Byzantines vs. Mongols

[Delvestius]

The Mongols knew that Byzantium would be a tough nut to crack, so they settled for making them a tributary state... However, I do believe that if the Byzantines refused, then the Mongols would have taken their host south against the walls, and while suffering heavy losses themselves, would at the end of the day crunch the Greeks into a pulp.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

The Mongols knew that Byzantium would be a tough nut to crack, so they settled for making them a tributary state... However, I do believe that if the Byzantines refused, then the Mongols would have taken their host south against the walls, and while suffering heavy losses themselves, would at the end of the day crunch the Greeks into a pulp.

Why would the Mongols have better luck than previous attempts to break the Land Walls?

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Why would the Mongols have better luck than previous attempts to break the Land Walls?

They never tried....?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

They never tried....?

Plenty of people did. Why would the Mongols do better than them?

Siegework isn't something the Mongols were especially good at - sure, they were perfectly able, but its not something they're known for being unusual for their day at except as they deliberately tried to get the best people/stuff.

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Plenty of people did. Why would the Mongols do better than them?

Siegework isn't something the Mongols were especially good at - sure, they were perfectly able, but its not something they're known for being unusual for their day at except as they deliberately tried to get the best people/stuff.

Because they Mongols were friggen' humongous, significantly more so than any force that has ever tried to take the walls before.. Not to mention, they had bombards.. Maybe not as good as the ones the Ottomans had, but they would have been used to the same effect and the same end...

[Derekc2]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

Because they Mongols were friggen' humongous, significantly more so than any force that has ever tried to take the walls before.. Not to mention, they had bombards.. Maybe not as good as the ones the Ottomans had, but they would have been used to the same effect and the same end...

... Which if I am correct was in Asia at the time and would take for ever to move to europe. I mean, they failed at taking Hungarian castles, what would make them be able to take Constantinoble?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

Because they Mongols were friggen' humongous, significantly more so than any force that has ever tried to take the walls before.. Not to mention, they had bombards.. Maybe not as good as the ones the Ottomans had, but they would have been used to the same effect and the same end...

Significantly more so? Says what? The Mongols can't throw their whole forces at the Byzantines.

And they (the bombards) would wind up underwhelming, I suspect.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Timur is picked as a level of devastation where the alternative to facing him is even worse than high casualties.

Why isn't this the case with the Mongols?

Originally Posted by Derekc2

I mean, they failed at taking Hungarian castles, what would make them be able to take Constantinoble?

Because they barely tried. The Mongols succeeded with forts in Russia (Kiev, Ryazan, etc), Korea, China (Xiangyang and Fancheng), and most of the other places they fought.

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by Derekc2

... Which if I am correct was in Asia at the time and would take for ever to move to europe. I mean, they failed at taking Hungarian castles, what would make them be able to take Constantinoble?

The mongols couldn't take the Hungarian castles because they were, at that point, divided into various hosts. An army numbering 80,000 was split into multiple 15,000 - 20,000 man raid forces. Some were in the Baltic states, some were fighting in Poland, and still yet some went south to terrorize the Bulgarians (which wasn't particularly profitable to the Mongols, much to their chagrin). If the Mongol force coalesced and launched their combined might against Byzantium, they really wouldn't have stood a chance.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Why isn't this the case with the Mongols?

Because most Mongol leaders weren't sociopaths who think that Balor's plans in Myth the Fallen Lords ("ruling over the unthinking dead and their blasted lands") are a good idea.

Delvestius:
80,000 men vs. how many Byzantines? The Byzantines can definitely make an army that strong or stronger, logistics permitting (and given the issue with horses, logistical concerns hurt the Mongols in the Balkans or Anatolia).

Not to mention that most European armies with 20,000 men would be able to take most European castles.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Because most Mongol leaders weren't sociopaths who think that Balor's plans in Myth the Fallen Lords ("ruling over the unthinking dead and their blasted lands") are a good idea.

I agree, probably, though the stories surrounding Yelu Chucai make me wonder if things could have been worse.

But I'm still not getting the Timur reference. I'm pretty sure Timur wasn't that much worse than the Mongols, and it'd be silly to think that the Mongols weren't above killing huge amounts of people. After all, for Hungary, I've heard figures like 50-80 percent of people in the plains killed and 25-30 percent of people elsewhere in the country died.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

80,000 men vs. how many Byzantines? The Byzantines can definitely make an army that strong or stronger, logistics permitting (and given the issue with horses, logistical concerns hurt the Mongols in the Balkans or Anatolia).

Not to mention that most European armies with 20,000 men would be able to take most European castles.

The Mongols didn't really try. If they did, I'm sure they would be stymied in the short term, but victorious in the long run. Anyways, it's not like the logistical concerns hurt the Mongols too much in the Balkans and Anatolia. And aren't there horses in the area? Where were the Seljuks getting their horses from?

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

The mongols couldn't take the Hungarian castles because they were, at that point, divided into various hosts. An army numbering 80,000 was split into multiple 15,000 - 20,000 man raid forces. Some were in the Baltic states, some were fighting in Poland, and still yet some went south to terrorize the Bulgarians (which wasn't particularly profitable to the Mongols, much to their chagrin). If the Mongol force coalesced and launched their combined might against Byzantium, they really wouldn't have stood a chance.

80,000 men. Coincidentally that's a common figure for Mehmed II's army at Constantinople in 1453.

He had a significant artillery advantage over even the best Mongol army, outnumbered the Byzantine garrison over 10 to 1, and a fleet that allowed him to (mostly) cut out supplies and flank the Theodosian Walls (by dropping ships into the Golden Horn and forcing the garrison to defend the sea walls as well). Any Mongol force is going to have weaker artillery, a much smaller numerical advantage, and the garrison will have naval superiority and can concentrate all its strength on the Theodosian Walls. Even with all of the advantages the Ottomans had, they paid a massive butcher's bill to storm the city.

Constantinople is one of the few places that can take a Mongol siege and win. Taking it by storm would be nightmarishly expensive at best (one Janissary squad of 30 men participating in the final attack on May 29, going up against defenders who'd already fought off two waves without any breaks still took 60% casualties) and impossible to take by starvation without a fleet. If the Mongols try, well they're sitting on a long supply line and while tumen can live off the land, the infantry levies they'll need for this can't. It'd end up looking like the Arab siege of 717, the early medieval equivalent of Napoleon's campaign of 1812 in terms of how many losses the attackers took.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

I agree, probably, though the stories surrounding Yelu Chucai make me wonder if things could have been worse.

But I'm still not getting the Timur reference. I'm pretty sure Timur wasn't that much worse than the Mongols, and it'd be silly to think that the Mongols weren't above killing huge amounts of people. After all, for Hungary, I've heard figures like 50-80 percent of people in the plains killed and 25-30 percent of people elsewhere in the country died.

The problem is, the Mongols didn't do that just because they could. Timur, not so much.

Sure, the Mongols could kill large numbers of people, but they're probably not going to say "Surrender and pay me lots of money or die", and then find an excuse for "both".

The Mongols didn't really try. If they did, I'm sure they would be stymied in the short term, but victorious in the long run. Anyways, it's not like the logistical concerns hurt the Mongols too much in the Balkans and Anatolia. And aren't there horses in the area? Where were the Seljuks getting their horses from?

The Mongols are trying to feed and water a huge number of horses. That's going to be a problem if they concentrate the whole host.

And "they failed because they didn't really try" is an easy out.

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Constantinople is one of the few places that can take a Mongol siege and win. Taking it by storm would be nightmarishly expensive at best (one Janissary squad of 30 men participating in the final attack on May 29, going up against defenders who'd already fought off two waves without any breaks still took 60% casualties) and impossible to take by starvation without a fleet.

Where's that from, incidentally? Not arguing, but I'd love to hear where something that specific is noted.

[Herzen's love-child]

They failed in Hungary in cracking castles in that there, they were a lighter, more mobile force than what they were applying further East. They had recourse to the best in Chinese siegecraft, employing (willing or unwilling) Chinese technicians besieging numerous cities & fortifications in China, Central Asia and Mesopotamia, successfully. In this scenario, if the Mongols were serious about going after Byzantine hard points, they would have come prepared. What I don't know is if anything in the East was as formidable as the defenses of Constantinople.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The problem is, the Mongols didn't do that just because they could. Timur, not so much.

Sure, the Mongols could kill large numbers of people, but they're probably not going to say "Surrender and pay me lots of money or die", and then find an excuse for "both".

I agree that Timur was worse than the Mongols, but if the Byzantines are faced with the death of two-thirds of their plain-dwellers and one-quarter of their forest/mountain-dwellers, I can't see them staying in Constantinople and waiting for the Mongols to attack.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The Mongols are trying to feed and water a huge number of horses. That's going to be a problem if they concentrate the whole host.

And "they failed because they didn't really try" is an easy out.

I'll also suggest that the Mongols will try to attack again. Is there the possibility that they would rotate soldiers to constantly get fresh troops?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child

They failed in Hungary in cracking castles in that there, they were a lighter, more mobile force than what they were applying further East. They had recourse to the best in Chinese siegecraft, employing (willing or unwilling) Chinese technicians besieging numerous cities & fortifications in China, Central Asia and Mesopotamia, successfully. In this scenario, if the Mongols were serious about going after Byzantine hard points, they would have come prepared. What I don't know is if anything in the East was as formidable as the defenses of Constantinople.

Some of the cities they faced in China, but a five year siege in Thrace is not going to end well for the Mongols.

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

I agree that Timur was worse than the Mongols, but if the Byzantines are faced with the death of two-thirds of their plain-dwellers and one-quarter of their forest/mountain-dwellers, I can't see them staying in Constantinople and waiting for the Mongols to attack.

One might ask why that happened in Hungary - as in, what made the Mongols do that.

I'll also suggest that the Mongols will try to attack again. Is there the possibility that they would rotate soldiers to constantly get fresh troops?

And fail again. As for rotating soldiers - how does that address the problem of supply again?

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

80,000 men. Coincidentally that's a common figure for Mehmed II's army at Constantinople in 1453.

He had a significant artillery advantage over even the best Mongol army, outnumbered the Byzantine garrison over 10 to 1, and a fleet that allowed him to (mostly) cut out supplies and flank the Theodosian Walls (by dropping ships into the Golden Horn and forcing the garrison to defend the sea walls as well). Any Mongol force is going to have weaker artillery, a much smaller numerical advantage, and the garrison will have naval superiority and can concentrate all its strength on the Theodosian Walls. Even with all of the advantages the Ottomans had, they paid a massive butcher's bill to storm the city.

Constantinople is one of the few places that can take a Mongol siege and win. Taking it by storm would be nightmarishly expensive at best (one Janissary squad of 30 men participating in the final attack on May 29, going up against defenders who'd already fought off two waves without any breaks still took 60% casualties) and impossible to take by starvation without a fleet. If the Mongols try, well they're sitting on a long supply line and while tumen can live off the land, the infantry levies they'll need for this can't. It'd end up looking like the Arab siege of 717, the early medieval equivalent of Napoleon's campaign of 1812 in terms of how many losses the attackers took.

Again, I'd suggest that if the Mongols lose their first siege of Constantinople (which I agree seems more likely than their victory), they'll return with more troops and they will try to get a navy. I should point out that the Mongols had a force of over 100,000 to attack Baghdad, and that was another example of a time where the Mongols really wanted to conquer a place. The few times that the Mongols lost (in their early stages), they generally attacked again. Other losses (Ain Jalut comes from mind) occur by the time the Mongol Empire is already fragmenting.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

One might ask why that happened in Hungary - as in, what made the Mongols do that.

The explanation given by Austrian monks is something along the lines of "Tatar barbary."

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And fail again. As for rotating soldiers - how does that address the problem of supply again?

At this point, I'm not sure where this idea of Byzantine supremacy is coming from.

[Herzen's love-child]

Yes, if the Mongols were going to be sitting around the walls of Constantinople for any length of time, they would have had to have consolidated their control of Anatolia and/or a sizable portion of the Balkans, first. To the point that their logistical train was based there.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

The explanation given by Austrian monks is something along the lines of "Tatar barbary."

Austrian monks are not something I'd rely on as objective sources.

At this point, I'm not sure where this idea of Byzantine supremacy is coming from.

I trust you did read this post: http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...45&postcount=7


Herzen's love-child: The Arabs didn't, the Persians didn't . .. Why would the Mongols necessarily do it? Or are you saying they need to, not necessarily would?