Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions

[111]

Hello all, I'm a fan of History. Possibly History's #1 fan. I would marry history if it would take me.

 

Anyway, because of that I've amassed a trove of facts and figures, and the resources to dig deeper when needed. Since much of FFXIV's world is based off a loose, medieval/renaissance level of European technology, knowing something about the weapons, armors, tactics and societies of that time period can be useful.

 

So please, ask away any questions you have. I will likely be posting little interesting (in mine eyes) tidbits of information in here as well, hopefully getting other people interested in history as well.

[Branson Thorne]

Not so much a question on weapons or tactics, but a question I've always loved to ask in these type of topics.

 

Genghis Khan vs Alexander III?

 

Obviously if we were to consider the 1,000 year or so span between them, the odds are without a doubt in Khan's favor.

 

But if these two met on the battlefield on equal terms, with equal technology on both sides, who would the better tactician be, and who would win the battle?

 

I know that this can be a loaded question that gets dragged into a million debates so I promise I will not turn it into that.

 

Just curious to see your opinion!

[Hammersmith]

Not so much a question on weapons or tactics, but a question I've always loved to ask in these type of topics.

 

Genghis Khan vs Alexander III?

 

Obviously if we were to consider the 1,000 year or so span between them, the odds are without a doubt in Khan's favor.

 

But if these two met on the battlefield on equal terms, with equal technology on both sides, who would the better tactician be, and who would win the battle?

 

I know that this can be a loaded question that gets dragged into a million debates so I promise I will not turn it into that.

 

Just curious to see your opinion!

 

I'm going to weigh in here because Khan is my thing and my jam.

 

 

Khan wins, by a mile.  The main draw of the Khanate's millitary was that it was VERY good at destroying an organized military on the field.  

The Parthian shot and other tactics used by the mongol hordes were absolutely lethal to pursuing organized forces.  Alexander was said to have known when not to extend a fight, but the mongols were amazing at baiting forces into ambushes, pincers, and worse. It's why lightly armored horsemen slaughtered so many large, organize, heavily armored forces, like Alexander's main host and scores of Arab armies.

 

The Khan's army was an insane affair of lethal use of captive conscripts as cannon fodder and skilled captives who were put to work.  The Khans KEPT people who had skills, and used them to amazing effective, from making siege engines to chemical engineering and medicine. Those who were basic and expendable were literally thrown into a meat grinder to make the Mongol forces harder to get at, and their maneuvers more lethal. It's why small forces for the mongols swelled into large, horrifyingly dangerous forces so quickly, and the deflated again almost as quickly. They also killed all those captives after they didn't need cannon fodder anymore, so that they wouldn't consume vital resources or make a supply train, but that's a story for another time.

 

Alexander's conquering habits were one part because he was better equipped, and one part training.  He was sneaky, and good, but his army was also very good and very heavily armed compared to what he was fighting.  He had inertia, from the work his father had done before him (Alexander's conquering was a continuation of his father's work)

 

The Khan's conquering habits were one part vastly superior tactics, one part being USED to fighting wildly superior forces and one part being very, very self sufficient.  

 

Batu, the servant of the Khan who commanded the incursion into Europe, alone slaughtered entire orders of knights, hundreds of miles away from resupply and reinforcements, and killed off roughly half of Hungary in the process in about one to two years (I think he got as far as poland, if not further out from the Carpathians).  If the Grand Khan hadn't of died and forced his recall and stalled the Mongol advance, most of Europe would have been butchered and subjugated as part of the Mongol Empire or returned to the state of barbarism that existed before the fall of the roman empire because the euro civilization would have been gutted and left to rot. I have no doubt of this.

 

The Khan forces would have won, given equal tech and equipment. They were winning against better armored and armed forces during their time already. Equal equipment really does not favor Alexander.

 

Because the Khan fought dirty and with tactics that Alexander had never seen, much less made a counter for.  Their brutality and use of resources was much, much higher and much more efficient and all the more terrifyingly evil in a very objective sense of the word because of it.  Alexander was a good leader, but the Mongols were a literal war machine.

 

[Aaron]

Do you think Russia or America won WW2? 

 

Russia did have the bigger and more dangerous front but apparently America got down Japan.

[ChewableMorphine]

Do you think Russia or America won WW2? 

 

Russia did have the bigger and more dangerous front but apparently America got down Japan.

 

Stalingrad, nuff said.

[Branson Thorne]

Do you think Russia or America won WW2? 

 

Russia did have the bigger and more dangerous front but apparently America got down Japan.

Being an American I'm sure I may be partial, but I also love history so hopefully people can accept that.

 

Considering they were Allies, I don't think the war could of been won without the other.

 

Saying that however....

 

Russia pretty much defended their homeland, succeed and pushed towards Germany. The U.S. actually fought on 2 separate fronts, simultaneously and in-fact beat the Russians to Berlin. Which we know upon approaching, Berlin was given to the Russian Army, despite the wished of several American/British Generals

 

So I will not say that the U.S. won the war, implying it could have been done by the US single-handedly, but I will say they probably did the most damage combined between the 2 fronts.

 

 

All my opinion.

[111]

((For the record some of this is oversimplification and conjecture, but hopefully it is at least interesting!))

 

Spears, Lances, Pikes, and why Final Fantasy's names make no sense.

 

One of the stranger naming mismatches in the Final Fantasy universe, is the fact that most European/West Asian pole weapons, regardless of their actual design and use are simply called 'lances'. I suspect that this is a deliberate cultural choice, as Japanese already has a word for spear, Yari. However the word Yari also means a specific and particular Japanese weapon, and doesn't really work when describing European ones.

 

They could have used a romanization of Spear or Pike, but I suspect due to the popularity of Knight/Medieval themes in Anime/Manga/Games, the more knightly sounding Lance, became more popular.

 

So what is a Lance? How does it differ from other piercing pole weapons, and if they aren't lances, what /are/ Lancers using?.

 

The Spear: A spear is a short stabbing pole-arm, one that gives its user greater reach than a man armed with a sword, knife, or other shorter weapon. Probably the most common weapon in human history. The thing that differentiates the spear from other pole-arms of the period is that it is generally a one handed weapon. A spearman was almost equipped with a shield as well, to protect him from other spearmen, as well as missile weapons.

 

Anglo Saxon Spearmen.

 

The Lance: A lance is the attempt to lengthen and strengthen a spear, while still making it a one handed weapon. To do this Lances are typically gripped closer to the center, a large counterweight behind the hand keeps the weapon steady. This gives a weapon that is longer and more powerful than any one handed spear, but is so heavy, that it would be very difficult to use on foot. As such, the lance is almost always used on horseback. The rider only needs to point the weapon and hold on, using the momentum of the horse to drive the weapon. They were a shock and standoff weapon, any spearman defending against a mounted rider knew that their lance would probably kill him before he ever got a chance to strike back.

 

Render of a medieval lance.

 

The Pole-arm: As mounted, armored cavalry became more prevalent, spear and shield armed infantry became less and less useful in open battle. Their small spears weren't enough to pierce the modern plate armor of knights, and a new breed of infantry made them equally useless against other foot soldiers. These new infantry were often armored in plate and mail, much like their mounted brethren. They usually carried a different type of weapon, the pole-arm. Pole arms are the mounting of traditionally one handed weapons to a pole. Weapons such as axes, picks, and maces found new life, and when swung on the end of a lengthy pole, had the force to punch through most armor of the period. These weapons often included protrusions such as hooks or spikes, used to pull mounted men of their horses. There are an incredible variety of different pole-arms, all slightly different, but pole-arms as a class reigned supreme during the late middle ages.

 

14th Century painting by Jean Froissant, portraying the battle of Agincourt in the 100 years war.

 

The Pike: An evolution of the spear, the pike was forced into being by two coinciding forces in history. The refinement of gunpowder weapons, and the rise of modern drill and formations. While unwieldy and expensive, arbequeses could punch though all but the most expensive plate. Within a short period of time, new armies, often mercenary appeared on the scene. They ditched the expensive armor and training of earlier foot-soldiers, instead focusing on moving large groups of people around in precise ways. They combined this with a new weapon, the pike. Wielded with two hands, and 20 or more feet long, the pike was an unwieldy weapon, almost useless in single combat. However a formation of thousands of men could form a block. A forest of steel tips that could literally march through an enemy formation. Longer than even the lances of knights, a properly formed square was almost impregnable in melee. It's only weakness was to be slowly be worn down by missile weapons, or for a second pike square to march into it. This was a horrific display, referred to as 'the push of pike'.

 

16th Century Engraving showing a 'Push of Pike'

 

So what do lancers use? You may notice that none of those descriptions seem close to how lancers fight. While the weapons are the same, the tactics are not. So aside from the Weapons, what is the Lancer based off of? The answer is more obvious than you might think.

 

 

The Yari. A Japanese two handed spear that was used in a one on one fighting style. Longer versions were used like pikes in European armies. However the shorter versions were often used by samurai as their primary weapon, both on foot and on horseback. Many of the spinning and slashing moves used by Lancers in FFXIV seem closest to Yari Techniques. Here is one tromping through Coerthas!

 

 

So there you have it, the exoticism of western names and weapons, but a fighting style that is close to home, The Lancer.

[111]

Not so much a question on weapons or tactics, but a question I've always loved to ask in these type of topics.

 

Genghis Khan vs Alexander III?

 

Obviously if we were to consider the 1,000 year or so span between them, the odds are without a doubt in Khan's favor.

 

But if these two met on the battlefield on equal terms, with equal technology on both sides, who would the better tactician be, and who would win the battle?

 

I know that this can be a loaded question that gets dragged into a million debates so I promise I will not turn it into that.

 

Just curious to see your opinion!

 

I'm going to weigh in here because Khan is my thing and my jam.

 

 

Khan wins, by a mile.  The main draw of the Khanate's millitary was that it was VERY good at destroying an organized military on the field.  

The Parthian shot and other tactics used by the mongol hordes were absolutely lethal to pursuing organized forces.  Alexander was said to have known when not to extend a fight, but the mongols were amazing at baiting forces into ambushes, pincers, and worse. It's why lightly armored horsemen slaughtered so many large, organize, heavily armored forces, like Alexander's main host and scores of Arab armies.

 

The Khan's army was an insane affair of lethal use of captive conscripts as cannon fodder and skilled captives who were put to work.  The Khans KEPT people who had skills, and used them to amazing effective, from making siege engines to chemical engineering and medicine. Those who were basic and expendable were literally thrown into a meat grinder to make the Mongol forces harder to get at, and their maneuvers more lethal. It's why small forces for the mongols swelled into large, horrifyingly dangerous forces so quickly, and the deflated again almost as quickly. They also killed all those captives after they didn't need cannon fodder anymore, so that they wouldn't consume vital resources or make a supply train, but that's a story for another time.

 

Alexander's conquering habits were one part because he was better equipped, and one part training.  He was sneaky, and good, but his army was also very good and very heavily armed compared to what he was fighting.  He had inertia, from the work his father had done before him (Alexander's conquering was a continuation of his father's work)

 

The Khan's conquering habits were one part vastly superior tactics, one part being USED to fighting wildly superior forces and one part being very, very self sufficient.  

 

Batu, the servant of the Khan who commanded the incursion into Europe, alone slaughtered entire orders of knights, hundreds of miles away from resupply and reinforcements, and killed off roughly half of Hungary in the process in about one to two years (I think he got as far as poland, if not further out from the Carpathians).  If the Grand Khan hadn't of died and forced his recall and stalled the Mongol advance, most of Europe would have been butchered and subjugated as part of the Mongol Empire or returned to the state of barbarism that existed before the fall of the roman empire because the euro civilization would have been gutted and left to rot. I have no doubt of this.

 

The Khan forces would have won, given equal tech and equipment. They were winning against better armored and armed forces during their time already. Equal equipment really does not favor Alexander.

 

Because the Khan fought dirty and with tactics that Alexander had never seen, much less made a counter for.  Their brutality and use of resources was much, much higher and much more efficient and all the more terrifyingly evil in a very objective sense of the word because of it.  Alexander was a good leader, but the Mongols were a literal war machine.

 

 

And yes the Mongolians would destroy Alexander, as Hammersmith most eloquently explains. Until the advent of firearms, Horse archers were basically an invincible force on the battlefield. The only way to beat them was more horse archers, walls, or living someplace that didn't have good grazing.

 

Europe's foresty and mountainy terrain and fortified keeps kept the Mongolians out. Mostly it was the land though. What's the point of land you can't graze horses on?!

[Aldotsk]

In this discussion, I can see that some spear skills done by Lancers in FF14 are quite similar to Asian spear skills more than Medieval skills. Like the thrust techniques and quick swaying techniques are more similar to Japanese "spears" aka Yari yet also Chinese spear skills. 

 

Because I've been reading Romance of Three Kingdoms a lot, there had been some references used in most Final Fantasy franchise especially for Dragoons/Lancers (I don't mean jump).

 

Before Yari, Han and Qin Dynasty had the teaching of how to use spears like Yari. So that's something interesting to look at.

[Marisa]

 

 

 

And yes the Mongolians would destroy Alexander, as Hammersmith most eloquently explains. Until the advent of firearms, Horse archers were basically an invincible force on the battlefield. The only way to beat them was more horse archers, walls, or living someplace that didn't have good grazing.

 

Europe's foresty and mountainy terrain and fortified keeps kept the Mongolians out. Mostly it was the land though. What's the point of land you can't graze horses on?!

I'd say the terrain was a much bigger deal than the strategic value of the land. A mounted archer (or cavalry in general) tends to be useless on anything but on open field. 

 

I'm kinda butting in on an area where I lack authority (Asian history isn't really my strong point), but I feel like the Mongols tend to get a bit more hyped up than they deserve. They conquered a massive area full of... basically nothing. Lots of little farming villages with no military ambition whatsoever. Largest empire by land area? Sure, but it was just a never-ending stretch of nothing. Kind of like if Oklahoma was an empire. 

 

They did a number on the Arabs and Eastern Europe, but I personally attribute that to the fact that the Byzantines and the Caliphates had been beating the shit out of each other on and off for centuries. The Crusades had ravaged the Gulf over and over and the Arabs had focused all of their defenses on stopping attacks from the West. Any Arab general at the time would have looked East and said "There is NOTHING over there. There is literally no point to fortifying this." How I see it, the Mongols basically made the biggest surprise attack in human history, because nobody knew they even existed until they were banging down your door.

[Hammersmith]

I'd say the terrain was a much bigger deal than the strategic value of the land. A mounted archer (or cavalry in general) tends to be useless on anything but on open field.   

 

I'm kinda butting in on an area where I lack authority (Asian history isn't really my strong point), but I feel like the Mongols tend to get a bit more hyped up than they deserve. They conquered a massive area full of... basically nothing. Lots of little farming villages with no military ambition whatsoever. Largest empire by land area? Sure, but it was just a never-ending stretch of nothing. Kind of like if Oklahoma was an empire. 

 

They did a number on the Arabs and Eastern Europe, but I personally attribute that to the fact that the Byzantines and the Caliphates had been beating the shit out of each other on and off for centuries. The Crusades had ravaged the Gulf over and over and the Arabs had focused all of their defenses on stopping attacks from the West. Any Arab general at the time would have looked East and said "There is NOTHING over there. There is literally no point to fortifying this." How I see it, the Mongols basically made the biggest surprise attack in human history, because nobody knew they even existed until they were banging down your door.

 

 

 

This is (mostly) wrong.  

There's actually accounts from the times of the Mongols where the Mongols sacked, burned, and raised some of the most fortified cities of China at the time.  The mongols knew how to tear cities down and break gates on a large scale of force.  Siege-work was not their first language, but they learned it QUICKLY, especially from the Chinese who they brought into the empire and subjugated.

 

Literal piles of corpses, disease, and death lining the roads and nothing alive or not On Fire for miles around.  A literal charnel pit formed whenever the Mongols hit a fortified city (Their terms of surrender were "Do it or we kill everyone", no/few exceptions).  

 

And that was before they hit the Arabian Caliphates.  The Caliphate wasn't a unified thing, there were a lot of large movers, shakers, and Sultans who's jobs were based around being large War Mongering assholes who had fortified cities.  Those burned too.  They knew how to tear down cities way before they hit the Arabian states.

 

 

And the Mongols didn't just hit "Far off" parts with easy horse grazing.  They invaded into the hearts of empires and sacked, burned, and fucked off.  They took the supplies from whatever they mowed down and ran as far as they could stretch those supplies, then fuck off again or Claim it in the Name of Khan.  (Remember what I said about good use of resources? That was a thing)

 

 

 

If you want an example of the Mongols destroying an ancient, well established, well fortified City in Arabia I refer you to: The siege and sack of Motherfucking Baghdad

I burn your city, I drink your milkshake, fuck your walls.

 

You're absolutely right that, if unified, a united Arabian state/caliphate might have not eaten so many DEVASTATING destructive raids. (And during the crusades the stuff the Khan was doing to the Arabian kingdoms was spun into being the work by a Mythical Christian Crusader King/Saint known as "Praester John".  Boy were they in for a surprise...)  

 

However that's just how the world was at the time.  Politics kept things divided, a LOT of politics often were used to the effect of "You're between us and these monogol horse assholes" that later turned into "...you're now part of the mongol horse asshole's empire and right next door, shit, we fucked up shit shit shit" (Or worse yet: "Didn't we used to have a neighbor between us and them?")

 

Horse archers being useless anywhere but an open field?   No, no no no no. Horse archers were nasty, evil, highly mobile guerrilla fighters. The attack and Europe was a surprise, but it was a planned attack that came from the mountains (The Carpathians) They did PLAN around their horses, and the main mongol artery through Europe followed a plains/steppe similar to Mongolia's own terrain.  

 

They also used the local forests and the like to fuck up mounted knights and formations.  The mongols used terrain to screw with their enemies.  Aggressively so.  Like I said: very good at ambushes, Pincers, and formation breaking.  The fact that the Euro nobility lead forces often lacked a decent general meant that local pride/glory mongering/For the Glory of God stuff got them butchered when they overextended or tried to follow up.

 

And marched right into a Parthian Shot and flanking forces.

 

They were trotting into City/states/kingdoms that hadn't yet pledged all their knights over to the crusades.  Most of these kingdoms still had their entire fancy pants Armored military and Knights around to defend with.  It just didn't mean shit against the Mongols because Horse Archers Owned Everything during that time, and the Mongols had no intent of sticking around long term.  They just wanted your stuff.  

 

If you ran? If they said "yes, you can go"?  Most of the time Batu (The guy who raided Europe) would horse-mow down those people he'd just said could run away and kill them in cold blood. (One account has Batu's forces building a deck over captives using their still-living bodies as the supports, and then putting tables, chairs and a feast over this huge sprawl of bodies covered in planks and HAVING DINNER ON IT while the weight of the Mongol army eating crushed them to death)

 

None of this was a single, isolated incident.  This happened everywhere, repeatedly.  It stopped being a surprise.  Even the pope eventually learned these guys were around and causing trouble.  The Mongols had DETAILED maps of Europe and the like from encountering Venetian traders around the Mediterranean states and/or the black sea.  They knew what they were getting into and where to hit

 

As for surprise attacks: The Mongol Empire lasted for about 150 years, maybe longer, and was fucking huge.  This wasn't "Woops we got you with your pants down".  This was calculated invasions, annexations, and demands of Join Or Die (And if you didn't join, the word genocide doesn't begin to describe what the Khans did to you and your people)

 

Here's a picture of how the Mongol empire looked, with the red being Invasions/expansion, and the final picture being the empire's sections, colour coded with the sons/Grandsons of Ghengis being a Khan over a respective territory, ruled by the Grand Khan back home in the capital.

 

90 years of aggressive expansion and mass murder stops being a surprise attack and starts being a Century of Unceasing Bloodshed and Conquering.

IT KEEPS HAPPENING

I warned you bro. I warned you about Mongols

 

Note that India's Severely Mountainous border and sweltering heat protects it from getting Mongoled.

 

The Mongols started as literal tribal raiders.  Ghengis took them from that into war-gods that no one had ever expected or seen.  There's a reason there's a statue of him out there.

 

And why him and his kin (Emphasis on his kin. Ghengis's kids did a LOT of the work on that map above. Dad got the boulder rolling though) are responsible for killing about 40 million people (about 10% of the entire PLANET's population).  Make no mistake.  The empire worked because Genocide and mass killings were common if you pissed off the Mongols in any way shape or form. 

 

Step out of line and you were fucking dead.

 

Calling them a "woops" in history is a kind of historical downplay/erasure that is a very, very bad idea. They conquered most of the civilized land mass of Europe and Asia, with only the extremes of the map and HEAVILY fortified civilizations not getting completely anihilated. Europe was boned. The Western front of Arabs would have been as boned if the Khanate hadn't devolved into what always happens when War Leaders end up in charge of an empire: You stop being conquerors and you end up being leaders squabbling over an empire.

 

The only part of the "Civilized" as we know it that didn't get owned by the Wrath of Khan was India, and that's because the place was hot, sweaty, bad for horses and invading forces, and had near impassible mountains on all it's northern borders, making one way incursions from the flanks or through large fucking rocks near impossible.

 

And that's where you're KIND of right about the mongols and needing horse environment. They didn't go Very Far South, either to India or Southern Asia, because the climate was BAD for people used to living that far north with large animals always in tow. The mongol forces melted and died in damp heat and dense jungle, which is why they could take Baghdad and Southern China without problem, but not south Asia or India. Mountains alone didn't stop them. As mentioned: They got into Europe through the Carpathian range. If they'd wanted over or around the Indian ranges, they'd have gone. Ghengis DID go over the ranges a few times, actually, but cited the heat and poor grazing area compared to what could be gained (I think they cite that the area would only Assimilate/kill them, since it would force them to do Non-Mongol things to survive, like not use horses. not being a mongol was obviously not something the Mongols wanted) Disease and damp and culture definitely helped work with Mountains to keep them out.

 

Politics stopped the Khans, ultimately. That is the ONLY thing that could stop them, other than nature. Thank fuck for succession politics or the map would be a very weird place today in the modern age.

 

[111]

Stuff!

More Stuff!

 

As Hammersmith said, the mongols were incredibly good at siege as well. They would recruit/steal the most skilled engineers from the lands they conquered, and could take cities very quickly.

 

The standard system of war in that time period was:

 

1) Enemy forms and army and attacks one of your cities, oh no!

 

2) You sound the alarm, that city prepares to be singed, and the rest of your nation/state/empire/country mobilizes an army to relieve it.

 

3) March over and fight the other army, or otherwise scare them off before they can take your city.

 

The thing was, the mongols were so dang good at it, that they would take cities before anyone had a chance to mobilize an army to stop them. By the time any sort of relieving army arrived, it would be too late.

 

Anyway, there is a very good podcast called 'Hardcore History' which did a long series on the mongols. The first one is here!

 

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-43-wrath-of-the-khans-i/

[Marisa]

 

 

This is (mostly) wrong.  

There's actually accounts from the times of the Mongols where the Mongols sacked, burned, and raised some of the most fortified cities of China at the time.  The mongols knew how to tear cities down and break gates on a large scale of force.  Siege-work was not their first language, but they learned it QUICKLY, especially from the Chinese who they brought into the empire and subjugated.

 

Literal piles of corpses, disease, and death lining the roads and nothing alive or not On Fire for miles around.  A literal charnel pit formed whenever the Mongols hit a fortified city (Their terms of surrender were "Do it or we kill everyone", no/few exceptions).  

 

And that was before they hit the Arabian Caliphates.  The Caliphate wasn't a unified thing, there were a lot of large movers, shakers, and Sultans who's jobs were based around being large War Mongering assholes who had fortified cities.  Those burned too.  They knew how to tear down cities way before they hit the Arabian states.

 

 

And the Mongols didn't just hit "Far off" parts with easy horse grazing.  They invaded into the hearts of empires and sacked, burned, and fucked off.  They took the supplies from whatever they mowed down and ran as far as they could stretch those supplies, then fuck off again or Claim it in the Name of Khan.  (Remember what I said about good use of resources? That was a thing)

 

 

 

If you want an example of the Mongols destroying an ancient, well established, well fortified City in Arabia I refer you to: The siege and sack of Motherfucking Baghdad

I burn your city, I drink your milkshake, fuck your walls.

 

You're absolutely right that, if unified, a united Arabian state/caliphate might have not eaten so many DEVASTATING destructive raids. (And during the crusades the stuff the Khan was doing to the Arabian kingdoms was spun into being the work by a Mythical Christian Crusader King/Saint known as "Praester John".  Boy were they in for a surprise...)  

 

However that's just how the world was at the time.  Politics kept things divided, a LOT of politics often were used to the effect of "You're between us and these monogol horse assholes" that later turned into "...you're now part of the mongol horse asshole's empire and right next door, shit, we fucked up shit shit shit" (Or worse yet: "Didn't we used to have a neighbor between us and them?")

 

Horse archers being useless anywhere but an open field?   No, no no no no. Horse archers were nasty, evil, highly mobile guerrilla fighters. The attack and Europe was a surprise, but it was a planned attack that came from the mountains (The Carpathians) They did PLAN around their horses, and the main mongol artery through Europe followed a plains/steppe similar to Mongolia's own terrain.  

 

They also used the local forests and the like to fuck up mounted knights and formations.  The mongols used terrain to screw with their enemies.  Aggressively so.  Like I said: very good at ambushes, Pincers, and formation breaking.  The fact that the Euro nobility lead forces often lacked a decent general meant that local pride/glory mongering/For the Glory of God stuff got them butchered when they overextended or tried to follow up.

 

And marched right into a Parthian Shot and flanking forces.

 

They were trotting into City/states/kingdoms that hadn't yet pledged all their knights over to the crusades.  Most of these kingdoms still had their entire fancy pants Armored military and Knights around to defend with.  It just didn't mean shit against the Mongols because Horse Archers Owned Everything during that time, and the Mongols had no intent of sticking around long term.  They just wanted your stuff.  

 

If you ran? If they said "yes, you can go"?  Most of the time Batu (The guy who raided Europe) would horse-mow down those people he'd just said could run away and kill them in cold blood. (One account has Batu's forces building a deck over captives using their still-living bodies as the supports, and then putting tables, chairs and a feast over this huge sprawl of bodies covered in planks and HAVING DINNER ON IT while the weight of the Mongol army eating crushed them to death)

 

None of this was a single, isolated incident.  This happened everywhere, repeatedly.  It stopped being a surprise.  Even the pope eventually learned these guys were around and causing trouble.  The Mongols had DETAILED maps of Europe and the like from encountering Venetian traders around the Mediterranean states and/or the black sea.  They knew what they were getting into and where to hit

 

As for surprise attacks: The Mongol Empire lasted for about 150 years, maybe longer, and was fucking huge.  This wasn't "Woops we got you with your pants down".  This was calculated invasions, annexations, and demands of Join Or Die (And if you didn't join, the word genocide doesn't begin to describe what the Khans did to you and your people)

 

Here's a picture of how the Mongol empire looked, with the red being Invasions/expansion, and the final picture being the empire's sections, colour coded with the sons/Grandsons of Ghengis being a Khan over a respective territory, ruled by the Grand Khan back home in the capital.

 

90 years of aggressive expansion and mass murder stops being a surprise attack and starts being a Century of Unceasing Bloodshed and Conquering.

IT KEEPS HAPPENING

I warned you bro. I warned you about Mongols

 

Note that India's Severely Mountainous border and sweltering heat protects it from getting Mongoled.

 

The Mongols started as literal tribal raiders.  Ghengis took them from that into war-gods that no one had ever expected or seen.  There's a reason there's a statue of him out there.

 

And why him and his kin (Emphasis on his kin.  Ghengis's kids did a LOT of the work on that map above.  Dad got the boulder rolling though) are responsible for killing about 40 million people (about 10% of the entire PLANET's population).  Make no mistake.  The empire worked because Genocide and mass killings were common if you pissed off the Mongols in any way shape or form. 

 

Step out of line and you were fucking dead.

 

Calling them a "woops" in history is a kind of historical downplay/erasure that is a very, very bad idea.  They conquered most of the civilized land mass of Europe and Asia, with only the extremes of the map and HEAVILY fortified civilizations not getting completely anihilated.  Europe was boned.  The Western front of Arabs would have been as boned if the Khanate hadn't devolved into what always happens when War Leaders end up in charge of an empire: You stop being conquerors and you end up being leaders squabbling over an empire.  

 

The only part of the "Civilized" as we know it that didn't get owned by the Wrath of Khan was India, and that's because the place was hot, sweaty, bad for horses and invading forces, and had near impassible mountains on all it's northern borders, making one way incursions from the flanks or through large fucking rocks near impossible.  

 

And that's where you're KIND of right about the mongols and needing horse environment.  They didn't go Very Far South, either to India or Southern Asia, because the climate was BAD for people used to living that far north with large animals always in tow.  The mongol forces melted and died in damp heat and dense jungle, which is why they could take Baghdad and Southern China without problem, but not south Asia or India.  Mountains alone didn't stop them.  As mentioned: They got into Europe through the Carpathian range.  If they'd wanted over or around the Indian ranges, they'd have gone.  Ghengis DID go over the ranges a few times, actually, but cited the heat and poor grazing area compared to what could be gained (I think they cite that the area would only Assimilate/kill them, since it would force them to do Non-Mongol things to survive, like not use horses.  not being a mongol was obviously not something the Mongols wanted) Disease and damp and culture definitely helped work with Mountains to keep them out.

 

Politics stopped the Khans, ultimately.  That is the ONLY thing that could stop them, other than nature.  Thank fuck for succession politics or the map would be a very weird place today in the modern age.

 

 

Well, seems you've put me in my place. Good stuff! 

 

I honestly can't figure out why they decided to be such assholes to everyone they conquered. Sure, the fear-factor probably helped a good bit with their aggressive land-grabbing, but "Don't be a jackass to the people you're trying to rule" is kind of Maintaining Your Empire 101. Given what you've described, it sounds like they practiced everything Machiavelli specifically said *not* to do.

[111]

 

Stuff

 

Well, seems you've put me in my place. Good stuff! 

 

I honestly can't figure out why they decided to be such assholes to everyone they conquered. Sure, the fear-factor probably helped a good bit with their aggressive land-grabbing, but "Don't be a jackass to the people you're trying to rule" is kind of Maintaining Your Empire 101. Given what you've described, it sounds like they practiced everything Machiavelli specifically said *not* to do.

 

Well the Mongols were very lenient compared to many empires, so long as you followed the rules. There was no great taxes or oppression, people were free to follow whatever religion they pleased, for example. Also local governments were often allowed lots of autonomy.

 

However if you fucked with them, or disobeyed, they would destroy your city and people like the fist of an angry god.

 

Very much a carrot/stick approach. Where the stick is being raped to death while your family is on fire.

 

So most people chose the carrot.

[Hammersmith]

 

Stuff

 

more stuff

 

Well the Mongols were very lenient compared to many empires, so long as you followed the rules. There was no great taxes or oppression, people were free to follow whatever religion they pleased, for example. Also local governments were often allowed lots of autonomy.

 

However if you fucked with them, or disobeyed, they would destroy your city and people like the fist of an angry god.

 

Very much a carrot/stick approach. Where the stick is being raped to death while your family is on fire.

 

So most people chose the carrot.

 

^ Pretty much this entirely. It's also worth mentioning that the mongols managed their empires pretty well. If it profited, the Khan of the area they were are in charge of ALSO profited. A shitty empire section meant you weren't gilding your fingers in as many rings as your brothers, or their kids, or their grand kids. It meant you were getting the short end of the loot stick and really, who wants that. It's one of the main reasons the empire went down. The mongols got tamed, somewhat, by governance. Or made vicious in another manner (The intra-family fighting between Ghengis's children was epicly violent and unceasingly indiscriminate towards other blood-relatives where they could afford to be, and eventually until they COULDN'T afford to be)

[Kage]

Please become my resource on two handed battle axes battle techniques etc.

 

I've had some viking pages /videos But the more resources the better.

Thank you

[111]

Please become my resource on two handed battle axes battle techniques etc.

 

I've had some viking pages /videos But the more resources the better.

Thank you

 

So there are a few myths about axes and their use, but the Vikings and Saxons and Nordic people in general did make wide use of Axes in combat.

 

The most common two handed type is often referred to simply as a 'dane axe' and the best way to show them is to look at some contemporary art. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the battle of Hastings in 1066, where the Normans under William the Conqueror defeated the Saxons under King Harold.

 

Obviously this is near the end of the Viking age, and Saxons are not Vikings, but having fought them for hundreds of years, the Saxons had adopted many of their weapons and arms.

 

Here is a Saxon holding a Dane axe.

 

Here is another Saxon hacking a horses brains out with one.

 

They were big, they were long, and they had a relatively short, curved blade, often flaring to a point on the tip. Battleaxes tend to have much shorter and thinner blades than one would think, this was especially true in the Viking age. Armor technology was far less advanced than it would be in later years, and a fast moving blade could easily lop off a limb or head. Whereas later war axes looked more like chisels, built for pounding through plate, these were more like razors.

 

 

The blades were far thinner than you might expect, since a sharp blade moving at high speed could cut through mail, the main armor of the period.

 

As for their use... there isn't a terribly large amount of finesse to the weapon. It's big, it's huge, and its reach is comparable to most spears of the day. It's easy to understand why it is something of a terror weapon. You're some village militia, with a spear and wooden shield, and a group of raiders emerge from the mists, holding giant axes as long as your spears. If he hits you with it, you're dead. If he hits your shield, it will likely sink through and hit your arm. if He hits your spear, he's going to slice it in half.

 

As for things that aren't viking axes... double bladed axes are not historically accurate, nor are any giant meat cleaver axes. The Strength of an axe comes from the leverage it provides. The weight of the blade was generally kept as low as possible.

[111]

Two handed sword post!

 

So there was some confusion about two handed swords in the other thread, so I thought I would do a small post on their role historically. This is not an attempt to pressure people into using two handed swords a certain way, instead it is just an attempt to give some context.

 

So historically swords and other blades were kept relatively short, for a number of reasons. One, was that the quality of steel had not fully matured, and a long blade would be either too heavy, too brittle, or too soft. The other is that armor was not fully matured either, and early infantry tactics required the use of a shield.

 

For example the Romans likely would have had the ability to make longswords, as they were very good at making high quality steel. However the roman legionary formation had no space for people swinging giant swords.

 

The early middle ages also saw few two handed swords. Mail, the primary armor of the day, was still weak against piercing weapons such as spears and arrows, so the use of a shield was still required. However as the 14th and 15th centuries rolled up, metallurgy became refined enough to make full plate armor practical. Suddenly warriors had two hands free, there was no point in carrying a wooden or metal shield, when your entire body was already covered in metal. This popularized several weapons, especially various polearms. However swords were not absent from this trend as well.

 

The medieval arming swords evolved to be longer, with extended hilts that allowed them to be held two handed. Their cross guards and pommels were also enlarged, giving a warrior new ways to disable someone with his sword.

 

 

Some people have claimed that two handed swords have issues with reach, however they were designed in a way that made them some of the most effective close combat weapons of the period. When fighting an opponent in armor, the blades were almost always held at 'Half Sword' aka the wielder would put one hand above the crossguard. This gave more control, leverage, and options. The wielder would get close to the opponent, and disable them with blows, locks (Not unlike modern grappling holds), or precision thrusts and cuts.

 

*Donk*

 

Holding your sword one handed may look cool, but it give you no control of the point, easy for someone to just knock it aside and jam their own blade into a weak spot.

 

 

Many blades even had a special unsharpened area about the hilt, called a 'Ricasso' for such techniques.

 

 

These swords evolved over time to the flashy Flamberges and Zweihanders used by mercenary groups, however as full plate armor became less and less popular, the swords lost their use. Combat because less about one on one fighting, and more about coordinate groups. The swords stayed alive because of their use fullness in lopping off pike heads, and in creating havoc inside a formation once they hacked their way inside. The Landsknecht in particular were famous for using this weapon, and for looking completely baller.

 

 

 

Here is a group of them trying to force their way into a pike formation.

 

 

 

So! Recap.

 

Two handed swords were close combat weapons, not the giant swinging blades you see in videogames. There were already plenty of longer weapons in the arsenal, spears, pikes, poleaxes, etc. The two handed swords were for getting in close and dirty, and were held at the half sword for leverage and control.

 

They evolved into even larger swords, the Zweihanders, who were used in giant cuts and sweeps, but only because they were no longer used against armored knights, but instead lightly armored infantry formations, where they might slash though pikes and men both.

[111]

As an addendum, some of you might be interested in these. Grappling and wrestling was a big part of armored combat, as it was often hard to shove a blade into the weak spots of a moving target. Here are a pair of contemporary manuscripts showing some moves. So, don't be afraid to incorporate grappling moves into two handed sword use, or sword use in general. They really were used generally as close in brawling weapons.

 

Arrrmmmm barrrr.

 

Some 15th century jackie chan shit.

 

 

Hopefully this also helps all the monks out there, there is historical precedence for people knowing how to take down armed and armored opponents with just their hands, and it wasn't punching through plate mail.