more badass.

I mean, think about it, why would you need to learn to ride at full gallop and shoot 5 arrows in under 1 sec? What you being chased by a pack of panthers? A lot of the techniques in the video, like fast-shooting and shooting while moving and arrow catching are very battle-field oriented, not something that a hunter would need.

Then again there's a lot of tribal warfares between the nomad people, but those were never full scale and largely skirmishes. It wouldn't require a hunter to develop his skills with the bow into a fine art of deadly weaponry. If one was to become a warrior archer and his life depended on it like the samurai or English retinue longbowman, then I could understand why they would need to fine tune techniques with the bows.

Finally, the Scythians were fucking badass group of steppe nomad, but if I remembered correctly they got ass kicked by the romans. Why?

As far as I know the Scythian never faced the Roman Army in any pitched battle. On this same subject, the Roman Legions that the Scythians faced would have been far more professional than what the Huns, in effect the Mongols, faced.

Had the Huns faced the legions of Cesar or Marius they likely would have been crushed far easier than they were against Arminius.

The legions of the late Roman Empire were a pale shadow of their former selves.

You really can't compare steppe tribes over periods like that and deduce their capabilities.

Mongols were far better at asymmetric warfare and integrated foreign expertise at a significant level. They learned and adapted fairly quickly and learned skills like how to siege european style fortifications which was previously unfamiliar to them. They were also pretty good at subterfuge (spying) and diplomacy unlike the Huns and Scythians.

The Scythians were not the Huns were not the Mongols. Each were very different. The only thing they had in common was horse archery.

They did not. The style of fortifications in China were rather different than the multiple layers of defense and citadels of the West. Which is why when the Mongols invaded Hungary twice they could only defeat the poor feudal levies in the field. Even after over running the country they had to leave scores of well defended towns and castles behind them, still held by Hungarian troops.

The Mongols operated in a vacuum. They were essentially the only professional army left in the world at the time.

Fortresses certainly played a temporary role but you're assigning too much to external factors rather than the more obvious internal reason for them leaving the area. There was the immediate succession issue with the Mongols that was addressed earlier in this thread.

You're making the standard military mistake of putting way too much faith in static defenses. If you think they wouldn't have eventually broken through or starved the people into such a state that surrender would have been necessary. Mongols knew how to siege defenses. The cities in China were also well defended but it's not like European walls were impregnable. They would have done the standard thing of deploying spies/infiltrators (which they did), and finding enough foreign experts to figure out the right way to do it.

Even with that being said it's not like Hungary got out unscathed most of the nation was looted and severely depopulated by the invasion. Only a fraction managed to get behind walls..and it would have certainly been a delayed doom if it weren't for the succession issues.

Quote: The Mongols operated in a vacuum. They were essentially the only professional army left in the world at the time.

I think it was more that the forces were disorganized when the Mongols invaded and simply didn't have the same level of military cavalry skill to mount a serious resistance either. The european armies weren't all peasants armed with farming tools. That kind of severely downplays the defeats that occurred during that time. Plus the Mongols defeated several professional armies along the way..ie. the caliphates, rival nomad tribes, and the Northern Chinese kingdoms which were also experienced at fighting steppe warriors but never encountered anything on this scale before.

Post: #48

They did not. The style of fortifications in China were rather different than the multiple layers of defense and citadels of the West. Which is why when the Mongols invaded Hungary twice they could only defeat the poor feudal levies in the field. Even after over running the country they had to leave scores of well defended towns and castles behind them, still held by Hungarian troops.

The Mongols operated in a vacuum. They were essentially the only professional army left in the world at the time.
[/quote]

Fortresses certainly played a temporary role but you're assigning too much to external factors rather than the more obvious internal reason for them leaving the area. There was the immediate succession issue with the Mongols that was addressed earlier in this thread.

You're making the standard military mistake of putting way too much faith in static defenses. If you think they wouldn't have eventually broken through or starved the people into such a state that surrender would have been necessary. Mongols knew how to siege defenses. The cities in China were also well defended but it's not like European walls were impregnable. They would have done the standard thing of deploying spies/infiltrators (which they did), and finding enough foreign experts to figure out the right way to do it.

Even with that being said it's not like Hungary got out unscathed most of the nation was looted and severely depopulated by the invasion. Only a fraction managed to get behind walls..and it would have certainly been a delayed doom if it weren't for the succession issues.

Quote: The Mongols operated in a vacuum. They were essentially the only professional army left in the world at the time.

I think it was more that the forces were disorganized when the Mongols invaded and simply didn't have the same level of military cavalry skill to mount a serious resistance either. The european armies weren't all peasants armed with farming tools. That kind of severely downplays the defeats that occurred during that time. Plus the Mongols defeated several professional armies along the way..ie. the caliphates, rival nomad tribes, and the Northern Chinese kingdoms which were also experienced at fighting steppe warriors but never encountered anything on this scale before.
[/quote]

The death of the Khan had no impact on their second invasion which occurred in 1285. As it was, during the first invasion the Mongols found themselves at a severe disadvantage when facing well defended fortifications. As shown by their defeat at the Siege of Klis. Indeed they had great difficulties when they moved into Croatia in pursuit of King Bela after the Battle of Mohi. They were unable to overcome the regions fortifications.

As for the state of European soldiery at the time, it was pitiful. Aside from a limited number of knights and men at arms almost all the men in the Hungarian Army were in fact peasant levies. In addition, they were poorly organized, almost without logistics, and hard to control.

The Northern Chinese kingdoms, the caliphates, and the rival nomad tribes were not professional armies. In almost every instance they consisted of a small group of professional soldiers, with the rest of the army being made up of levies. The Chinese argument in particular is misleading. The Chinese kingdoms had very poor infantry, relying heavily of light cavalry and lightly armed and armored missile troops, severely limiting their capabilities. In addition, their fortifications were far less advanced than those in the west. Most cities and forts had only a single layer of defense, a wall.

The second Mongol invasion was particularly hindered thanks to King Bela's military reforms and the construction of strong stone fortifications after the first invasion. The Mongol style of warfare was unsuited to sieges and it shows.

Static defenses, in light of the poor military capabilities of the West at the time, was the only realistic defense against them. If a professional Roman style army still existed, that might not have been the case.

The Mongols were excellent at what they did, but it is like taking a heavyweight boxer and throwing them in the ring against a middleweight. The heavyweight might win all the fights, but he is only the best in regards to that limited playing field.

Post: #49

Well, of course it's too good to be true.

Here's why this bit is pretty much phony.

Obviously he still does a lot of cool things, but half of this stuff should be taken with a grain of salt.

Post: #50

I wish more threads devolved into drawn-out arguments about ancient war strategy.