Best unit

Mongol horse archers could whip them all. Mobility makes so they can outrun all the others. Might have some problems with killing the elephants, but their superior archery would slowly, but surely decimate anyone.

Elephants for sheer mass.  Even if they got killed, the enemy would have a hell of a time getting past their bodies to the back of the army (where I'd be hiding).

Originally posted by Capt. Lubber Mongol horse archers could whip them all. Mobility makes so they can outrun all the others. Might have some problems with killing the elephants, but their superior archery would slowly, but surely decimate anyone.

Given a proper defensive position, English longbowmen could concievably defeat the Mongols (just as Italian crossbowmen did at Stuhlwiessenburg).

Originally posted by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner Given a proper defensive position, English longbowmen could concievably defeat the Mongols (just as Italian crossbowmen did at Stuhlwiessenburg).

 

no and no. longbows can not compete with composite bows, mongosl have a way faster rate of fire and beter penetration power. and there was no skirmish at Stuhlweissenburg, the Mognol scouts withdrew after findign the swamp aroudnt eh citadell impassable.

the mongol soldiers had defeated many; but bulgarian armies have stopped them especially during the time of volga-bulgaria when the mongols had to get a 300 000 army from their provinces to defeat their 50 000.

Originally posted by Temujin first of all, you have been discussed at the mod forum already, so don't call me "expert" or dude again or i bring the topic up again...

What do you mean by "you have been discussed at the mod forum already"?  Are you talking about the Security/Ban forum?  What have I done that's offensive?

As for "bringing up the topic again", go right ahead--I haven't done anything wrong.  In fact, I'll be happy to post links to every thread that you've posted your trolling nonsense on.

If you want to play hardball, I'm game.

1. an englishman can hardly be cosndidered a neutral observant,

He was a veteran soldier with first-hand experience with the weapons in question, as they were used at that time--that makes his opinion worth more than yours, IMO.

 

btut eh Ottomans to my knoledge didn't used the technique of fireing 3 arrows in short sequence. this was onyl possible due to the eatsern thumb-draw,

The Turks also used thumb-rings.

 

btu english used the meditteranean draw, therfore it is impossible they coudl fire at a similar speed.a nd you said yourself longbow archers had troubles in logictics, while mounted archers had a huge supply of arrows...

So post some comparative statistics concerning the relative rates-of-fire of the longbow and composite bow, then.  Show me the money, Temujin.

As for logistics, it can be a problem for any group of archers.

 

and please spare me Chambers, his book is popular science and not worthy at all...adn don't forget hwo was in fact the crossbow nation, the Chinese...

Chambers' "popular science" makes use of a huge number of primary sources.

What are YOUR sources for the action at Stuhlwiessenburg?

And finally--The Chinese were a "crossbow nation", not the "crossbow nation".

Edited by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner

I voted for Mongol HA as the best single-unit army, because even light cavalry without bows can defeat longbows.

"Mongol horse archers could whip them all. Mobility makes so they can outrun all the others. Might have some problems with killing the elephants, but their superior archery would slowly, but surely decimate anyone."

 

Spare me, they have no more mobility than any other nomadic army that depend solely on cavalry. Their organization and tactic are virtually identical to the Khitans and early Jurchens. And the Khitans has already been defeated numerous times on battle. The Mongols have suffered some great defeats against the Jin in both Da Yuan Chang and Gui De, Jin armies based on infantry and cavalry support routing Mongol armies 3-10 times their size. Kubilai did it again and routed Kaidu's army with the combination of northern infantry with cavalry.

 

 

"Given a proper defensive position, English longbowmen could concievably defeat the Mongols (just as Italian crossbowmen did at Stuhlwiessenburg)."

 

Anything is possible, but the Mongols have equally good chance of defeating them even in Europe. The terrain is a major factor and we have to avoid any generalization. There is nothing unique about the English long bow men, the Mongols had no problem defeating the Jin standing composite bow men, they weren't stupid enough to stand there exchanging fires. The success of the mongols is not in their bow which is nothing unique, nor to their tactical advantage which is nonexistent, but to their mobility and unexpected rapid attacks which catch the enemy off guard and a whole strategic superiority through their cavalry. Against a defensive infantry, its explicitly mentioned that they would only despatch a small unit to keep this infantry at bay while ride off with the rest to attack another city, when the infantry march to support the Mongols would return with unexpected speed and rout the infantry that is out of position, this is especially effective against a undisicplined European infantry of the 13th century which cannot charge or march in good formation. And could only maintain their position in defensive. Thus a defensive position is quite meaningless on the whole strategic scale. The mongols viewed a war as a war not a series of battles. And this isn't just the Mongols that did such. Stuhlwiessenburg is a siege, not a field battle, it amounts to little since the Mongol had limited logistics in Europe.

"And finally--The Chinese were a "crossbow nation", not the "crossbow nation"."

 

East Asian crossbows are more efficient in general especially during the Mongol era. It had a superior trigger mechanism design, better manufactured material, a stirrup and a belt claw device which gives it a much further range and penetration power. Even that did not give them any decicively advantage over the Mongol army. There isn't any reason to suppose the Italian of the time could do it with a good chance. Especially when they haven't even used it on the field in that siege.

 

Originally posted by warhead East Asian crossbows are more efficient in general especially during the Mongol era. It had a superior trigger mechanism design, better manufactured material, a stirrup and a belt claw device which gives it a much further range and penetration power. Even that did not give them any decicively advantage over the Mongol army. There isn't any reason to suppose the Italian of the time could do it with a good chance. Especially when they haven't even used it on the field in that siege.

 

Warhead,

I asked you once before what was so "superior" about the Chinese trigger mechanism, but I don't recall your answer.  As for the "stirrup and belt claw device", the European crossbows had those features too.

And I've already shown that Italian crossbowmen were successful against the Mongols at Stuhlwiessenburg.

Peace,

L_D

Warhead,

Originally posted by warhead "I asked you once before what was so "superior" about the Chinese trigger mechanism, but I don't recall your answer.  "  The devices of military crossbows in Europe of the 14th to 16th centuries include a fairly plain, straight stock, a sinew bridle binding the lath to the stock, a cylindrical latch nut and a long iron trigger. It would have either a simple rest or a grooved track to guide the bolt. The Chinese lock, on the other hand, was fool proof in operation and it could not discharge itself because of water on the bearing surfaces,; its reliability was absolute. Dubs claimed the arrangement of the parts of this mechanism was almost as complicated as that of a modern rifle bolt, and could be reproduced only by very competent mechanics. Removal of the shafts allowed the the component pieces to drop out and although the mechanism was easy to reassemble, it may have taken more ingenuity than the huns possessed to reproduce the bronze casting. In another word it had a process similar to the interchangeable parts and could also be replaced when nessessary.

So, it was only "superior" in that it prevented accidental discharges?  (Which is admittedly a good thing)

Can you post a pic of this thing?

 

"As for the "stirrup and belt claw device", the European crossbows had those features too."   Only in the 14th century.

In any case, those features aren't necessarily indicative of more powerful bows (unlike English windlasses and German cranequins, which were used to span crossbows more powerful than any Asian model, and are clearly indicative of more powerful bows).

 

And I've already shown that Italian crossbowmen were successful against the Mongols at Stuhlwiessenburg."   And I've already said that it was a siege not a field battle.

So what?  One does not judge the effectiveness of a given weapon or troop type based on only one type of combat, unless were are talking about specialist troops or specialized weapons.

But, if you prefer field engagements, then have the Italian crossbowmen covered by pavesari (as they were at Arsuf against Saladin), and they will still be able to defeat horse-archers.

The final analysis is that China was not the only "crossbow culture".

Peace,

L_D