That, and also blind chance. When the Mongols won so many battles, they naturally struck fear into potential enemies who thought the Mongols were invincible (the same thing happened with their descendant, Timur).
They also employed very dirty and unconventional tactics. Upon encountering a Georgian army, for instance, they carried a cross. The Georgians correspondingly thought they were the army of Prester John, and in their naivete were slaughtered. They also did shit like diverting rivers to flood forts and towns near streams.
We were talking about highly developed civilisations they were attacking, after all, who had highly developed ideas of what warfare and treatment was 'right'. The Mongols, as complete barbarians, could manipulate that.
They could also gain the support of marginalised minority groups, since they had religious 'tolerance' which was in practice only realpolitik.
If you want some very good primary sources on Mongolian tactics and culture, you can read Plano de Carpini's 'History of the Mongols' and William of Rubruck's personal account of his narrative to Karakorum. Both were highly articulate and perceptive Franciscans who traveled to the Mongols for different reasons, and allow us to explain a lot about how the Mongols conquered and why they did so.
They were not the most OP people in history, after all, the Russians were able to beat them with a simple recurring strategy. All they had to do was build temporary fortresses along the frontier, raid Mongol places, retreat inside when the came around, and shoot at them. They were able to absolutely push out all Mongols just by rinsing and repeating, and the Mongols were completely unable to adapt. Furthermore, they were completely destroyed in Egypt, when the defending forces made a formation similar to the Tercio and sniped them with crowssbows while defending their shooters.
>>47134 >Meanwhile, an average chinese or middle eastern soldier was a peasant who probably only held a spear for his first time mere months/weeks before a battle. I don't know about the chiense, but in the middle east everyone had been relying on foreign auxiliaries since the neo-babylonians died. Sudanese, Bedouins, Turks and Iranian hillmen were all pretty good fighters and composed most of their armies while the native peasants stayed at home to farm their 3-per-year harvests.
The mongols also had to rely on auxiliaries, but they were often crap. In the middle east, Iranian and Armenian soldiers who were in it for the loot, while in Russia, tons of non-mongol nomads who weren't as well trained as the ones from before the Qara Khitai fiasco. When the Mongols faced the mamluks at Ain Jalut, the mamluks probably had more nomadic horse archers in their army than the mongols did.
>>47216 >Furthermore, they were completely destroyed in Egypt, when the defending forces made a formation similar to the Tercio and sniped them with crowssbows while defending their shooters. Wut? Which battle is that? In egypt they faced the mamluks who used multicultural armies of sudanese archers and infantry, and crimean-caucausian nomads. They only beat the mongols because there was 4-way civil war that occupied about 90% of their armies.
Funnily enough, Rubruck calls the Mongols a peasant army. He was a monk, likely raised by an aristocratic family, so he probably wasn't the best source to distinguish peasants from another segment of the population (to him, peasants were simply disgusting, unlearned and so on) but he recommended arming the peasants of Europe to fight them off, and proceed to conquer Islamic societies from that basis.
So he, at least, thought they were peasants who got lucky.
>>47300 "Horde" is a turkish word which means "organised army of men" with unspecific size. You're probably thinking of "Tuman" which means 10,000 men. I think "horde" reached english through russian, which is understandable.
>>47509 This. Only a fraction of Hulegus forces engaged the mamluks, and Hulegus forces were only a part of the entire armed force of the Mongols.
>>47216 The Mongols the Russians eventually defeated were not the ones of the days of Genghis, Ogedai, Mongke and Kublai. They were their descendants and had as so many other successful conquerors completely stagnated.
Stagnated, maybe, though I would suggest it's because the Mongols were inherently incapable of adapting. It's why they had failed so long to conquer Sung China, and even had an abortive attempt at conquering Java. They adapted themselves slowly, and relied too much on other ethnic and religious groups for their bureaucracy.
While good in the short term, their tactics, like all others, were eventually countered. They also settled, which was contrary to their whole being.
>>47897 They only lasted two generations before collapsing into civil war. I'd say that's more down to their retarded free-for-all inheritance system than their inability to adapt. The only reason the Mongol emorue didn't collapse in the first generation is that none of the candidates were really strong or ambitious enough to cause a civil war.
When discussing this anywhere, I end up arguing with endless hordes of revisionists saying that Europe fought off the first invasion and that the Mamelukes annihilated Hulagus army. Why does this happen?
>>48836 Because people are butthurt that random dudes from irrelevant-istan conquered half the old world with relative ease, and try to justify it. The same happened at the time. Whenever the Mongols went home, people would be all like "we beat the Mongols!". The Georgians did this multiple times if i remember right.
>>48836 Because internet armchair historians never actually bother reading history books, and in the rare case they do, they have so little experience doing so that they fail to contextualize their reading material.
That's how you get shit like "Mongols could never win in a land full of hills, forests, or rivers," even though they did.
>>46809 They struck fear because they wanted to. They have their own psychological warfare machine as well. Demanding Korean paper in tribute to write their inflated numbers to scare those who were about to face them.
>>49330 >>49258 >"The mongols killed 1,000,000 people in Merv!" >"the Mongols destoryed our best library for no reason!" >"m-muh rivers running black with ink" Proper historians in 2015 still take this nigga at face value. He was a literal mongol propagandist.
>>49889 The splinters of the Mongol empire lasted for ages though. The Crimean Khanate just would not go away, and the mughals stuck around for far too long. As a single entity of course it died, but considering they conquered most of the relevant world in less than 50 years, it's pretty impressive.
>>50363 I'm not denying they had a great effect on history,the silk road, conquest of china, parts of Europe etc.
But people have to realise it wasn't really one entity and it could be deafeated (rarely). It wasn't some godlike empire all controlled by one Khan and it had big flaws such as it's inheritance laws and infighting between Khans
>>50576 They could never conquer Vietnam even after several tries.
And the heavier forests of say Germany would of given their light Calvary tactics a large disadvantage given it's hard to feign retreat and stuff when there's a tree in the way. This would of given the more Heavily armoured Western forces a better fighting chance
>>50572 >It wasn't some godlike empire all controlled by one Khan Nobody claims that. I don't think a single entity in history has been as centralised as that, not even Nazi Germany was that autocratic, so why would anyone claim that for the Mongols?
>>50915 More like irrelevant few. The Teutonic order was almost annihilated. And the French Templars too. They only number a few thousand mind you so they might as well not exist. The real bulk of a European army was a big body of peasant conscripts with shitty weapons and armor. Whereas a Tuman would have lammalar armor.
The Mongols avoided the clash with the bohemian army consisting of 50 000 men, which was on the march to them in 1241 but the army got called back to defend their country when they heard that the mongols won against the poles.
>>51555 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Badger_Mouth Just one of the battles. And mind you this was only one of many. The Chinese numbering more than a million. If you think that the Europeans could match that sheer might. You are just deluding yourself.
>>52054 More I read of mr O'neill the more I cringe. Pasture? They fought in the fucking Middle East. In the damn desert. And how he claims Western Europe wasn't a poor shithole compared to the east is simply denying reality. However he has a point in how Hungary beat the Golden Horde. But then again he goes into the what if zone in some of his arguements.
>>52387 My wood and dirt mounds number in the thousands! Zhongdu, Kaifeng and Samarkand were truly massive and imposing structures. Those fortresses would have Europeans thinking twice. It took 60 years because they had huge fortresses with huge supplies. A tiny dirt mound with wood stakes isn't going to have the same coffers as a capital city. Sieges in china lasted montages because the starved them out. Being as immobile that O'Neil claims that would be their downfall. Attrition was already done. O Neil is an idiot
I dunno. Maybe it's because it's hard to see the Mongols as anything other than what contemporaries saw them as -- demonspawn running across the earth, killing, raping and burning everything of value as they went, in the most barbaric and cruel ways.
Then again, there is a strand of historical revisionism that started with Gibbon, which sees the Mongols as if not a force for good, then at least a beautiful, special snowflake culture that we should appreciate. This, however, is difficult, because they didn't kill just white people, but the whole B&Q colour chart.
David Morgan actually says this. They couldn't readily adapt themselves to those conditions for very long. It's why they took so long to conquer Sung China, because Southern China is much more mountainous and jungle-filled than Northern China.
I don't think they could have steamrolled Saint Louis to be honest. On home soil, that man would have had ten times the dedication, and that's saying something.
>>54197 >small contingent Vulnerable to counterattacks from both the fort and relief armies >They will be starved out in several weeks And the sieging army won't be? Their advantage is that they can forage and the advantage of the defenders is that they need fewer numbers (=fewer mouths to feed) to defend their position. Logistics are a nightmare and depending on where you are fighting you don't have weeks to spend on sieging forts.
The Mongols captured Chinese siege weapons and used them and there were also some Chinese military engineers who sided with them, so I don't know where people are getting this "Mongols couldn't siege stuff" idea.
What if they did kill 1,000,000 in Merv? What if 10% of the population of England was killed during the English Civil War? What if the Harrying of the North really was as bad as the Anglo-Saxons said it was?
Fair enough, you might doubt these figures, but where is your evidence to doubt them. Without hard-written or abundant archaeological evidence, your guess is as good as mine.
I think you are denying European strength. I get that Eurocentrism is a thing, but you can go way too far the other way. Eastern Europe united to fight the Mongols the first time. A second time, with all the evidence gathered from the dozens of spy missions to the Mongols, they would have been able to fend it off imo.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.