The Cross-Time Engineer Adventures of Conrad Stargard

[oscssw]

Steve,the Vietnamese gave the Mongols one hell of a difficult time. Having fought the NVA and VC myself, I am not surprised. It required repeated Mongol invasions that ending in a negotiated settlment. Viets paid tribute but were not occupied by the Mongols. The Viets actually slaughtered the mongols in the naval battle.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?

In 1257, 1284, and 1287, the Mongol armies of Kublai Khan invaded Vietnam, sacking the capital at Thang Long (renamed Hanoi in 1831) on each occasion, only to find that the Vietnamese had anticipated their attacks and evacuated the city beforehand. Disease, shortage of supplies, the climate, and the Vietnamese strategy of harassment and scorched earth tactics foiled the first two invasions.

In 1287, an army of 300,000 Mongols returned with the purpose of the fighting the Vietnamese not the Chams. Under the Vietnamese hero, Tran Hung Dao, a Mongol fleet was lured into a battle fought on Vietnamese terms. Borrowing a tactic used by Ngo Quyen in 938 to defeat an invading Chinese fleet, the Vietnamese discreetly drove iron-tipped stakes into the bed of the Bach Dang River (located in northern Vietnam in present-day Ha Bac, Hai Hung, and Quang Ninh provinces) at night, and the next day, with a small Vietnamese flotilla, lured the Mongol fleet into the river just as the tide was starting to ebb. Trapped or impaled by the iron-tipped stakes, the entire Mongol fleet of 400 craft was sunk, captured, or burned by Vietnamese fire arrows. The Mongol army retreated to China, harassed enroute by Tran Hung Dao's troops.

Defeat of the Mongols by the Vietnamese at Bach Dang in 1288. At Van Don on the coast (near present-day Halong), General Tran Khanh Du kept a close watch on Mongol supply convoys. He caught the enemy fleet unawares, destroyed it and seized the cargoes of food. The enemy was greatly demoralized on hearing the news. The Mongols pillaged the countryside, but the population put up a heroic resistance. Thoat Hoan was told by his generals: "We have no more citadels left, no more food; the strategic passes have been lost, and summer will soon come with its retinue of diseases. We'd better withdraw". The Mongol retreat was effected by land through Lang Son and by sea, the fleet sailing down the Bach Dang River. ~

[stevep]

Nov 18, 2020 14:12:10 GMT oscssw said:

Steve,the Vietnamese gave the Mongols one hell of a difficult time. Having fought the NVA and VC myself, I am not surprised. It required repeated Mongol invasions that ending in a negotiated settlment. Viets paid tribute but were not occupied by the Mongols. The Viets actually slaughtered the mongols in the naval battle.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?

In 1257, 1284, and 1287, the Mongol armies of Kublai Khan invaded Vietnam, sacking the capital at Thang Long (renamed Hanoi in 1831) on each occasion, only to find that the Vietnamese had anticipated their attacks and evacuated the city beforehand. Disease, shortage of supplies, the climate, and the Vietnamese strategy of harassment and scorched earth tactics foiled the first two invasions.

In 1287, an army of 300,000 Mongols returned with the purpose of the fighting the Vietnamese not the Chams. Under the Vietnamese hero, Tran Hung Dao, a Mongol fleet was lured into a battle fought on Vietnamese terms. Borrowing a tactic used by Ngo Quyen in 938 to defeat an invading Chinese fleet, the Vietnamese discreetly drove iron-tipped stakes into the bed of the Bach Dang River (located in northern Vietnam in present-day Ha Bac, Hai Hung, and Quang Ninh provinces) at night, and the next day, with a small Vietnamese flotilla, lured the Mongol fleet into the river just as the tide was starting to ebb. Trapped or impaled by the iron-tipped stakes, the entire Mongol fleet of 400 craft was sunk, captured, or burned by Vietnamese fire arrows. The Mongol army retreated to China, harassed enroute by Tran Hung Dao's troops.

Defeat of the Mongols by the Vietnamese at Bach Dang in 1288. At Van Don on the coast (near present-day Halong), General Tran Khanh Du kept a close watch on Mongol supply convoys. He caught the enemy fleet unawares, destroyed it and seized the cargoes of food. The enemy was greatly demoralized on hearing the news. The Mongols pillaged the countryside, but the population put up a heroic resistance. Thoat Hoan was told by his generals: "We have no more citadels left, no more food; the strategic passes have been lost, and summer will soon come with its retinue of diseases. We'd better withdraw". The Mongol retreat was effected by land through Lang Son and by sea, the fleet sailing down the Bach Dang River. ~

  oscssw,

  Very interesting thanks.   I knew there were some conflicts but not the details.  Kublai seems to have been successful in conquering S China and also winning his civil war but not very good elsewhere.  By the sound of it his forces in Vietnam and against Japan were more Chinese than Mongol, with shipping and a lot of infantry but he seems to have lacked the military skills and organisation of his ancestors.

  Can I just clarify you mention for the 3rd invasion in 1287 they sought to fight the Vietnamese not the Chams.  Checking up they were actually in what's now S Vietnam, see Champa kingdom.  Can you clarify please as that sounds like earlier attacks were in the south rather than around Hanoi??

  Steve

[oscssw]

Current day Bang hoc is north of Danang and south of Hue right below the old DMZ. I spent about a year on the Cua Viet and Perfume river in the same area. Not until a few days ago did I even give Viet ancient history a thought so all I posted is from recently read articles.

Here is the source
factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Vietnam/sub5_9a/entry-4288.html

I got the impression the Mongols invaded below the old DMZ and did a left hook north to reach "Hanoi".
The Chams were merely in the way not their main objective.

[stevep]

Nov 18, 2020 18:24:55 GMT oscssw said:

Current day Bang hoc is north of Danang and south of Hue right below the old DMZ. I spent about a year on the Cua Viet and Perfume river in the same area. Not until a few days ago did I even give Viet ancient history a thought so all I posted is from recently read articles.

Here is the source
factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Vietnam/sub5_9a/entry-4288.html

I got the impression the Mongols invaded below the old DMZ and did a left hook north to reach "Hanoi".
The Chams were merely in the way not their main objective.

  OK thanks for clarifying.

[oscssw]

I got the tactic for defeating the Mongols and the climate of Western Europe is perfect.
You fight them in the rain!

The Mongol bows were composite in structure; the core wood with the belly usually being horn and the back sinew. The layers were bound together using a glue made from animals, most often fish bladders. While giving the bow it’s strength, the layered structure was also a liability because the glue was water soluble over time and humidity, rain or other water could ruin the bow. Ancient Mongols often wrapped their bows in various material to help with their preservation and when not use the bows were stored in protective cases similar to scabbards.

Anyone who has had to work with horses knows rain rot and scratches affect the horse's skin, heavy rain can also impact your horse's hooves. Thrush, hoof cracks, white line disease and hoof abscesses are a few hoof conditions that become prominent in times of wet weather. The only cure is to ensure that your horse can stand in a clean, dry environment.  Try that in fall, spring or winter in Northern Europe.

You would also painfully know just hoe prone horse are to slipping, falling and breaking legs when forced to move fast in wet conditions.

So rain will degrade Mongol weapons and put them afoot. A Mongol with a limp bow and afoot should be an easy kill for European knights, men at arms and peasant infantry.  Remember Knight's horses were very valuable property and they were well stabled.  Not so the Mongol ponies that had to exist in the open.

Also the nags are very, very high strung and temperamental.  Wind, heavy rain thunder and lightning are all terrifying to horses.  When they take fright you have a large powerful animal to TRY to control.  Best thing to do is dismount and wait it out.   Dismounted knights, men at arms and peasant infantry are far more effective in that kind of weather.

[stevep]

Dec 3, 2020 18:49:40 GMT oscssw said:

I got the tactic for defeating the Mongols and the climate of Western Europe is perfect.
You fight them in the rain!

The Mongol bows were composite in structure; the core wood with the belly usually being horn and the back sinew. The layers were bound together using a glue made from animals, most often fish bladders. While giving the bow it’s strength, the layered structure was also a liability because the glue was water soluble over time and humidity, rain or other water could ruin the bow. Ancient Mongols often wrapped their bows in various material to help with their preservation and when not use the bows were stored in protective cases similar to scabbards.

Anyone who has had to work with horses knows rain rot and scratches affect the horse's skin, heavy rain can also impact your horse's hooves. Thrush, hoof cracks, white line disease and hoof abscesses are a few hoof conditions that become prominent in times of wet weather. The only cure is to ensure that your horse can stand in a clean, dry environment.  Try that in fall, spring or winter in Northern Europe.

You would also painfully know just hoe prone horse are to slipping, falling and breaking legs when forced to move fast in wet conditions.

So rain will degrade Mongol weapons and put them afoot. A Mongol with a limp bow and afoot should be an easy kill for European knights, men at arms and peasant infantry.  Remember Knight's horses were very valuable property and they were well stabled.  Not so the Mongol ponies that had to exist in the open.

Also the nags are very, very high strung and temperamental.  Wind, heavy rain thunder and lightning are all terrifying to horses.  When they take fright you have a large powerful animal to TRY to control.  Best thing to do is dismount and wait it out.   Dismounted knights, men at arms and peasant infantry are far more effective in that kind of weather.

  oscssw,

  Agree and I mentioned the problem of the composite bow in wet conditions earlier.   I suspect if the Mongols were to seek to push into central Europe or the Balkans south if the Danube their going to have problems with the terrain and lack of suitable fodder for their horses.  What you might find if they did come again after the 1241 attack is that they start using Russian and other infantry from their subdued regions to supplement their cavalry and also supply the manpower for siege engines.  Assuming they get someone like Kublai who tries to adjust to the different circumstances.  Eastern Orthodox recruits might not be too unhappy with fighting against Catholic Christians, at least not enough to refuse which would be bad for them.  Especially given the 4th crusade.

  Rain might not be a permanent problem if their able to keep the bows dry but it will at least be an irritant and additional logistical problem for them.  Especially as you say in wet seasons.  Also, especially so far from their homelands and with the Mongols spread so wide, they might not have the numbers to take continued losses, even if only at relatively small levels.  It depends on how easily they can and will use other steppe peoples in their core armies.

  Steve

[stevep]

  oscssw ,

  This video on Mongol battle tactics might I came across might be of interest.  Sounds like its one of a sequence.

  Steve

[american2006]

Just when I thought I'd read through the entire site I find this goodness. Good work.

[oscssw]

Dec 5, 2020 3:48:26 GMT american2006 said:

Just when I thought I'd read through the entire site I find this goodness. Good work.

You are very kind.  american2006

How about you helping us develop this ATL?

[american2006]

Dec 12, 2020 19:38:07 GMT oscssw said:

Dec 5, 2020 3:48:26 GMT american2006 said:

Just when I thought I'd read through the entire site I find this goodness. Good work.

You are very kind.  american2006

How about you helping us develop this ATL?

I'd love to help but my knowledge of Polish history is limited. I'll contribute what I can.

First off, it's highly probable that this time traveler would want to do a few things:

1) Develop a way of obtaining coal, oil, natural gas, etc etc to power his futuristic items. Poland has large reserves of fossil fuels which are unused, and they are going to be essential to this timetraveler powering any military technology. Europeans do have coal at this point, but maybe if this traveler has any knowledge of how oil harvesting works, that would do him a great deal. Europeans likely have the necessary technology to build a well.
2) Developing modern antibiotics, medicine, etc etc. Even milk at this point isn't completely safe. If this time traveler has knowledge of pasteurization and knowledge of how to inoculate for smallpox, polio, measles, etc etc it would do him and his European friends great deals of good.
3) This man, as you said, is an engineer. He could use his knowledge of engineering to invent the firearm, which would give the Europeans a great deal of strength.
4) I'm assuming this engineer has modern standards of higene. If he can introduce regular bathing and use of soap and handwashing to Europeans, it could do greatly to help prevent the Black Plague.
5) The Mongols are soon to be invading and this engineer knows this. What he needs to do if he wants to stop the Mongolian invasion is get the Pope and the Byzantine Empire on his side. That way a defense could be set up. Assuming the Mongols attack the Islamic World first as IOTL, the Muslims shouldn't be a threat to the Byzantines.
6) Would this person share there knowledge of the Americas?
7) He is getting technology from the future as you suggested. Therefore, I'd think he'd likely wanna make a means of mass production once points 1-5 are addressed. This way he becomes rich and earns the trust of a ultrarich Poland, who will now be the most powerful nation on Earth with this travelers technology.

[oscssw]

Dec 4, 2020 14:25:45 GMT stevep said:

Dec 3, 2020 18:49:40 GMT oscssw said:

  oscssw ,

 What you might find if they did come again after the 1241 attack is that they start using Russian and other infantry from their subdued regions to supplement their cavalry and also supply the manpower for siege engines.  Assuming they get someone like Kublai who tries to adjust to the different circumstances.  Eastern Orthodox recruits might not be too unhappy with fighting against Catholic Christians, at least not enough to refuse which would be bad for them.  Especially given the 4th crusade.

Steve

 I did some research about the 1054 schism and also Orthodox relationship with the mongols.  What an education that was.

"The Eastern Orthodox church was then, and is now associated primarily with Russia and Greece. It originated in the eastern Roman and Byzantine empires and its headquarters were in Constantinople. It separated from the church in Rome in the Great Schism of 1054, over an argument about doctrine. The Mongols played a significant role in furthering this separation from the western Catholic church. Mongol religious laws protected the Russian church and its buildings under a code called "The Great Yasa" according to historian Ernst Benz. He also points out that the Pope in Rome tried to rally Russian Christians into a crusade against the Mongols, but that the Russians preferred to put up with Mongol rule rather than return their church to Rome's governance.

The Mongol invasion destroyed Russia's political structure and the authority of its regional princes. The Church stepped in to fill this power vacuum, capitalizing on the peoples' need for a native Russian organization that they could look to for support and comfort. The Mongol ruler Mönke-Temür issued an "iarlyk" in 1267. This charter of immunity formally exempted the Church from taxation and its priests from military service. This law profoundly affected the Church's position. It acquired significant amounts of land and sent priests out on missions to convert any remaining pagans to Christianity."

Long story short, roman Catholic Europe could not expect any help from the Orthodox Christians.   

[stevep]

Dec 12, 2020 19:51:54 GMT american2006 said:

Dec 12, 2020 19:38:07 GMT oscssw said:

You are very kind.  american2006

How about you helping us develop this ATL?

I'd love to help but my knowledge of Polish history is limited. I'll contribute what I can.

First off, it's highly probable that this time traveler would want to do a few things:

1) Develop a way of obtaining coal, oil, natural gas, etc etc to power his futuristic items. Poland has large reserves of fossil fuels which are unused, and they are going to be essential to this timetraveler powering any military technology. Europeans do have coal at this point, but maybe if this traveler has any knowledge of how oil harvesting works, that would do him a great deal. Europeans likely have the necessary technology to build a well.
2) Developing modern antibiotics, medicine, etc etc. Even milk at this point isn't completely safe. If this time traveler has knowledge of pasteurization and knowledge of how to inoculate for smallpox, polio, measles, etc etc it would do him and his European friends great deals of good.
3) This man, as you said, is an engineer. He could use his knowledge of engineering to invent the firearm, which would give the Europeans a great deal of strength.
4) I'm assuming this engineer has modern standards of higene. If he can introduce regular bathing and use of soap and handwashing to Europeans, it could do greatly to help prevent the Black Plague.
5) The Mongols are soon to be invading and this engineer knows this. What he needs to do if he wants to stop the Mongolian invasion is get the Pope and the Byzantine Empire on his side. That way a defense could be set up. Assuming the Mongols attack the Islamic World first as IOTL, the Muslims shouldn't be a threat to the Byzantines.
6) Would this person share there knowledge of the Americas?
7) He is getting technology from the future as you suggested. Therefore, I'd think he'd likely wanna make a means of mass production once points 1-5 are addressed. This way he becomes rich and earns the trust of a ultrarich Poland, who will now be the most powerful nation on Earth with this travelers technology.

  american2006,

1)  I doubt that the technology would be there for realistic use of oil or gas, at least for a generation or two.  Coal yes if he can produce adequate enough steam engines to drain mines, although again that would require suitable infrastructure, such as canals to enough movement of such material.  Which would be time, labour and money expensive to produce, albeit that if you can find markets for it and for other goods they would be big generators of wealth.  He knows what is required in some detail but getting the necessary quality of say iron in sufficient numbers and tolerances of components for it to work reliably enough will be the issue.  [As well as introducing such ideas into a medieval community where there are likely to be social and cultural as well as religious issues causing problems.  Trying to build up a group of skilled and educated individuals in a feudal society will tread on a lot of toes I suspect].

 2 & 4)  Antibiotics is probably a step [or three] too far.  Fleming's discover of penicillin was largely by chance and the knowledge base of 1920 was a lot stronger than ~1340.  However if he can gain prestige by either generating wealth or military successes he can make some attempt to introduce at least cowpox inoculations against smallpox that would help and a general idea of germ theory and how vaccination works would be very useful.  As you say pasteurization if he can get it accepted would be a big boost as would some other ideas as food and drink quality was a serious problem.  One reason why small beer, a weak alcoholic drink was so popular was it was a lot safer than water.  Possibly he can claim at some point to have discovered details of ancient Roman baths and sanitation which would give an historical precedent to his ideas on that subject.

  Ditto with general ideas of higene.  Once he has some power and influence he can start spreading such ideas and they would help.  The Black Death is about a century away from hitting Europe but there are a lot of other problems that ideas of decent higene and sanitation could help with immensely.  Too much change pushed too quickly is going to meet opposition so he has to be careful until he has a secure power base. 

3)  I think it would take some time before gunpowder weapons would be practical. You have all the problems of developing suitable technology, as well as would he know enough about early cannon and gunpowder to be able to design such weapons?  Going to be cannon for a long while before any sort of hand guns are at all practical.  Plus again there are likely to be social and political barriers to such an upset to the balance of social power.  Such weapons are also going to be open to charges of devilry, which would be a potentially very effective tool for any opponent to use against him.

5)  Actually the Mongols attacked Russia and eastern Europe before they attacked the Middle East area.  It was only in the 1250's that they invaded Iran and then Iraq and Syria.  As oscssw, has already said there will be great problems with getting Byzantium in any alliance with the Catholic powers.  Apart from anything else Constantinople is still in control of the Latin empire until 1260, set up after the 4th Crusade established both it and a number of other western ruled states and the empire is still recovering and already under continued Turkish pressure.  Coupled with the fact that while the initial Turkish conquests could be violent they were generally less hostile to the Orthodox populations than the Catholics were as the latter sought to convert them to the Roman sect.  OTL Hulagu's Mongols who overran much of the ME area basically vassilised the assorted Turkish states in Anatolia and also the Trebizond empire but again that didn't happen until ~1259-60 so would be irrelvent in terms of stopping the Mongol invasions of Europe in the 1240s'.

  Actually checking up I was wrong here!  It appears that there was a Mongol army operating in NE Anatolia as early as 1243 which won a crushing victory over the Turks and their Trebizond vassals at Battle_of_Kose Dag.  Never heard of this before and thought direct Mongol influence only reached into the region in Hulagu's time.  This battle was won by a Mongol force commanded by the general Chormaqan who seems to have been operating from the steppes north of the Caucasus region.  This lead to the splintering of the last prominent Seljuk state and Trebizond, Georgia and most of Armenia coming under Mongol domination.  This seemed to have been partly an operation to protect their southern flank prior to their moves against eastern Europe.

6)  There has been some discussion of this already.  Think the assumption was probably not.  Between a desire to delay the OTL disaster for the Americas that discovery was OTL and that it wouldn't really be in Polish interests as a continental state in eastern Europe isn't likely to benefit much from their discovery.

7)  I was under the impression that he was just being moved on this own with the personal knowledge he has but could be wrong here.

  Steve

[oscssw]

The following is from an article by Steven Tempest based on an analysis of the battle of Ain Jalut in 1260.

What Tactics Would an Army Use to Defeat an Invading Mongol Force?

Tactically, Mongol horse archers were deadly in battle. Their horses allowed them to stay out of reach of the enemy, while their composite bows allowed them to rain down accurate fire. When the enemy army was disorganized and broken up by the losses from the archery fire, the Mongol heavy cavalry would charge in with lance and sword to finish the job.

The Mongols were, compared to most other armies in the time period, extremely well-organized and disciplined.

On the strategic level, the Mongols were extremely mobile.

Finally, the Mongols were willing to exploit the abilities of their subject races.

Most importantly, try to train your army to the same standard of discipline and organization as the Mongols themselves

Make sure you have effective scouting and reconnaissance, too.


How to counter them?

Historically, the Mongols met their most serious defeats in the deserts of Palestine, the jungles of Vietnam, and the ocean between Korea and Japan.  Their mobility would be limited, their horses would suffer, and they could be tied down to a fixed point and defeated.

Most importantly, try to train your army to the same standard of discipline and organization as the Mongols themselves. The best plans will be useless if your subcommanders ignore them and decide to do their own thing in the name of honor and personal glory, or your troops break and run right off the battlefield through their terror of Mongol savagery.

Make sure you have effective scouting and reconnaissance, too. If the Mongols are ravaging the countryside, the peasants of your own nation should be willing to help provide information on their locations and numbers. Encourage them, listen to them, and set up a system to feed this information into your headquarters. Station riders with fast horses who know the countryside well to bring you news of where the Mongols are at all times. Their fast outflanking maneuvers will be less effective if you know where they are: Instead, perhaps you can ambush them, as Baibars did at Ain Jalut.

When the battle begins, you need troops who can defeat the Mongol horse archers and lancers. This is where the longbow and heavy crossbow come into their own.

Take two equally fit and equally well-trained archers. Have one of them bouncing around on the back of a moving horse; have the other standing with both feet firmly planted on the ground. Which of them will be most effective? The foot archer, of course. He can also use a larger and more powerful bow. He’s a smaller target than the combination of a man plus a horse. And he can carry a large shield or have someone else stand in front of him holding a shield. (That’s how the ancient Persians defeated horse archers back in their own day—regiments of archers with shield-bearers standing in front of them. Not very effective against Macedonian pikemen, but deadly against Central Asian cavalry.)


The one disadvantage of foot archers is that they can be vulnerable if the cavalry decide instead to charge home with the lance instead of sniping with the bow. How to defend against this? One way is to do what the English did at Agincourt—hammer thousands of sharp wooden stakes into the ground in front of their lines to form an impenetrable hedge of sharp points facing the enemy cavalry. Or combine your archers with a force of heavy infantry, such as pikemen. Their armor and shields will protect them from the Mongol archery, while they form a defensive line for your own archers to shield them from cavalry charges.

Combined-arms tactics to use against horse archers were already 1,000 years old when the Mongols invaded. They just needed training and discipline to be effective.

The one big disadvantage of such an army is that being on foot is comparatively slow-moving compared to the Mongols. Their best response is to avoid battle and keep their distance while attempting to surround me and cut me off from my sources of supply. How to counter this?

The obvious approach is to have wagons full of supplies and spare arrows at the center of my army or at the rear if my flanks are protected—that’s how Richard the Lionheart defeated Saladin at Arsuf. With my supplies with me, I can outlast the Mongols. This is expensive—few medieval kingdoms could afford such a measure, as opposed to just living off the land—but it’s the best strategy.

Alternatively, I need to force them to attack me head-on. How? Well, the Mamluks won at Ain Jalut through trickery: They sent a small force to bait the Mongols into attacking them, while the rest of their army lurked in the nearby hills ready to swoop out once the enemy was committed to battle.

An alternative approach, which is a classic strategy in 19th-century warfare, is to identify some target which the enemy cannot afford to lose, and move to attack it. They are therefore forced to attack you—at a time and place of your choosing—or else stand by and watch you capture or destroy your objective.

This strategy is tricky against a nomadic enemy like the Mongols, but they still had cities under their control. A powerful, slow moving army carrying its supplies with it could move into their territory and burn their cities, challenging the Khan to come out and fight it. Alternatively, if you attack in high summer, you can set fire to the grasslands on which their horse herds depend. Of course, such a measure will hurt the Mongols’ subject people too, who might be your own citizens—so this strategy is a ruthless and cruel one. Still, the Mongols themselves employed cruelty deliberately as a strategy of war, trusting that their opponents would be more squeamish than themselves.

What about a long-term policy? Here, it’s instructive to look at how the Mongols were eventually defeated and conquered by the Russians. Their weapon was the ostrog, or small fortress. A defended military post would be established in Mongol territory, with a secure supply route back to the heartland (preferably by sea or river, so the Mongols couldn’t cut it). Of course the Mongols could lay siege to the fortress, but that would mean concentrating their army together in one place where your superior forces could attack and defeat them.

If they didn’t attack, then you would attack them. Beat them at their own game—send out raiding parties of light cavalry to ravage, pillage, and burn the Mongol lands and, most importantly, kill their horses. These cavalry raiding parties were the origin of the famous Cossacks. When the Mongols struck back, the Cossacks would retreat back to the safety of the fort and dare the Mongols to attack them.

Eventually, the Mongols would get tired of their horses being killed and retreat further back into the steppes. At which point, you would build another ostrog deeper into the steppes and repeat the process, while the previous fortress became the core of a new city.

[stevep]

Dec 13, 2020 21:23:53 GMT oscssw said:

The following is from an article by Steven Tempest based on an analysis of the battle of Ain Jalut in 1260.

What Tactics Would an Army Use to Defeat an Invading Mongol Force?

Tactically, Mongol horse archers were deadly in battle. Their horses allowed them to stay out of reach of the enemy, while their composite bows allowed them to rain down accurate fire. When the enemy army was disorganized and broken up by the losses from the archery fire, the Mongol heavy cavalry would charge in with lance and sword to finish the job.

The Mongols were, compared to most other armies in the time period, extremely well-organized and disciplined.

On the strategic level, the Mongols were extremely mobile.

Finally, the Mongols were willing to exploit the abilities of their subject races.

Most importantly, try to train your army to the same standard of discipline and organization as the Mongols themselves

Make sure you have effective scouting and reconnaissance, too.


How to counter them?

Historically, the Mongols met their most serious defeats in the deserts of Palestine, the jungles of Vietnam, and the ocean between Korea and Japan.  Their mobility would be limited, their horses would suffer, and they could be tied down to a fixed point and defeated.

Most importantly, try to train your army to the same standard of discipline and organization as the Mongols themselves. The best plans will be useless if your subcommanders ignore them and decide to do their own thing in the name of honor and personal glory, or your troops break and run right off the battlefield through their terror of Mongol savagery.

Make sure you have effective scouting and reconnaissance, too. If the Mongols are ravaging the countryside, the peasants of your own nation should be willing to help provide information on their locations and numbers. Encourage them, listen to them, and set up a system to feed this information into your headquarters. Station riders with fast horses who know the countryside well to bring you news of where the Mongols are at all times. Their fast outflanking maneuvers will be less effective if you know where they are: Instead, perhaps you can ambush them, as Baibars did at Ain Jalut.

When the battle begins, you need troops who can defeat the Mongol horse archers and lancers. This is where the longbow and heavy crossbow come into their own.

Take two equally fit and equally well-trained archers. Have one of them bouncing around on the back of a moving horse; have the other standing with both feet firmly planted on the ground. Which of them will be most effective? The foot archer, of course. He can also use a larger and more powerful bow. He’s a smaller target than the combination of a man plus a horse. And he can carry a large shield or have someone else stand in front of him holding a shield. (That’s how the ancient Persians defeated horse archers back in their own day—regiments of archers with shield-bearers standing in front of them. Not very effective against Macedonian pikemen, but deadly against Central Asian cavalry.)


The one disadvantage of foot archers is that they can be vulnerable if the cavalry decide instead to charge home with the lance instead of sniping with the bow. How to defend against this? One way is to do what the English did at Agincourt—hammer thousands of sharp wooden stakes into the ground in front of their lines to form an impenetrable hedge of sharp points facing the enemy cavalry. Or combine your archers with a force of heavy infantry, such as pikemen. Their armor and shields will protect them from the Mongol archery, while they form a defensive line for your own archers to shield them from cavalry charges.

Combined-arms tactics to use against horse archers were already 1,000 years old when the Mongols invaded. They just needed training and discipline to be effective.

The one big disadvantage of such an army is that being on foot is comparatively slow-moving compared to the Mongols. Their best response is to avoid battle and keep their distance while attempting to surround me and cut me off from my sources of supply. How to counter this?

The obvious approach is to have wagons full of supplies and spare arrows at the center of my army or at the rear if my flanks are protected—that’s how Richard the Lionheart defeated Saladin at Arsuf. With my supplies with me, I can outlast the Mongols. This is expensive—few medieval kingdoms could afford such a measure, as opposed to just living off the land—but it’s the best strategy.

Alternatively, I need to force them to attack me head-on. How? Well, the Mamluks won at Ain Jalut through trickery: They sent a small force to bait the Mongols into attacking them, while the rest of their army lurked in the nearby hills ready to swoop out once the enemy was committed to battle.

An alternative approach, which is a classic strategy in 19th-century warfare, is to identify some target which the enemy cannot afford to lose, and move to attack it. They are therefore forced to attack you—at a time and place of your choosing—or else stand by and watch you capture or destroy your objective.

This strategy is tricky against a nomadic enemy like the Mongols, but they still had cities under their control. A powerful, slow moving army carrying its supplies with it could move into their territory and burn their cities, challenging the Khan to come out and fight it. Alternatively, if you attack in high summer, you can set fire to the grasslands on which their horse herds depend. Of course, such a measure will hurt the Mongols’ subject people too, who might be your own citizens—so this strategy is a ruthless and cruel one. Still, the Mongols themselves employed cruelty deliberately as a strategy of war, trusting that their opponents would be more squeamish than themselves.

What about a long-term policy? Here, it’s instructive to look at how the Mongols were eventually defeated and conquered by the Russians. Their weapon was the ostrog, or small fortress. A defended military post would be established in Mongol territory, with a secure supply route back to the heartland (preferably by sea or river, so the Mongols couldn’t cut it). Of course the Mongols could lay siege to the fortress, but that would mean concentrating their army together in one place where your superior forces could attack and defeat them.

If they didn’t attack, then you would attack them. Beat them at their own game—send out raiding parties of light cavalry to ravage, pillage, and burn the Mongol lands and, most importantly, kill their horses. These cavalry raiding parties were the origin of the famous Cossacks. When the Mongols struck back, the Cossacks would retreat back to the safety of the fort and dare the Mongols to attack them.

Eventually, the Mongols would get tired of their horses being killed and retreat further back into the steppes. At which point, you would build another ostrog deeper into the steppes and repeat the process, while the previous fortress became the core of a new city.

  oscssw,

  Very interesting summary thanks and the section at the end over the defeat of the Golden Horde is especially interesting.  [Of course that bit is less effective when the Mongols are at their height with large numbers of well trained troops and also a lot of levies from subject peoples who can do things such as sieges.]  One bit it doesn't mention is terrain, such as the jungles of Vietnam which can also have a big impact.  Not much opportunity for horses on a ship either but believe the bulk of Kublai Khan's forces for the attacks on Japan were as much Chinese heavy infantry as Mongol and didn't seem to use much in the way of horse archers when they landed.  [Which would be more limited anyway in a beached on a small mountainous land.]

  Steve