How do choose your best medieval army (10 000 soldier)?

Wich tactic do you choose?

I prefer:

2/3 cavalry, 1/3 infantrychemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

 >>

CAVALRY :>>

5 000 Heavy Knights: most important part in my army, equiped with heavy gothic-plate armor of proff (witch resist agaisnt arrow, crossbow blots, pistol or arquebus balls) armed with lances and swords. Mounted on knightly horses equiped with heavy armor (bard with flanchard, crinet, crupper, peytral, shaffron…)>>

2 000 light cavalry of mounted archers protected by a light armor with cuirass and mail, gauntlet, greaves also armed with gun pistol and  sword, mace and shield>>

 >>

INFANTRY>>

- equiped with light chain mail, sallet, >>

- armed with shield, long knifes, dagger,  sword, war hammer or axe or mace for hand to hand combat>>

1 000 archers (mix of longbowmen and arbalestrers)>>

1 000 men armed with gunpowder (arquebus for exemple)>>

1 000 pikemen (like Swiss Halberdiers) with hallebards or fauchards or gisarme,>>

 >>

Tactic:>>

- First attack by infantry shooting against ennemy>>

- Charge of heavy cavalry in 2 assaults to break ennemy ranks >>

- Assault by the rest of heavy cavalry and all the light cavalry against flanks of ennemy>>

- Attack by infantry >>

With a good chain of command, my heavy knights can not be defeated by an other medieval army.

Wath do you think?

2 000 light cavalry of mounted archers protected by a light armor with cuirass and mail, gauntlet, greaves also armed with gun pistol and  sword, mace and shield>>

My answer to your question;

ever heard of leignizt?

My tactic is that since heavy cavalary will never catch up with HA,shower them with arrows.Even barded horsed will die  and the men's morale will flynch.

I would use a simple turkish tactic using the parthian shot,makke them chase me,then my mongol cavalary will attack after you are dismounted,tired and angry.The mongol heavy cavalary will crush these tired men(ajn jalut,the mongols destroyed the entire left flank of the mamlukes)

Your 1000 archers will die beacuse we will chace them and kill them with litlle amount of men dieng because of the special mongol armour.

The gunpowder men will fire slowly,no match against HA

Pikemen?

Again, a simple turkic tactic would do

I am counting the impetious charge of "noble"cavalary.

Yup heres mine;

INFANTRY;20.000 Bashibouzuks (Turkish ,Kurdish,Armenan,Albanian,SerbianBulgarian bandits armed with anything they could get their hands on.)5000 Janissaries (the most vital part of the army 2000 with muskets and 3000 with chainmail ,polearm,sword and bow)And around 10.000 Gazis (Weapons varied but as they believed they were guided by God they were quite brave)5000 Tüfenkçis(troops armed with fine muskets)

CAVALRY : 15.000 Sipahis (the backbone of my army armed according to the wealth of the Timar fief they come from.But most had bows)2000 Kapikulu Sipahis (think of them roughly mounted Janissaries) 8000 Turcoman tribal horse archers

And I could also have a few guns (I suppose around 30 would be enough)

My tactics would depend on the army I am facing,the weather and terrain.

Heavy cavalry routed horse-archers at several occasions - like at Lechsfield and during the first Crusade - noteably at Dorylaeum, Ascalon and Orontes 

Special armour? AFAK the mongols actually feared european crossbowmen

Pikemen? Again, a simple turkic tactic would do

If there are a strong number of well-drilled pikemen that won't succumb to the archery, then what are you gonna do?

Special armour? AFAK the mongols actually feared european crossbowmen

I am talking about normal archers.And yes,the crossbow would inflict huge damages but be destroyed because of firing too slowly

If there are a strong number of well-drilled pikemen that won't succumb to the archery, then what are you gonna do?

What can you do against a foe that you can't get near?The'll keep shooting

Special armour?

Even knights feared crossbowmen,in normal bows,the combination of armour that the mongols used prevnted them from having severe wounds

Yet the crossbowmen in Richard's army defeated the muslim horsearchers at Arsuf 1191. Actually, modern crossbowmen have achieved a rate of fire at 12 bolts/ minute. Although extreme, they weren't that slow as commonly thought. Also, crossbowmen tended to be protected by pavises.

The pikemen can do little, but if the horsearchers can't break them, the battle will turn out as a draw. Or the scenario can be that when the HA have spent all their arrows on the pikemen, the knights in Marcos army can counterattack

In a contest of pure firepower the mongols would probably win. But if the archers had pavises, protective stakes and other field defenses?

You claimed that heavy cavalry never can reach the horsearchers, which is untrue 

Akýncý You can NOT win a battle only using horse archery tactics.You need heavy (or at least medium) cavalry as well.The Mongols had heavy cavalry, the Seljuks had Ghulams even ancient steppe armies had some sort of heavyish cavalry(yariqli atli or sth like that)

true

I pick the mongol army then

well, when did that ever happen? just look at how the Parthians resuplied themselves with arrows at Harran.

Harran is the only occasion I know of where the horsearchers were resupplied

I'm not claiming to be an expert on Medieval tactics, but there are some things which I'd like to contribute with:

I've done quite a bit of research on Liegnitz, and from what I can tell, the horse archers didn't fare that well against the polish cavalry at all. Remember, there were about 10,000 men on both sides, and it was in no way an easy victory for the mongols. Also, the mongols had MUCH more horse archers than the polish had heavy cavalry, so any such comparison cannot be made. I believe it's basicly up to the terrain and commander of who'd win between these two.

As for another Horse Archer tactic: There was a battle fought under the gunpowder age (forgot which one), where gunpowder soldiers, protected by polearm soldiers, utterly destroyed heavy cavalry. Now, replace the heavy cavalry with horse archers, and the gunpowder units with crossbowmen (or arbalests, since christian kings were allowed to use them against non-christian ), and you've got a sure-fire way to get rid of some mongols (or turks).

5.000 Selchukid Cavalry,2.000 Mongolian Horse Archer with 3.000 Ottoman first-period janissaries.

if so, then why did the Magyars lost the battle of Riade...?

well, it depends who are u gonna fight.

If I was going against a european nation,

5000 man at arms (well trained and discipline)

500 crossbowmen 500archers

3000 heavy calvary and other thousand skirmish horses.

If going against Turks, believe it or not, heavy knights should me numberous like 5000 and attack in waves light fast moving infantry that would be able to strike after calvary and then keep pounding turkihs infantry from sides with more and more kights. Turkish spahi would destroy european infantry very quickly ()  So make sure the battle does not last long. the only way Serbs/Bosnian nad Hungarian medieval armies ever won a battle against discipline turks is when calvary charged the (flags) Generals and capitan's units and scared em away.  Heavy calvary is useful in Europe where battlefileds are not huge and flat. thunderous charge form the hill with enemy not being able to spread too much, now middle east is a different game.

My bests are the Hungarian horsemen from 10th century. They attacked and defeated every countries of Europe except Scandinavia and the British isles.  They were called the horsemen of Apocalypse, however they had only tipical nomad technics and tactics. They usually destroyed quite bigger armies and visited twice the Atlantic ocean, owerwrote achievement of Attila.

10,000 heavily armoured infantry with large shield and throwing javelin and a long  sword. Deployed in regiments just behind the crossbowmen and bombards

10, 000 heavy cavalry. Flank and screen

10,000 crossbowmen and hand canoneers . Infront of infantry operate with large wooden about 3 m high with apertures (especially when fighting agains range units and during a siege)

50 bombards (a crew of about 500), 5 giant trebuchet (100 operators each) for siege.Somewhere among the crossbowmen but also protected by wooden shield. Rapidly retreated behind infantry if the enemy charge them.

2,000 pikemen heavily armoured. protection for the crossbowmen against cavalry.

300 light cavalry (scouts)

20,000 peasants and 13,000 mules  on logistics (carrying stones for trebuchets and bombards), food etc. But we will raid the enemy and live on the land mostly.

Me and my 99 elite heavy cavalry. Black armour, Black horse all, black cape, black flag with a rooster in red on it.  Only me with a golden fleur-de-lys on my cape. I'm the duke of the Normandy or Burgundy.

Maju:

I'm a bit nacionalist, but they were in Spain in 942.

The Hungarian warriors were incredible fast in this time. The Hungarian light cavalries were faster than other armies and every warriors had more than one horses. Only one problem was finding food for men and horses.

In 942 they attacked the Eastern parts of Spain, for example Barcelona and Lerida and they reached River Tajo. Magyars fought against Arabs and captured Arab captains. After that they went home.

Maju:

Nagyfejedelem is right. Magyar raiders reached Spain too. There are written sources mention this campaign. One of the arab caliphs (I can't remember his name.) remarked that all of Hungarian people should be exterminated.

I will look after details for you.

Raider:

During the invasion in 942 the caliph was Abd ar-Rahman.

He surely was right

Seriously, Magyar raids are considered among the most criminal of all times: killing all males and also women too old or too young, carrying the rest of women as cattle. Vikings and even Atilla were true delicate gentlement when compared.

Luckily, after Lech, your ancestors decided to change habits and settled down.

Yes please. It's an absolutely unknown episode of Iberian history. Viking raids are rather well known but it's the first time I heard of Hungarians in Iberia at all.

Maju:

About Hungarian criminals: weren't true. Hungarians weren't as cruel as European warriors in this time. An Arab writer wrote about Hungarians cured their captured hurt enemies. Captured soldiers and civils weren't killed, usually were given back for money or were sold to Byzantium or Arabs.

Maju:

Most of the Hungarians settled down before Lechfeld.

Maju:

So, only a small part of Hungarians attacked other countries. There wasn't connection beetwen champaigns and nomadism.

I have found three primary sources:

1. Antapodosis V.19. by Liudprand bishop of Cremona

2. Tarsi al-akhbar by Al-Udzri

Maju:

German writers in this time didn't know about Hungarians so thought Hungarians were Avars, Huns, nomads, flesh-eaters, villiants, etc. These writers made Hungarians appear as criminals, but Byzantine and Arab writers-however Hungarians attacked both empire-didn't know about that. The genocide in Pannonia also didn't happen-the killing of the Slavic and Avar population in today's Hungary was not only unrealizable, unprofitable-they gave tax for Hungarians-but wasn't the feature of Hungarians. Arabs and Vikings really killed more unarmed in this time than Hungarians.

2. By the way many of these campaigns and raiders were hired by christian princes to attack and pillage the territory of rival christian princes.

3. Not the nomadism caused these attacks. The bulk of the Hungarian population had already settled. After the arrival of Hungarians to their new homeland the society was changed. Many of the free Hungarians became poor and they lost their former status. So who had the abilities tried to join one of the campaigns to gain loot and regain his former status.

Maju:

If you interested in medieval Hungarian history I suggest you to read this book.

The Realm of Saint Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary by Pál Engel edited by Andrew Ayton published by I. B. Tauris (2005 London/New York)

I think it is the best avaible in English language.

2. The Vikings conquered lands not just robbed them. (England, Normandia, Russia, Southern Italy)

Maju:

Germans were angry with Hungarians because they lost Pannonia. Other reason was Germans were defeated by Hungarians more than one battle.

Nagyfejedelem:

I don't think that it was some kind of revenge. THe Hungarians were simply strange, they waged a different kind of warfare. Cruelty is part of steppe warfare. see: mongol campaigns

Raider:

I agree with you, it wasn't the main reason. Germans didn't know too much about Hungarians, so they wrote about western stereotips from nomads : the Hungarians lived without home, without culture, ate flesh, drank blood, etc.

I don't think Germans and much less French saw themselves as relatives to Vikings: they had a Romanic culture. But anyhow, what I disagree is that Vikings conquered lands: in the 9th and 10th century their main activity was pillage: they raided all coastal and even non-coastal villages, towns and monasteries they could find. Only in England and Russia you can see some attempt of conquest. Norman conquests belong to a later period and they were carried out by French-speaking Christianized Normans that had settled and been given in feud the land that adopted their name. They weren't anymore the barbarian Danes of teh previous centuries.

Temujin:

The most of the population of the Kievian Rus was really Slavic. But not only the khagan was Viking, warriors and merhants were Viking, too.

 FOR LOWLAND BATTLE FIELD

 10000 full armed (composite horn bow+typical single edged islamic turkish sword+islamic round shield) and lightly armoured. (iron turkish turban helmet with mail aventail+leather jacket) SELJUK ELITE HORSE ARCHERS with swift Turkmen horses.

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've done quite a bit of research on Liegnitz, and from what I can tell, the horse archers didn't fare that well against the polish cavalry at all. Remember, there were about 10,000 men on both sides, and it was in no way an easy victory for the mongols. Also, the mongols had MUCH more horse archers than the polish had heavy cavalry, so any such comparison cannot be made. I believe it's basicly up to the terrain and commander of who'd win between these two.

This doesnt make sense how can the horse archers be innefective when the mongols won the battle? And where did you get the fact that it wasnt an easy victory for the mongols >there plan worked perfectly ,

only substantial casualties in the mongol invasion of europe were suffered at Sajo river.

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.

Of course the Mongol horse archers wanted to retreat from battle ,THERE HORSE ARCHERS  ,after retreating from the knight charge the mounted archers lured the knights away from their infantry and the heavy cavalry of the mongols which was waiting in a forest crushed the knights who were aimlessly chasing horse archers

Outcome- Horse archers would have suffered very few casualties as they didnt engage in melee combat.Only enemy archery fire would cause some casualties. +Mongol heavy cavalry charged a knight charge which had long lost its momentum and lost its formatation.

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

BigL, I am aware of imperfection of primary sources which describe this battle. But if there is a source which states something (e. g. that Mongol army wanted retreat) and there is no primary source which negates this fact, a historian can't ignore this source which state something. In the other case, a historian will say that it is impossible to say anything about the battle.

BigL, if you know any primary source which negates 'Hystoria Tartarorum', please write it here. If you don't know such a source, write that your opinion about the battle is only a speculation - your speculation.

Originally posted by BigL If the poles are so scary why didnt they take over the world

I can write you tens reasons. For example - Compare amounts of both armies at Legnica. Polish army at Legnica had about 3800-4300 men. In Polish terms it was a big army. And now Mongol army. There was 1 tumen (less than 10 000 men) in the battle. 1 tumen was only a small part of the whole Mongol army. Even if the Poles had winning at Legnica, they would have defended (at most) Poland. But there was no a chance to conquer anything. Polish army had no a chance to win with for example 10 tumens of Mongol army. It is obvious, isn't it?

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?

anyone can crush everyone in an ambush...its an ambush!!

go on.

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...

before the battle of Kalka  River, theMongol army retreated several kilometers beore the Russian/Kypchak army, and the Kypchaks as well as Russians must have been much more familiar with Steppe tactics than Poles or Hungarians because this is where they lived and fought! nevertheless they fell for it. just because Poles use it once that doesn't mean they will remember this forever. there is nothing like a common peoples consciousness like ants or bees, thats maybe what Communists believe in...

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

Temujin, my point was that European armies (not only Polish one) knew this tactic and understood it. It means that commanders and chroniclers were able to proper interpret enemy's activity.

Look, that it was my reply to BigL's statement: '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 '

Another subject is - if sombody knows enemy's tactic, why he (sometimes) is not enough careful to avoid a suprise. We can talk about it if you want. Anyway I don't agree with your opinion that if sombody in some battle was suprised by a tactic of simulated retreat it is a proof that he didn't know this tactic. There are examples from 17th c. that Polish army was suprised by Tartars and their simulated retreat, although this tactic was a standard tactic of the Tartars (and the Poles) in that time and although the Poles had few hundreds years of experience of fighting with the Tartars.

I agree

Temujin, in fact historians aren't certain why Christians retreated from the battle. If we will believe Dlugosz's chronicle, we can see that the reason of the retreat was outside Henryk's. It means that he wasn't a bad commander.

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.

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.

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 - 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.

Lets recap the sources available to us on the invasion of europe available please ,

There is Historica tartarum,Dlugosz account and secret history of the mongols,what other sources of informatation do we have please so we can research further.

There are also:

- Rocznik cystersów henrykowskich

- Rocznik wroc³awski wiêkszy

- Rocznik Kapitu³y GnieŸnieñskiej

- Kronika Wielkopolska

- Œl¹ski Rocznik Kompilowany (Annales Silesiaci Compilati)

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

All you need is mongols there invincible

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

Napoleon