What could Europe actually have done to stop a full-on Mongol invasion?

What could Europe actually have done to stop a full-on Mongol invasion?

For that matter, how does a primarily infantry based army defeat an army mostly composed of ranged cavalry? This is something I am deeply interested in as there doesn't seem to be an answer to the aforementioned problem.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary#Military_reforms
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

thick forest would give euros the advantage

an archer cant see nearly as far in the trees
and a horse is cumbersome in the brush

ambush tactics

Time

Thats how they defeated the mongols. Time gave them the advantage they needed. Mongols power divided, Europe had half a century's time to build up defenses/alliances/restructure their governance/etc.

>What could Europe actually do
Not much. Mongols were utilizing OODA loop within enemy territory. Subutai had already planned, had spies reporting on the European powers for months/years at time. So if they really wanted to, they can scale up the invasion and europe wouldn't even know what hit them.

Read up on the second Mongol invasion of Hungary and the third Mongol invasion of Poland. Thats how you stop Mongols.

Lots and lots of purely military forts in strategic locations, controlling bridges, roads, and the approaches to towns. No civilians, just a few hundred dudes with crossbows in a block of stone with food to last them a few years. If the mongols proceed onwards and ignore the fort, then the garrison is free to fuck up shit in the rear. If they decide to assault the fort directly, they lose many many times more men than it took to defend it. If they decide to starve the garrison out, then they have to dedicate a portion of their army to just sitting outside for a year or several. This portion of the army would be extremely vulnerable to relief efforts though. So the alternative is to keep an entire army there. Which means your entire army is tied down sieging a single little block of stone for however long.

Basically, once you have enough fortifications, it becomes unviable to actually take your territory.

Wouldn't skirmishes have an effect on slowing down a mongol army that was mainly cav? I mean, assuming that an army moves at the pace of the slowest unit, that would force them to move at the same speed as infantry armies.

Also wouldn't scorched earth policies pretty much force an invading mongol force to turn back and possibly die on the way home since they probably don't have the same supply logistics as a fully established State and rely on looting post battle?

What is a city.

Dont go starting a mongolian beef in the first place

I get it.

Simple answer, carried out by Byzantines in Constantinople and by the Chinese.

Coming soon near you.

Fortifications, crossbows, heavily armoured knights.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary#Military_reforms

Castles, forests and crossbows

Mongols could ride 100+ miles a day during their invasion of Hungary/Poland

They could also direct multiple war fronts at same time, achieving victories hundreds of miles apart

Mongol courier service/YAM(mail/intelligence service) could go even faster than the army could march.

Meanwhile, typical medieval armies could go for maybe 10-20 miles per day.

In conclusion, mongols would run circles around the skirmishers.

One guy suggested an army composed of mainly crossbowmen should be an effective counter. In the Crusades Europeans countered Turkish horse archers by covering archers with halberdiers so they could not be charged. They learned this after being defeated several times by the Turks from the Byzantines.

That's what the Chinese had. It just took the Mongols 90 years to take it over.

If the Mongol threw their full weight behind it they would be crushed.

The Mongols main advantage was hit and run tactics though. They rarely fought head on. They'd attack, pretend they were defeated and tire out the people trying to capture or destroy them with a large ambush.

>The Mongols main advantage was hit and run tactics though
Their main advantage was information and mobility. Hit/Run is one small aspect of that.

Yeah, but still it applies. They're not stupid cunts.

Weren't they terrible at sieges so would be unable to take tactical land. Then, when starving a castle out a different army could come and attack them/drive them away

They were pretty good at sieges actually. Espeically once they got their hands on Chinese engineers, which bough down tons of walls in China and the Middle East.

However after the mongol power split, mongols of the east lost track of mongols of the west. As the main intelligence division rested on the east side of things, the western mongols fell apart quick.

Well the scenerio was a full on Mongol invasion. I'm assuming that means if Mongols were stable Ala under Ghenghis or Ogedai.