I'm aware that the Mongols had conflicts with the Russians and various other Eastern European groups. However, if they had come across mounted Western European knights – let's say Crusaders – in the 13th century in the Middle East, how would things have unfolded?
If the Mongols had encountered western European crusaders, how would the clashes have gone?
- Thread starter Mitchell Hundred
- Start date
Apparently it's a matter of some debate, but it's possible that a small number of Templar might have been present at the Battle of Legnica in 1241. The Militant Orders as a whole did have a fair amount of experience with combatting nomadic/mounted archer soldiers. But what truly hindered the medieval European forces that confronted the Mongols often came down to leadership, command and control and Mongol tactical expertise.
They'd be most likely to sign an alliance given they have a mutual enemy in the form of the Mamluks, and more than likely keep it for a generation or two until relations break down over the increasing Islamicisation of the Ilkhanate (or otherwise the fact the Ilkhans care just as much about pleasing Muslim subordinates as they do Christians), tribute demands, and probably issues over who gets to rule Jerusalem and the territory allotted to the Crusaders.
I'd say the Mongols will probably win because if they have the support of Muslims (and the Ilkhanate was fairly good at convincing various figures they were good Muslim rulers), they've got the numbers and logistics that would defeat Crusader armies in the field plus the siege expertise to deal with their castles. If the Mamluks/some Egyptian power is still around, they might also be good allies against the Crusaders. And as the 13th century goes on, Mediterranean politics are going to tie down a lot of potential Crusader support in other affairs.
I'd say the Mongols will probably win because if they have the support of Muslims (and the Ilkhanate was fairly good at convincing various figures they were good Muslim rulers), they've got the numbers and logistics that would defeat Crusader armies in the field plus the siege expertise to deal with their castles. If the Mamluks/some Egyptian power is still around, they might also be good allies against the Crusaders. And as the 13th century goes on, Mediterranean politics are going to tie down a lot of potential Crusader support in other affairs.
The Mongol armies of Genghis and his early successors had military discipline that the knights of that time did not have, so it would be the medievil (sorry about my spelling) equivalent of US Army troops against a millita force.
Possibly worse.
The 13th Century version of Western European heavy horse was decidedly ill suited for combat in the Levant/Egypt, as was demonstrated by, among others, Saladin. By comparison the Mongol light cavalry was designed to fight in a low water, frequently quite hot and humid during brief periods of the summer, environment and was far more adept at "living off the land" while having a lesser overall logistical footprint.
Battle of Arsuf - Wikipedia
Richard the Lionheart proved that with proper leadership, European armies can maintain proper levels of discipline and can defeat Mongol/Islamic style armies of light cavalry and horse archers.
That being said, proper leadership is hard to come by.
The repeated battlefield successes of disciplined heavy mounted crusader cavalry against vastly greater numbers says otherwise. They humiliated Saladin at Montgisard and Arsuf, and proved highly successful against previous Fatamid expeditions. Heavy Crusader cavalry wasn't inherently better or worse than mounted steppe archers. They were just good at different things. After the initial surprise of meeting Turkic horse archers the Crusaders rapidly became adept at combined-arms use of cavalry, infantry, and archers to fend off horse archers. When well-led, they were nigh unbreakable.
Last edited:
Heavy horse both was and was not useful. For every success like Arsuf, there was a Hattin. For every Montgisard there was a Cresson. One of the really facinating things was just how often one side seemed to have obliterated the other, almost to the last man, only for the decisively defeated side to scatter the Dragon's Teeth and return restored.
The biggest issue the Crusaders had was a combination of supply, wildly uneven leadership (frequently with religious fervor replacing common sense) and the related lack of discipline in the ranks, straight up treasure seeking , and, yes, the weakness of 12th/early 13th Century heavy horse on a wide open battlefield.
All armies suffer under bad leadership. The difference was that the Crusaders had a much more limited pool of money and manpower to play with, while its neighbors had either the wealth and manpower of Egypt or an endless supply of fortune-seeking Turkic mercenaries (or both) to raise new armies when they were beaten. Even if the Crusaders killed 90% of the enemy army whenever they won, they would still have been constantly on the verge of getting swamped. Heavy Crusader cavalry was not unsuited to the Levant. It was just put in a material situation where winning battles seldom led to strategic relief, which was irrespective of how an army was tailored to fight. The Crusaders would probably have been destroyed long before they reached Jerusalem if they'd been using horse archers instead of heavy knights and infantry. The tactical asymmetry of the knight and footman versus steppe archer gave the Crusaders a fighting chance to at least survive an unfavorable encounter; the strategic asymmetry of a crippling manpower shortage meant that they could not afford to lose. The problem for the Crusaders was of strategic depth, not of climatical acclimation (and nor is the Levant as much of a desert as is often depicted, either).
Last edited:
Well, the Crusaders had fought and beaten horse-archer armies in the past, so in principle they could have defeated the Mongols -- although since the latter were arguably the most successful such army in history, they might end up winning anyway. On the other hand, the Crusader States were always chronically short of manpower, and by the time the Mongols came on the scene they were past their heyday. Even if the Crusaders manage to win the first battle, then, it's hard to see them winning a war, unless luck (the death of the khan, an emergency requiring the Mongols to send their troops elsewhere) comes in to help them.
That's a 19th-century stereotype with no basis in historical reality. The Crusaders actually punched well above their weight militarily, managing to cling on for the best part of two centuries despite being chronically short of manpower, two thousand miles away from reinforcements, and having very limited strategic depth.
Also worth pointing out that countries like Poland and Hungary successfully beat horse-archer armies using similar tactics to the Crusaders, and that most Middle Eastern and steppe armies used heavily-armoured lancers as well.
Legnica may have been a disaster but horse archers do have a weakness, heavily armored cavalry. As long as the armor can continue to eat arrows horse archers will be defeated eventually as proven by the Battle of Ain Jalut. The massive amount of fortifications built by European lords is another problem for the Mongols, OTL the main reason the initial Mongol invasion of Hungary failed was because the Hungarians abandoned their lands for their castles and the Mongol war machine simply could not sustain the amount of sieges even with the grazing lands of the Pannonian plain secured.
They also allied with the Ottomans, IIRC, though that was against their fellow Christians rather than against the Muslims at that point.
Franco-Mongol alliance - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Franco-Ottoman alliance - Wikipedia
Also worth noting that before this era heavy Byzantine cavalry could beat Hunnic and other horse archer armies, but could also lose badly. Again, leadership more than equipment.n
They do but the Mongols had armored cavalry and don’t forget that Western armor of that period was chainmail.
Presumably, at Ain Jalut the Mameluks had a serious numeric advantage.
IIRC, this story about castles belongs to the second invasion and during the first one the Mongols defeated the Hungarians at Mohi. In the second invasion the Mongolian component and equipment was minimal: the invaders were predominantly the Kipchaks from Volga territories.
Taking fortified places could be, indeed, problematic (siege of Estergom) but most of the castles of that period were not huge formidable fortifications. Anyway, during the 1st invasion Batu was not planning establishing control of Pannonia: he already had as much of the grazing lands in Volga region as he could handle. His goal was to loot the easy targets, which he did. The Western campaign was a big looting raid and the following ones the same on a lesser scale.
BTW, this castles thing being quite popular, for how long would it work if the agricultural lands are being destroyed and the enemy controls them? Sooner or later the people crowded in the castles would have to go down to their fields….
But the relevant encounter was Battle of Vorskla, 1399. In it you have all: the Western knights (Polish and Teutonic) in a heavy armor, Tatars of the GH and Nogais who presumably still had armored cavalry.
“Horse archers” were coming in a wide variety and many of them had protective armor. But on the leadership issue you are 100% on a point: Genghis managed to raise a group of the extremely talented generals some of which, like Subotai and Muqali probably qualified as military geniuses. Plus, he created an army that was quite advanced its organization while the European armies of that time were predominantly bands of a feudal militia with poor discipline and low ability to maneuver on a battlefield.
Isn’t this oversimplification that the Europeans would not have their own light cavalry? The Mongols also used heavy cavalry as well. The reason why the Muslims were able to bounce back after a major defeat could be attributed to distance and demographics. There were not enough European Christians that could be relied for service. For a single major battle, the Europeans had to strip all of their castle garrisons such that all of those castles are now indefensible. One major defeat is sufficient to destroy literally the entire army. For the Muslims, they’d have the ability to replenish their troops. The important part about European strategy is that a defeat in the field meant a lengthy series of sieges that would likely whittle whatever gains you made in the field.
Last edited:
This always gets brought up, but look at Southern China. Not a lot of pastures and a huge amount of fortresses, but the Mongols still conquered it thanks in large part to skilled Persian siege engineers that included some of the finest trebuchets in the world and early gunpowder weapons. And these fortresses had thicker walls than any European fortification as well.
At the end of the day, Pannonia, the Pontic Steppe, etc. is probably sufficient to sustain a Mongol army, not to mention their many collaborators who provide the infantry and auxiliary cavalry.
They did, but it took decades, and the army they used was more Chinese than Mongolian.
I think what would ultimately matter more, if we're talking about the height of the Mongol era, is that the Mongols had much more sophisticated systems of command and control, and a very well-disciplined army capable of executing complex battle plans across (by medieval standards) extremely long distances. Crusading knights wouldn't be hopeless against Mongol horse archers at the point of contact, all else being equal, but the notional crusader army would be very, very likely to find itself outmaneuvered, outgeneraled, or otherwise engaging on disadvantageous terms.