What if Ögedei Khan lived for another 20 years?

The slashfic part would probably get grotesque in a hurry, but I've read worse (not intentionally) than "fat older man falls for less fat and not quite as old man over falconry".

Yeah i'd never really want to read to much about the... ill just call them details.. of that but it would atleast be interesting to see the culture clash and the reaction of Frederick to the revelation.
 
The slashfic part would probably get grotesque in a hurry, but I've read worse (not intentionally) than "fat older man falls for slightly less fat and not quite as old man over falconry".

The Falcon's Last Flight?

The Falcon Rises Skyward?

Grey Wings for a Grey Head?

The Wings that make the Heart beat?

....

I hate you all.

....

Non-Slash: certain lords actually got pretty friendly with the Mongols. Alexander (being younger, actually) was sworn brother with Sartaq, supposedly. And Arghun had many fans among the Cilician and Gerogian royalty. So that could be interesting.
 
The Falcon's Last Flight?

The Falcon Rises Skyward?

Grey Wings for a Grey Head?

The Wings that make the Heart beat?

....

I hate you all.

....

Non-Slash: certain lords actually got pretty friendly with the Mongols. Alexander (being younger, actually) was sworn brother with Sartaq, supposedly. And Arghun had many fans among the Cilician and Gerogian royalty. So that could be interesting.

Yeah. And I think Subotai would appreciate Frederick actually being intelligent - not necessarily like that, but it whatever else Frederick was, he wasn't a boor.
 
To be sure. Together they might both decide to take out that pesky Church and those unspeakably rebellious Lombards. :D

That would be interesting.

Frederick: "So, you can have the eastern half of Europe, and Russia. I just want Italy."

Subotai: "What's in it for us?"

Frederick: ::points at his falcon.::

Subotai: "Good point, Fritz. Batu, fetch my friend a couple tumens."


If Alexander could bully around Novgorod with the Mongols at his back, Fritz doing that unto Lombardy for the same isn't all that far fetched, assuming a similar commitment on his end.
 
I've ridden all sorts of horses. Most of them were modern European breeds because that's what the world rides, for most part.

1. No horse can "gallop" for a very long time. Mongol horses are no different, they don't do that in nature and they're not trained to do it. But if you make a horse "gallop" for a long time it will blow itself and die.

2. The capabilities of the "native" horse vs. the purebreds and the hotbloods are well-documented in later Russian sources (Russians certainly used both kinds in the 15th c. onwards). It is widely understood (and should be uncontroversial) that a European or an Asian hotblood is both faster and stronger than a steppe pony.

But the steppe pony is a good, hardy worker and has a lot of native intelligence. It just can't generate top speed the way a Circassian or a Turkmen or a Polish horse could.

While things do change, I am very skeptical the changes between the 13th and 16th c. were that drastic.

Think about it this way: short-distance, a dog outruns any human. But a trained marathon runner will outrun any dog over a very long distance, albeit at a much slower speed. Same thing with a sprinter vs. a marathon runner. Marathon runners don't have the muscle mass, as a rule.

It's well-documented that the Mongols used MASSES of horseflesh to keep themselves speedy, rotating between them. Even common warriors.

It's basically uncontroversial. I am not sure where your objection is coming from.



Untrue. The individual European profesisonal was well-equipped and well-trained, and employed a tactic (frontal charge in close order) that made even traditional heavy cavalry (in the Roman and Arab styles) adopt more defensive tactics.

The high point of tournament culture happened AFTER the Mongol invasion, chronologically. The 13th c. wasn't Song of Ice and Fire by any means.

The knight fought on foot and on horse, and was trained in a variety of weapons. They did both pitched battles and petite guerre. Hunting was their regular pastime - dangerous hunting. They rained in athletic achievements as well. There is no reason to think a knight was some kind of carpet warrior any more than the average Mongol was a herdsman with a bow.

The answer really does lie in tactics.



On the contrary, the 13th c. saw the emergence of city miltias and regiments outfitted by guildsmen. Knightly cavalry had already suffered a few defeats by then, and learned their lessons. More importantly, they already had experience from the crusades. It was crude by Eastern standards but nowhere as bad as you say.



Actually, the Mongol men were pretty typical steppe nomads who watched sheep and horses as their primary occupation, and trained for war by participating in massive hunts. Chingiz and his reorganization of their society is what gave them their discipline. Their meritocratically-selected and battle-tested generals was what gave them the edge in battles.

I don't think you seem to grasp that there was a Steppe world before the Mongols and that Europe regularly interacted with them.

And here's my final point:



The semi-barbaric West might have been spared destruction by a fluke of Mongol dynastic politics, but the Mongols DID face and beat armies that had extensive experience with nomads.

The Russians - dealing (very well!) with nomads daily, AND allied with those very same nomads. Professional fighters (infantry and horse), backed by large levies and tribal allies. Didn't help.

The Georgians: half their army was Cumans. Fought Turcs to the south, who were also horse archers with a decimal organisation. Beaten anyway.

Poland and Hungary: dealt with (a very muscular) collection of Russian principalities and their Pecheneg/Cuman allies for generations. DIDN'T HELP.

Kwarazm - settled Horse Archer army. Beaten. Khitans - semi-settled horse archer army. Beaten. Korea. Jin (Jurchens on horses, btw!). Seljuks. Beaten. Arabs in Baghdad expedition - professional urban infantry, tribal horse archers. Beaten. Volga Bulgars: inflicted a stinging first blow, then beaten as well. Another settled horse archer army, btw.

Alans, Cumans. Tanguts.

None of these "didn't learn the lessons of Carrhae" - in fact, some of them TAUGHT those lessons. Didn't help.

It's not "unfamiliarity with horse archers" or "inferior war technology" at play here, it's pre-modern army coming up against an incredible collection of generals with stunning strategic and operational skills.

And the explanation doesn't have to be more complex than that.

Thanks RGB for the discourse on horses,but since I started my career as a cavalry officer I will not comment on that;I will site instead some known facts expressed by known writers and see the outcome:Eric Mauraise(Introduction to Military History) B.H.Liddel-Heart(Indirect Strategy) have said:"They(Mongols) covered distances of 70 miles a day,faster than our tank divisions,and with greater 'elan' and flexibility since their logistics was minimal"-Personally I would like to see chargers in long distances and sub-zero temperatures.If you recal the Mongol attack of 1241 against Europe started in full winter.I don't know if you have experienced temperatures of
-20 or -30 degrees,but I am certain that the Mongol ponies fared better than our tanks or the Western European chargers accustomed to campaign during campaigning season.
In WWI the ulan cavalry advanced into Belgium and then into Northern France with speeds of 8 klm/hour,but after two weeks and when rains started "the horses of Marvitz and Richthoffen were found in desperate need of horseshoes and suffered from multiple wounds in their feet"(Mauraise).Since you know about horses you don't need anyone to explain that.
The Marathon example is very good,the same applies to cars,but in the battle the Mongols did not have to run that far to lure their enemies into a trap or that the Europeans lost cohesion in persuit much earlier and became easy prey to mongol riders firing (all the time) their arrows behind them on the oncoming Europeans.Anyhow,how far do you think a european horse could run with a fully armoured knight on its back?(as opposed to the lesser weight on a mounted Mongol)

As for familiarity with horse archers,they usually had to do with isolated tribe raids developing into a limited war that ended with victory or defeat with payments and goods changing hands,but they were never faced with a more or less united Asia or a great part of it that provided armies in abundance and of course with the innovations of Ghingis Khan.


You speak about knight's training,Unfortunately I know it why unfortunately? because it is depressing.I know their training in detail,BUT what good was that against steppe riders? they avoided battle to wear out their oponents in fruitless charges and then slaughter them at will.

I am glad you mentioned hunting; In the steppe,a man exercises patience,immobile for ours on end ambushing his prey;
great qualities that the Mongols applied against Europeans frequently and with success.Just show me one army ambush in
the middle ages by a knight army...and if it happened it would be a celebrated rare occurence unless the commander's name was Bertrand du Gusclin,Constable of France and an unsurpassed master in indirect Strategy and ambush;in five years of activity in France he gave three battles against the English,he lost the two,but the English army was utterly destroyed due to protracted attrition.Du Guesclin and father Guerin have been the only celebrated exceptions in the middle ages... so everything boils down to bad training or if you like training for the wrong reasons:the history of those years until the eve of the modern era is full of dense formations,slaughtered by simple moves turning the weight and density of such formations against them...Falkirk,Banockburn,Azincour, Bouvin and all the way back to Marathon (now I am worn out since I am a very slow and bad typist but anyway thanks for the argument)
 
Last edited:
"They(Mongols) covered distances of 70 miles a day,faster than our tank divisions,and with greater 'elan' and flexibility since their logistics was minimal"

They rotated between their mounts, letting them rest between carrying loads and riders. This kind of horse was necessary for campaigning over long distances with poor infrastructure, so that's why I brought up Renaissance Russia - they fought exactly that kind of warfare, and while the rich men might have good speedy horses, most rode the Russian "merin" who is basically a forest pony, or his bashkir cousin from the steppe. Even though they were pretty short and somewhat slow. Operational necessity. We're not disagreeing here at all.

My only point is that hotbloods and chargers are faster than primitive breeds over tactical distances.

I don't know if you have experienced temperatures of
-20 or -30 degrees, but I am certain that the Mongol ponies fared better than our tanks or the Western European chargers accustomed to campaign during campaigning season.
I grew up in Siberia, and while the city could be relatively warm, I've seen my share of -30. Easily agree that a horse beats a car in terms of reliability - but overall, the car is much cheaper :p

They conducted the campaign in Russia in winter as well, and potentially against Russia's steppe neighbours too. That may be an important point, Russia's nomad neighbours were semi-nomadic due to constraints in space and temperature on the Pontic steppe, so they could have been operationally tied down, the same way Grand Prince Yuri was.

The Marathon example is very good,the same applies to cars,but in the battle the Mongols did not have to run that far to lure their enemies into a trap
...well, they actually did. Sometimes. Before the battle of Kalka, the Russian and Cuman vanguard smashed the Mongol vanguard (or so they thought), who then fell into a continuous retreat for several days, covering a territory somewhat larger than Belgium in the process before giving battle for real.

The Russians on pretty typical medieval horses kept up but became disorganized and of course the princes quarreled between themselves and we know what happened after.

But certainly this shows that Eastern Europe was familiar with operations on a very large scale, they just weren't as good as the Mongols at it.

Anyhow,how far do you think a european horse could run with a fully armoured knight on its back?(as opposed to the lesser weight on a mounted Mongol).
It's not a particularly useful question: the usual charge distance is much shorter than the endurance of the gallop. The knights gave Saracens and Byzantines conniptions because they charged in with great cohesion in tight formations, so there's no way they charged longer than oh, 3-400 metres because there's no cohesion of any kind after that. And all charges would begin slow.

Galloping with a man in armour? Depending on the horse, 2-3 miles? After which the horse needs to rest for a really long time. But as I said, not a very useful question. As long as the mass of the mongols can avoid the mass of the knights, the knights cannot do a lot of damage, individual skill and horse speed notwithstanding.

That said, misdeployed Mongols could, and were, sometimes, caught by opposing heavy cavalry on a few occasions, just like the Cumans were, and the Turks were, and the Pechenegs were, and so on. Over a tactical distance of under one mile the bigger horse is faster.

As for familiarity with horse archers,they usually had to do with isolated tribe raids developing into a limited war that ended with victory or defeat with payments and goods changing hands,but they were never faced with a more or less united Asia or a great part of it that provided armies in abundance and of course with the innovations of Ghingis Khan.
The Mongols were (briefly) united. That was a big change. Prior to that, however, there were strong tribal alliances facing say, Rus. They suffered deafeats in the beginning, but learned how to conduct campaigns into the steppe within less than a hundred years. They knew how to move both horse and infantry rapidly too (by boat and sleds, in winter).

But when the Mongols came, the strategic speed caught Yuri by complete surprise, and despite him proactively going forward to meet them (also in winter), he ended up losing the strategic focus, went on defensive, and was outmaneuvered on his own turf. His army was pinned in three places in all of its deployments and destroyed piece by piece.

That's not unfamiliarity with horse archers, that's difference in strategic leadership.

You didn't have to be a tactically uncreative chivalry-bound commander to get defeated by the Mongols, that's all.

Just show me one army ambush in the middle ages by a knight army...and if it happened it would be a celebrated rare occurence unless the commander's name was Bertrand du Gusclin, Constable of France and an unsurpassed master in indirect Strategy and ambush;in five years of activity in France he gave three battles against the English,he lost the two,but the English army was utterly destroyed due to protracted attrition
I'm a fan of Du Guesclin too, but again, ambushes was something that people were familiar with at least in Eastern Europe. Turks ambushed Byzantines, Pechenegs ambushed the Rus, the Rus lured horsemen into a town and ambushed them there, Hungarians ambushed the Mongol rearguard in Transylvania, Bulgars ambushed Mongols at the Samara bend, Yevpati Kolovrat ambushed Batu (unssuccessfully), Vlachs ambushed the Hungarians in a few famous instances...

...it's not chivalrous, but then not armies were knights, and it was still done.

Medieval armies had limitations of not being able to maintain themselves in the field for a long time, yes. They had strategic limitations due to supply carts/sleds being slower than the horsemen, yes. I'm not arguing that part. I'm just saying that you really have to look beyond the "knights are slow and stupid" to see the reasons why Eurasian armies lost to the Mongols.

But they adapted, you know. They adapted to the Cumans, and they eventually adapted to the Mongols, who were basically Cumans with better central command and strategic movement.
 
Last edited:
That brings up a question, RGB.

Vs. the Rus or Hungary, the Mongols had a perfect situation for divide and rule.

The HRE at this point may be seeing Frederick selling the regalia for princely support, but he still has princely support.

In your opinion, what would the Mongols try to do to break that up?
 
That brings up a question, RGB.

Vs. the Rus or Hungary, the Mongols had a perfect situation for divide and rule.

The HRE at this point may be seeing Frederick selling the regalia for princely support, but he still has princely support.

In your opinion, what would the Mongols try to do to break that up?

Bribery or threats most likely.
 
That brings up a question, RGB.

Vs. the Rus or Hungary, the Mongols had a perfect situation for divide and rule.

The HRE at this point may be seeing Frederick selling the regalia for princely support, but he still has princely support.

In your opinion, what would the Mongols try to do to break that up?

I think to break that up they need to beat the Imperial army. The German King was always very vulnerable to perceptions of weakness and back luck on the field.

They could of course offer the crown to someone else, too. I don't know.

It doesn't seem like they seriously tried though, and later diplomatic efforts were never about destabilising Germany.
 
Top