|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 20, 2009 17:35:09 GMT 3
no not at all, but that's a common misconception  |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 21, 2009 17:27:41 GMT 3
Hmmmm that's weird  What is heavy and what is light, if so?  |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 21, 2009 19:22:33 GMT 3
well in the late middle ages europeans began serious horse-breeding to get better and specialized horse breeds for warfare. the result was that european horses were trained to bear more armour and riders with heavy armour. this was only the case in western europe and eastern europe and the muslim lands favoured speed without much armour. then europeans with the introduction of Hussars mostly adopted light cavalries for themselves, the horses beign mostly imported from eastern europe. anyways, selection for the branches of cavalry depended on the size of the horse and rider, heavy cavalry was expected to charge, so large horses and men were selected because they could bear down most weight on the enemy. on the opposite end, light cavalry was expected primarily to be fast, so small, agile horses were selected and smaller men who wouldn't slow down the horses with their weight were choosen. so it was already determined by size that you're serving with which branch of cavalry.
in case of Mongols, all of them were light cavalry by this definition, although it is technically inaccurate to speak of heavy or light cavalry before the early modern age. though light, that still means they could have worn armour.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 22, 2009 11:34:38 GMT 3
Hmmmm I see, thanx |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 22, 2009 20:14:50 GMT 3
Mongol lines consisted of 3 lines of light cavalry and 2 lines of heavy cavalry in that ratio, 2:3. 6 light soldiers, 4 heavy soldiers in ten-man arban (squad). Light cavalry manages to do most of the work however it seems, heavy just cleans up the stubborn dudes.
But in European standards, Mongols never had plate mail armor, and many generals did not wish to use the larger stallion breed of horses as it slowed down the rest of the army who rode faster and more agile horses. So the last 2 lines of the army in most Mongol armies can't really compare to European heavy cavalry. Unless you count Liegnitz of course, but by that time the Mongols were veterans and Teutonics were still fools. By this time the Mongol armies utilised heavy cataphract tactics.
On the wide open steppes however where the horse archer rules supreme, doing so is suicide.
|
|
|
|
Post by tantalus on Apr 23, 2009 11:03:20 GMT 3
Mongol lines consisted of 3 lines of light cavalry and 2 lines of heavy cavalry in that ratio, 2:3. 6 light soldiers, 4 heavy soldiers in ten-man arban (squad). ... , I do not doubt you. But do you have a reference for the above? And/or Mongol formations in general? I am only looking for sources for my own learning. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 23, 2009 15:07:12 GMT 3
I believe I read that first in "The Devil's Horsemen" a few years ago, a popular book. But I've also seen this formation referenced in other sources which to be honest I just can't remember which one specifically, they have complete diagrams and battle maps of different battles with the Mongol armies using the 3:2 cavalry formation optimised for feigned-retreat warfare. The books were focused on the European conquests however.
To be honest though, All but one historical source on the Mongols are either Perso-centric, Sino-centric or Euro-centric - some more then others. So anything is sketchy at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 23, 2009 20:05:48 GMT 3
And the presence of Teutonic Knights at Legnica (Liegnitz) is dubious. The bulk of that army was made up of Polish troops, with some other European (mostly German) mercenaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 23, 2009 20:59:03 GMT 3
I believe I read that first in "The Devil's Horsemen" a few years ago, a popular book. But I've also seen this formation referenced in other sources which to be honest I just can't remember which one specifically, they have complete diagrams and battle maps of different battles with the Mongol armies using the 3:2 cavalry formation optimised for feigned-retreat warfare. The books were focused on the European conquests however. To be honest though, All but one historical source on the Mongols are either Perso-centric, Sino-centric or Euro-centric - some more then others. So anything is sketchy at best. Devil's Horsemen is popular history, not a scientific work, i wouldn't take that book serious on anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 23, 2009 21:01:36 GMT 3
And the presence of Teutonic Knights at Legnica (Liegnitz) is dubious. The bulk of that army was made up of Polish troops, with some other European (mostly German) mercenaries. it's doubted mostly by Polish (who incidentally hate the Teutonic Order) based on the fatc that the annales of the Order didn't mention this involvement. however that doesn't automatically rule out the possibility because the Grand Master was not present (and only that would have been mentioned). it would be interesting to find out who claimed first the presence of Teutonic Knights at Legnica and the specific historical source. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 24, 2009 15:01:57 GMT 3
Devil's Horseman was not the only reference to where I found this ratio mentioned, so it's quite plausible at the very least. It makes sense as well as it's just impossible to win a field battle through light cavalry alone, raiding however sure.
To be honest though, in some books I also found quite disturbing (as usual) demonifications, nowadays I take everything foreign history writes about my people with a grain of salt ne ways, since I also found "Demon" "Hideous" "Devil" "Evil" Pagan" "Heretic" as typical titles by historical texts.
Steppe history is like making the best guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 24, 2009 19:08:58 GMT 3
it's doubted mostly by Polish (who incidentally hate the Teutonic Order) based on the fatc that the annales of the Order didn't mention this involvement. however that doesn't automatically rule out the possibility because the Grand Master was not present (and only that would have been mentioned). it would be interesting to find out who claimed first the presence of Teutonic Knights at Legnica and the specific historical source. Yes, but if you notice, in Western Europe and the Americans, the battle is always portrayed and thought as if fought primarily between the Mongols and Teutonic Knights. No one thinks the majority were Poles, while German and other knights formed only some of the units. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 24, 2009 23:21:47 GMT 3
Hehe Polish are too nice and forgiving to Tatars... I'd rather Mongols killed more Germans then Poles ;D No offense Temudjin Meh, to be honest I'd be happier if we reached Anglo-land, since the German and Swiss people (aka "Wogs" in Anglo-Australian racial categorisation) are pretty cool Ne ways on a historical sense, not so good with it these days it's been a year since my personal studies - but I agree with what you said about the Teutonic buckethelms. I've also noticed so many drawings have been made in regards to the Mongol VS Teutonic buttwhoop. Polish soldiers are cut off from the battle in history, and for Mohi as well - it's all about the Knights Templar or some sh-t. But hey, I can't say I like the Teutonics though, what they did to the Lithuanians under "God's Will" disgusts me. |
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on Apr 25, 2009 14:29:03 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 25, 2009 21:44:16 GMT 3
Hehe Polish are too nice and forgiving to Tatars... I'd rather Mongols killed more Germans then Poles ;D No offense Temudjin Meh, to be honest I'd be happier if we reached Anglo-land, since the German and Swiss people (aka "Wogs" in Anglo-Australian racial categorisation) are pretty cool Ne ways on a historical sense, not so good with it these days it's been a year since my personal studies - but I agree with what you said about the Teutonic buckethelms. I've also noticed so many drawings have been made in regards to the Mongol VS Teutonic buttwhoop. Polish soldiers are cut off from the battle in history, and for Mohi as well - it's all about the Knights Templar or some sh-t. But hey, I can't say I like the Teutonics though, what they did to the Lithuanians under "God's Will" disgusts me. no offense taken but some nationalistic motivated Poles just piss me off. actually Poles not only claim there were no Teutonic Knights but that they actually won the battle...  anyways, there's no political motivation from my side to get the Teutonic Order ivnolved because if they were present, they were defeated, so what would be my motivation to include them in the battle?  at last note, in the 13th century Germanization of Silesia was in full swing and Silesia was a dependency of the HRE due to the seperation of Poland in small duchies, it is quite difficult for me to call them Polish knights but Silesian knights, i'd prefer to use that because it doesn't imply them being Poles or Germans...  |
|
What is heavy and what is light, if so? 
