Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Mongols VS Knights" video.

@storagebox1793 No. the first invasion was a massive three-pronged expedition led by the two most renown Mongol generals and a son of the Gran Khan himself. Only at Mohi the Mongols had 70.000 cavalrymen, plus infantry, auxiliaries, chinese engineers, servants, etc. The expeditionary force in Hungary alone easily exceeded the 100.000 men. Then there was the second column, that raided Poland with 10.000 men (one tumen), and the third, that followed the Danube. 20.000 men (two tumens) were only the ones that pursued King Bela in Croatia, and had been defeated in a series of ambushes, because the Dalmatian terrain was not favourable to Mongol tactics. Plagues tend to be lethal for the siegers too.
26
the problem was time and materials. It was a completely different warfare, and a very expensive one. Even having European engineers, to conquest even small fortresses could keep months. To try to speed things by dividing the army and attacking many of them at once, meant to loose the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent attempts of invasion Hungarians and Poles exploited that, dividing the campaing in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
23
13th century castles were the peak of castle's engineering before the introduction of gunpowder. In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them. In the subsequent attempts of nvasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
7
@Vvv IRL knights fared pretty well vs. Mongol riders. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them. In the subsequent attempts of nvasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. Increased the number of mounted heavy units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
4
That means to denegate the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent attempts of invasion Hungarians and Poles exploited that, dividing the campaing in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
2
They already had big problems in indochina and Korea, because there were no more prairies, and prairies in Europe ends in Hungary.
2
Knights fared pretty well vs. Mongol riders. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them. In the subsequent attempts of nvasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. Increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
2
Even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers. To try to speed things by dividing the army and attacking many fortresses at once, meant to loose the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent Mongol attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that. they built more fortresses, increased their mounted units, and divided the campaign in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
2
The problem was the number. Mongols conquered many fortified cities, and many fortresses located in strategic points. Because they were important and worth the effort. Because even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers. In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them. In the subsequent attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles. Then there is the fact that in Europe, praires ends in Hungary (that's why both the Huns and the Hungars came there before the Mongols). Western Europe was more forested, and so much less favourable to steppe riders.
2
And how many months of siege every single fortress would have taken? A thing is to use your entire army vs. a single fortified city. A thing is to try to keep thousands of fortresses. To try to conquer many different fortresses at once meant to denegate the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent attempts of invasion Hungarians and Poles exploited that, dividing the campaing in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
2
@aslof1069 120.000 was a big army even for the Mongols. Mind that you have to feed them. Mongols experienced big problems in Indochina and Korea (so much closer to their center of interest) simply because there were no prairies to support their horses, and the environment was much less favourable to them. Prairies in Europe ends in Hungary.
2
They had great problems in Indochina and Korea, simply because there was no more grassland, and their tactics were no more useful there. The same for the two tumens (20.000 men) that pursued King Bela in Dalmatia and were defeated in a series of ambushes. In Europe grassland ends in Hungary (that's why all the steppe raiders, Huns, Hungars, Mongols, ended there). The Mongols previously took fortified cities and strategic fortresses, because they were worth the effort, but In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses capable to stand a siege for weeks or months. It was a completely different warfare, and a very expensive one. Even having European engineers, to conquest even small fortresses could keep months. To try to speed things by dividing the army and attacking many of them at once, meant to loose the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent Mongol attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that, building more fortresses and dividing the campaign in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.
1
Err... no. Already in the first invasion they experienced several setbacks (IE the two tumens, 20.000 cavalrymen, that pursued King Bela in Dalmatia, and were defeated in a series of ambushes) and the subsequent attempts, where the knights adapted their tactics, had been failures.
1
@mysticonthehill No. Castles existed in Europe well before the crusades (they were already well developed in X century), and the Crusader's castles were European innovation brought to middle east, where there were nothing similar before. Fortresses, yes, but not with that level of protection.
1
The problem was the number. Mongols conquered many fortified cities, and many fortresses located in strategic points. Because they were important and worth the effort. Because even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers. In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them. In the subsequent attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles. Then there is the fact that in Europe, praires ends in Hungary (that's why both the Huns and the Hungars came there before the Mongols). Western Europe was more forested, and so much less favourable to steppe riders. Mongols had big problems in Indochina and Korea because of that.
1
The problem was the number. Mongols conquered many fortified cities, and many fortresses located in strategic points. Because they were important and worth the effort. Because even having the right equipment and know-how, to take even a small fortress needed weeks, or months, and a far larger army. That's why they had been so successful for so long. It was a very expensive warfare for the attackers. In western Europe there were tens of thousands of fortresses whose garrisons were capable to resist for weeks or months against far larger armies, and dividing the horde in multiple small columns to attack many fortresses at the same time was a bad idea. Already in the first invasion, it had been noticed that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements. The real difference was the Mongol chain of command, capable to effectively cohordinate tens of thousands of men in pitched battles, while European commanders still led from the front, so knew what was happening only close to them. In the subsequent attempts of invasion, Hungarians and Poles exploited that advantage. They built more fortresses, increased the number of mounted units, and divided the campaign into multiple small engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles. Then there is the fact that in Europe, praires ends in Hungary (that's why both the Huns and the Hungars came there before the Mongols). Western Europe was more forested, and so much less favourable to steppe riders. Mongols had big problems in Indochina and Korea because of that.
1