Your best medieval army?

The newest Polish book about the battle of Leignitz (Legnica in Polish) claims that there were only 3800-4300 Christians (including 250 Polish knights-lancers from Silesia, 36 Templar knights, tens knights from Little and Grand Poland, tens 'guest'-knights and some mercenaries) vs less than 10 000 Mongols. Alltogether Polish army had not more than 2300 cavalry (including only a few hunders knights-lancers).

I agree with EvilNed. There is a primary source (Hystoria Tartarorum) which claims that:

'Tartari uero ulterius procedented in Zlaziam cum Henrico duce tunc temporis christiannissime eiusdem terre in prelio sunt congressi, at dum iam, sicut ipsi fratri Benedicto refebant, fugere uoluissent, ex insperate christianorum cunei ad fugam subito sunt conuersi'

So even Mongols/Tartars claimed that they wanted to retreat from the battle. They didn't do it only because Christians did it before them. It was a suprise for Mongols but thanks to this they won the battle.

It shows that Mongol army had a hard time and it certainly wasn't an easy victory.

BTW, Mongols outnumbered Christians in this battle - especially their mounted archers outnumbered Christain knights-lancers many times.

BigL, this source doesn't claim that they were 'Mongol horse archers', who wanted retreat from the battle. But they were Mongols (meaning Mongol army) who wanted do it. So it is not a description of a Mongol tactic (simulated escape).

The european source like the european troops were not accustomed to the fake retreat tactic thats why they said the mongols were wanting to run away .there was no feirce melee combat involved the european were routed and theres no reason the mongols would rout, its obviously propaganda or misunderstanding of mongolian false retreat thinking its cowardice.

This coming from an army which has never ran from battle even thought its fought countless enemys across the world.If the poles are so scary why didnt they take over the world

It is not true that European troops 'were not accustomed to the fake retreat tactic'. European troops not only knew this tactic, but also used them. If you want I will write examples.

BigL, can you support your opinion by any primary source?

Examples of simulated retreat:

- Battle of Unstura 933 (German soldiers of Henryk I vs Hungarians). Henryk I simulated retreat and won.

- Battle of Psie Pole 1109 (the Poles vs Germans). Part of the Poles ('Slezanie') simulated retreat (a fragment of Wincenty Kadlubek's chronicle 'Tymczasem z tylu wyskakuje pokazny zastep Slezan, ktorzy zwracaja ku sobie znaczna liczbe nieprzyjaciol, UMYSLNIE UDAJA UCIECZKE i odciagajac tamtych od innych oddzialow, zwabiaja ich coraz dalej, zwracaja sie przeciw zwabionym a gwaltownym uderzeniem oszczepow z ukosa wystajace ich dlugie wlocznie rownoczesnie potracaja i w nich godza.')

- Battle of Naklo 1256 (the Poles vs the Poles).

European troops knew a tactic of simulated reatret very good. In the battle of Trutina 1110 (the Poles vs Czechs) the Poles didn't chase (immediately) defeated Czechs because they thought that Czechs only simulated reatreat. In the battle of Carcano (Germans + Czechs vs Italians), Italian cavalry which defeated enemy, didn't chase enemies because: 'Mediolanenses viderent, cogitaverunt eum insidias posuisse et fugam simulasse, et propterea non tam cito persecuti sunt eos'.

Before Mongol invasion of Europe, European troops fought with 'eastern enemy' many times. Wars with Hungarians, crusades etc., were enough to learn a tactic of simulated retreat.

Are you sure? I have heard of failed ambushed too. ... SO you can fail an ambush too, but I bet the Samurai to crush Mongols... even though Mongols were blahblahblah...

Now, why didn't  the Poles conquer the world? But why should they have done so?`They had much land, Poland was during the Medieval and Imperial Ages one of the largest kingdom, the population was low, and even if they could have beaten any armies in the west, which they could, then why should they fight another Catholic person? Poles were very religious. Europeans thought only hell was in the east, so Russians went there... The wars with Germans are another topic ofcourse, but in most times the religion was a war stopper for Poles...

The answer is simple. Poland was never able to conduct agressive policy against its neighbours. The only times when Poland was an agressor was when polish king had strong power over the country and people - in 10th and 11th century.(EG. Boleslaus I the Brave conquered Kievan Rus, Bohemia and eastern Germany). Later internal opposition was always strong enough to make ruler busy inside the country. During the whole history king was loosing power and had to be really a strong person to make things working as he wanted, like Stephen Bathory. First polish rulers like Mieszko I and Boleslav the Brave were warior kings who were invading its neighbours, the society was militarised but almost all their descendants had to work hard to keep their arse on the throne. They  had to worry about foreign rulers who were trying to aid and strenghten opposition against them. Since 1138 Poland was not a united kingdom but a conglomerate of small duchies which were fighting one against each other. When in 1320 Wladislaus the Short reunited kingdom, he had only a little piece of the land which had Boleslaus the Wrymouth when was dieing in 1138. He and his son Casimir the Great were working hard to gain more land but after Casimir's death the crown passed to Hungarians who didnt care for the borders of Poland at all and were buying internal peace by giving power to opposition. As i said before, for most of history Poles were so much concerned about its internal policy that were not able to act in any way outside their kingdom. Even later when Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania was a kingdom-republic which had the largest territory in Europe, it wasnt able to act agressive against neighbours because internal opposition was able to stop any plans of the kings who were dreaming about becoming conquerors. Like in the case of king Wladislaus IV, who spent his life making plans of invasions against neighbours and building large naval power but wasnt able to convict the parliament to support his plans. He was dreaming about conquering Ottoman Empire, Russia and Sweden but was able to achieve nothing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wladislaus_IV

I admit not all european armies are not unnacustommed to the fake retreat, as roman armies have used it and at the battle of hastings it was used.I know the hungarians knew of tactic, facing many steppe armies.

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?

I think of 2 reasons.1 is superior mongol archery caused the troops to be so fustrated as to lose their discipline.2.The mongols willingness to engage in melee combat with their light cavalry.Thus making the trap more beleivable.It seems at leignitz the light cavalry of mongols suffered from its over willingness to engage in melee combat with knights.