Did people use pikes against Mongol cavalry?

Good for Hungary. A small, insignificant state on a peninsula far to the periphery of civilization weathered a second, half-hearted Mongol raid after having previously lost a third of its population and seen its feudal economy devastated after the first invasion. For all of Eurasia, the states that came out the other end of the Mongol invasions were vast departures from the previous states of affairs. From the Khwarezmi to the Safavids through the Ilkhanate, from the Song to the Ming through the Yuan, from the Delhi Sultanate to the Mughal Empire, from the Rus principalities to Moscovy, etc. The Mongols triggered fundamental restructuring developments in all the states they subdued and many they didn't, and the new world economy that they created bypassed traditional structures of power in such a way that mercantilism began the process of replacing feudalism. That is the heart of the events.

The Mongol invasion was 30+,000 strong, as strong or slightly stronger as the Mongol army at Mohi. Not a "half-hearted" affair by any means.

the link implies that actually the Hungarian victory was more fabian tactics, strong defenses and after a bit of wearing down, then a pair of battle field victories and the link stated that losses were due to a combination of attrition from poor supply, skirmishing and 2 battles.

It does not indicate that the Mongols were crushed

It states that the Mongols lost much of their force, and that they never launched a major invasion of Hungary again. BTW, I note you're no longer trying to claim that Europeans never beat Mongols, and are instead reduced to quibbling over what makes a victory "crushing".
 
I'm not making a moral judgement of the Mongols, but pointing out that the the Mongols catalyzed the feudal-mercantile transition in Eurasia. They were all the weaknesses of feudalism in a united, tangible force of arms, command, tactics, and logistics, to which the antidote was the adoption of more unitary, absolutist, centrally operated states, professional armies, and simultaneously less immovable and less complex social and political structures. This triumph of state over nobility, and thus the first step on the road to the bourgeois era of social relations was the direct result of the Mongols and what they did and what they had by that point become capable of. If it had not been the Mongols, it would have been someone else, or many else, but it would have happened eventually.

certainly there are weaknesses in feudal European political, economic and social organization but it was the seed from which modern Europe (and the Americas) grew from. My research leads me to believe that the Black Death had a lot more influence than the Mongols (who never really penetrated Central or Western Europe) and it basically ruined Persia and Iraq for generations. Indeed I have seen estimates that Iraq STILL hasn't fully recovered from the damage the Mongols did to the irrigation systems.
 
you might want to consider carefully your analysis. France, a century later, managed to mass 40,000 heavily armored knights and men at arms against English armies, and France was the major power of the day. You links indicate that the bulk of the troops are light cavalry and infantry which indicates that only the core would be heavy cavalry. It also doesn't give us numbers for the 2nd Invasion other than estimates of questionable accuracy. However, as at best a Feudal Society is doing good to field a few thousand heavy horse unless its France or the Holy Roman Empire and thus a dominant power (which Hungary isn't) you need to consider that.

What point of mine do you think you're trying to rebut here? As far as I can tell, the precise number of knights Hungary could raise has absolutely no bearing on any argument I've made.

The LINKS you posted indicate that the Hungarians won by fabian tactics and allowing attrition (the bane of all pre 20th Century armies) do a lot of the work and then doing battle.

So what? Mongol armies used to wear down their enemies too before committing to battle. Do Mongol victories therefore not count as proper victories?

Finally, be civil. You make any discussion between you and I a personal battle. I don't care if you like me. Stick to the point. If you feel I have attacked you and broken the rules report me. If not, stick to the point. Your condescending attitude only makes it easier to consider anything you add of little value.

I will admit that I got a little bit testy. But then, sprinkling condescending remarks like "You should probably read about the two battles..." into your posts is the sort of thing that's generally considered rather rude, especially when I'd already stated, multiple times, why I didn't think that the two battles proved what you thought they proved.
 
It states that the Mongols lost much of their force, and that they never launched a major invasion of Hungary again. BTW, I note you're no longer trying to claim that Europeans never beat Mongols, and are instead reduced to quibbling over what makes a victory "crushing".

Does the Golden Horde (a successor state) count the same as the Mongol Empire (when unified)? Does continual border warfare and raids for another generation count as invasions? Does the third invasion of Poland (by the Golden Horde) which you overlooked (and indeed would count as a win by your reckoning) count? The Golden Horde was majority Turkic in any event, while Subutai led a force that was predominantly east Asian / Mongolian.

So it all comes to how you define things.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
certainly there are weaknesses in feudal European political, economic and social organization but it was the seed from which modern Europe (and the Americas) grew from. My research leads me to believe that the Black Death had a lot more influence than the Mongols (who never really penetrated Central or Western Europe) and it basically ruined Persia and Iraq for generations. Indeed I have seen estimates that Iraq STILL hasn't fully recovered from the damage the Mongols did to the irrigation systems.

The Black Death had more influence than the Mongols on Western Europeans, who were never under their shadow, being too far away and too poor for the Mongols to care about them. The Black Death also devastated the rest of Eurasia not a century after the main period of Mongol conquests had wound down, and while some places were still under Mongol-founded states, thus doubling the misery, trauma, and loss of the rest of Eurasia while Western Europe had avoided much of it. This is doubtless part of the reason Western Europeans became the primary operators of bourgeois imperialism later on. The lingering effects of such apocalyptic devastation as the Mongols wrought was still moving events and peoples into the 20th century.
 
Does the Golden Horde (a successor state) count the same as the Mongol Empire (when unified)? Does continual border warfare and raids for another generation count as invasions? Does the third invasion of Poland (by the Golden Horde) which you overlooked (and indeed would count as a win by your reckoning) count?

Ahem:

It states that the Mongols lost much of their force, and that they never launched a major invasion of Hungary again.
 
The Black Death had more influence than the Mongols on Western Europeans, who were never under their shadow, being too far away and too poor for the Mongols to care about them. The Black Death also devastated the rest of Eurasia not a century after the main period of Mongol conquests had wound down, and while some places were still under Mongol-founded states, thus doubling the misery, trauma, and loss of the rest of Eurasia while Western Europe had avoided much of it. This is doubtless part of the reason Western Europeans became the primary operators of bourgeois imperialism later on. The lingering effects of such apocalyptic devastation as the Mongols wrought was still moving events and peoples into the 20th century.

they definitely had an impact
 
the European armies which beat the Mongol armies in the late 13th century had much the same structure and organisation as they had a few decades earlier, and the same is true of the Mongol armies.
...since Mongol armies organised in the exact same way got beaten by European armies organised the exact same way just a few decades later.
But, please do tell me about how the Europeans never won a major battle against the Mongols.
And in later conflicts, the European forces were still composed of heavily armoured knights, and the Mongols were defeated multiple times. Whatever the cause of the Mongol victories at Leignitz and Mohi, it apparently wasn't an inherent Mongol superiority over European-style armies.

During the Mongol World Empire the Mongols were defeated on the field of battle; the problem was that they always returned and made their enemies regret.
When the Mongol World Empire was no more - the Mongols were defeated as well, but their enemies had less worries about the Mongols coming back and punishing them.

The success of the Mongol World Empire was not about Mongol invincibility in battle; it was about their inevitable coming back after their defeat and having the last word. When there was the Mongol World Empire if you defeated the Mongols in battle you sealed your fate (or fate of your successors and your country) - the Mongols would return till you're conquered (in the most brutal way, which is expected).

So making a big deal about the Europeans defeating the Mongols after the disintegration of the Mongol World Empire seems a little bit odd.

The Mongol World Empire is not about the Mongol invincibility on the field of battle.
The Mongol World Empire is about conquering you in the end.
*When the Mongol World Empire disintegrated the Mongols lost their edge.
 
Why were they able to make their enemies regret the second time around? Were they really good at adapting to tactics after being defeated once? Did they return with greater numbers than before?
 
Why were they able to make their enemies regret the second time around? Were they really good at adapting to tactics after being defeated once? Did they return with greater numbers than before?
I guess so. I mean both - adapting and returning with greater numbers.
And returning with better quality troops (preferably 'true ethnic Mongols' instead of some Non-Mongol nomads if possible), and having better general(s). And taking the opponents more seriously this time. Things like that, I guess.
 
During the Mongol World Empire the Mongols were defeated on the field of battle; the problem was that they always returned and made their enemies regret.
When the Mongol World Empire was no more - the Mongols were defeated as well, but their enemies had less worries about the Mongols coming back and punishing them.

The success of the Mongol World Empire was not about Mongol invincibility in battle; it was about their inevitable coming back after their defeat and having the last word. When there was the Mongol World Empire if you defeated the Mongols in battle you sealed your fate (or fate of your successors and your country) - the Mongols would return till you're conquered (in the most brutal way, which is expected).

So making a big deal about the Europeans defeating the Mongols after the disintegration of the Mongol World Empire seems a little bit odd.

The Mongol World Empire is not about the Mongol invincibility on the field of battle.
The Mongol World Empire is about conquering you in the end.
*When the Mongol World Empire disintegrated the Mongols lost their edge.

Well, I was "making a big deal about the Europeans defeating the Mongols after the disintegration of the Mongol World Empire" because I was arguing that the Mongols weren't invincible to European armies. That doesn't actually contradict what you're saying here.
 
Top