How do you defeat an army of horse archers in battle if

>>2826141
Build some fortifications to hide behind in a strategically important area that they can't just bypass and have your archers go to town.

>>2826141
shoot them with your assault rifles
or just testudo it

>>2826141
Form squares, try to lure them into a kill zone where your own archers can retaliate, never give chase.

> DISCIPLINE

>>2826141
find out where they put their horses to pasture and infect the grassland with Clostridium botulinum (causes lockjaw).

>>2826141
Get longer ranged weapons (better bows, crossbows, gunpowder) and supplement with artillery if possible.

>>2826141

climb a mountain

>>2826141
You will never really beat an enemy who has the range and the mobility. The worst that could happen is that they gtfo when they're somehow at a disadvantage.

mostly by boxing them in somewhere

or you can use the "monk's gone but the temple doesn't move strategy" and enslave all their women and children. Since they're on the defensive they can't just run away when they run out of arrows. Shield up until they have no ammo and either they have to engage and get slaughtered or run away and leave all their families at your mercy.

Without overwhelming artillery or archers that can out-range the horsemen, you can't "defeat" them. As previously stated by several people in this thread, you outlast them/hold strategic ground preventing them from moving around you and pillaging your entire civilization.

Richard the Lionheart found utilised an effective counter strategy. During one of his crusade battles. I think it was the one where the crusaders were trying to get from A to B and the Saracens kept harassing them.

It was like something two archers and a pikeman per every regular infantryman.

Generally speaking you just need a ton of ranged troops so you can give as good as you get. Carrhae was an anomaly since the Parthians had a ridiculous supply of arrows with them.

Foot archers and crossbowmen surrounded by a square or circle of infantry with pole weapons and shields

File: ye olde war wagon.jpg (83KB, 470x650px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 470x650px

>>2826141
Archer for archer assuming equal skill an archer on foot has the advantage on being able to shoot slightly higher weight bows with more accuracy.

The one thing that horse archers can't really do is protect themselves with shields. Infantry on the other hand can setup a line of big shields or even war wagons. This allows foot archers (or crossbowmen) to fire back with little risk to themselves.

>>2826141
Which kingdoms were always fighting against horse archers through history? Just take a look at what they did.

crossbows, choke points, castles, horse archer mercenaries

>>2826141
Well if its just a battle in a vacuum you've already lost. In war there are ways to avoid such battles and fight horse archers mostly logistically and strategically.

File: Qing Army.jpg (86KB, 800x529px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x529px

>>2826141
Guns niqqa.

>>2826154
>Form squares
Crassus did exactly that at the battle of Carrhae, it failed miserably

>>2826812
are those camel cannons?

File: 3.jpg (26KB, 352x293px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 352x293px

>>2826141

>>2826141
Give them crossbows and proper discipline.

Barbarians of all directions fear the crossbows.

>>2826141

It's not easy. Your best bet would be to field mostly archers, with some pike to protect them from charges. An archer on foot has a range and accuracy advantage over one on horseback, assuming they're both equally skilled. Of course, the horse archers can simply retreat if they come under heavy fire, so unless they /have/ to defeat you ASAP and engage without retreating then you've really got no way to force them to.

File: Saddle Folangqi and Static Folangqi Ming Cannons.png (292KB, 1104x1600px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1104x1600px

>>2826854
Nah, they're small cannons just carried around via camel.

Ming and Qing China does have a swivel gun with a saddle mount though.

>>2826843

That's because the Romans at that point were shit at fighting cavalry-centric armies and lacked a significant archer presence in their forces

File: it3w0sr6ppay.jpg (47KB, 534x767px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 534x767px

Walls

Defeating horse archers in battle is not difficult, only requiring disciplined infantry and a decent number of ranged weapons. What is difficult is bringing them to battle in the first place.

>>2826272

Horse archery is actually very ineffective unless on completely open field. You would need one rider to guide the horse while one shoots. It also requires a lot of horses, since riders would use multiple per battle.

That said, massed bowmen with Spears. Or better yet, crossbowmen if you have a highly developed bow. Have highly disciplined troops so they don't break and run and just clap the horses until you can force a charge.

>>2826843
He had an army of heavy infantry, no cavalry of his own and no ranged weapons to speak of

Also it was the cataphracts that did most of the damage not the horse archers

>>2827181

Chase the camp not the army. The army might be able to move quickly, but a horde encampment cannot.

You avoid open battle and use defensive terrain, strongholds and siege warfare.

>>2826141
advance knowledge from spies/scouts/other intel so you can leave or evade
swamps and lakes so the horses get stuck or blocked
caltrops because fuck them
(can you imagine the Mongols engaging with a naval defense?)

>>2826315
So, get killed and let them ransack your cities?

I have some unrelated questions, but since there are no 'questions that doesn't need a new thread' threads, I'll ask them here. Does Europe have (more or less) local mounted archers other than Hungarians and the Byzantines? How often were they fielded in pitched battles?

>>2827295
Point of fact, they did, and won against what was probably the foremost naval power of the world at the time.

>>2826315
So, bribe them?

>>2827309
As I recall, England and France did have mounted archers, but they rode into battle and dismounted to fight.

>>2827314

Spain also had the greatest Navy known to man at the time of the Spanish Armada.

>>2826154
>form squres

itt: people that think a crossbow outranges a bow

>>2827309
avars, sarmatians, kipchaks
ottomans used both regular and irregular cavarly wielding bows in large numbers though they would engage on horseback in melee instead of hit and run tactics

they were used often, atleast as a screening wing for the main body of the armies

>>2827450
I'm pretty sure bows have a much much smaller draw weight than a crossbow.

>>2826141
You don't "defeat" people who have no capital, no money or grain reserves, or any objective you can capture.
Even in modern days you can't "defeat" any people who don't have an HQ to bomb and invade.

War is about capturing objectives, if one side doesn't have any objectives to capture there isn't really a victory scenario.
You just try not to start such wars, as they will go on until you surrender, and the process will cost you more than it would cost them.

>>2826141

retreat into mountain forest

>>2827450
Also, people who think that crossbows/bows were one shot-one kill and not spray&pray

Only the british longbowmen, who shot at point blank range, could boast a decent kill per arrow ratio.

File: Crossbowman Behind Pavise.jpg (79KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x600px

You outshoot them. Dismounted archers have better range and accuracy than mounted archers.

Armored bowmen with pavises would be the best, I think.

>>2827576
>dismount
>setup shields
>COME AT ME
>....
>they move past you and go rape your settlements until peasants rebel in protest

>>2826249
Nigga they could just move.

>everyone here saying that foot archers would have bigger range

Most nomads used composite bows which have longer range than the self bow most europeans used in the middle ages.

File: Battle of Yamen.jpg (98KB, 313x822px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 313x822px

>>2827295
>can you imagine the Mongols engaging with a naval defense?
The final victory the Mongols had versus the Song Dynasty was a naval battle.

To be fair, it was the Yuan versus the Song, and both armies possessed loads of Chinese military personnel.

Mongol Naval Retardation started when the race-based Caste System of the Yuan Dynasty was established which removed Chinese commanders off overall campaigns. Leading to the retarded naval campaigns in Vietnam, Japan, and Java.

If horse archers were so great, horse shooters would be even greater. Why didn't anyone employed this tactics and conquered half of the world? Hell, with automobiles this army would be invincible.

>>2827673
what if... what if we make those cars offroad and armor, and a big gun

>>2826141
Give them proper armour, spears and crossbows. Also fortifications.

>>2827682
Exactly. We could've easily have second mongol empire with jeeps instead of horses and machine guns instead of bows.

>>2827645
What matters is penetration ability. Composite bows do badly against armours, especially with longer distances. But horses not protected by anything will get hurt on any distance.
>>2827306
>So, get killed and let them ransack your cities?
>>2826315
>Which kingdoms were always fighting against horse archers through history? Just take a look at what they did.
Poland and Russia for few hundred of years had borders with Mongols/Golden Horse/Crimean Tatars/Others and did well. The answer is good armoured cavalry force and later firearms. Horse archers quickly become close to useless in battles, but tactics used by Mongols and other were still viable, and to counter them you had to have former experience with it. For example, Tatars were cakewalk for 17th Poland, but HRE forces were helpless against Polish mercenaries, which used Tatar tactics (Lisowczycy).
So basically horse archers are a meme, but Mongol tactics, which could be used by most cavalry forces were really great.

>>2827687

It's called ISIS, problem is that planes with bombs/Helicopters with rockets are even faster.

Also trucks don't self-reproduce like horses do.

>The first years of the Han-Xiongnu War were a disaster for the Chinese. It was not until a second generation of leaders—familiar with the steppe and its peoples—came to prominence that the Han stumbled upon a more successful strategy. Wei Qing and his nephew Huo Qubing are the most famous of these men; their famed victories were built upon a type new military operation that was often called a flying cavalry column. The grand historian describes these campaigns in uncharacteristically vivid terms:

>“The Han strategists plotted together, saying, “Zhao Xin, the marquis of Xi, who is acting as adviser to the Shanyu is convinced that, since the Xiongnu are living North of the desert, the Han forces can never reach them.” They therefore agreed to fatten the horses on grain and send out a force of 100,000 cavalry, along with 140,000 horses to carry baggage and other equipment (this in addition to the horses provided for transporting provisions). They ordered the force to split up into two groups commanded by the general in chief Wei Qing and the general of swift cavalry Huo Qubing. The former was to ride out of Dingxiang and the latter out of Dai; it was agreed that the entire force would cross the desert and attack the Xiongnu.

>….Wei Qing’s army, having traveled 1,000 li [aprox 310 miles; 644 km] beyond the border, emerged from the desert just at the point where the Shanyu was waiting. Spying the Shanyu’s forces, Wei Qing likewise pitched camp and waited. He ordered the armored wagons to be ranged in a circle about the camp and at the same time sent out 5,000 cavalry to attack the Xiongnu. The Xiongnu dispatched some 10,000 of their own cavalry to meet the attack. Just as the sun was setting, a great wind arose, whirling dust into the faces of them until the two armies could no longer see each other. The Chinese then dispatched more men to swoop out to the left and the right and surround the Shanyu. W

>>2827908
>When the Shanyu perceived how numerous the Han soldiers were and perceived that the men and horses were still in strong fighting condition, he realized that he could win no advantage in battle…. And accompanied by several hundred of his finest horsemen, broke through the Han encirclement and fled to the northwest…. All in all Wei Qing killed or captured 10,00 of the enemy, He then proceeded to Zhao Xin’s fort at Mt. Tianyan, where he seized the Xiongnu’s supplies of grain and feasted his men. He and his army remained there only a day, however, and then setting fire to the remaining grain, began the journey home.

>Meanwhile Huo Qubing with his 50,000 cavalry rode more than 1,000 li north from Dai and Youbeiping and attacked the forces of the Wise King of the Left. He was accompanied by a force of carriages and baggage similar to what traveled with Wei Qing’s army, but had no subordinate generals beneath him….When Huo Qubing’s army returned to the capital the emperor issued an edict which read: “The general of swift cavalry Huo Qubing has led forth the trips and personally commanded a force of barbarians captured in previous campaigns, carrying with him only light provisions and crossing the great dessert. Fording the Huozhangqu, he executed the enemy leader Bijuqi and then turned to strike at the enemy general of the left, cutting down his pennants and seizing his war drums. He crossed over Mt. Lihou, forded the Gonglu, captured the Tuntou king, the Han king, and one other, as well as eighty generals, ministers, household administrators, and chief commandments of the enemy… He seized a great multitude of the enemy, taking 70,443 captives while only three tenths of his own men were lost in the campaign.” [2]

>>2827910
>The logistics machine the Han created to defeat the Xiongnu is one of the marvels of the ancient world [3]. Each of the Han’s campaigns was a feat worthy of Alexander the Great. But Alexander only pushed to India once. The Han launched these campaigns year after year for decades [4]. The sheer expanse of the conflict is staggering; Han armies ranged from Fergana to Manchuria, theaters 3,000 miles apart. Each campaign required the mobilization of tens of thousands of men and double the number of animals. Chang Chun-shu has tallied the numbers:

>"In the many campaigns in the Western regions (Hexi, Qiang, and Xiyu) and the Xiongnu land, the Han sent a total force of over 1.2 million cavalrymen, 800,000 foot soldiers, and 10.5 million men in support and logistic roles. The total area of lad seized in Hexi alone was 426,700 square kilometers. In developing this region the Han spent 100 billion in cash per year, compared to the regular annual government revenue of 12 billion. In the process the Han government moved from the interior over 1 million people to populate and develop the Hexi river. Thus the Han conquest of the land west of the Yellow River was the greatest expansion in Chinese history." [5]

>The demands of the war forced the Han to restructure not only the Chinese state, but all of Chinese society. [6] The Han’s willingness to radically restructure their society to meet the immense financial and logistic demands of an eighty year conflict is one of the central reasons they emerged victorious from it.

>Huo Qubing, Wei Qing and the other generals on the frontier were able to negate the nomad's central advantage by changing the nature of the Han armies they commanded. Frontier armies were no longer free holding peasant draftees from the interior, but professional soldiers permanently stationed on the frontier. This is important, because it gave them the time to master the equestrian techniques a column of flying cavalry required.

>>2827912
>By the end of the war the Han cavalry were just as good at lancing and shooting from horseback as the nomads themselves. Tactically they were the Xiongnu’s superiors.

>The switch to a cavalry dominated force opened up new options to the Han army. Now it was possible to move just as fast as the nomads—if a Han force set out in surprise then they could usually arrive in the midst of the Xiongnu before the nomads knew what was coming. At best the Xiongnu were given a small space of time to prepare a response, and at worst the Han would arrive in the middle of the night and slaughter the Xiongnu in their sleep.

>Slaughter is the proper word to use here. The only way to dismantle a nomadic empire is to play the steppe warfare game as well as they do. That meant changing both the strategic aims and tactical principles Chinese armies usually relied on in extended campaigns. Sunzi’s judgment that “one who excels in employing the military subjugates other people’s armies without engaging in battle, captures people’s fortified cities without attacking them, and destroys other people’s states without prolonged fighting. He must fight under Heaven with the paramount aim of ‘preservation’” [7] was sensible in the context it was written—a world of agrarian warfare in an interstate system of two dozen petty kingdoms that lacked the means to sustain extended operations—but it was suicidal on the steppe. “Preservation” cannot be the paramount aim of an army operating on the steppe. A nomad that gets away is a nomad that will fight you on a later day. Conversely, nomadic peoples had very little in terms of lands, cities, or possessions worth plundering or ‘preserving’. A nomadic empire’s greatest wealth was its people. Warfare between nomadic confederations were ultimately wars over people, where one side would do everything in its power to slaughter as much of the enemy as they could and capture, forcibly resettle, and incorporate anybody left over.

>>2827913
>The Han followed the same basic strategy. The aim of generals like Wei Qing and Huo Qubing was to kill every single man, woman and child they came across and by doing so instill such terror in their enemies that tribes would surrender en masse upon their arrival. By trapping the Xiongnu into one bloody slug match after another the Han forced them into a grinding war of attrition that favored the side with the larger population reserves. The Xiongnu were unprepared for such carnage in their own lands; within the first decade of the conflict the Han’s sudden attacks forced the Xiongnu to retreat from their homeland in the Ordos to the steppes of northern Mongolia. Then came a sustained—and successful—effort to apply the same sort of pressure on the Xiongnu’s allies and vassals in Turkestan and Fergana. By sacking oasis towns and massacring tribes to the east, the Han were able to terrorize the peoples of Turkestan into switching their allegiance to China or declare their independence from the Xiongnu.

>The Xiongnu were left isolated north of the Orkhorn. Under constant military pressure and cut off from the goods they had always extorted from agrarian peoples in China and Turkestan, the Xiongnu political elite began to fracture. A series of succession crises and weak leaders ensued; by 58 BC the Xiongnu’s domain had fallen into open civil war. It was one of the aspiring claimants to the title of Chanyu that this conflict produced who traveled to Chang’an, accepted the Han’s suzerainty, and ended eighty years of war between the Han and the Xiongnu [8].

>How did the Chinese transform an enemy whose realm stretched thousands of miles across Inner Asia into a mere tributary vassal? They did it through flame and blood and terror.

tl;dr tactically you might be able to do it every now and again on a grand scale you cannot, you have to get your own cavalry and terrorize them into submission.

>>2826141
>How do you defeat an army of horse archers in battle if you have infantry?
Terrain.

File: csokako-castle-an-artistic-rendering-as-it-looked-during-the-late-middle-ages-credit-ferenc-tamas.jpg (67KB, 660x446px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 660x446px

>this kills the mongol

>>2828021
Read A History of Hungary, by Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák and Tibor Frank:
https://books.google.bg/books/about/A_History_of_Hungary.html?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC

>the mongol army handily beat the hungarian and allied armies multiple times
>the mongols sieged most cities, any big castles they thought would be too slow they just moved past
>killed 25-30% of all humans in the country, completely removing human life from some areas
>went back home when they couldn't carry anymore booty

>>2828048
>any big castles they thought would be too slow they just moved past
>w-we didn't want to siege you anyway

>>2828049
Literally yes.
The reason you normally don't do that, is because the army in the castle comes out, flanks you, and beats you.
The mongols won so fucking hard, that they didn't have to worry about that.

>>2828053
If they won, how comes they didn't manage to conquer Hungary?

>>2828057
They didn't conquer Bulgaria, Wallachia, the Rus kingdoms, etc other land they won battles in during the same campaign.
Why conquer when you can just come next year and steal more?
Conquering ruined the horde imho, should've stuck to raping and pillaging.

>>2828061
Ok cool, so they conquered like half of the known world, then suddenly, when they attacked countries with stone castles, they were all "nah, conquering isn't really worth it after all"

>>2826141
if you don't have guns then you don't

mongols used a mix of lancers and archers anyway, if they're all archers then you can pretty much just ignore them

>>2828069
The chinese had stone castles much bigger and more sophisticated than the europeans though.

>>2828085
chinese didn't have stone castles

>>2826249
>or you can use the "monk's gone but the temple doesn't move strategy"

But what if they're nomads and the "temple" does move? And can fight back? And is a thousand miles away?

>>2828088
They walled off whole cities, like Constantinople was in Europe.
And yes, in that walled off city, there was a walled off armory, and thats what you'd call a castle.

Shield phalanx with spears sticking out on the front. Shield phalanx with archers in their midst in the back.

Alternatively, pray their leader dies of a heart attack and see their great horde disband and retreat

File: george-bush-in-mongolia.jpg (18KB, 300x354px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x354px

>>2828069
Because the Mongols weren't a hive mind despite their meme empire.

You have cunts who went "Time to settle down and do civilized stuff." (i.e, the guys who built the Il-Khanate, Yuan Dynasty)

And then you had the maniacs in the west who lived the old life. And by that, "LOL GIBE ME YUR STUFF OR I WILL KILL MANY OF YOU" traditional Steppenigger life of Extortion-funded Nomad States (i.e. Golden Horde).

For example: Mongols in Russia didn't control the Russians directly. They had cucked principalities who ran around basically doing extortion work for them, among these being Muscovy funnily enough.

>>2828144
But they'd just walk around it.
Any force that can beat them can't outrun them.
And you can't go destroy their cities, because lol no cities.

When there are no objectives to capture, you have to win battles; when you can't catch them, you can't win battles.

>>2828130
no, that's what you call a walled city.
China didn't have stone castles

>>2828162
Only if you define "stone castle" as "a walled of barracks and armory in Hungary".

>>2826141
you don't. You bring a an intelligently balanced combined arms army, pin the enemy with cavalry and out maneuver them with your infantry and foot archers.

>>2828158
>Mongols in Russia didn't control the Russians directly. They had cucked principalities who ran around basically doing extortion work for them, among these being Muscovy funnily enough.
And why didn't they do the same with Hungary, or any other country with stone castles for that matter?

Thousands of wolves to outrun an eat the horses

>>2828164
a castle is a sort of bunker where you hide your troops, so enemy has either to siege them down or move on, making his supply lines vulnerable to attack
Typical defense in the depth

>>2828177
Which is why the chinese had castles inside of walled off cities.
Defense in depth against invaders, and a solid defense against their own tax cattle.

A castle is literally a walled off barracks and armory. You can have that in the walled off city.

>>2828170
Because the Western mongols got hit by crises that focused their attention eastwards. Namely: whenever they have to elect a Great Khan.

Then afterwards they were content in threatening Russia and Eastern Europe.

>>2828182
>A castle is literally a walled off barracks and armory. You can have that in the walled off city.
But it serves a differtent purpose in the city: to defend the local elites.
It wont help you with defense in the depth

>>2828170
Because it was election time and they had to go home to vote.
This is literally why Europe was spared. History 101.

>>2828189
it seems like building stone castles brings countries lots of luck

>>2828202
It seems like you continue to ignore all the stone castles in Asia that were sieged and fell.

>>2828209
there were no stone castles in Asia

>>2828221
Tell that to the Seljuks and their collection of Crusader/Middle Eastern fusion fotresses.

>>2828234
I thought we were talking about China

File: Masyaf Castle.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>2828221
>there were no stone castles in Asia
Is this a stone castle? The mongols sieged and conquered it.

>>2828238
We were talking about your MUH ANCESTORS THO understanding of history.

File: Qianmen Gate Arrow Tower.jpg (3MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2592x1944px

>>2828188
>But it serves a differtent purpose in the city: to defend the local elites.
He's talking about "arrow towers."

They're basically keeps within the cities which serve as strongpoints in urban combat when the walls get breached. They're not private property.

>>2828246
Are you saying that if this same exact construction were replicated in medieval Europe it wouldn't be called a castle?

>>2826141
Use pikes so long that horses are easily trampled before the horseman reach you

>>2828256
>they walk around you and go burn your house

>>2828254
they would be called shit castles

>>2828240
and they lost the war and were driven out of syria, werent they? once again it shows that stone castles bring good luck

Basically sticking to cities and fortified places and holding out.
Or if you can somehow ambush them, put them in a shitt

File: Knife Cart.jpg (16KB, 358x255px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 358x255px

>>2828254
In Europe they would just be the keeps. A more accurate translation of "Arrow Towers" would be blockhouses. Very big ones. Scattered throughout a city.

Look, Chinese cities are big. The walls are also big. But you can't focus the whole city for defense like a multilayered castle because people live there and do economic shit.

But when breached the Chinese do expect to fight an infantry urban battle within the streets of the city. Whereby the arrow towers serve as lines of defense in the absence of concentric walls n shiet. There's a reason why Chinese siege weaponry has shitloads of inner-city defensive engines like mobile towers and barricades, like this "knife cart."

>>2828301
That thing is the size of 30 blockhouses. You are being dishonest, there are whole castles smaller than the image posted >>2828246 here.

File: Flakturm.jpg (93KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1024x768px

>>2828312
I am literally the guy you just linked.

Blockhouses is just a fucking english word about a fortified building no matter how big.

Pic related: a blockhouse.

>>2828324
In every other country a blockhouse is the type of frontier logcabin barricaded house that people shoot from.
In fact, if you just google blockhouse, the result is 99% wooden houses.

>This fucktard actually thinks >>2828021 is more defendable than Kaifeng and Xiangyang

File: chin.jpg (95KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 900x506px

>>2828353
Not a stone castle!

File: block house.jpg (188KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x768px

>>2828353
The mongols can only conquer undefended settlements like this one, not superior hungarian huts.

Didn't the Chinese get defeated by the Mongols largely because the Song were a bunch of pansies who hated their own military? And even that took multiple generations to accomplish unlike e.g. the Turks who folded nearly instantly.

The Han-Xiongnu War demonstrates that China certainly knew how to fight against horsefuckers.

>>2828353
pretty rude to call me 'fucktard' to be honest.
Maybe you should consider that a smaller fortification is easier to defend than a bigger one
Also, the less people you have inside, the longer your food supplies will last, and the lesser the chance of enemy spies or internal strife

>>2826272
Why is that lady holding a spiked dildo on a stick?

>>2828391
Maybe you should consider a smaller fortification isn't worth assaulting, when you can just walk past it and steal whatever you want.
Hungary was practically destroyed by the mongols, and from one of the major players in Europe it became a dying state, later to be swallowed by the Habsburgs. The castles didn't do anything other than allow the knight orders to only lose 1/3 of its members instead of 1/2.

>>2828387
Also they were already exhausted from years of fighting against the Jin and the Liao.

>>2828387
Pretty much.

In addition to the Song *allying* with Mongols versus the Northern Jin Dynasty thinking that the Mongs were just yet another bribable Steppenig tribe like the others were.

>>2828401
>Hungary was practically destroyed by the mongols
>practically
so it wasn't destroyed by mongols?

>>2828246
I want to fuck that arrow tower.

>>2828405
How low will you go before posting "i was wrong" and closing the tab?

>>2828408
during the first invasion, mongols didn't mange to take even a single (1) stone castle
during the second invasion, they were totally BTFO
But hey, I guess castles are useless and Mongols didn't want to conquerer them anyway

>>2828412
the king fled to an island, there was no army, the entire country was prey to them
certain areas had to be repopulated, the western part was spared because the of the danube, then they left

>>2828412
Do you claim that the Germans won WWI, because the war was fought on enemy territory all the time, and the germans never lost any of their bases?
You are being stupid, and I think any neutral reader can see that.

File: well-if-the-boot-fits.jpg (33KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x500px

>>2828391
m8 just stop. Mongols overran the most urbanised, developed and technologically advanced sections of the world.

Chinese fortifications were immense comparable to the Theodosian walls of Constantinople but on every city of note (and usually bigger). You didn't know that, I assume because you have assembled your history knowledge from memes and shitposts. Just stop, it's embarrassing.

Considering your point about tiny, inaccessible castles being harder to take. Sure, they are. You know who famously had the best of them? The Nizari Ismailis (assassins to plebs) of this castle >>2828240

They were exterminated.

>>2828424
I claim that Germany lost because it was unable to achieve its military goals
I claim that Mongols lost because they were unable to achieve its military goals

>>2828423
How does it change the fact that they weren't able to take castles and lost hard the second time around?

>>2828412
>Burglar steals your TV, rapes your wife and kills your dog.
>While you have barricade yourself in your bedroom.
>He leaves.
>Strategic victory.

>>2828436
The mongol military goals during that campaign was to see what sort of people live west of Mongolia. It was a scouting expedition in force.
They just casually destroyed several countries on the way.

>>2828426
>Chinese fortifications were immense comparable to the Theodosian walls of Constantinople but on every city of note
Good thing we are talking about castles and not fortified cities, which are different things and serve a different purpose.

>>2828426
>Considering your point about tiny, inaccessible castles being harder to take. Sure, they are. You know who famously had the best of them? The Nizari Ismailis (assassins to plebs) of this castle >>2828240
And, did Mongols win that war? No they didn't, they were driven out of Syria

>>2827309
Eastern Europeans and overwhelmingly so. The Romanian principalities BTFO Ottoman armies using Scythian tactics many many times.

>>2828436
>How does it change the fact that they weren't able to take castles

They didn't need to take castles. It wasn't necessary. Only a token effort was made of it.

>>2828437
you are like an american who argues that USA won vietnam war because K/D ratio

>>2828444
>The Romanian principalities BTFO Ottoman armies

Is that why they became vassals? Stop with this WE WUZ shit.

>>2828441
>They just casually destroyed several countries on the way.
And none of them had stone castles

>>2828452
Hungary had stone castles and it was destroyed.

File: mongolsBTFO.png (109KB, 327x688px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 327x688px

>>2828445
I see. And I guess they lost their second invasion on purpose then?

>>2828455
see >>2828457

>>2828443

They serve the same purpose of holding a garrison and serving as a base to project power.

The Chinese walled cities had thousands strong garrisons. You can't bypass them and leave a token force to keep the garrison copped up the way you can with smaller European castles. The Mongols simply bypassed the European castles in favor of looting and pillaging the unprotected countryside and cities after destroying the field armies.

>>2828457
>>2828458
>we won that other time, meaning we never lost

you are like an american who argues that USA won vietnam war because of WW2.

>>2828443
The level of fortification on Chinese cities far exceeds that of contemporary European castles.

You are focusing on their name not what they actually are. Which a spedly argument.

With the exception of Egypt, the Middle East submitted or burnt, and those impenetrable castles fell. The bulk of the Mongols withdrew for inter Mongol politics funtime.

>>2828466
That's not what I am saying.
I am saying that mongols didn't manage to take a single stone castle during the first invasion, and that stone castles in general are best defense against mongols and other invading armies that rely on mobility and hit and run tactics

>>2828475
You don't need to take stone castles on an expeditionary mission, when you are scouting, at the other side of the world, in a country without an army and without a king, that you are looting through.
Why would they take castles for? They tried a couple of times, it didn't happen effortlessly, and they stopped bothering.
It wasn't necessary to take these castles, because that wasn't the objective, and its not like they can keep them, the mongol state proper was thousands of miles away.

You are being autistic for the sake of /pol/ tier MUH ANCESTORZ memes. Get real.

>>2828465
>The Mongols simply bypassed the European castles in favor of looting and pillaging the unprotected countryside and cities after destroying the field armies.
>looting and pillaging the unprotected cities
You wrote it yourself. Cities are a good target for looting. Thus you build a wall to defend cities from looting.
Castles, on the other hand, aren't really attractive looting targets. You build them to attack the supply lines of the enemy.

>>2828469
I am focusing on their military purpose.
You make the wrong assumption that castles are just tiny fortified cities, which they are not

>>2828482
so, castles wont stop raiding, i agree with you on that.
they will, however, stop invading armies that try to conquer, vassalize you.
This is the reason why Mongols never managed to conquer Europe, and were as a matter of fact stopped by first country with stone castles

>>2828489
Explain what a castle can do that a fortified city cannot.

>>2828499
hold a small military force for a long period of time, forcing the enemy to either split his forces to siege the castle, or make his supply lines vulnerable to raids

>>2828498
>This is the reason why Mongols never managed to conquer Europe

No, you nigger, the reason is that they had to go back home and vote, and later the empire declined as the new khans kept being alcoholic turds, and there was infighting.

Just roleplay this scenario, since you are such a larper:
>you are a peasant
>your king is in a war with some other king
>your king loses battles and goes to a castle
>the other king doesn't siege, instead walks around burning shit and killing people
What do you do? Protip: you don't pay tax and join the army. That king is clearly a moron and bad for the state.
Sitting in a castle where the only thing you achieve is not being dead will lose you the state.
You need to take a total of zero castles to submit a country.
And to repeat for the 10th time, the mongols didn't even want to do that, it was a reconnaissance mission. The goal was to discover Russia, not to conquer Hungary, which they didn't know existed.

Quit wewuzing.

>>2828475

The "Stone Castle" meme pretty much only exists in Hungary/Poland, considering that the Mongols took thousands of stone fortifications in China, Korea, and the Middle East. Most of which were larger and better fortified than the European castles.

Consider that just 10 years before the second invasion of Hungary, the Yuan Dynasty would complete their conquest of the Song, which still had many many walled cities.

The critical difference is that the Yuan could afford to besiege fortifications for years on end, with heavy siege equipment, while the Golden Horde could not.

>>2828053
>The mongols won so fucking hard, that they didn't have to worry about that
its more of a situation of mobility.
each rider had around 10 horses when the mongols went to war. this meant that the raiding horde could ride day and night without getting tired
the khan would send in spies to make maps and mark weak positions before the arrival of the horde. this meant that the highly mobile mongol would never be cornered

basically the european mentality was ;
>it is impossible to chase these people and if we get out of the castle they will be continuously ambushing our troops and wrecking our armies. so sit in the castle and hope that they don't bring and siege engines

it should also be noted that the mongols had the ability to siege and take these castles, in the east they had taken much larger/better defended ones, but they simply didn't think that it was worth it for the eastern europeans were quite poor

File: aetius.jpg (248KB, 945x1290px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 945x1290px

leave the Huns to me

>>2828504
>A city cannot hold men

>>2828516
I dont know how often I have to reapeat myself.
Fortified cities are not the sames as stone castle. They have different military purposes
>fortified city: protect city from enemy
>catles: defense in depth

>>2828448
Yeah well, you try living in the fucking woods for the rest of your life with Akingi hordes on the prowl trying to rape you. But yes, we Romanians aren't the kind of lads that like dying for lost causes and we found Turks are immensely easy to bribe. But we did crush them badly a couple of times using Scythian tactics.

>>2828529
>He thinks there were only a couple cities in China.

>>2828513
peasants wher subsistence level farmers
They had no political power, it didn't matter how angry they got, they couldn't change anything. Thats why the nobility didn't really care about the faith of peasants

>The goal was to discover Russia, not to conquer Hungary, which they didn't know existed.
Cool, and what was the goal of their second inavasion of Hungary? What was their excuse of losing? Another election? Did they want to do some more exploring?

The Mamluks and Ivan Asen gave then a bloody nose. Also, people learned how to deal with their tactics.

>>2828535
Whenever in a history thread someone says "we" while talking about battles, I immediately dismiss their post. You aren't immune. Go back to playing Total War, your dad was a vassal to the Mongols, the Ottomans, and everyone who cared to look at your country.

>>2828541
>but THAT OTHER TIME THO

Quit already. You are cycling between defeated pseudo-arguments.

>>2828516
Conquering walled city is trivial compared to conquering castle.

>>2828535
The Turks WERE the ones using Scythian Tactics considering their steppenigger origins.

Horsemen running around burning shit is right up there in Steppeshit tactics.

>>2828553
let's just agree that mongols were historically unable to conquer countries with stone castles

>>2828552
I used we because I am Romanian and it's a national trait. You seem immensely rustled anon, did some Romanian fuck yer mom?

>>2826141

You fight in the shade

>>2828556
>Conquering an economic and administrative center is trivial compared to conquering Castles, which are more often enough just some noble cunt's house.
Holy shit.

>>2828541

The second invasion was carried out by the Golden Horde, which is generally considered the weakest out of the 4 Mongol successor states. Golden Horde had none of the expertise that was available to Ogedei Khan, because it didn't control the territory that had provided specialists to the Mongol campaigns.

>>2828553
Not him, but you are using the same argumentation
>Well, they got btfo in next invasions on Poland and Hungary
>but BUT THE FIRST INVASION THO, IF THEY WANTED THEY COULD CAPTURE CASTLES I PROMISE

>>2828561
Except for China, Central Asia and the Middle East.

>>2828557
Yeah but they were also bringing zounds of Anatolian Infantrymen, nevermind the Janissaries. By the time they reached the Danube their tactics were as remote from the ones that won at Manzikert as were the Hungarians' when taking over Pannonia compared to the disastrous Battle of Mohi.

>>2828573
>China
didn't have any stone castles

>>2828570
but what are the exact reasons for their loss?
and how many castles did they take?

>>2826315
China is such a country and we all know what their strategy was

>>2828576
A castle is just a fortification nigga. It's not some magic horse archer kryptonite. Mongol overran fortifications far larger and far better than those in Europe.

>>2828578
Logistics. Also, people.learn how to deal with steppeniggers if they don't get crushed 1st time round.

>>2828562
>muh ancestors
>we wuz conqerors

You wuz vassals. Stop butchering history for a patriotic wank.

>>2828569
Are you retarded? Of course it is.
City walls are far easier to attack, and after wall is breached city is done for.
Castles were build most of time on difficult terrains, often you could not use siege engines at all. Also, multi layered defenses, and a shitload more factors. There were many examples, when walled city was captured, but enemy was unable to conquer castle within it.

>>2828582
>Mongol overran fortifications far larger and far better than those in Europe.
larger doesn't mean better.
it actually means worse, because a larger fortification is more difficult to defend, you need more people to defend it, thus more food and more potential for internal strife/enemy spies

>>2827450
Horseback bows tend to be much shorter compared to footman's bows

>>2828588
>Logistics.
like, hungarian forces who were hiding out in stone castles attacking mongol supply lines?

>>2828571
1. The conversation was specifically about the first invasion.
2. They did capture castles elsewhere, so we know they could've.
3. They didn't need to, for many reasons given; read the thread.
4. Hungary was destroyed, it went from a superpower to a nobody, the king escaped to an island to save himself, the hungarian army went extinct, a third of the population was murdered, all the wealth was stolen.

>>2828581
What? Giant projectiles?

>>2828592
Did you even read what I wrote you absolute cretin? Fuck off.

>>2828594
Mate, if a chinese walled city somehow materialized in the middle of Hungary they'd worship it as a god.

>>2828600
>They did capture castles elsewhere, so we know they could've.
mongols didn't have the necessary technolgy to take a proper european stone castle.
sure, they could siege it and starve it out eventually, but that would mean they had to tie a part of their force to sieging, which means that castles served its purpose

>>2828597
Like the difficultied of crossing the Carpathians while being pestered by pissed off mountain hillbillies with Hungarian support all the while facing a.prepared army and carrying siege equipment and food and shiet.

>>2828595
That must be why they withstood years of siege.

>>2828594
cont.
Just to giving and example, some guys posted
>muh Chinese stone walls
>>2828362
>>2828365
>>2828246
I don't know, if it's historical one, or some modern rebuilding, but...
They are laughably easy to conquer. They are basically one big blind-zone, when defenders can do shit against attackers. European fortifications were far superior in design.

>>2828614
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_siege_of_Kaifeng

>>2828575
well they still had units using the same tactics
namely the nomadic turcomans and crimean tatars were used as light mounted cavalry units to disrupt the enemy armies behind the lines and raid enemy territories

>>2828614
>lwo tech asians can't siege our superior walls
European castles were worse, you troglodyte.

>sure, they could, but nevermind
Yes, parking your force in front is a 100% sure way to win when you obliterated the other guy's army.

>>2828607

I wouldn't take it that far. The walls of Constantinople were similar to Chinese city walls in size and scale. I'm certain there were Hungarians who've been to Constantinople.

>>2828630
>The walls of Constantinople were similar to Chinese city walls in size and scale.

And people made a pilgrimage to them to place flowers and pray to them.

File: Surikov_Pokoreniye_Sibiri_Yermakom.jpg (431KB, 2305x1100px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 2305x1100px

>Mongols in charge of not being exterminated like vermin

>>2828581
What's China's strategy? And they got conquered sometimes.

>>2828264
Alamut is not in Syria.

Please just stop embarrassing yourself

>>2828638
>my brother won 500 years later, so its means i never lost earlier lol

>>2827450
>Just how powerful a crossbow could be is glimpsed in the excavated Chu-yen slips, from which records of crossbow maintenance was kept. From the slips already excavated, we have available a set of records showing six crossbows shooting 168 to 280+ meters. Each of these crossbows had only draw weights of 3-5 stone, as compared to typical Han era crossbows of 6 stone. Of these crossbows, two was tested for their penetration ability, both puncturing a wooden wall (most likely a plank or fence) at 252 meters.

>Slip 14.026: 一今力五石廿九斤射百八十步辟木郭
>Translation: Present strength 5 stone 29 jin (341 lbs) and will penetrate a wooden wall at 180 paces (252 meters).
>Slip 515.46: 三石具弩射百廿步
>Translation: 3 stone (193.5 lbs) crossbow, fully assembled, shoots 120 paces (168 meters)
>Slip 36.10: 官第一六石具弩一今力四石【四十】二斤射白八十五步完
>Translation: Number one 6 stone crossbow, fully assembled, present strength is 4 stone 42 chin (285 lbs), and it will shoot to the end of 185 paces (259 meters).
>Slip 510.026: 五石具弩射百廿步
>Translation: Five stone crossbow fully assembled, shoots 120 paces (168 meters)
>Slip 341.3: 具弩一今力四石射二百…(too smeared to make out)…
>Translation: Fully assembled crossbow, present strength 4 stone (258 lbs), shoots two hundred and …[text too smeared to make out] (280-418.6 meters).
>Slip 14.62A: 一今力三石廿九斤射百八十步辟木郭
>Translation: Present strength 3 stone 29 jin (212.2 lbs) and penetrates wooden wall at 252 meters.

>In general Chu-yen slips categorize crossbow draw weight by 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10+ stone, with each stone unit being the modern equivalent of ~64.5 pounds. The majority of crossbows have a draw weight of 6 stone. From the above tests, one can extrapolate that typical Han crossbows of 6 stone would have an average range of over 300 meters, assuming that the bolt fired was no different from those fired from weaker crossbows.

>>2828628
Indeed. Shit didn't work against experienced enemies like Lithuanians, Romanians or Poles and they were not the bulk of the army. The bulk were Anatolian light infantry(azabs), Spahis(medium cavalry) and Janissaries(heavy infantry). Later they used Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, Serbs and Albanians for their European campaigns.

File: crossbowcompared.png (223KB, 510x830px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 510x830px

>>2828649
>What must be noted is that crossbows were typically weaker than bows pound for pound due to their shorter powerstroke. Powerstroke is the length required for a string at rest to be drawn back to the trigger. This means crossbows must have heavier draw weights than bows in order to shoot the same projectile at the same velocity. Typical crossbows of Medieval Europe generally need to have three times the draw weight of a bow in order to give a similarly powerful shot, but made up for this by utilizing winches to maximize the draw weight.

>However, ancient Chinese crossbows thanks to their trigger design allow the nut of the trigger to be placed near the back of the stock. This results in relatively long power strokes rivaling that of a bow, which greatly reduces the crossbow’s usual weakness of energy transference inefficiency. Han dynasty crossbows would have a draw length of 24 inches, implying a powerstroke of 18-20 inches, or rivaling that of a bow.

>Generally speaking, the power of a bow or crossbow measured in inch lbs = 0.5 x powerstroke length x draw weight. The most commonly mentioned crossbow in excavated accounting records were of the 6 stone (387 lb) type. In comparison most bows would only have draw weights of 40 to 100 lbs. Against armored men, Song dynasty archers could use bows with draw weights of up to 160 lbs, still less than half the draw weight of typical Han crossbows. From this, we have the following result for shooting power:

>Heaviest standard 8 stone Han crossbow power = 516 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 4902 inch lbs
>Heaviest Medieval crossbow found from Gallway = 1200 lbs draw weight * 7 inches powerstroke/2 = 4200 inch lbs
>Typical 6 stone strength Han crossbow's power = 387 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 3676.5 inch pounds
>Heavy Song dynasty bow made to pierce armor = 160 lbs draw weight * ~20 inches powerstroke/2 = 1600 inch pounds

>above: medieval crossbow, below: Han crossbow

>>2828645
>My brothers will lose 20 and 40 years later, so it means, that I can win now. But I decide not to do that. But I can, remember! Easy-peasy!

>>2828625

You realize that these walls have had the rest of their defensive features demolished over the years, since they are in cities, and urban real-estate is really fucking valuable.

No urban planner is going to keep a 100 meter moat when there's apartment complexes to build.

>>2828661
>The aiming of the crossbow was refined by both technology and technique. The Han trigger mechanism is a perfect manifestation of this. The trigger itself is designed to operate like a modern trigger in which stored horizontal energy is transferred into a vertical one. This sophisticated design is perhaps the first of its kind that fully allows both hands to stabilize a ranged weapon when discharging a shot.

>The trigger also comes with graduated sighting blade and grid sight in order to adjust for target distance, which allows the crossbowman to aim with better accuracy. Liu Chong of the Han dynasty, himself very adept as a crossbowman, described how to use it:

>“of all the things in the whole wide world, there is none so extraordinary as the principle of sighting. There are three minute points and three small points. The three minute points and three small points are upon the warp and the three small points are upon the weft [analogy to silk looms]. They unite upon the catch of the crossbow. “-translation from atarn

>Nearly 1000 years later, Shen Gua of the Song dynasty unearthed a trigger mechanism with a sighting blade. Using Liu Chong’s method for shooting, he managed to score 7-8 hits out of 10. Shen Gua claimed he could have scored even better with a graduated sight.

>The Book of Later Han listed some of the most popular works read during the Han dynasty. Two of the lost books are named “The Strong Crossbow General Wang Wei’s Way of Shooting” and “The Way of Shooting from Afar with the Interconnected Crossbow [a ballista]”. There are other book titles that mention styles of shooting such as “General Li’s Way of Shooting”, which may include the art of shooting crossbows. It is unfortunate that all but the title of the books are lost.

>>2828602
>>2828641
Spend hundreds of year building a giant ass wall

>>2828641
>>2828602
read >>2827908 >>2827910 >>2827912 >>2827913 >>2827917

tl;dr their strategy was to train their cavalry to be just as good or better than the barbarians, mobilize literally millions of soldiers, and spend 80 years invading the horse archers' territory and putting them and their allies through a bloody meatgrinder.

File: mongoloid.png (176KB, 1872x659px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1872x659px

I wonder if this guy is in this thread

>>2828672
Don't be a fucktard.

>>2828641
China pursued a range of strategies over the thousands of years. Ranging from frontier fortifications, population and Sinification of pasture land, expeditions of extermination, copying steppe tactics, using other steppe peoples as mercenaries or puppets and destabilising the steppe confederacies as they formed.

Where's that one copypasta about some knucklehead thinking the Mongols could stay in one battle for weeks at a time

>>2828662
Are you seriously fucking implying that the hungarians won the first war with the mongolians?
When a quarter of the population died, the whole army died, and entire cities ceased to exist?

File: ae7a7db926448ae0ce3c1171c19ef4a5.jpg (204KB, 945x1200px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 945x1200px

>>2828655
vassal forces only formed the right flank of the army. bulk of the heavy lifting was done by the janissaries and sipahis(who were heavy cavalry, not medium)

essentially the ottoman tactics were to use superior firepower/discipline to shock the enemy and use heavy cavalry to rout them.
as the empires educational systems got corrupted the technological advantage to the europeans were lost as such the army became weak

by ww1 they actually reformed the army quite a bit and performed well against the allied forces despite their low manpower/equipment but by then the entire empire had essentially collapsed around the turks

>>2828696
Mongols didn't achieve their goals (they didn't conquer or subjugate Hungary), so yes. But it was Hungarian Pyrrhic victory, because of reasons you listed. It's similar to many other defensive wars, the most obvious one would be
>Are you seriously fucking implying, that the Soviets won 2WW with Germany? Where 20 million people died, and half of country was in ruin?
It's not different from
>muh k/d

>>2828720
>Mongols didn't achieve their goals
Their goals, as stated more times than you have brain cells, was to scout Russia.

>But it was Hungarian Pyrrhic victory
>hungarian victory
My fucking sides, they are sieging my chest, I don't think I can hold.

Steppeniggers either
>win and become sedentary; immediately either get absorbed into the local population(Bulgaria) or absorb the locals(Hungary)
>win and reign for a while, people either massacre you en masse(Yuan) or you lose all because you are a loose confederation(Timurids)
>lose and continue being a steppenigger

>>2828720
>Mongols didn't achieve their goals (they didn't conquer or subjugate Hungary),

That wasn't really their goal though.

Subutai was literally just exploring and pillaging as they went, he only took 25,000 men after all.

>>2828688
But they're right. They did spend hundreds of years building a long wall.

>>2828021
God damn you. You derailed this thread from laughing at
>muh horse archers
to another discussion about fucking Mongols, who successfully used heavy lancers and infantry, and their victories had little to do with horse archers.

>>2827247
The horse archers Surena used were described as taking out large numbers of Roman soldiers, including firing powerful arrows in such "rapid succession" that some soldiers were getting their feet nailed to the ground.

>>2828743
The wall is the physical manifestation of the Chinese fighting the steppe nomads.

>>2828749
>muh horse archers

But this thread is about muh castles.

>>2828719
I would not count the Sipahis as heavy, because they were much more malleable and versatile than their Western counterparts but I will not fight you over it.

Other than that yes, they had an excellent education system given the period and made excellent use of Eastern Orthodox troops who didn't have any qualms about serving Muslim masters for enough dosh(there's a phrase around the Balkans: The Turk pays). They relied heavily on expandable infantry from the peasant classes in Anatolia though, which were easy to replace and made up a shitload of their troops.

>>2828743
kek

File: IMG_0835.jpg (34KB, 288x154px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 288x154px

>>2826154
This. Wellington used this against Napoleon at Waterloo. It plays off the psychology of horses. Rather than charging into the squares, they will attempt to go around. This is why you have another square positioned diagonally behind that one. Then, when the horses swerve to avoid the first square, they are forced to charge the second.

>>2828814
>It plays off the psychology of horses. Rather than charging into the squares, they will attempt to go around.
That were some badly trained horses.

>>2826141
What I'm more curious about is the transitional post-conquest stage of a steppenigger army and how it changed their tactics. Like Yuan China, post-Manzikert Seljuk etc. What did their armies look like?

Why didn't Euros ever adopt composite bows after hundreds of years of exposure to them?

And also y'all need to stop taking the bait from this fucking MUH GOULASH idiot.

>>2828839

No horse will willingly charge a square or any other body of men armed with long sharp sticks.

>>2826272
Didn't some horse archers dismount for archery?

>>2828859

The classic reason given is that the humidity of Northern/Western Europe doesn't lend itself well to the animal glue used to make composite bows. Also, composite bows are much more expensive, time consuming, and skill intensive to make than self bows.

>>2828562
It doesn't matter if you're Romanian or Hungarian or Gypsy. Using 'we' to describe a side in a historical battle just makes no fucking sense because you weren't there and makes you sound like a ignorant chauvinist and a wewuzer. It makes people unable to take you seriously.

File: wojakelcid.png (117KB, 1475x1466px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1475x1466px

The Mongols could raid Hungary and Poland but not hold it due to Europe's ridiculous level of feudal decentralization.

Giant city walls are more difficult to penetrate but one breakthrough and the entire city is jeopardized. The Mongols could breach the thinner lower castle walls and lose elite soldiers to peasants with crossbows, but then what? Whoopie Goldberg, now there are another 40 castles scattered across the country, each requiring their own sieges in preparation for the assault and supply lines (which may be within striking distance of another castle). After many lives lost due to dysentry, murderholes, camp fever, raided supply lines, typhoid and crossbows, what do you gain? Whatever grain stores they had left and the dead soldiers' arms and armor. They didn't find the local lord's silver because it was held by jewish moneylenders, distant relatives, the church and italian merchants.

You also wasted months, during which time your enemy has convinced his allies to send another army. Knowing the Mongols they'd probably defeat that one too, but the Mongols were not an invincible killing machine, each time they would lose more lives to those cursed crossbows and risk getting trapped in a chokepoint or some other disaster that typically happens in a chaotic war. For what? They can't use this wartorn place as a launching pad for further invasion, sooner or later that inevitable disaster will happen.

There is nothing to gain by occupying it and any Mongol general could envision the outcome. Nope. They simply collect all the copper pots and pans they found, the cute blonde boy Orgutei took a liking too and head home.

>>2828892
I didn't use we in regard to the historical battle you fucking retard, just to us as a nation and our collective traits and quirks. Read again you utter mong.

>>2828905
Ahh yes, you sure know those Romanians from 400 years ago well. Fuck off

>>2828941
Good God you're so fucking triggered muh man. Have a last (You).

File: Yuan Army.png (974KB, 743x600px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 743x600px

>>2828848
In the case of the Yuan Dynasty, very few things really changed: it was basically a Chinese army with a Mongol (and by that, meaning Mongol, Turkic, and the other allied tribes that came in with Genghiz and settled in China) cavalry, with Mongol Commanders.

The vast Chinese contingent they divided into two: the Northern "Han Army" which is a misnomer because along with ethnic Han Chinese, it was also where the survivors of the Jin Dynasty (ethnic Jurchen) were lumped into, and then the "New Army" (as in newly subjugated) consisting of Southern Chinese former Song people.

The Yuan also merely continued Song/Jin Era experiments into gunpowder weaponry, in which the first cannon showed up in the Chink arsenal.

In addition the Mongol rulers started wearing Chinese armor or Bits of it more often enough, in addition to increasing Chainmail production in China via- again- Muslims who know how to make em.

As for siege, famously the Yuan Dynasty brought the counterweight trebuchet to China, along with Persian engineers. Hence the Chinese name for counterweights "Hui Pao (Hui, or Muslim Artillery)."

>>2828975
Thanks anon.

>>2828743
Lmao that wall is just proof China has probably fought off steppeniggers more than anyone else.

>>2827578
it was used in the crusade with a lot of success.
i dont remember the exact battle, but it was oppose landing in israel, and the muslim bows were unable to penetrate the crusader's armor.

>>2829050
Yes, because the target of the crusades were a people who had cities, temples, and things to defend.
You can't just run away if you have things to lose and have to defend.
The mongols in Hungary didn't need to defend anything, they didn't risk their capital being destroyed while they raced past to go raid.


Look, even USSR and USA generals and strategists haven't solved the issue of waging war with a people who don't have anything they want to defend, you won't guess it on 4chan's /his/.

>>2828975
>famously the Yuan Dynasty brought the counterweight trebuchet to China, along with Persian engineers
How quickly were they supplanted with cannons?

File: Crouching Tiger Cannon.jpg (55KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x282px

>>2829072
Not quite since the first cannons that showed up in the Yuan Dynasty were tiny ass things ranging from handguns to the crouching tiger cannons, which were pretty much anti-infantry pieces.

The large wallfucking pieces came in the Ming Dynasty.

>>2828871
On it's own? Of course it won't.
When trained specifically to do that? Without any problems.

>>2829072
The first really good cannons were the Ottoman ones used against the Balkan kingdoms.

>>2828683
Would the Romans have had the capability to raise a professional fighting force of millions of men if they needed to? Or is this just something China can afford to do because of their millions of people and powerful Legalist government?

>>2828615
>pissed off mountain hillbillies
Who?

>>2826141
Counter them with your cavalry

Or

Cut off their arrow supplies

>>2826141

I dunno OP, ask the Qin about that.

>>2829186
You give them food, women, alcohol, and let them live in your house, until they get fat and lazy?

>>2829144
Ruthenians, Romanians, especially the Szekely. The same people the Mongols raped the first time round.

File: steppe horsefucker.png (74KB, 349x461px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 349x461px

>>2826141
Raep and pillage their nomadic tribes and acquire cute steppe slaverape-fu

>>2827629

Do you know why large crowds of people move slowly?

File: Wales.jpg (13KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 290x174px

>>2826272
this

ok /his/ let's have it out. Period English longbowmen vs Mongolian horse archers, who wins here? We can use 1346 as a reference date, but late 13th century could also be acceptable.

I'm not going to imply equal skill or numbers, but we have to remember that Mongols have horses and can drink their blood to sustain themselves. But longbowmen almost certainly outrange them if I'm not mistaken. Both take a very long time to train and properly equip too, so each side may make use of preparation time.

>>2829050

well European armor was really good, so it makes sense.

>>2828901
good post

>>2829334
>English longbowmen vs Mongolian horse archers
What does it have to do with the Welsh flag then?

>>2826141
Archers, spears and shields. Granted you have access to the same technology, you will be able to equip foot archers with more powerful bows and out range him. Fight defensively.

>>2829449

it is an entirely relevant image, given the fact that these kind of longbows are actually a Welsh invention.

>>2826141
You take them from good terrain and have good projectile weapons. Calvary folds to high volume archery if you have the same range. Short bows wont get the job done.

>>2828814
Those are some Napoleonic Dragoons getting shot down by Russian Guard infantry though.

File: testudo6.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>2826141
easily

>>2830545
Not very good bait famaliman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

>>2828504
>A city with walls and and a stockpile of resources and a garrison cannot carry out this exact same task

>>2828814
Well, I was quoting from the Macedonian Dynasty Byzantines who used a similar tactic against Turkic horse archers, very successfully too. But they also had Cataphracts, so I don't know if it would work for Infantry alone.

>>2826141
Pick the terrain. Forests come to mind.

>>2826141
I think the most important factor to consider is what year it is, what year is it exactly?

>>2826843
> Need range weapons or pikes for squares to be effective
> Romans used short swords

>>2831050

Spartans vs Persians

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea#Battle

protesting

File: IMG_20170506_112346019_HDR.jpg (3MB, 3006x5344px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3006x5344px

>>2828246
I never understand how these are effective, just look at the window, the blindspots are fucking enormous.

>>2827917
Genocide is a good thing?

>>2828620
Magyar BTFO

File: 1492912482025.png (12KB, 502x310px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 502x310px

>>2828723
>My fucking sides, they are sieging my chest, I don't think I can hold.

>>2828516
Yes, China had castles and fortified walls arguably as grand and impressive as anything in Europe.

But there were other differences, as well. Europe is broken, rocky terrain compared to the northern plains of China.

China was heavily centralized, so it fell for the same reason why the Achaemenid Persian empire fell when hammered by Alexander. Europe was heavily decentralized, like the Sassanid Persian empire repulsing the Romans time and time again even when the Romans penetrated deep into their territory and even captured their capital, because the individual power brokers in a decentralized economy can keep up the fight independent of

China was also facing severe internal turmoil, and most of the siege equipment that the Mongols were using to take these fortified Chinese position was with Han Chinese siege equipment and Han Chinese siege engineers. Europe more or less united in the face of Mongol aggression, and they never really got that close to the heart of western Europe.

There are a large number of factors at play here, more than mere architecture

>>2828684
Undoubtedly, it's the same angry chink everytime lol. Even claims that the Chinese could beat the Romans lmao

The W-87 thermonuclear missile would be a good start

>>2831451
The Chinese would have had two major advantages over the Romans
>Better cavalry
>Better crossbows
>The capacity and logistics to field literally millions of soldiers

>>2826272
This.
http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/02/qi-ji-guangs-che-ying-p1.html

>>2828975
>In addition the Mongol rulers started wearing Chinese armor or Bits of it more often enough, in addition to increasing Chainmail production in China via- again- Muslims who know how to make em.
One thing to note that there was a textile boom during the Yuan and the Mongols introduced cotton/brigandine based armors.

Central Asian/Tibetan forms of lamellar were reintroduced and gradually replaced native forms during the Ming.

>>2831439
>But there were other differences, as well. Europe is broken, rocky terrain compared to the northern plains of China.
Reminder that Song loyalists from mountainous Sichuan only surrendered after death of the last emperor.

>>2831549
>The capacity and logistics to field literally millions of soldiers
Hundreds of thousands not millions. Even then that's severely straining the state and mainly applicable to Western Han conscription.

>>2831061
An earlier thread about Roman legionnaires commented how they blended skirmishing tactics (javelins and darts) while the gladius and scutum ensured decisive close-range support in melee.

Carrhae failed because not only did the Romans not have suitable archer support, they lacked pole arms to resist the cataphract charges by the Parthians. And whatever cavalry they had got decimated thanks to hit-and-run attacks and clashing with the Persian armored cavalry.

>>2826154
hello crassus

>>2831637

Bit of a correction, although the legionnaires did have throwing weapons, they were not intended for skirmish, but rather to add more shock to the charge. The Pilum is far too heavy to throw farther than essentially point blank range, so it has to be followed by a charge, or leave the legionaries vulnerable to a counter-charge.

Only in the later empire, with the adoption of the Plumbata would the legionary gain a weapon better suited to skirmishing.

>>2826141
>>2826141
Bring archers.

>>2826154
>lure them in
foot archers will generally outrange horse archers, unless you have a laughably backwards culture using bows that are centuries or millenia out of date.


>>2827543
You're fucking retarded. We literally have examples of steppe hordes being broken because their encampent was overrun.

"nomad" doesn't mean "a sexually reproducing force of warriors" Their entire fucking civilization has to move around, and is slow a shit when it does, as well as being horrible vulnerable to attack if found.

Nor do they move continuously.

>>2827645
>>2827795
That isn't how bows work you absolute fucking retards.

>>2828518
They tried and failed to take castle in eastern europe.

>in the east they had taken much larger
Yes
>better defended ones
Having a lot of soldiers does not make a place well defended when it has shit design.

>>2828246
They're also not castles. A freestanding tower is just that: A tower. Castles are an entire set of mutually supporting defenses, and the good ones are nightmare inducing shitfests to even think about attacking.

The mongols tried taking them. They failed. When the song built a few well sited, purpose built forts analogous to them, they suffered. Badly.

>>2826141
you wait for the disease to do it