Was there any contemporary hard counter to the Mongols, or were they essentially an unrivaled apex military playing war on godmode? It seems like most of their losses involved being tactically outmaneuvered or tricked, as opposed to losing from outright inferiority. Were they really just better than anything else that existed?
>inb4 monsoons
Being out-maneuvered is a pretty clear sign of inferiority.
That can be chalked up to bad commanders or unfamiliar terrain, though, or even just luck.
As opposed to when the Mongols won stunning victories? They also pretty much universally tactically outmaneuvered or even tricked their foes.
> unfamiliar terrain
Mongols invade your country and you lose because of unfamiliar terrain
hmmmm....
Mongols were very well good on a strategic level so any army that wanted to beat them also needed some strategic advantage
Their main strength was tricks and maneuverability not necessarily their outright power and numbers. They really got lucky with Ghengis and the weakness of every single country near them. If there were a counter to them it would probably be central and western europe because the mongols were shitty at sieges even with chink engineers. There's no way they would have made it through Europe before they would disunify and give up
... or a lack of discipline.
Put pikemen in a line over the entire men and archers behind them
and they'll just go around you and pillage 10 cities while you move your pikemen back
...
flag signals, mobility
The cities are fortified and castles guard the approach so
Siege really slow them down making them lose momentum
Also the mamelukes beat them at their own game in Ain Jalut
The Vietnamese and Malaysians kicked their asses.
What movie?
The European counter to horse archers was to surround archers with spearmen, although that didn't really work for the Hungarians when the Mongols used catapults against them.
Boats
Stone castles
Trees
Foot archers
Wait for their leader to die so they can fuck off back to chinkland and fight each other
>Stone fortification on high ground.
>Crossbows.
>heavy armored Knights
>discipline and will to fight
>refusing to surrender and cooperate with enemy
I do suspect that almogavars would have been great against mongols. Those guys were a formidable light infantry + light cavalry, really really fast and pretty much won against everything they encounter all along the mediterranean.
WHAT MOVIE
>that didn't really work for the Hungarians when the Mongols used catapults against them
>was there a hard counter to the wrath of God?
no. AT best you could fend off his descendants or pray they never reach your shores.
>Was there any contemporary hard counter to the Mongols
Yes.
1. Mongol conquest of the Song China.
They had to use 45 years( 69 years if including conquest against Jin dynasty), over 450 thousands troops and every resources they got to total conquer China, one of their Khan died during the conquest. It's the biggest, longest and toughest war they ever had.
2. Some minor short campaigns they lost due to different reasons such as conquests against Vietnam, Japan and Mamluk.
>most of their losses involved being tactically outmaneuvered or tricked
Most of their losses were due to unfamiliar terrains and weather.
>Was there any hard counter to the Mongols
Guns
>Guns
They literally were the one who used and spread them outside China.
so?
You'll notice that all kinds of steppe nomads suddenly stopped being a threat to anyone once the gun spread.
Try to shoot arrows and run away? too bad, you got too close and got shot.
Try to charge the gunners? too bad, you got too close and the horses panic at the gunshots
Steppe nomads are still feared warriors to this day. Russia and China come to mind.
Most of their wins involve being shitlord ranged filth horsefuckers.
And I get nervous around the local criminal biker gangs.
They still are NO threat to my civilization
Yes, but that's the afterward. During their primary expansions, there were no guns to stop them other than the ones they and Chinese used for themselves.
Viking
It's about Vladimir the Great
the horse archer raid was the only worthwhile part of the movie dont damage your brain
Literally just any good foot archers or crossbowmen.
That Bohemian King BTFO them
heavy cavalry
They got btfo in central europe partly because of logistical reasons. The mongol yoke in russia lasted for another two centuries and tartar raids for about another three.
He's talking about small-arms, dumbass. Muskets and cannons. Not the early Chinese gunpowder weapons Mongols waved about.
Mongs and Central Asian Threats started getting dying out as Romanov, Safavid, and Qing musket lines decimated their horseniggery and subjugated their people.
>horseniggery
keked
I'd say one of three:
1)Based on wars with the Balts, using forests and hills
2)Based on this post here he might be right
3)bows with higher draw weight and energy used with stationary infantry
> The mongol yoke in russia lasted for another two centuries and tartar raids for about another three.
Yeah, because the Rus did not have proper infantry or foot archery or cavalry or fucking anything.
I mean, even the fucking Lithuanians btfo'd the Mongols the moment they managed to raise an actual proper army;
Great post I forgot to mention here that crossbows could be useful since it cuts down on training time for consistent shots. Your link mentions the crossbow so it's important to point it out I think
The Hungarian army had very few heavy infantry and crossbows. It was mostly light cavalry, the so called castle warriors who came from small wooden forts.
Dense castle networks. Not because the Mongols are inept at siege warfare, but because siege warfare negates pretty much all their strengths.
India. The other places the Mongols failed to take were well at the fringes of their empire, but the Delhi Sultanate was right in their backyard and fought the Mongols at the height of their power.
Didn't save them from Timur, admittedly, but that was over a century later.
The russians were well capable beating mongol armies, and presumably at worse odds.
en.wikipedia.org
They were closer to the mongol home lands and easier to attack than lithuania, for logistical reasons too. Just compare the army sizes there.
Have you ever played Total War games, batting horse archery only units?
Yeah... now imagine these horse archer have unlimited arrows, are all highly professionals and there are tons of reserves of them...
Medieval Eurasia didn't stood a chance...
Now imagine these horse archers have a tightly limited supply of arrows, can't penetrate most of your armor at anything less than point blank, have next to no armor themselves and have to impress foreigners to tell them how to attack a castle.
guys guys relax mongols had the best idead ever to just conquer the shit out of everyone when they were in crisis and when they got large and strong they destroyed everything easily. No special tactics or anything just smart thinking
>Was there any contemporary hard counter to the Mongols, or were they essentially an unrivaled apex military playing war on godmode?
The real answer is Mongol victories are heavily overrated because much of 1200s Asia was in fucking trouble. Civil Wars in China, Abbasid Collapse. Turkic Invasions, and endemic warfare among Slavic principalities since Kiev declined.
Nothing they did was new.
>Horse archery
Everyone in Asia had those. Their Turkic enemies fought in the similar manner.
>Horseniggers learning siege.
Turkics did the fucking same during their invasion.
>Tumenlar system.
Old as fuck amongst slanty eyed Nomads. Bulgars and Seljuks organized their armies along the same lines.
No, they were just dumb lucky to have the right leader in the right place at the right time.
Arguing for heavy cavalry is stupid. The Mongols probably had heavier considering at the time Euronigs only had mail armor while Mongs topped theirs off with an extra layer of lamellar.
by the second invasion of hungary hungary knights would have been wearing coats of plates above their mail
>shit that didnt happen, the post
>Arguing for heavy cavalry is stupid. The Mongols probably had heavier
>probably
Why don't you use the miracle of the internet and a quick 30 second google search to validate your claims next time sweetie? But to answer your half answer half question, yes they did have heavies and they wore the armor you're talking about. Half a typical mongol unit was light archer cav, half was heavies. Other mongol units were entirely light melee units. If you want references I can provide, I just get butthurt every time I see "probaby" or assumptions.
He's actually right. The Mongol composite bows were light and nifty on a horse but not especially powerful compared to the plate armor evolving out of 12-15th century Europe and they didn't use heavy armor on their archers.
> The Mongols probably had heavier considering at the time Euronigs only had mail armor while Mongs topped theirs off with an extra layer of lamellar.
But mail and lamellar are of equal weight and roughly equal effectiveness...
He's saying they used an extra layer of lamellar on TOP of maille.
>when I win it's tactical brilliance from an army at its military apex
>when I lose it's because you're a lucky faggot and I didn't know the map
Do people unironically attribute luck, shitty logistics, and poor leadership to things outside of military prowess?
Didn't they come back to central Europe a second time and get spanked by a more prepared foe?
>12th to 15th century Europe
I legitimately think people on this board don't know what Medieval means.
>because the mongols were shitty at sieges
what, they were masters of siege, you have to be having invaded so many lands.
Yeah, but like I said there were no fucking muskets to stop them back in 13th century, moron.
Here is the thing, dense archery, crossbows, firearms support with spearmen and fortress, castles, siege warfare...etc, most of these tactics you people thought of were already being done, Chinese could hold off them for over 45 years was mostly due to these defensive tactics, the problem is not only you can come up with these methods, the Mongols were also noticed them and came up with counter measures, hence they could conquer so many places.
The mongol army was actually quite flexible, they had many different auxiliaries for all kinds of purposes, there is no guarantee way to defeat them back then, it doesn't really depends on whether your tactics work or not, it's more related to if their counter measures work or not. If they failed to adapt the environments and tactics defenders used, they would mostly lose.
Pointy fire sticks (muskets with bayonets) would go a long way, but you can never easily counter a force that doesn't operate on conventional logistics.
>mongol empire, 1200s
>tercios, 1500s
>hey man if the south had had an m1 Abrams they could won
>b-but muh Hussite and Hungarian black army
first actual use of effective gunpowder infantry were the Spanish tercios of the Italian war. this is 300 years )really close to like 250, but whatever) after the mongols. but guns woulda stopped em!
>In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or Medieval Period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century.
huh?
that's not how gunpowder infantry worked. the killing zone of even tercios was far shorter than bows. cavalry has been recorded charging massed gunfire before. steppe nomads were a threat into the 1700s, but weren't unified and mostly fought the Russians and their cassocks, who by the way are steppe nomads. Steppe people didn't loose the military conflict but that of statecraft. the state that Steppe cultures could produce were unable to unify unless under a unique person, such as Genghis, and couldn't last against an absolutist country like Russia, or the massively wealthy PLC.
>i played mount and blade warband so i understand tactics of the 1200s.
>total war is totes historically accurate gusie!
ah yes. the game series without realistic ballistics. like in empire and Napoleon where your muskets fire lasers which then rolled against enemy "shields" to calculate hits. very good research. no remedial courses for you. you'll be out of high school soon!
>gusie it just comes down to the stats oob ur units! haha
>nothing else matters
high schoolers get out. life isn't like video games.
its ok user. i agree with you and understood the OP.
>Was there any contemporary hard counter to the Mongols
>who would win, largest naval invasion of its time or a couple of gusty wet bois?
Many victories rely on being outmaneuvered or lured into a trap.
Right and there's 700 years there that the user I quoted failed to recognized as far as Mongol tactical efficacy is concerned. It's all fine and good that late-high to late armor was effective against their bows but that's a small part of the story for their efficacy in Medieval europe.
>Mongols come around 13th century
Pray tell, what where those 700 years user.
(There were steppe nomads in pannonia/hungary since late antiquity. The avars were beaten by the franks, the hungarians by east francia/germany.)
are you intentionally being thick?
>Russia
>China
>Nomads
Wtf are you talking about the Chinese and Russians arent Nomads they got btfo by Nomads though.
You have literally not a single time explained your objection now.
pointed to 12th-15th century europe. The mongols entered europe during the 13th century. Now make yourself clear or stfu.
>every user that replies is the same person
Look back to the initial post:
Lemme emphasize the important part for you
>Eurasia
That's cool and all that Late Medieval plate helped againste steppeniggery but they had been steppeniggering since 11th century. Hence why I said people don't seem to understand what the Medieval period encompasses because
omitted an entire century.
Also don't say literally when you're not using it literally. It makes you seem like a faggot.
...
a trustworthy assassin