Was there no way to counter horse archers? Why Mongols had so many of them...

No they weren't. When employed properly European knights would decimate Mongol armies. For start they had bigger horses and better armor.

walls

that's what happened to the huns

In a steppe you have ample space to retreat like that.
In most of Europe, not really.

Legnica showed otherwise

Mongols had a reputation for recruiting siege engineers though

Which literally implies they couldn't deal with walls on their own.

In Total War you could counter horse archers with a large amount of foot archers since they have the same range but are more numerous by default. Is this historically accurate?

That's just one battle, and in that battle forces that faced Mongols weren't that great and didn't have that many knights. Accounts are conflicting but it appears Mongols executed a good feigned retreat and ambushed attacking cavalry.
Despite common opinion Mongols highly tactically astute and that was a major advantage.
A bit later they faced a bigger and better Czech detachment and they were routed.
Don't get me wrong, they were a formidable enemy, but they weren't some super-human army in any way.
Their lifestyle is what made them a formidable enemy, but that lifestyle also had drawbacks.
Mongols were never even close to conquering Europe, it's a massive exaggeration.
They were logistically stretched out and Europe is a totally different battleground from the steppes they thrived in.

Semantics, they used siege engineers to great effect particularly in eastern campaigns. By the time they're in Europe there's less room to maneuver horse armies and their logistics, though probably still impressive, are presumably stretched thus they never pushed into the continent. There are other various factors of course but it becomes more situational depending on the particular battle or campaign you're considering.

...

Army on foot is strategically far worse off than mounted army in many ways.
If you forced them to attack a well prepared position and you had well-trained archers (like English longbowmen) obviously they would be beaten.
But in open field, your archers would just be run down by mere virtue of facing a mounted army.

Thats how Asians like the Chinese/Persians/Russians dealt with them. In addition to having your own fucking cavalry. I mean, in China, the Crossbow wasnt initially popular because it pierced armor, but it fielded shitloads of missile troops easily in a moment's notice for cunts like Nomadshits.

But of course it didnt work all the time.

>Asians
>like Russians

Geographically speaking you daft nig.

Geographically speaking Russia is Europe, especially in that time when they had no lands east of Urals.

The question is, "what stops horse archers?" Not "what stops mongols".
The answer "walls" is correct if horse archers culture needed engineers from elsewhere to deal with them. It's not really semantics.

This thread has been blessed with multiple quads

This is literally semantics, you're using a contracted specificity of mongol armaments in your consideration to cover the weakness of your simplistic "Walls" arguments

It's not my argument, another guy started this.
Besides it's not a specificity of mongol armaments either, horseniggers always need help from elsewhere to tackle fortifications.

The Persian archers were noted for the penetrative power of their arrows as well as using their own crossbows, also usually horse archers and cavalry were screened in their formations so that the foot archers were held in back.

Crossbows usually rekt horse archers but they never deployed enough to make a difference

You'll notice sedentary civilizations started regularly beating nomad armies when every infantryman started carrying a gun. I think the key wasn't guns, but everyone having a projectile weapon.

Armour and fortifications. There isnt much a horse archer can do against either

MWas there no way to counter horse archers?
There were plenty of counters to them.

>Why Mongols had so many of them?
Because they lived on the steppes.

>If they didn't use infantry who held the fucking ground?
Pastoralists don't really need to.

Faster horses, and enough armor to ignore arrows. They fucking wrecked them unless completely outmanuvered and had been doing so before they started beign called "lnights" when the fucking magyars started their shit and got wrecked.

>Environment allowing of course, but if the environment didn't allow then they'd just keep running away until it did
>if the environment doesn't allow them to run away they'll run away
You aren't very clever, are you?

Who failed horribly in europe.

Actually yes.

Or you put heavy infantry in from of them so that can't happen. Or your own heavy cavalry nearby and counter charge the idiots who get close.

Armies without horse archers have defeated those with them many times.

More or less. The byzantine stopped giving a shit when they got their own, heavier horse archers who would either shoot the fuckers, or run them down with lances.

The infantry just started forming in mixed files with 30% of the men carrying bows. There's very, very little nomadic armies can do to break that.

Absolutely false. Mongols, manchus, etc. were known for their skill and ferocity in siege warfare.

No, the mongols were not. Not by people who knew the difference between them and their auxiliaries.

they put great effort into finding and exploiting their enemies' weak points. the horse archers served excellent utility by getting around fast in offense and preventing enemy advance in defense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization

warfare in europe and most imperial contexts focused on getting a lot of force on a point and getting through because that was the only strategy that had the possibility of victory without also having a great cost. mongol empire and military was structured so that it could easily pay that cost and force everyone else to play a game they couldn't win.

The Persians got completely destroyed by the Arabs light cavalry.
Do you even know your history?

The Mongols also have heavy armour-breaking capabilities (Spiked Maces etc.), not to mention Chinese expertise in Gunpowder/sieges (Rocket arrows, grenades, bombs, catapults and fire lances etc.) after they conquered the Song.

Are you retarded?
>The Persians got completely destroyed by the Arabs light cavalry.
Arabs were infantry centric at the time.
On top of that:
>arab light cavalry
Weren't fucking horse archers.

That method of war was introduced to them later, and you could argue that they never adopted it-arabs started relying on armies made up primarily of non-arabs pretty damned quickly.

Are you retarded?
He means that when the enviornment allows them to surround the enemy, they will surround then enemy. You nigger

Those invading forces the second and third time weren't really part of a united Mongolia or had all the best warriors with them. It was a mix of forces and very likely a minority Mongol. There's also practically no Mongol sources as to what the fuck happened. There's only extremely biased European sources that pretty much say they were completely wiped out yet one of the only Mongol sources say they returned just fine with 20 thousand captives. It's just a clusterfuck of confusion.

The first invasion was all the first born sons and the very best generals. The cream of the crop so to speak. The animals and armor and general quality of gear they had as they weren't first born sons or anything like that and not even comprised of entirely Mongols probably wasn't very good either.

The third invasion was probably even worse with less Mongols and even had Russians with them. Pretty piss poor. It's also of note to say that European sources could probably not even tell the difference between various tribes of horse arches and just assumed they were all Mongols.

Cavalry.

There is literally nothing in his post to suggest that, especially given that the post he is replying to is talking exclusively of countering horse archers.

Your post is bullshit across the board.

walls

What a shame horse archers disappeared magically and we will never know.
Oh wait.
They didn't
So how to counter them? Basically armors and discipline.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hodów

Spot on

But even in the first invasion the Mongols didn't devote all their resources. Europe was nothing more than a minor theater to the Mongols, the real prize and what occupied their full attention was the conquest of China.

>Armies without horse archers have defeated those with them many times.

If knights were so good at killing lesser protected soldiers then why didn't the crusaders overran all of the middle east with them?

The mongols took Persia, Kashmir and almost Syria, yet the "mighty european armies" with it's knights and superior weapons took only a tiny part of the levant that they lost after a few years.

I'd like to see a source for that, and I already mentioned that even at Mohi Mongols suffered awful losses when forced to fight outside of their comfort zone.
Neither did Europe devote all resources. They faced several Eastern armies one after another. Army at Legnica was pretty bad judging from all accounts.

because of the topgraphy differences of the steppe-me-euro naturally favours different styles of warfare/life

steppe - pastoral/ca
euro - phallanx& civilisation
me - some shitty hybrid that gets wiped by both sides

Because Middle East had a lot of cavalry and infantry that was well protected and it was a totally different situation.
Your entire argument is dumb as fuck.

By the time the Conquest of Southern Song Started, the Mongol Empire was gone. It was just Khubilai and his Yuan Dynasty that was conquering China.

>If they didn't use infantry who held the fucking ground?
They did have infantry, you absolute fucking numbskull. Jesus Christ I fucking hate this board.

>The Mongols could never sustain the Great Khan system

A historical tragedy that it fell apart.

>posting a map in russian.

>totally different situation

Yeah but the "superior european armies" tried to conquer the middle east for 200 years and apart from taking Jerusalem in a surprise attack one time they failed very very hard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Al_Mansurah

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here.
You posted one battle, I can post another where Western armies won, but what's your point?

>post another where Western armies won.

And i can post all the fights and then you can compare the win vs defeat ratio.

But what's the fucking point?
What are you trying to prove here?

>ferocity
>in siege warfare

I don't think you know what siege is.

Everyone everywhere had maces.

Mongols got BTFO'd by heavily armoured knights, crossbowmen and fortified defences.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

What are you so angry about dick?

Well, foot archers would also be, theoretically at least, able to use much more powerful bows, since horse archers are limited in the size of their bows.

Foot archers also have a higher upper limit in terms of accuracy than horse archers and smaller profiles.

Wrong. The conquest of China spanned almost a century that started with the establishment of the Mongol Khanate, Kublai simply finished the Southern Song but open hostilities with them began with Mongke's attempted invasion; was killed during the siege of Diaoyu Fortress.

Crossbowmen would be even better since they can carry large shields for cover to reload and can much more easily apply their weapons from cover. Not to mention the additional penetration power.

>They ruled the planes
Wait! Are planes that old?!

the elemental planes, idiot

Cannons spelled the end of pony armies. The modern combined arms of arquebus and pike with mobile artillery could defeat a pony army of archers.
The recurved composite bow was formidable, but it took many years of training to become proficient.

A musketeer took much less time to train.

No.
Still wrong.

They ruled the PLAINS (the steppe)

>Cannons spelled the end of pony armies.
Except for the fact that cannons existed alongside cavalry for centuries.

Fucking hell someone else gets it. Every time a Mongol thread comes up, I try to explain to these people that the Mongol bow isn't some magic shit folded over 1000000 times. The maneuverbility of the horse archer is the advantage.

Genghis Khan BTFO the people he fought against because he was a brilliant strategist. Horse archers came and went, but they reached their apex under the Khan because he understood grand strategy. You can defeat a horse archer army with a strong foot-archer based army or walls. But Genghis knew that whenever the tide turned, he could just ride away or send another division through the flank in a pincer movement. Their ability to move made them unstoppable in the hands of a leader who knew maneuver warfare. If you look at Mongol maneuvers, they look like WWII maneuvers. This, along with great officer level leadership, loyalty among his men and his policy of recruiting anyone useful from whoever he fought made the Mongols dominant during his reign.

Hell, Richard A Gabriel, a professor at the Canadian war college, and used to be a professor at the US Army war college, traced German Blitzkrieg back to Subutai's strategies in his book Subotai the Valiant.

His claim was that the Russians developed Deep Battle partially through their encounters with steppe nomads all the way into the 1800s who fought in a fashion that was derivative of Genghis. This information made its way to Germany and became a part of Blitzkrieg strategy. The tank and airplane was traded from the horse. Whether this link exists is debatable, but you can see the similarities if you study the Mongol way of war. They constantly encircle the people they fight against.

>At Ain Jalut they were ambushed and destroyed.
I know the Mamlukes followed up their victory and eventually pushed out the mongols, but to be fair, Ain Jalut was a battle against a holding force while Hulagu was busy fighting Berke because Berke became a muslim and Hulagu raped the Muslims with a vengeance.

The follow up from the Mamlukes involved their ranks replenished by the Golden horde's kipchaks.

Typhoons

Force them to fight in unfavorable terrain.