Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
Dear Metatron, I agree with that European Knights were formidable adversaries in the battle of Mohi in CQB, costing many Mongol lives, but for the price of equipping and training a knight, one could equip and train many Mongols, and logistically a lot more sustainable to maintain as well plus both strategically and tactically a lot more versatile. A knight was basically a one trick pony, 5 star in the heavy shock cavalry for tactical offense, 5 star in the heavy infantry for tactical defense, but very expensive to maintain, and equip (a proper knight had several people attending him, plus his war horse needed wagons of fodders), a Mongol needed minimum logistical support. Mongols could serve heavy shock cavalry, mounted archer, and if needed, heavy shock infantry as well (as shown in the previous campaigns in ME, China, and Korea as well.)
Also, tactically Mongols had devised a few new, but critical innovations from the previous Nomads that gave them huge advantages. Mongols had reared their horses not to neigh so that they didn't have to use bridles (so that Mongol horses could breathe more freely, supplying more oxygen, acting like turbo charger, so they had far bigger stamina, endurance than their adversaries' cavalry, including other nomads and the knights as well.)
This gave the Mongols the advantage of silence, a critical tactical advantage, especially when a large number of cavalry were moving, or setting an ambush. Btw. Mongol horses were unshod, which gave them far more sure footed in slippery grounds. Mongol cavalry destroyed Tangut cavalry by fighting them over the frozen river: Tangut cavalry were shod.
Now, the Mongol horses that still neighed were simply killed off, so the law of selection produced horses prone to not neighing.
Mongols also trained the horses to find water sources by deliberately not giving water to ponies so that the mother horses would seek to find water sources on their own.
This gave Mongols the advantage of better being able to find water so that they could move more efficiently strategically as well.
Also, I disagree with your notion that it was the preponderance of castles that kept the Mongols from invading: Not! Mongols had had no problem conquering Jin Dynasty in Northern China with many, big castles. Mongol strategy was simultaneously laying siege to starve the defenders into submission, and setting up an ambush for the relieving army. Mongols could do this due to their outstanding strategic mobility.
The same strategy was used again Korea: Korea is 90% mountainous, with many mountain fortresses. It took Mongols multiple invasions, and about 30 years, but they managed to do this. Korea at the time could raise 300,000 troops based on total mobilization, with about 20,000 general purpose heavy cavalry, acting as both shock cavalry, and mounted archers, plus 280,000 heavy infantry and light infantry archers. Korea had successfully defeated several major invasions by Khitan Liao dynasty, whose cavalry was pretty much the same as the Mongols, mainly based on the network of mountain fortresses. Korea also had successfully defeated several major incursions by Jurchens, who had later set up the Jin dynasty the Mongols had fought against, after overthrowing the Liao dynasty.
Koreans also had the best archer technology in the East Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyeonjeon
It was originally invented during the Mongol invasion. It far outranged the famous English Longbow by a wide margin. Generally, infantry archers could shoot more powerful bows, with better accuracy, and better speed than mounted archers, given everything else equal. And this gave Koreans some victories against Mongols, both in sieges, and open field battles, still in the end, Koreans sued for peace.
Tactical advantages alone doesn't guarantee strategic victory.
The real reason why the Mongols gave up the conquest of Europe was not the knights with their tactical advantages in heavy shock cavalry roles. Europe was not a rich picking. Plus, it was further from the main base in Central Asia than either ME, or China. Less rich picking, more time consuming, more overhead, time was money. Mongols decided it simply wasn't worth the effort. Basically, the same as the Romans why they had decided not to venture beyond the major river. Northern Europe was a slim picking, and far further away than Gaul. Not worth the effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1