Are Mongols overrated?

Mongols would have trashed them.
Look at what the Parthians did to foot armies.
They were Mongol light.

>>34708028
alexander have stomped parthians though

>>34708054
But Alexander's army fell apart after he died. Mongols at least held up long enough to be known as the mongols as opposed to the army of Genghis Khan and Chaka Khan

>>34707943
No. Too much of a technology gap, and the Mongol commanders would most likely have at least a passing knowledge of Alexanders tactics.

>>34708079
Don't underestimate what stirrups did to improve cavalry by increasing control and leverage. Lamellar armor and iron or steel plated helmets help too.

>>34708069

>held on long enough to fall to petty squabling between his many bastards

File: IMG_4843.jpg (78KB, 600x752px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x752px

>>34708069
I guess I should elaborate on my point before someone says anything
Chaka Khan is an African American recording artist who has been active in numerous music genres, most noticeably while working with the band Rufus. I placed her in my post as a piece of satire to draw comedy from the fact that the Khans weren't the infamous leaders of the Mongolian empire that lasted for much longer than the leaders who established it, as opposed to Alexander the greats empire collapsing after he died in battle.
Chaka Khan is not a mongoloid, nor a Mongolian.

>>34707943

>phalanx infantry with companion cavalry against ridiculous amounts of light cavalry and mounted arches

that already gives a massive advantage to the mongols. Add in the fact that the mongols have the experience edge on horseback and the macedonians would be fucked mate.

>>34708141
Alexander's empire fell apart immediately. Genghis' empire didn't even reach the height of its expansion until Kublai, who should be way more famous. He was basically Augustus to Genghis' Julius.

File: Subutai get the horses.jpg (138KB, 1005x1440px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1005x1440px

>>34708184
Where does that leave Subutai as the commander who won the most battles and captured the most land?

>>34708141
Genghis specifically made it his final mission in life to make sure that his sons wouldn't fight over the empire. The mongol conquests accelerated under his son Ogodei. Genghis had a much better understanding of strategy than Alexander. They were both masters of tactics but Genghis built his empire from some tribes as opposed to Alexander having the best army in the world falling in his hands.

>>34707943
then the romans came and trashed the phalanxes,the companion was alexander elite but they were like napoleon old guard,used only at the decisive moment,old guard were defeated with overwhelming force,if the phalanxes could not win,the companions would not turn the tables.
alexander was overated in the end since most of his battlefield were open field.

>>34707943
>Are Mongols overrated?
No, the Mongols caused the Black Plague

>>34708184
Kublai did finish the conquest of China but it could be argued that the empire was already separated at the time of his rule. Kublai still was the great khan and had some authority over the other khanates but buy then they were almost autonomous entities.

>>34708079
The implication being their technological advancements would be closer in scope due to the fact they would be around at the same time. Who wins then?

File: IMG_4844.png (137KB, 220x303px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 220x303px

>>34708234
Scary bird doctor told me it was because of my lack of faith in God

>>34708259
Scary bird doctor doesn't know about the Siege of Kaffa and mongols launching their plague stricken troops into catapults over the city walls

>>34707943
At their respective heights? No, Alexander would not have beaten the Mongols. Numbers alone were on their side, in addition the qualities of leadership and discipline. The Mongols would simply avoid a decisive battle if it wasn't on their terms and in their favor, preferring to harass and poke at the Macedonians until such time. And they'd be able to do so at their leisure, because there is no realistic way for the Macedonians to prevent it.

>>34708259
b-but it was a scientific theory which made them use those masks/

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

they also had oilcloth robes which actually make sense, at least partially

>>34708292
the advantage of being nomad allowed the mongols almost infinite supplies,if they disrupted alexander supplies,he was done.

>>34707943
The mongols under Genghis Kahn's rule were using modern tactics like we use today while everyone else was using straight line offense and defense tactics.

>>34708301
That too but such a statement is a bit... well broad. It implies that the Mongols were solely horse archers and cavalry. And while that was the bulk of their army, it ignores their very large and effective infantry. They had probably the largest composition of infantry of any Steppe society. They had very advanced siege engines and artillery, even early gun powder weapons towards the end.

>>34707943

Could Napoleon have stopped Georgy Zhukov at the head of the Red Army of 1944?

>>34708227
The Phalanx was the solid pivot that the Companions and Hypaspists manuvered around.

>>34708257
Alexander, any other answer is just sad.

>>34708340
Go read up on Alex and his conquests.

>>34708449
I'm well versed.

>>34708418
Would Subutai shit his pants at the mere sight of Alexander the Great of Macedon?

>>34708507
Let's be real, he'd run over him so fast he wouldn't even realize who it was.

>>34708340
the infantry were used at battles that favored the mongols,ghenkis would pick a battlefield that is not exactly flat to negate the advantage of the phalanx while their horses,faster than the companions would just outrun them and fire volley of arrows.

you have to think the Mongol tactic of running their horde of human shields in first would have been bretty gud in gumming up a phalanx before slamming their light Calvary into the flanks

rule of thumb though if one army has stirrup and the other doesn't the one with a stirrup wins, it was that much of battlefield game changer

>>34707943
Asian > White

Never ask an asian for a fight.

>>34707943
No.

>>34708644
They would do something like that occasionally, another favored tactic is their feint and ambush which might work against Alexander's cavalry depending on how disciplined they are. Harass the enemy lines until the enemy cavalry starts to chase, turn like you're running from battle until the enemy cavalry is isolated from the rest of the army. Spring any ambush, rejoin your main army whatever and turn to face the chasing army then decimate them. Worked at Mohi, and an army without cavalry support quickly turns into a rout.

>>34708732
Works here but false more often than it's true. Ask japan about having a military let alone an empire, or south korea about still existing, or China about opium, lel

>>34708850
>taking the bait
Baka.

File: 1482365009889.png (81KB, 400x397px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 400x397px

>>34708159
>this post

>>34707943
Reminder Alexander only succeeded because Achaemenid Persia was a paper Tiger. By the time he reached an actual enemy in India he got his shit wrecked, and died with all of his companions and friends hating his guts (nevermind they probably murdered him).

The Mongols at least beat several competent enemies.

>>34707943
The Mongols are both overrated and underrated. It all depends on who you ask.

For example, there's still a lot of discussion as to what stopped them from invading the rest of Europe, with claims ranging from Mongol fanboy bullshit to nationalistic European garbage.

Yet in reality they've had anything from crushing victories to crushing defeats in Hungary and Poland. Generally, Poland and Hungary had to simply reach closer military standards to what was achieved in western Europe, as well as learn from their previous defeats and nomad allies, to figure out how to defeat the Mongols. For example, during the last attempted invasion of Hungary, the Mongols couldn't pillage any town because they were all fortified, then met the Hungarians and were subsequently defeated.

In any case, the mongols were good and all, but a competent leader with quality forces could very well defeat them, which happened a lot too.
As for the comparison, the Macedonians would suffer a huge technological gap. They'd lack powerful ranged weapons, their heavy cavalry would lack stirrups, quality armour and lances, while their infantry wasn't very mobile and could easily be flanked. The cavalry would be cut down before the rest of the forces would be too immobile to fight against the Mongols.

>>34708224
yeah but Alexander was white so ... ??

>>34711544
Those armies drowning off the coast of Japan probably didn't help the Mongols either

>>34711544
>macedonians weren't using slings
lmao they outranged the horseniggers by hundreds of yards senpai.
of the mongol bow
>the highest recorded distance being 539 feet
t. www.bowmanship(dawt)com/recurve-bow/mongolian-recurve-bow/
vs slings
>Roman military texts recommended archery target practice at about 200 yards (600 ft for you dumbdumbs) [this not being anything of a record for the time period]
also slings do more damage at extreme ranges and the mongols presented a much larger target as maiming the horse would often cause catastrophic damage to the rider

>>34712304
>hundreds of yards
forgot to add that modern record for sling range is something over 400 m, although i can't find any modern records for slings of good old alex's period so you have to assume that sling technology hasn't advanced very much, which is maybe reasonable considering how absolutely simplistic the design is

>>34707943
NO YOU EUROPEANS ARE OVERRATED. US MONGOL CONQUER ALL ASIA AND WE CRUSH MUSLIM.

ONLY REASON YOU WIN CRUSADE WAS BECAUSE MONGOL HELP.

GREAT MONGOL EMPIRE CAUSED GREAT CULTURE EXCHANGE BETWEEN EAST AND WEST.

MONGOL UNDERRATED.

FUCK YOU LATIN

PRAISE TENGRI

>>34712373
calm down spurdo

Alex wins. Part of the reason the Mongols were so successful was because they were often fighting fractured or disorganised opponents. They never really fought a force as elite as the Macedonians under Alexander. Alexander's army was too disciplined and he and his commanders were too smart to be beaten like the Chinese or the Russians. They would have forced a fight in mountainous terrain and slaughtered the Mongols.

>>34712382
The Mongols fought a united Khwarazmian dynasty who happen to live in a mountainous region, they crushed them so hard they literally wiped a civilization off the Earth.

>>34712373
>>>/gif/11024081

I think Alexander would at least give them a miserable time of it even if they won.

He knew how to fight mobile armies, and smashed far larger armies than his.

I'd give the mongols 5 or 6/10. Probably would win, but Alexander really was one of the best generals in history, and the mongols were not invincible.

>>34712899
This. Alex would've curbstomped the Mongols.

>>34712423
I'm sure these people were as strong as Greece united under Alexander.

>>34713097
Were Alexander's enemies as strong as the Mongols united under Genghis Khan?

File: 1372669258627.jpg (553KB, 1200x1614px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1200x1614px

>>34711544
>For example, there's still a lot of discussion as to what stopped them from invading the rest of Europe

Terrain unusable for their tactics that was actually guarded unlike in Asia.
This is perfectly mirrored by the way nations repulsed them.

Czech lands are all mountains and they repulsed them immediately, so did the Austrians living in the same conditions.
The steppes of Poland, Russia and Hungary were easy targets, however. Unlike Russia, both Poland and Hungary did have mountainous regions that held the fort and proved vital to the actual victories down the line.

European style of warfare was practically hard-countered by Mongols, what saved our ass is that we also figured out Mongols were hard-countered by hills.
You argue for fortifications but keep in mind they are still Chinks and Chinks had gunpowder and shit. Besieging cities was simply against their battle strategy, it's not that they couldn't besiege and fuck up cities and fortifications if they had to.

>>34708054

Parthians didn't start existing until a few hundred years after alexander

>>34713694
>The steppes of Russia
Russia was covered in the forests m8. Plains has to be won from forest with an axe and fire. In the southern regions were steppes started no settled population lived and it was lands of nomads long before mongols.

>>34708028
>Look at what the Macedonian cavalry did to foot Greek armies.
Fixed.

>>34713694
>Besieging cities was simply against their battle strategy,
Christ. Did you base your research on Conan the Barbarian or something? The Mongols were the greatest siege experts of the day (read: stole the greatest siege experts of the day from China and baptized them in blood), it's not just that they could besiege a city, they were prolific and brutally effective at it.

No one wants to give eastern europe it's due for turning back the mongols, like they had some magic bullet on their side. Not really.

File: 0BxDsXY-y9D8AZjRBWVYyUTVBd3c.jpg (113KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 620x349px

>>34708069
>mongols held up after ghengis died

>>34708227
wew, phalanxes only declined because the sarissa got too long. swiss pikemen in the late middle ages brought back the pike

also the heitaroi or companion cavalry declined in number later in the diadochi period so there were not enough to act as the hammer

>>34708517
bullshit

>>34708541
alexander would have just retreated into asia minor where his phalanxes would have annihilated the light cavalry and his galatians would have carved up any asiatic infantry

>>34714312
Mongol empire was united force and continued to grow for 12 years since death of Ghengis under rule of Ogedei. In fact Mongols started invasion of Europe (including Russia) after Ghengis's death and only after Ogedei Khan's death Mongols empire fell into civil war.

>>34714346
Alex played checkers in India m8. The world moved on.

>>34713694
>>34714244
>>34714302
It might be not only the local terrain, but also the relative proximity to the steppes. When armies from the steppe moved to hungary, they had to cross logistically difficult mountainous areas (which caused casualties already at the beginning of the failed 1285 invasion). When they attacked the rus in comparison, they only had to move through forests and farmland.

There's also the question of local allies. When the mongols conquered china, chinese cities sometimes willingly surrendered to be spared. Han generals would defect with whole armies, chinese auxiliaries would fight for the mongols. That would massively simplify logistics and supply, operating in difficult terrain, etc. In europe they had it much harder. The rus did surrender (their position was hopeless against the mongols) and supply auxiliaries, but these were of little military value. In central europe, there were no defectors; when the hungarian king was offered vassalage and tax exemptions for military help, he ignored them. The difference in religion and culture between the mongols and the europeans was far greater than that between mongols and chinese or mongols and turks.

File: Mongolian Stirrups.jpg (161KB, 1031x830px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1031x830px

>>34714356
>phalanxes would have annihilated the light cavalry

Yeah no, phalanxes were absolute garbage against adaptive and mobile enemies, every reason the Romans made them obsolete applies to the Mongols and more so

Add to this pic related means the Mongol Calvary outclasses the Macedonian Calvary by orders or magnitude

any engagement between phalanx and actual light Calvary somewhat competently commanded ends up with the Phalanx getting flanked, at which point a Phalanx gets BTFO

>>34708794
Weren't their some occasions where Alexander's Calvary charged in first ahead of the phalanxes? That sounds tailor made to fall into Mongolian strategy, add to that Alexander lead the Calvary himself and his army is liable to have it's command structure beheaded early on.

>>34715337

what's special about mongolian stirrups?

>>34715425
Existing.

>>34715425
Stability and leverage

>>34715425
i think they could control the horse with it and still have a free hand
>>34707943
dunno Op but i hear the mongols were really advanded for the time like there fire and mauvore tactcs still gget used by tank companies to this day also they did advanced shit like attacking from the rear and other smart shit

also what was great about alexandra ?

>>34715425
nothing special about mongolian stirrups specifically but stirrups themselves came to europe only in about 6-7th century a.d. while alexander the great lived in the 4th century b.c.

>>34715470
It goes way further than this, overall stability is simply better,

meaning you can wear heavier armor,
fight while moving at greater speed,
use both hands at the same time with good riding skill and a decently trained horse

the fact that you can use archery with any skill at all with stirrups shows how much more stable a platform it makes
I mean we're not even getting into the whole early Iron Age vs Early Medieval Age technology in general part

>>34715425
without Stirrups Calvary was something of an auxiliary fighting force that could harass an enemy but ultimately supported the ground forces

with Stirrups Calvary dominated the battlefield until the widespread use of gunpowder

Germanics only invades the roman empire because they were afraid of an mongolian invasion.

So:

Mongol>Germanics>Romans

If something is overrated it is the military power of the roman empire in it last stage.

>>34713694
Sieges weren't magical things that just happened in a few days or even weeks and even then there was thousands of forts in western Europe.

>>34715600
>anyone over the pre-fall germanic peoples
No shit m8. They lived like animals.
Who rates Rome in its twilight?

Why didn't Alexander the Great ever fight Scythia? Scythians had been known to the Greeks before Alexander's reign, do Greeks fear the mounted archer?

It's always complex when it comes to the Mongols.

Alexander would likely lose due to the tech gap, but if you look to tech comparable civs, there's definitely a few things they can do to deal with them. Defensively, the best way to deal with horse archers is to have capable foot archers that are properly armored and with forces close enough to screen them from charges. The thing about horse archers is that though they're mobile, they're also big targets. You only need to wound a horse to turn it into a shitshow too. You could alternatively use Cataphracts with heavy armor and bows to shoo them away far more effectively than foot archers too of course. Ultimately, the thing the Mongols hated the most was fortifications. Absolute hate boner for those, and they can double-fuck the Mongols by not only trapping them in a grindfest, but also starve them if the larders are empty by the time they get in. Same goes for terrain. If it's no good for grazing, and is mountainous and shit, they don't like it, and the cost isn't worth the effort in their eyes. Offensively and in pursuit of Mongols however, you'd basically need mounted horse archers and a comparable force of your own.

>>34712373

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el93MIxAf-c

>>34712138
>macedonian
>white

>>34715777
The thing is though that hilly or mountainous terrain is just as if not even moreso shit for phalanxes too, phalanxes needed flat firm ground to maneuver properly and even then they weren't that maneuverable, any kind of grades or bad footing exacerbated it even more.

>>34715932
Oh, of course, but keep in mind I've already said Alexander would likely lose because of the tech gap. It'd take a different nation of similar tech level to at least hold off the Mongols. I think the best contender would be the Byzantines at the height of their power.

File: 8710a71584e2593432d57a319633ff2e.jpg (50KB, 520x565px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 520x565px

Honestly Macedonian pikes weren't Renaissance pikes, they were one handed, had inferior metal sharp bits, and weren't planted in the ground against Calvary charges because actual heavy Calvary wasn't a thing yet because no stirrups. Mongolian heavy Calvary could probably break right through s Phalanx. 1400 year tech gap is massive

>>34715585
>with Stirrups Calvary dominated the battlefield until the widespread use of gunpowder

lost in agincourt to mere archers, was always weak vs infantry with long spears

Mongols had an almost napoleonic-level of battlefield communications and control, allowing them to be far more flexible and responsive in maneuvering and reacting to changing battlefield conditions than Alexanders army, which was basically dependent on coming up with a plan before the fight and then carrying it out while hoping for the best.

Add in proper lancers with stirrups and horned saddles and the Mongols can shatter the companion cavalry in a direct clash and then just pick apart the rest of the army at leisure.

>>34714302
>The Mongols were the greatest siege experts of the day

Which is exactly why every primary source that got to ask the Mongols on that reports that they utterly detested sieges, and why they failed to take a single hungarian stone castle during their invasions of Hungary - and why Bela IV adopted a strategy of building modern stone castles and forts everywhere to counter them.

>(read: stole the greatest siege experts of the day from China and baptized them in blood)

Kek. Those same chinese siege experts weren't good enough to bust chinese fortresses, and the Mongols had to bring in techniques from the Middle East, including the coutnerweight trebuchet, to finally overcome the Southern Song. Those same middle-eastern siege experts and technologies considered contemporary european fortresses like Krak des Chevaliers to be entirely impregnable to any attempt of taking them by assault.

>>34716299
Then they beat those same archers, using the same tactics at Patay.

>>34716299
>agincourt

Which was an extreme outlier for the era.

>was always weak vs infantry with long spears

Until it used its mobility to hit them in the flank or at a weak point, at which point it would shatter and butcher them.

For infantry and archers of the age to actually win agianst heavy horse required virtually everything to go right for them, and nothing for the heavy cavalry. Needless to say, the battlefield situation doesn't work out like that in the overwhelming majority of cases.

>>34716299
Agincourt was a specific event that if anything had more to do with the combination of weather and terrain than the actual longbows, and it didn't change the overall military mindset of the day, England was still the only country that relied on mass archery the way they did

People have used long pointy sticks against Calvary for as long as people have used mounted warriors, military strength post stirrup was still typically measured by how much armored persons riding horses you could field.

>>34716387
>blah blah mongols failed at seige everywhere
No. No in the extreme. Taking the likes of Moscow, Kiev, Baghdad as the capital of the Abbasids, Kaifeng the capital of the Jurchen, and dozens of cities practically or completely destroyed, the Mongols were absolutely the top dog of seige warfare in their day. No one's arguing that they ripped through Europe seiging every city. I'm saying the fact that they didn't should be a point of pride, as they did it to pretty much everyone else.

>>34716520
>the combination of weather and terrain than the actual longbows
And in applying a flexible mentality when you have the more maneuverable force. The English were dug in and the French were in practical disarray. A disciplined force would simply said that it was a bad day to die.

>>34716469
>Which was an extreme outlier for the era.

did the yeomen use rifles there? no? then it only gave to the knights the advantage of having a better armor

>Until it used its mobility to hit them in the flank or at a weak point, at which point it would shatter and butcher them.

yeah, that's why having covered flanks like they had them in agincourt or making infantry stand in a square or using the "war wagons" like those that were used by hussites screwed cavalry hard

>>34716566
Not making excuses but there was also a change in leadership between the successful 1st invasion of Hungary and the failed 2nd, namely the commanders responsible for the success first time around were dead for the second.

>>34716658
the second invasion also happened after two generations of Hungarians dreading the day the Mongols would return while fortifying their entire country in preparation for it.

>>34716697
Then what difference does terrain make if they were already successful in that same area?

File: Alexanders_army_vs_Indians.png (662KB, 638x1344px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 638x1344px

Alexander's second-in-command could not defeat the Indians using his tactics and men, all in peak form.

What makes you think he would stand a chance against the fucking MONGOLS. Their tactics and strategies were unmatched, only until the advent of gunpowder.

Ghengis would have marched 10,000 innocent Macedonian women and children he gained from pillaging villages to use as human shields. Then he would have had his cavalry swoop in and annihilate the shaken and tired phalanxs. Then he would have run over Alexander and raped his dead body while throat singing.

>>34716606
>then it only gave to the knights the advantage of having a better armor
An advantage countered by having to attack a dug in opponent through a natural choke point over terrain that two weeks straight of torrential rainfall had turned into a muddy hell hole they had to slog through in that armor.

Agincourt might be one of the most misrepresented battles of the era, more Knights probably died by literally drowning in mud than from arrows.

>>34716774
>Alexander's second-in-command could not defeat the Indians using his tactics and men, all in peak form
doesn't mean alexander would have failed

>>34716774
I wonder if those ancient Indians were pooing in the streets

>>34716787
And underneath the hooves of their own horses.

And after all that I'm willing to bet not a single arrow passed through a single helm or breastplate, but now we have the myth of the armor piercing super bow.

>>34716791
the problem is that Alexander led his Companion Calvary from the front, and usually charged off at the front of his army, something the Mongols who were adept at feigning retreat and then encircling and destroying opposing Calvary would exploit the fuck out of

File: 52345.jpg (561KB, 1500x1068px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1500x1068px

>>34715086
>they only had to move through forests and farmland.
You forgot they did it during winter. When europoors tried to do such they froze to death. No any army could pull such feat, supply acting fully mounted invasion force in Russia during winter. This was literaly goku tier bullshit. Invasion of comfy Europe is small thing comparing to this impossible thing.

>The rus did surrender
No city did surrender. They all were assaulted, captured and ransacked.

>>34716791
Looking forward to your thread about how the Mauryans definitely would have defeated the Mongols.

>>34716299
>lost in agincourt to field fortifications and dismounted English knights defending these fortifications
Fixed.

>>34716859
Moscow did surrender, and I imagine took quite a while to recover from the soreness of their assholes as they were one of if not the last state operating under the vassalage of the mongols.

The Scythians were arguably the mongols of early antiquity. And the Greeks had no problems dealing with them. I'd wager that the Sarissophoroi component of the Macedonian army could've dealt with whatever those barbarians would throw at Alexander.

>>34716791
>doesn't mean alexander would have failed

It means his army's tactics, technology, and training were not unbeatable. Even for contemporary standards, as they were clearly defeated. Factor in all the advancements in war, weapons, tactics, and training that the Mongols had and I don't see how he stands a chance.

Good generals can turn the tide of war, but they can't do the impossible. Alexander has about as good a chance against the Mongols, as Napoloeon has against the Red Army.

>>34716606
>then it only gave to the knights the advantage of having a better armor
Yes, English knights had better armor than French.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tgLeMS30j8

>>34716566
>Moscow
>Kiev

The Rus were UTTERLY BACKWARDS at fortifications at the time. They literally did not have anything that even remotely approached european stone fortifications, and no habit of building forts and cities in geographically defensible positions. Kiev relied on walls mostly made of wood and earth, not stone, and Moscow was even less defended. Hell, it having a fucking *tower* meant you were in one hell of a rich city by Rus standards, and anyone actually bothering to bring a catapult to a siege was so rare that it deserved special mention in historical records.

>Baghdad

Also not as well defended as contemporary european cities, and massively undermanned because Al-Musta'sim literlaly did not call up any troops.

>Kaifeng

The actual top dogs of medieval siege warfare were the Europeans, unmatched by any force in the entire world both in siegecraft and creating fortifications. Which is hardly surprising given that siege warfare was outright more common and more important to medieval european kingdoms than any other kind of warfare. Fucking Italy at the time had more castles and stone-fortified cities than all of China. Western and Central Europe together outdid the entire rest of the world. For any given field battle, you'd see a dozen or more sieges taking place.

The Mongols, despite numerous attempts, NEVER EVEN ONCE managed to take a modern european-style fortification by siege or assault. They failed, and failed hard, against the relatively small, widely-spread out and slightly outdated stone fortifications the Hungarians had. Which included riots like them managing to voercome the wooden and earthen walls of Esztergom, the richest city in all of Hungary at the time. and walk away without loot because the inhabitants had carried all their wealth into the cities' stone citadel.

Hell, they took one look at Constantinople and just flat-out decided to not even try messing with the Byzantines.

>>34716251
Break through a phalanx of the Greek states head on? Maybe. Break through a phalanx of Phillip's Sarissas? Highly unlikely. Macedonian phalanx is like folding a piece of A4 paper 7 times instead of the greek 4 times. 2stronk4u

>>34716894
Yeah, a force of roving nomads that didn't have stirrups are real saddles of which Alexander killed or captured roughly 1500 and were socially were incapable of understanding concepts like sacrifice were totally comparable to the Golden Horde.

>>34716892
Moscow was taken by assault in 1238. Possibly Koselsk surrendered to trick "we let you go open teh gates" after heavy battle but sources are contradictory and unclear.

>>34716924
The Mongolians had some of the best siege engines and engineers in the world.

Read about Kubulai's conquest of Chinese cities that were more heavily fortified and populated than Western cities.

>>34716894
>The Mongol light cavalry with their stirrups would lose to another light cavalry force without stirrups
What, Alexander would have fallen for a feint and got routed, followed by the rest of his army.

>>34716951
Yeah, the Scythians were basically a prototype of what would eventually evolve into the Mongolian hordes. No one had any idea what they were doing including themselves.

>>34716926
>Break through a phalanx of the Greek states head on?
Through flank. Inferior Macedonian cavalry did it meany times, this is how Alexander became the king of Greece. Abusing OP cavalry (fix next patch pls).

>>34707943
>implying mongols were overrated
>not knowing Kublai Khan ruled a over a bigger piece of contiguous land than anyone who ever lived (only rivaled by peak of British Empire)
>not knowing Kublai Khan had advisers from diverse civilized culture (Europeans, Arabs, Indians, Chinese)
>forgetting that the only thing that successfully stopped the mongols from invading Japan was bad weather, twice

Alexander is cool and all but Mongols are so cool they literally invented lemonade.

>>34716926
Honestly the fact that the Sarissa had become such an specialized and exaggerated instrument should be a clue as to how inflexible the users were.

>>34717000
Great distinction of Mongol Empire was that they operated as united force under central command and iron discipline. Nomads were always dangerous but their disarray and lack of unity always undermined their capabilities. That was not the case of Mongols who combined unmatched warrior qualities of Nomads with Chinese state building, military strategy and tactics.

>>34716926
for the time period sure, but keep in mind they're armed and tactically built for warfare in which true Calvary doesn't yet exist, Calvary of that era not only didn't have stirrups, they didn't have proper fucking saddles, there was no way for a Calvary soldier in 300BC Southern Europe/west Asia could lean into a lance strike or use their entire body to strike with power, Macedonian Phalangites could put up the nice prickly wall, but the wall had no real foundation against a true heavy Cav charge. Pikemen of that era would do shit like plant the butt into the ground to provide the necessary resistance, something the Macedonians had no experience or room in their formation to properly brace like that.

Add to this you have late bronze age or at best early iron age spear points, reproduction bronze age weapons will roll up like a sheet of paper against decent later period armor

And honestly there's nothing to really stop the horse archers from pulling up 20-50 feet in front of the Phalanx front lines and firing straight non arcing shots from 120-160 lb composite bows into them from point blank range until they run out of arrows while casually keeping out of range of the slow moving front line

>>34715470
>>34715555
going back to the horse thing I wonder if alexandras horses would survive in mongolia if they fight there

mongolian horsees are tiny but strong and the alexandras horses are big but fragile and would probably die out in the mongolian weather

>>34717000
that's a pretty big oversimplification as the Mongols were more than just horse archers and actually resembled a modern army more than they did a classical army, with things like battlefield communication, the leaders staying in the rear to give real time orders and altering strategy based on their observations through the use of flags and arrows rather than leading from the front, promoting by merit, highly disciplined soldiers and commanders who were encouraged to improvise during battle provided they still met their objective, etc

The Scythians fought like a band of marauding nomads, and Alexander still had relatively a lot of trouble with them, with the Scythians retreating once he'd shown he'd put up resistance, but he only killed or captured around 1500 of them, a very small portion of their force. But again, they were more like a marauding warband than an actual army and societally they didn't really have concepts like battlefield losses or sacrifice in general, once they started dying they ran away.

>>34707943
The problem is that horse archers still annihilate pikes and heavy cav.

I think in terms of sheer numbers, yes. He might have been able to. But it wouldn't have been easy. Skirmishers are their downfall.
Alexander is a fucking wrecking ball but if you can

>>34719237
...didn't finish that sentence

Anyways, macedonia is a wrecking ball. But against mongols it's like using a wrecking ball against a bunch of flies. They're fucking nomads and can just skirmish him to death. No capital cities, no blockades, no nothing.

>>34716851
The mongols wouldn't need to feint the Companion Cavalry. Compared to 1200's cavalry, the Companions would count as light cavalry and be pretty easily scattered by Mongol lancers who had lamellar armor for both the rider and the horse.

That's if the unarmored horses of the Companions can even close through the hail of arrows.

>>34716859
Moving through russia in one of the more benign winters can actually simplify it, since you don't have to worry about rivers or lakes (frozen). Plus there was always enough space for the hordes of animals that made up their supply. Read up on the second invasion of hungary: They had a comparatively small army, yet suffered supply shortages already on the approach.
The rus cities were also massively closer to their logistical base, more easily taken (=looted food).

>>34716892
>>34716953
Btw I meant they surrendered after having their cities taken and becoming mongol subject states. The hungarians didn't, even throughout the first invasion, as they still held castles and hoped to eventually repel the attackers.

>>34716924
>>34716972
Again: look at the local situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_siege_of_Kaifeng
The army sizes were bigger on both sides because chinese agriculture was more productive. Apart from that, the situation was similar to the european sieges. The mongols had considerable problems with attacking the city, suffering heavy losses and eventually starving them out until the commander surrendered.

>>34713694
>Not using stones as a counter weight
>uses people

what the ever living fuck?

>>34713694
what's this black drone armed with missiles?

File: IMG_3929.jpg (141KB, 800x584px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 800x584px

Choose your armor

>>34721609
certainly it's better to be a prince, brings more pussy

File: 8857761.jpg (13KB, 340x252px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 340x252px

>>34712304
>slings
>Roman military texts recommended archery target practice at about 200 yards
>archery target practice
>archery

sling needs a lifetime practice but it's a badass weapon imo

>>34721760
>modern record for sling range being over 400 m
stop being a semantic semite because youre a furry that wants to take mongol horse dick

>>34722799
Not even that guy but by the way, you do realize neither of these weapons systems that you know nothing about (bows and slings) are regularly/usefully employed at max range, right?

It's basically like someone in the year A Long Time From Now reconstructing an AK and lobbing some 7.62 at maximum, minute-of-container-ship distance and declaring that must have been the standard engagement range for assault rifles.

>>34722836
u r dumb
ignoring even the greater efficacy of sling cast at the extreme range of the weapon, the sling has a farther effective range than the horsenigger bow by merit of having a greater maximum range of shot. also i am led to believe that slings also have greater potential accuracy at farther ranges, although i cant scrape up a source for that

>>34707943

No.

>>34722980
>u r dumb
Ironically, you are a mongoloid fucking retard.
> the sling has a farther effective range than the horsenigger bow by merit of having a greater maximum range of shot.
All this shows is that you don't know what "effective" means.
>also i am led to believe that slings also have greater potential accuracy at farther ranges
Yeah, no. Take a lot at target slinging. Distance for distance, slings need a on the order of a 10x larger target surface than bows.

>>34723197
sling
>lead projectiles: 20 - 100 m "dangerous for armoured troops"; effective for unarmoured troops up to 200 m
bow
>100 - 120 m
t Bauten und Katapulte des römischen Heeres von Dietwulf Baatz, Stuttgart (1994), p.294-302
yiff in hell furfag

Fuckers like sling throwers were just auxiliaries anyway, they'd be on the outer edges of the formation between the Phalanx and the Cavalry since the Phalanx didn't allow for combined arms integration within it's formation, they'd be lightly armor without shields, and there wouldn't be many of them, they'd be target practice for the far more numerous Mongol archers

>>34723289
1. Some Guy circa 1994 doesn't know the difference between dangerous and effective. Big whoop.

2. If you trust your source so much, would you like to have a trained archer chuck arrows at you from a warbow from 130 meters, since your source claims that "isn't dangerous"?

>>34723303
maybe true but the original point was that some fag said that the mongols could just retain distance and pick off the macedonian infamtry without answer

>>34723333
i would prefer that over someone slinging lead at me from that distance
even moreso i would prefer you to present an actual supported argument you absolute mong with wasted quads

>>34723350
>i would prefer that over someone slinging lead at me from that distance
And I suppose when I ask your corpse about the arrow sticking out of its head, it will answer that it feels less deadly than lead.

> an actual supported argument
By someone who thinks it's safe to stand less than 200m from a trained archer from a warbow, yeah, I'll stick with "unsupported" reality over romaboo nonsense. Also keep in mind that your source is likely comparing contemporary weapons, not to the superior warbows of the Mongols.

>>34723476
the ranges reported were effective ranges determined by kinetic energy before impact and accuracy faggot
accuracy of arrows was harmed by greater side area, more flexibility, and lower mass of the missile vs sling shot
energy of the arrow was less at range because of lower mass and density and energy loss due to friction and flexing
take your illogic back to gaia you nigger

>>34723476
also
>muh modern bows are inferior to superior folded 1000 times recurve composite boe made by steppe niggers
10/10
whereas sling efficacy hasnt changed very much through time, bows have become drastically better by use of new material

>>34723502
>>34723521
Literally descending into madness.
Confirming my arguments while crying about them.
Sling yourself in the head.

>>34723528
>being retarded
sad!

Does hammer and anvil even work outside pitched battles, or against a more mobile enemy?

>>34708209
Mark Antony?

>>34721609
Mounted drummer

>>34723630
Well Alexander did curbstomp the nomadic Scythians in Central Asia. I'm not too familiar how he did that, though.

>>34725412
As many people have said, he really didnt. And comparing them to the mongols is foolish.

No pre gunpowerder army would be able to beat the mongols on open battlefield, which is where alexander's army also performed best.

>>34722799
>makes claim
>unsourced quotation refers to something entirely different
>mere semantics
You're a dribbling moron.

>>34714210
That's not true at all. They just didn't gain predominance for quite a few hundred years after. They were in subject to the Persians and before that the Medes, but they were in the Eastern part of modern Greater Iran for a very long time. I forget exactly, but perhaps since like 900-1300 BC or so.

I think Alexander could have beat any military, because he was extremely good at recognizing the use and abilities of varioius troop types. He instantly recognized a dire need for competent horse archers and made it a prime importance to either by force or persuasion incorporate them into his army, and know when and how to use them.

Like >>34708069 said though, none of his successors would have had nearly the same success. I think the Baktrians under the Greeks may have fared pretty well, but I'm guessing a lot of the Greeks that became nobility there and were forced into that region in a way, were probably some of the more hardened troops and less given to luxury.

>>34727285

> He instantly recognized a dire need for competent horse archers and made it a prime importance to either by force or persuasion incorporate them into his army, and know when and how to use them

Horse archers take a loooong time to train and equip.

Good quality horses also doesn't grow on trees. It takes years to breed horses, and mares can only give birth at very limited rates. Napoleon could replace his soldiers after the Russian campaign, he could not replace his horses, which crippled both his reconnaissance and logistics.

Han China took decades to build up a horse archer corps that could rival the Huns, and they have a much bigger power base to draw from than Alexander.

Give Alex a couple decades and he could probably get some decent horse archers, but he doesn't have that long. Greece itself doesn't have good terrain to breed horses.

>>34717029
>>34707943
>mongols
>couldnt even beat the Chechens

>>34721521
>chinese engineering

>>34721521

It's not as powerful as a counterweight trebuchet, but it can reload a lot faster. All you have to do is get the people to let go of the rope and let the arm reset.

Since the damage is done by the exploding bomb rather than the kinetic energy of the projectile, if you just need to get the bomb over the walls and into the enemy lines, a traction trebuchet works just fine.

>>34729662
>Give Alex a couple decades and he could probably get some decent horse archers, but he doesn't have that long. Greece itself doesn't have good terrain to breed horses.
He recruited from the peoples that did have good horses. In fact, he recruited people who were already horse archers. You have to realize that Alexander was able to raise troops in formerly Persian Empire territory as well as its dependents. Horse archers were being raised from such peoples as could supply them and the horses to do so. Macedonia also was good horse country, compared to Greece anyways.

>>34727142
>muh sources are required for everything
t. niggerfaggots who have presented not one evidenced argument and instead called an academic article disreputable
maybe kys horsefucker

>>34730375
At least bait the hook before throwing it in

>>34731226
not an argument

>>34731246
Arguments belong in sensible conversations, and I can't make any sense out of what you're on about.

>>34731251
not an argument

Mongolians are the only masculine asians.