Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Battle of Leignitz

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
arthur View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote arthur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Battle of Leignitz
    Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 12:28

Have you already heard about this battle?

According to a book, european haevy armoured knights army was take to piece by mounted mongols archers.

Is that true?

How did it happened? How can so well armed and equiped knights be destroyed by archers?

Thanks

Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 13:15

 It seems the knights fell for the Mongols favourite trick, the feigned retreat.

 After being charged the Mongols seemed to flee with the European knights hot on their heels, however the knights were being drawn away from their infantry and once adequately seperated the Mongols sprung the trap.

 Which usually meant the Mongols would turn around and then shower the enemy with arrows, surrounding the enemy from every side firing as they rode, keeping their distance. If a knights armour proved impervious to arrows the Mongols simply aimed for the horse, a knight without his horse was very weak once the Mongols sent in their heavier cavalry to pick them off.

 It musnt have taken long for the knights to realise they had fallen for a very very old trick, by which time as is generally the rule it was to late to do anything about it and they were despite valiant resistance cut to pieces by the Mongols.

A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 13:27
Originally posted by arthur

Have you already heard about this battle?

According to a book, european haevy armoured knights army was take to piece by mounted mongols archers.

Is that true?

How did it happened? How can so well armed and equiped knights be destroyed by archers?

Thanks

Check out TJK's essay here

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 21:55
Aside from harrasing the Poles with archers, the Mongols employed the use of heavy cavalry themselves. This force would often turn the tide and swing the momentum in their favor. 
Back to Top
arthur View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote arthur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 08:46
Originally posted by Heraclius

 It seems the knights fell for the Mongols favourite trick, the feigned retreat.  After being charged the Mongols seemed to flee with the European knights hot on their heels, however the knights were being drawn away from their infantry and once adequately seperated the Mongols sprung the trap.

Thanks for this informations.It is surprising that europenans knights failed in this trick.

 

Originally posted by Heraclius

   Which usually meant the Mongols would turn around and then shower the enemy with arrows, surrounding the enemy from every side firing as they rode, keeping their distance. If a knights armour proved impervious to arrows the Mongols simply aimed for the horse,

Knights could charge against mongol light cavalry to defeat them. Why didn't they use this tactic? It seems they let themselves defeated by mongols?

Originally posted by Heraclius

 a knight without his horse was very weak once the Mongols sent in their heavier cavalry to pick them off.

 It musnt have taken long for the knights to realise they had fallen for a very very old trick, by which time as is generally the rule it was to late to do anything about it and they were despite valiant resistance cut to pieces by the Mongols.

Armors of Europeans Knights were very strong and more resistant than armor of mongol cavalry. Cuirras of this armors  could resist against all medieval weapons. So how did mongol heavy cavalry to defeat the european heavy armored knights, even if they are dismouted? What kind of weapon did they use to pierce plate armors to kill european knights?

thanks

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 08:57

The Mongols would use their ellite heavy cavalry when they felt it would give them an advantage. Had the Polish knights attacked without abandon and linked up with the Bohemians then they could have created a favorable position. However, the Mongols just would not let themelves get caught in a pincer move or become outflanked. Thus it was futile to chase a Mongol army. The Mongols also rode away to cause a feigned retreat type ambush.

Mixed Mongol, Kipchak warriors. Irregulars in front and Elites in the rear.


Edited by Seko
Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 11:50

Originally posted by arthur

Thanks for this informations.It is surprising that europenans knights failed in this trick.

No not really, almost all adversaries of the mongols fell for that trick

Knights could charge against mongol light cavalry to defeat them. Why didn't they use this tactic? It seems they let themselves defeated by mongols?

Historically, heavy cavalry have been able to break mounted horsearchers, especially during the crusades. The mongols though were not like the turk horsearchers of the caliphate, they would not only harass their opponent, but also discharge massed volleys like the english longbowmen did during the hundred years war

Armors of Europeans Knights were very strong and more resistant than armor of mongol cavalry. Cuirras of this armors  could resist against all medieval weapons. So how did mongol heavy cavalry to defeat the european heavy armored knights, even if they are dismouted? What kind of weapon did they use to pierce plate armors to kill european knights?

thanks

Full plate armour appeared not until in the late 14th century - at the time of the mongol invasions european knights were protected only by mail and quilted fabrics, save the helmets and shields. The german knights facing the mongols would have been clad in mail from head to toe and the latest great helms, but the poorer polish knights would generally have had more primitive equipment - shorter mail shirts and old conical helmets. Still the mail-clad knights would have been somewhat better protected than the mongols, but arrows and lances would pierce the mail anyway. Also, the knights were heavily outnumbered - perhaps a thousand knights and men-at-arms at its most, the rest of Duke Henrys men being a motley collection of more or less ill-equiped and ill-trained levies. Crossbowmen were evidently present, but they were too few to turn the balance. Against them stood perhaps 10 000 experienced and well equiped mongol horsemen - the outcome of the battle was settled before it started...



Edited by Mangudai
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 12:17
Originally posted by arthur

[QUOTE=Heraclius] 

Armors of Europeans Knights were very strong and more resistant than armor of mongol cavalry. Cuirras of this armors  could resist against all medieval weapons. So how did mongol heavy cavalry to defeat the european heavy armored knights, even if they are dismouted? What kind of weapon did they use to pierce plate armors to kill european knights?

In general, the best weapon to use against plate armor is the mace. While Swords, arrows and even lances are ineffective against plate armor, the mace is devastating. That is the weapon that the Ottoman sipahis later on used against armored western kinights at the battles of Nicopolis (1396) and Varna (1442), and also the weapon that many European kinghts themselves employed against each other.

As someone else pointed out, the Polish kinghts were unlikely to have had plate armor, but had chain mail instead.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 12:33

The mace was indeed used by the mongols, and would have been effective against the knight's helmets - the only part of plate that was used.

Then you have other nasty weapons like war hammers, rondel daggers, battle flails, halberds and billhooks which could deal with plate armour. These were howewer from a later date and of course not used by the mongols 

Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 14:08
There was a post about this battle some time back that was converted to an article: http://www.allempires.com/articles/liegnitz/liegnitz.htm
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 04:07
  First of all European heavy knights wasnt invincible.We know that in Manzikert(1071).Turks defeated the Byzantines and the byzantine army included thousands of Norman mercenary. The battle of Doryleaum (1097).Which Crusaders won a victory was a hard battle , the heavy european knights were saved by their number. After this battle the crusaders met the turks, and they understand that this enemy was different and mortal. The crusaders than inflicted a lot of damages to the muslim armies, but this armies were arabic and nubian.When the Turks take the charge the crusader slowed and remained still. n 1101 thousands of knights were killed at Anatolia while they were going to the holy land. After this years gazi`s like Belek, Skmen, lgazi, Artuk, maddedin Zengi and Nurredin Zengi  won alot of battles .Because of the naval power of the christians saved the holy land from being occupied.The second crusade was defeated by the Turks again...................So I am trying to say that the European heavy cavalry is an elite force but if we think about strategy and dicipline Turk and Mongol warriors was much better.And this dicipline and strategical advantage make the victories. We talked about Liegnitz, but this batlle is not the only one.Nikopolis, Varna, Kosovo, Mohacs, Hattin and alot of other encounters. I said that dicipline is far important .Yes the Mongols were perfectly diciplined , but the Mamelukes were better diciplined and they defeated them.Their equpment wasnt better from the European knights but they defeated the mongols and the crusaders too
Back to Top
Alkiviades View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469
  Quote Alkiviades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 05:49

The european knights were a devastating force when faced head-on - nothing could stand a well-led and executed charge with the couched lance without breaking. We have though numerous cases when lighter equiped mounted - and even foot! - forces managed to outperform the knights and beat them.

Some of evrenosgazi's statements are rather dubious (for instance the notion that "thousands of Norman mercenary " were deployed by Romanos - the number was more in the few hundreds, actually and during the crusade era the knights, always outnumbered and only a small percentage of the Christian armies anyway, won many, many victories against Turks and Arabs) but in general, the knights had also a number of weaknesses: they were heavy, of little use dismounted, slow and bulky, had no discipline, were usually ill-led too. And the armour was a hell of a burden in hot climates.

The Mongols were a real army - much as the Ottomans later on (not the Seljuks, though). They had order, discipline, good leadership, sophisticated tactics. Man by man, the knights were superior in every aspect. As an army... you better forget it. The Mongols were unequalled  in their times. 

Had they moved westwards, I think the history of Europe would be quite different... maybe the Aztecs would land on Spain and try to proselytize the heathen europeans... that different 

Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 06:54

A knightley charge of heavy horse could in fact be withstood by disciplined infantry, as the lombard communal soldiers' victory against Barbarossas knights at Legnano 1176 proved. The knight armies were indeed often ill-disciplined, but not always. Especially the knight orders had a reputation of stern discipline, and with the right kind of leadership like Richard it could go well. Neither were they ineffectice when dismounted - the english would later use dismounted knighs with good effect against the french in the hundred years war. During the battle of Mohi, dismounted templars held the bridge against several mongol attacks before they were overcome by catapults and arrows. The knight armies may have been slow on campaign, but once in battle the war-horses were very svift - otherwise they couldn't have been able to catch the horsearchers at all. Armour was a problem in the desert - but not only for the crusader knights but for the armoured mamluks as well.

Nu guhk go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dn eatnam alde

Ossfok i s kringest sturwekster sttliger. Summer v kulluma i riktit finer!
Back to Top
Alkiviades View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469
  Quote Alkiviades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 07:48

Aye, there have been very few occassions when a full-fledged knightley charge could be dealed with - but that is the (rare) exception, rather than the rule. The revival of the pike in the late 14th century provided with a semi-permanent solution to this "problem". The knight orders had discipline but that was just the knight orders - the outremer armies have been a rather disordered lot and that's a given. On mainland Europe things were much worse - no knightly orders operating here, with the exception (a tad later) of the "crusading" Teuten in northern-eastern europe.

Dismounted knights were good only on static defense. On the offensive... that would be an impossibility, wouldn't you agree?

Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 09:42
Originally posted by Alkiviades

Aye, there have been very few occassions when a full-fledged knightley charge could be dealed with - but that is the (rare) exception, rather than the rule. The revival of the pike in the late 14th century provided with a semi-permanent solution to this "problem".

I think the examples are abundant from the late 13th century onward. Knights were defeated later on at Stirling Bridge 1297, Falkirk 1298 (the inititial cavalry charge was beaten off by the scots, who were defeated only after being shot to pieces by longbowmen), at Courtrai 1302, Arques 1304, Bannockburn 1314, Morgarten 1315, Laupen 1339, Crcy 1346, Poitiers 1356, Auray 1364, Sempach 1386, Nfels 1388 and of course later on the pike made knighley charges hard to perform 

The knight orders had discipline but that was just the knight orders - the outremer armies have been a rather disordered lot and that's a given. On mainland Europe things were much worse - no knightly orders operating here, with the exception (a tad later) of the "crusading" Teuten in northern-eastern europe.

Then you have spanish orders like the knights of Santiago... Ordinary knights could be as disciplined - look at the austrian knights who dismounted and fought as a disciplined pike-unit at Sempach, or the french knights at Crcy who charged, regrouped and charged again no less than 16 times. But yet discipline didn't help them from disastrous defeats...

Dismounted knights were good only on static defense. On the offensive... that would be an impossibility, wouldn't you agree?

Yes in pitched battles they were impossible



Edited by Mangudai
Nu guhk go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dn eatnam alde

Ossfok i s kringest sturwekster sttliger. Summer v kulluma i riktit finer!
Back to Top
arthur View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote arthur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 16:53

Originally posted by Mangudai

A knightley charge of heavy horse could in fact be withstood by disciplined infantry, as the lombard communal soldiers' victory against Barbarossas knights at Legnano 1176 proved. The knight armies were indeed often ill-disciplined, but not always.

At this times knights were not very well protected by amor. When knights are heavy armored with full plate armors, if they are very well disciplined, I think they are quite invulnerable because plate armor is missile proof. During HYW, french knights were destroyed because of there indiscipline.

Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 17:05
Originally posted by arthur

Originally posted by Mangudai

A knightley charge of heavy horse could in fact be withstood by disciplined infantry, as the lombard communal soldiers' victory against Barbarossas knights at Legnano 1176 proved. The knight armies were indeed often ill-disciplined, but not always.

At this times knights were not very well protected by amor. When knights are heavy armored with full plate armors, if they are very well disciplined, I think they are quite invulnerable because plate armor is missile proof. During HYW, french knights were destroyed because of there indiscipline.

Yes, knights and gendarmes in full plate armour were virtually impossible to withstand and they dominated warfare in the late 15th century, but they could be beaten by swiss and german pike-formations and cannons

Nu guhk go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dn eatnam alde

Ossfok i s kringest sturwekster sttliger. Summer v kulluma i riktit finer!
Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
  Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2005 at 05:03
Originally posted by Alkiviades

Aye, there have been very few occassions when a full-fledged knightley charge could be dealed with - but that is the (rare) exception, rather than the rule. The revival of the pike in the late 14th century provided with a semi-permanent solution to this "problem". The knight orders had discipline but that was just the knight orders - the outremer armies have been a rather disordered lot and that's a given. On mainland Europe things were much worse - no knightly orders operating here, with the exception (a tad later) of the "crusading" Teuten in northern-eastern europe.


This has been already answered, the truth is that a full blown charge by the miletes or men at arms (knights were only ever part of the cavalry) was only expected to sucseed in certain circumstances.  Another often overlookd item is thah many bodies of miletes and men at arms operated under good disciplnine, though there was always a potential for the uncoordinated impetuous charge (the 'French' at Crecy is a prime example).  There were also bodies of the military orders in all European countries, though they were primaraly active in the Levant, Iberia and Prussia/Lithuania.

Originally posted by Alkiviades


Dismounted knights were good only on static defense. On the offensive... that would be an impossibility, wouldn't you agree?



Offensive action by dismounted men at arms was a standard tactic from about 1350 onwards.  It was considerably more effective than mounted charges.  Men at Arms  only resumed fighting mounted by default at the start of the 16th c by which time  pike and arquebus were the weapons of choice for the infantry.
rgds.

      Tom..
Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2005 at 12:55

Originally posted by tadamson


Offensive action by dismounted men at arms was a standard tactic from about 1350 onwards.  It was considerably more effective than mounted charges.  Men at Arms  only resumed fighting mounted by default at the start of the 16th c by which time  pike and arquebus were the weapons of choice for the infantry.

Yes you're right, now I remember that the french used dismounted men-at-arms to attack the english at Poitiers 1356. Even thoug hthey failed with great losses, they were more sucessful than the mounted men at Crcy

Nu guhk go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dn eatnam alde

Ossfok i s kringest sturwekster sttliger. Summer v kulluma i riktit finer!
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2005 at 16:01
maces are a traditional sign of rank on the Steppe, only commanding officers would have carried maces.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.