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

Anyway, for my choice, I would have to go with either the Mongols or the English longbowmen.  Aside from the fact that they're not horse-archers (a huge plus for the Mongols in field engagements, obviously), the English archers have the edge in that they're extremely versatile.  Longbowmen were yeomen, and hence they were also skilled in HTH combat with bills, sword, buckler, daggers, & mauls.  In addition, some were mounted (not horse-archers, but mounted infantry), which gave them more mobility.

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.

LOL, the "expert" Temujin has spoken again.

Dude, we've been through this stuff before.  The longbow can most certainly compete with composite bows--both were used at similar ranges for battlefield applications, both had excellent penetration, and both had similar rates of fire.  In fact, Sir John Smythe (who had experience with both types of bows, as he was an English soldier who had fought in the Balkans against the Turks) considered the longbow the superior type of bow (he wrote of this in his Certain Discourses Military of 1590).

As for Stuhlwiessenburg, James Chambers mentioned in The Devil's Horsemen that the Mongols gave up the siege because the town was "fiercely defended by a unit of Italian mercenaries", and it therefore comes as little surprise that Friar Carpini stated that the Mongols "feared" the crossbow--a weapon which those Italian mercs were particularly famous for using.

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.

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...

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

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...

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.

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.

The Turks also used thumb-rings.

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.

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".

The longbow has, at least, the same range as the composite bow used on horse (which is smaller that the composite bow used by the foot and thus, much less powerful).

Besides, the mongols woukd have a problem when dealing with English
longbowmen:

1 -  their horses are not arrow-proof;

2 - the english longbowmen, as it was said above, where yomen, i.e.,
they could use bills, swords, buckelers, etc. so, they were excellent
in HTH combat.

But I shall not vote for the longbowmen. I would vote for the mid-Empire Roman legionaires, because they were capable in dealing with every sort of weapon (at least, according to Vegetius) and with every sort of enemy, be it nomad horsemen, barbarian infantry, phalangites, elephants, bowmen, etc.

Best

Sikander

PS - Anyway, the topic is a little bit absurd (sorry!) because what we are trying to compare is units from Antiquity and the Middle Ages. There's a lot of time between the two Ages, and the techniques differed so much... Can we really compare Mongols with Roman legionnaires? They were never putted against each other!

Another problem is that we tend to compare state building with military unit's effectiveness. The fact that Mongols defeated a lot of people and made an Empire does not mean that they were better than... Russians, for instance. The Russian were defeated by the Mongols, and these were beaten by the the Russians 200 years latter. So, who's the best?

"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.

warhead

Capt. Lubber did not say that the Mongols had more mobility than other steppe armies.He meant that they had the mobility to defeat all the others listed above.

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

"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.

"As for the "stirrup and belt claw device", the European crossbows had those features too."

Only in the 14th century.

"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.

Warhead,

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?

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).

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

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

Also that it was more accurate and gives a superior range.

"Can you post a pic of this thing?"

Just google search.

Here is a site.

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm - http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm

"(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)."

No because the Chinese had the Windlass as well. Winched crossbow are also used more effectively for siege than the field.

"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."

Exactly and you compare that to the mongols because the mongols brought comparatively less siege units from their home.

"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."

Horse archers doesn't mean anything, its the mongol's strategic warfare that gave them the edge, in a stationary battle they don't have much of a superiority or even less over many armies.

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

I never said that. But East Asian crossbows are better designed for the most part.

LOL--that's a highly subjective statement, my friend.

And the Chinese didn't have crossbows as powerful as the European steel ones of the 15th & 16th centuries, as I already pointed out (though, as you mentioned, these were more applicable for siege work).

Both cultures' crossbows had their pros and cons.

"LOL--that's a highly subjective statement, my friend."

Everything is generalizating, but a great number of scholars agree. Its very clear that crossbows have been used more effectively in East Asia than Europe, For Example the English prefered the Longbow over the Crossbow, and proven its effectiveness on the field. While the Song army prefered their Shen Bi crossbow much over the Composite bows. Because the Song army had better crossbow and more disciplined and organized way of using it.

"And the Chinese didn't have crossbows as powerful as the European steel ones of the 15th & 16th centuries, as I already pointed out (though, as you mentioned, these were more applicable for siege work)."

Prove it. The Chinese had Windlass as well. The Chinese siege crossbows of the Tang and Song mention a range of over 1000 yards. This is more confirmed by the Arab source of the same era which documents the same distance during the Mongol invasion.

Contemporary Korean crossbows mention similar ranges. The East Asian crossbows is no way inferior in strength.

So the Chinese and Koreans had steel crossbows too?

"So the Chinese and Koreans had steel crossbows too?"

"And come to think of it, why do I have to prove anything?  Everything I've posted regarding the weapons in question is pretty much common knowledge.  Why don't you post some sources for these supposed Chinese super-crossbows? "

Common knowledge that the Chinese didn't have windlass? If so then these "common knowledge" is certainly wrong.

Source for them is in Needham's science and civiliazation siege and missiles, the Song and Tang crossbow (as well as those of Korea) that has over 1000 yard has a windlass and mechanical operated by one men that has been confirmed by Arab sources in the siege of Baghdad.

I didn't mean "common knowledge" in regards to the windlass--I meant "common knowledge" in regards to the European steel-staved crossbows being the most powerful.

BTW, you still haven't answered my question--did the Chinese have steel-staved crossbows?

Is this text readily available?

1000 yards--seems odd that Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey never mentioned it...

"And that they could use the countermarch for the crossbows which Europe didn't use."

I actually find them very wrong, and I mean very wrong.

Europe was using some a cross those in the meal times, that the Pope tried contained the number of crossbows in Europe.

“Source for them is in Needham's science and civiliazation siege and missiles, the Song and Tang crossbow (as well as those of Korea) that has over 1000 yard has a windlass and mechanical operated by one men that has been confirmed by Arab sources in the siege of Baghdad.”

Now 1000 yd., that’s equivalent to modern-day rifles, there’s something wrong there, now if you mean they show up in the air and came down to the enemy (the arrows), that will still be an IFFY!!

Would not doubt at all , if the Europeans at this time, had as powerful or more powerful crossbows, if you know the Europeans did have crossbows in the Roman times.

so saying that’s was not new to them.

oh and yes. Almost forgot to mention, the Romans did have steel, they used more steel than what you think, on the armor on this swords and other things. so saying this to steel is not new in Europe.

I found this information by going to Roma this past spring vacation.

you don't need to chase horse archers into a trap to be defeated.Mongols could easily destroy the elephants and their riders by using their simple tactics such as parthian shots.

the mongols would probably not fight in your choice of terrain,and i don't understand how elephants will move on a terrain a horse can't. 

"I meant "common knowledge" in regards to the European steel-staved crossbows being the most powerful."

There is no common sense about it. Common sense often then not is based upon ignorance and this is one of the cases. Not to mention range does not equal strength and I have never said the East Asian crossbows were more powerful in penetration ability.

"BTW, you still haven't answered my question--did the Chinese have steel-staved crossbows?"

No, but they did have winch armed, Li Chuan clearly mention the rotary arming motions on the crossbow and how its only suitable for assaulting fortifications. I've misread your windlass as winch armed. But in any case steel stave isn't the only factor of power.

"Is this text readily available?"

Yes, the Tang treatise of  Wang Chu Chiao She Ching. The range is eqivalent to 1160 yards. This isn't only in Tang sources, but as early as the Warring states, Shi Ji records the bowmen of the kingdom of Han has a shot of over 500 paces which is nearly 900 yards. Contemporary Shilla and later Koryo crossbows also mention this range. This range seems credible only with difficulty, yet strangely enough there is a confirmation of it from a Persian source, namely the historian Ala al-Din-Juwaini, who wrote of what happened when one of the almost impregnable castles of the Assasins was taken by Hulagu. In his words "..and a Kaman-i gav which had been constructed by Cathayan craftsmen, and which had a range of 2500 paces, was brought to bear on those fools, when no other remedy remained, and of the devil like Heretics many soldiers were burntby those meteoric shots." The castle was Maimun-Diz the strongest military base of the assasins.

Here, they record in 1256, the Chinese arcuballistae shot their projectiles in 2500 arab paces (over 1100 yards) from a position on top of some mountain,(see Reinaud and Fave (2), p. 295). Huuri(I), pp.7, 124 considers this exceptional range of about 1 kilometre not at all impossible. 

"1000 yards--seems odd that Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey never mentioned it..."

It wouldn't be odd if he never read primary Chinese, Korean and Arab documents on them. No surviving species of this bow is recovered because of its age, which add to the difficulty of making a solid conclusion of weapon comparison which these people love to do. Needham did in fact mention specifically about Payne Gallwey in his book and obviously his expertise focus on the Western(including West Asia) bows.

"I actually find them very wrong, and I mean very wrong."

Wrong about what? Europe didn't use the crossbow countermarch, and thats a fact. If you claim otherwise, show me you source.

"Europe was using some a cross those in the meal times, that the Pope tried contained the number of crossbows in Europe."

And?

"Now 1000 yd., that’s equivalent to modern-day rifles, there’s something wrong there, now if you mean they show up in the air and came down to the enemy (the arrows), that will still be an IFFY!!"

It IS the later, and I've alerady given you the source above.

" if you know the Europeans did have crossbows in the Roman times."

Which lacked a lug alone with many others.

"oh and yes. Almost forgot to mention, the Romans did have steel, they used more steel than what you think, on the armor on this swords and other things. so saying this to steel is not new in Europe."

The simple definition of steel as a carbonized iron is present in virtually all parts of the Old world by the A.D. era there is nothing special about it. What the Chinese had was the Blast furnace and Bessemer process of steel making only created in recent times.

Once you strip away a HAs mobility you don't have very much. I'm talking about operational and strategic mobility here, their ability to make moves of dozens of miles at a time.  If hemmed in by natural, improved natural and artificial obstacles HAs will be unable to disengage from a bad situation and re engage in a different, better place. Without their wider ranging mobility can Mongol HAs survive in a battle with an opponent with similar individual weapons, heavy weapons, more armour, using attrition and shock tactics?

Please tell me,is there such place?

How come they were thrown out of most of what they conquered within a century or 2? Mongol HAs are just like anything else, you can figure out the secret to their success and counter-weapons and tactics can be developed. Their mobility can be cramped by obstacles and their lethality can be reduced by armour and matched by similar weapons. Why does everyone give examples of how easily elephants are countered but not how easy it is to kill horses and lightly armoured men?

Ý'm talking abaut a proper empire based on land,not on slavery and economics.

the arab and chinese world arent exactly grassland steppes,

elephents are good but if enemy can scare an elephent it will cause more damage than good.

Mongol domination of China was a very brief part of Chinese history. The mid-east is horse country, the Byzantines, Turks and Mameluks all had important cav arms, but I don't think these armies had lots of remounts like the Mongols. Perhaps the cataphract is an effort to get the most out of one horse per man.

I think elephants have a lot of positive attributes such as their ability to carry a lot of firepower, armour and a hard to stop charge.

And it would be nice to add - hard to make them charge, and are as easily pounded off as Romans did, with Pikes.

Extremely true.

Kataphract? Oh, Cataphract!

Heavily armoured cavalry armed with lance or bow, capable of devastating charges or archery, including the parthian shot? I would imagine they would mince everyone else. Including the Mongols and Elephants!

For all of the options though, the leadership and terrain would be the deciding factor...  

mongols had cataphracts tho..