>>I can think of a few: Armour.
> As previously stated, the Mongols had chainmail, which is all
>that their European foes of the time had access to.
The huge majority of mongols used leather armour, or, as quoted in the Encycl. of Military History "shirts of raw silk [to protect against arrows and make theirremoval easier]" The mail worn by the Mongols was almost entirely captured pieces.
>And the notable
>failure of plate to give Europeans a decisive advantage over the
>chain-armored Saracens leads me to suspect it wasn't that big a deal
>even if they'd _had_ it vs. the Mongols.
Well, according to my sources, Plate armour was introduced by the early 13th century...and since the Mongol campaigns in Europe were, what, 1240? That would mean they DID have it (not that it saved them). It did give an advantage. In the Crusades, whenever the crusaders won -which WAS rather frequently, contrary to your implication - their casualties were nonexistant. When they lost, however, their armor became a negative and contributed to increased casualties. Read about the 3rd Crusade for an example of skilled Europeans vs. skilled Moslem armies.
Vs. the Mongols,
the value of armour was negated by the superior mobility and most
importantly GENERALSHIP of the mongols - not that the armor the europeans
had was by any means valueless.
>>The crossbow, allowing any dork peasant to be able to kill at 150
>>paces (ok, well, maybe 50 paces) without the lifelong training of a
>>mongol.
> Not so. Name a battle (just one) in which untrained peasants
>armed with crossbows were able to beat _anybody_. Untrained peasants
>weren't _given_ expensive crossbows. Plus the Mongols could have had
>crossbows if they'd wanted them -- the Chinese made fine crossbows of
>every type, including repeating. Crossbows, being nigh-unusable on
>horseback, were worthless to them.
OK, granted - sloppy use of language on my part. Not untrained peasants. What I meant was that the crossbow could be used to great effect by an individual only recently trained in its use - and did not require the lifetime of training required to make a good horse archer. The crossbow was the west's answer, so to speak, to Horse Archery.
>>Sturdier mounts by far, forcing the mongols (by and large -
>>recognition is made of the huge generalization here..) to evade
>>melee unless overwhelmingly outnumbering their foe (the Hungarians
>>come to mind here).
> Huh? The Mongols _won_ every battle they fought against the
>Europeans, and only rarely managed to outnumber them. The last battle
>vs. the Mongols is sometimes counted as a European victory because
>the Mongols returned to Asia afterwards, but that had to do with
>Mongol internal politics. Careful examination of the battle reveals
>that the Europeans were whipped, as always, and that they were taken
>aback when the Mongols ceased their campaign.
Read again what I said; I said that the Mongols would avoid melee if possible (against standing European troops). I didn't say the Mongols lost. The Europeans WERE whipped.
>Interior lines of communication.
> Huh? How did Europe have interior lines of communication vs.
>Subotain? They had to gather their forces from Hungary, Prussia,
>Poland, Bohemia, etc. while the Mongols split their forces at will,
>recombining for the major battles.
Um, interior lines doesn't refer to tactics. Interior lines refers to lines of communication, support, and defense. You seem to be looking only at the Eurpoean theatre. Strategically, the Mongols had an Empire 6000 MILES LONG. The the Europeans were defending their homes. That would mean, by definition, that the Europeans had interior lines.
>>Hmmm. I guess the proof is in the pudding - I don't see any Mongol
>>states around in 1995, do you?
> Er. How about Mongolia?
That fearsome state.
>And China (ruled by the Mongols so
>long that they were finally assimilated)?
China was ruled for about 200 years by Mongols. This in China,
which already (in 1200) had 2000 years of civilized history under it's
belt. I would thus hardly call China a "Mongol State".
>And the Mongol influence
>over central and southern Russia (which lasted for many centuries).
The Mongols advanced into the Caucasus in 1221. Dmitri Donskoi of Moscow
defeated the Tatars (arguably the inheritors of the Mongol dominance of the
region) in 1380. 159 years is NOT *many centuries*.
>And Afghanistan (Tamerland saw himself as heir to the Mongols, and
>I'm not so sure he was wrong)?
Another mighty and fearsome state.
To sum up, your original post stated that you didn't see ANY advantages possessed by the Europeans over the Mongols. The Europeans did have some - just not nearly enough when compared against the brilliance in tactics, strategy, generalship, audacity, sneakiness, mobility, etc, etc had in plenty by the Mongols. Thats *ALL* I'm saying. Sorry to waste bandwidth on this non-gloranthan thread, everyone. So, who are all the Seven Mothers, and will we ever see a complete writeup on them & their subcults?
Steve Lieb
liebx004_at_maroon.tc.umn.edu
Cologne, MN
....still looking for that killer .sig
Powered by hypermail