Your best medieval army?

 

Originally posted by BigL One Question historians ask today is why even when most of the mongols enemys know very well of the Fake retreat do they still fall for it?

Maybe this analogy would help to answer this question.

Look at stockbrokers. They buy and sell stocks and shares. Sometimes stockbrokers win (and earn much money), sometimes they lose (and lose money). There are some rules for this activity. Stockbrokers certainly know these rules, but it doesn't mean that they always win. Why? Stockbrokers know ONLY rules of stock exchange, but they don't know the future - for example, they don't know if in some case some shares will gain or lose. So they have to risk. Sometimes it leads to bankruptcy.

Ok, and now we have a war in 13th c. There were commanders of European countries who knew rules of war. For example, they knew a tactic of simulated retreat. But during a battle a commander couldn't be certain if this 'retreat' of enemies was a real one or only a simulated one. What could a commander do? He could risk and chase retreating Mongols (in this case, if it was a real retreat, the commander of some European country was able to destroy Mongols totally, but if it was only simulated retreat, this commander lost his army) or he could not risk (in this case, he didn't destroy Mongols, who were still dengerous for his army and his country).

So, it is not enough to know the rules to win. One has to take risk to gain something. Sometimes that risk leads to catastrophy.

Edited by ataman

Originally posted by BigL If im not correct the polish commander told his troops not to follow the mongol retreat but his troops broke dicipline and charged.?

No, it was not a lack of discipline of Polish army. Look at Dlugosz's description of this battle (English version here: http://www.impub.co.uk/dlug3.html). Although this source isn't too much credible (it was written about 200 years after the battle), it is the only one primary source which describes this battle in such detail.

There are also:

- Rocznik cysters�w henrykowskich

- Rocznik wroc�awski wi�kszy

- Rocznik Kapitu�y Gnie�nie�skiej

- Kronika Wielkopolska

- �l�ski Rocznik Kompilowany (Annales Silesiaci Compilati)

- letter of king of Bohemia Waclaw I (April-May 1241)

Well because i cant Research these links myself i cant just beleive a new polish book as all sources and books ive read on mongols have claimed the mongols were outnumbered when fighting in Europe.

My tank regiment will destroy all your armys

5000 Housecarls

2000 Norman Cavalry

3000 English/Welsh longbowmen

Tactics depend upon the troops fitness/terrain/weather conditions/enemy's reactions etc, but;

Archery barrages first, then cavalry flanking attacks followed by infantry advance- all soon after the others.

25000 Mangudai and behind the horde 200 tribocks

� I imagine what I could have done  using a fistful of these warriors�

Napoleon

Originally posted by Mitze What a beautiful story you forgott a detail (the vlachs), in Gesta Hungarorum it writes that when Arpad arrived in Pannonia they encounterd 3 romanian states : Menumorut who ruled Crisana                                                    Glad who ruled Banat                                                    Gelu who ruled NV Trannsylavania And one more little thing, the borders of the Hungarian Kingdom didnt reach the Charpathians until the time of the Mongol invasion       Pace! and greetings from Bihor country! You will have to exceuse my poor english.

For the 3 Romanian states. According to Anomymus only Gelou was vlach. Menumorout and Gelu were Bulgarians.

I'm joining in a bit late on this thread and, since we're not allowed multiple posts, I'll refer to a few things at once.

    I'm not sure if we can refer to Magyars and Hungarians being exactly the same thing. The kingdom of Hungary is thought to have started in 1000 AD with the coronation of the first king, Stephan I, by the pope. I've read somewhere that Lechfeld actually solidified the chances for a kingdom since most of the Magyar aristocracy perished there. In that sense, I challenge that we can say "the Hungarians raided Denmark". The Magyars did. I'm a stickler for protocoll, s'ppose.

How could Poland expand? In which direction? Eastwards is the steppe, never mind the Russians themselves. Do you think a Medieval Polish army would've fared better than Napoleon or Hitler? Not to mention that, the way things turned out, the farher east the got they closer they came to the oncoming Mongols
On the West there are mountains blocking the southern route into Germany and then there's the Germans and their steel, of course
Poland's great historical mindf... is that she's always been sandwiched between the German and Russian juggernauts. Expand? It's all about hanging in there.



On my ideal 10000-strong medieval formation: Some heavy cavalry with a good portion of spear-armed infantry mixed with missile-armed troops; good number of both mounted and on-foot skirmishers. Think of your typical Crusader state army, ca. 1130 AD. The type and number of the  opponent, number/morale/leadership of own troops,  nature of terrain, and your  logistics would determine your strategy.
Of course there is great variation of the term "medieval"; the later  Swiss pikemen and Italian condotierri armies  certainly can be considered ideal as well.
During this period the early Fatimid, Seljuk, Macedonian Byzantine, Ayyubid, Mongol, Anglo-Norman and Italo-Norman armies all deserve mention.