Everyone should celebrate Sept 11 . . . 1683

[Rod1]

Edit: I'd also wager that the French were just as much trouble to their neighbours as the Germans were. Just the Germans are more recent

Fair enough, but the French ending up giving way to modern democracy, so i think it was better for them to triumph over the Germans who favored... well you know.

That being said the French is the reason why most of the former Spanish empire is a mess, they fucked up the restoration of the empire badly.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

@fallable the grazing is a huge issue, yes. From what I remember, the major battles VS Poland and subsequently Hungary were fought close to the steppes, so yeah they never really got deep into the heavily forested areas of Europe, nor did they come across the numerous heavily fortified castles/cities (the counterpoint to this tends to be that they beat such places in China - I don't know enough Chinese history to have any deep opinion on their fortifications or how they defended them).

After the major battle VS Hungary, the Hungarians took big steps to reform their defensive strategies, to become more modern. The mongols never returned to test them, unfortunately.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Interesting thing I've been pondering about this particular siege of Vienna.

The Habsburg Emperor Leopold withdrew himself and his family out of the city before the siege began. The Sultan of the Turks chose to send his (somewhat inept, apparently) Grand Vezir to lead the assault.

I'm not sure if I agree with either man neglecting to be present for something that they both knew was going to be a major clash.

 

[tramendous]

This post kind of reminded me of the Dan Carlin podcast "Steppe Stories" where he talks about how Genghis Khan's Mongolian forces were simultaneously fighting Tuetonic Knights in Europe and Japanese Samurai in Northern East Asia, when the Tuetonic Knights nd Japanese Samurai didn't even know each other existed.

I remember hearing one reason the Mongolian's got bogged down in Europe was because they reached a part of Europe with dense forests where their cavalry was much less effective and their wasn't enough grazing for their horses. Hail to the trees!

ya the mongols also had trouble in places where there was plenty of rain because the glue that would hold their bows together would literally melt if exposed to it. that and the fact they were operating at the almost absolute edge of their logistics. Europe just also wasn't as juicy of a target.

 

[Rational Poster]

Very impressive campaign indeed, but I'm of the belief that a more unified response would have come (as it did VS the ottomans here at Vienna) and it likely would have been enough to push out the overstretched supply lines. But hey let's leave that one there because it's an endless discussion and will thoroughly derail this haha.


Indeed it was, but it's not as though the French didn't get involved against the North Africans that were under Ottoman vassalage.

Edit: I'd also wager that the French were just as much trouble to their neighbours as the Germans were. Just the Germans are more recent

The Battle of the Caucus mountains really highlights Mongol capabilities.

The Kingdom of Georgia at that time was one of the most powerful kingdoms in Eastern Europe and had one of the largest armies of armored knights ever assembled fresh off the Crusades.

Subutai slaughtered them outnumbered 3:1 in a straight up field battle.

 

[Lex Bigelow]

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Ya everytime i hear warlord i think of some guy in Africa with a rag tag militia. i read this book:

It was pretty good. Timur had some epic campaigns in Russia, India, Persia, Middle East and not to mention some badass titles like 'Lord of the fortunate conjunction'.

While he did build some great monuments and cities, he killed a fuckton of people and his progeny went on to create the Mughal empire. Im surprised he isnt more well known.

TAmerlane overrated. He only conquered areas already moslem.

He was a contemporary of the Hongwu Emperor, founder of the Ming Dynasty not too far to the east. It have been interesting if those two fought before either died.

 

[floivanus]

Yes, there is a reason the cowardly islamic terrorists picked 9/11 to murder 1000s of innocent people due to Muhammed's call to jihad.

Cliffs: Basically muslim conquest came to an and when the original European John Connor....
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/other-september-11th.html

That's as far as I needed to go, I think you got your dates messed up there. Dude fought MACHINES not MUSLIMS

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

The Battle of the Caucus mountains really highlights Mongol capabilities.

The Kingdom of Georgia at that time was one of the most powerful kingdoms in Eastern Europe and had one of the largest armies of armored knights ever assembled fresh off the Crusades.

Subutai slaughtered them outnumbered 3:1 in a straight up field battle.

Read anything good outside of the Wiki about this one? The writing of it is a bit on the rough side for English, which sets off some concerns for me. It sourced a couple of books that I think I might buy though, I've been looking for something Mongol/Europe related but hadn't come across anything too good (which is how I ended up with the Tamerlane one someone else posted in here in my cart).

I find the suggestion of a Georgian army of 70,000 to be surprising. For comparison, 2nd and 3rd crusades were around 200,000 total, where the hell would Georgia be getting 70,000? The crusader armies in the 4th were around 20,000. The Hungarian army at Mohi against the Mongols suggests 80,000 on the high estimate, and 25,000 on the lower/more reasonable estimate. The initial claim of 30,000 knights in the Caucus wiki seems completely unheard of to me at least (and isn't sourced). It's also not as if the Mongols couldn't be defeated when outnumbered (like vs the Mamluks).

Thanks for the mention of that though @Rational Poster. I've read a fair amount on this subject a handful of years ago now, and I'm not sure if I ever came across that particular battle. I know only a little about the history of Georgia during the medieval era. Two more books to add to my purchase list. Getting expensive, haha.

 

[Rational Poster]

Read anything good outside of the Wiki about this one? The writing of it is a bit on the rough side for English, which sets off some concerns for me. It sourced a couple of books that I think I might buy though, I've been looking for something Mongol/Europe related but hadn't come across anything too good (which is how I ended up with the Tamerlane one someone else posted in here in my cart).

I find the suggestion of a Georgian army of 70,000 to be surprising. For comparison, 2nd and 3rd crusades were around 200,000 total, where the hell would Georgia be getting 70,000? The crusader armies in the 4th were around 20,000. The Hungarian army at Mohi against the Mongols suggests 80,000 on the high estimate, and 25,000 on the lower/more reasonable estimate. The initial claim of 30,000 knights in the Caucus wiki seems completely unheard of to me at least (and isn't sourced). It's also not as if the Mongols couldn't be defeated when outnumbered (like vs the Mamluks).

Thanks for the mention of that though @Rational Poster. I've read a fair amount on this subject a handful of years ago now, and I'm not sure if I ever came across that particular battle. I know only a little about the history of Georgia during the medieval era. Two more books to add to my purchase list. Getting expensive, haha.

Wiki mentions this book as a source a lot,

Genghis Khan: his conquest, his empire, his legacy by Frank McLynn. A lot of the text is available free on Google books, but it actually cuts out some of the text on this encounter.

I didn't read it all myself. I learned a lot about the Mongols from Dan Carlin's podcast series on them.

From what I understand it was about 30,000 Georgia knights and 40,000 assorted cavalry, likely local kipchaks and others hired as mercenaries. From what I understand it wasn't the entire Georgian army at the time either, but it was all their cavalry and knights. Georgia was one of the most powerful Western kingdoms at the time they encountered the Mongols.

I think the reason the numbers are reliable are because it's from Georgian sources. It's unlikely they wanted to exaggerate the size of their army due to the crushing defeat, if anything they scaled it back. In their pleas for help following the disaster, the Georgians greatly exaggerated the number of Mongols they killed, claiming 25,000 slain, when we know that's bogus because Subutai's force at the time numbered 20,000 or less and survived the encounter relatively unscathed since he went on the crush several other European armies in similar fashion.

 

[Rational Poster]

@fallable the grazing is a huge issue, yes. From what I remember, the major battles VS Poland and subsequently Hungary were fought close to the steppes, so yeah they never really got deep into the heavily forested areas of Europe, nor did they come across the numerous heavily fortified castles/cities (the counterpoint to this tends to be that they beat such places in China - I don't know enough Chinese history to have any deep opinion on their fortifications or how they defended them).

After the major battle VS Hungary, the Hungarians took big steps to reform their defensive strategies, to become more modern. The mongols never returned to test them, unfortunately.

Chinese society at the time of Mongol conquest was very likely the most advanced nation on Earth.

They had fortress cities containing more people than some European states(which the Mongols rendered into fat) and much larger better equipped militaries, millions of soldiers even. They had state of the art siegeworks and had pioneered the use of gunpowder weapons.

I don't think there is much most European states at the time could have done to an entire Mongol army besides hide in their cities and shoot at them with crossbows. I mean they were getting wiped out in detail by a Mongol scouting force.

 

[tramendous]

TAmerlane overrated. He only conquered areas already moslem.

He was a contemporary of the Hongwu Emperor, founder of the Ming Dynasty not too far to the east. It have been interesting if those two fought before either died.

I dont think he was overrated. Since he isnt rated at all in most people's minds. Not sure why conquering areas already muslim means hes overrated. If anything hes underrated as a conqueror.

 

[AviatorShades]

In the broadest sense it's amazing how many Europeans seem to have no idea about the historical invasions and colonization of Europe at the hands of Muslims, that more free Europeans were captured by North African Muslims than slave were sent to North America over the same period. Much less do they consider Anatolia and Levant "stolen land".

Only one side of that tale is spoken of (the comparatively brief periods during which Europe took temporary holdings in the M.E.) to maintain narrative necessary to keep the extreme left dominant across the continent.

Does poverty ironically breed historical awareness/vengeance in lieu of other skills, while wealth breeds deliberate ideological ignorance/avoidance and preoccupation with professional skills? Less to lose, less incentive to perpetuate convenient lies.

 

[KillMeGod]

I've been reading a book about this. They also came and got defeated in the 1500's too. Perhaps even worse, in a way.

Sobieski is still a hero though. And he's got a vodka named after him. Gotta try it one day, get Polish calibre wasted.

Also a good ass (depending on if history-based-metal is your thing) song.

those wings look so gay, how did enemy armies not die from laughter when they charged?

 

[AviatorShades]

People like rational poster would have literally ridden out butt naked and asked to be enslaved rather than fight and I say that without the slightest hint of irony or comedy. He is doing exactly that in the current day.

That's why when we say we should still respect people regardless of their political views and keep it out of our friendships we are lying. It directly indicates personal quality.

 

[JosephDredd]

Beginning after the First Siege of Vienna the century before, the film brings viewers through the various conflicts between European Christianity and Turkish Islam which led up to the events of September 11, 1683

This post makes me realize that the brainwashing MSM has deliberately avoided talking about the events that led up to September 10, 2001.

Wake up, sheeple!

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Wiki mentions this book as a source a lot,

Genghis Khan: his conquest, his empire, his legacy by Frank McLynn. A lot of the text is available free on Google books, but it actually cuts out some of the text on this encounter.

I didn't read it all myself. I learned a lot about the Mongols from Dan Carlin's podcast series on them.

From what I understand it was about 30,000 Georgia knights and 40,000 assorted cavalry, likely local kipchaks and others hired as mercenaries. From what I understand it wasn't the entire Georgian army at the time either, but it was all their cavalry and knights. Georgia was one of the most powerful Western kingdoms at the time they encountered the Mongols.

I think the reason the numbers are reliable are because it's from Georgian sources. It's unlikely they wanted to exaggerate the size of their army due to the crushing defeat, if anything they scaled it back. In their pleas for help following the disaster, the Georgians greatly exaggerated the number of Mongols they killed, claiming 25,000 slain, when we know that's bogus because Subutai's force at the time numbered 20,000 or less and survived the encounter relatively unscathed since he went on the crush several other European armies in similar fashion.

Yeah, I added that book as well as the other one it cites for sources onto my future reading list. Sometime within the next month or so I'll order one/both and I'll get back to this thread when I come across where it discusses the subject. Consider me intrigued.

And yeah, that's what the wiki says. 30,000 knights as well as 40,000 light cavalry. I just don't see how that would be possible for Georgia though. It makes no mention of any Templar/Hospitaller/Teutonic/etc knights being involved, and no mention of any famous names outside of King George of Georgia, and some unnamed "famous crusader knight".

The less-than-perfect English on the wiki, the relatively little written about the battle compared to other major clashes from the same period are both points of skepticism for me.

The major clash between the Russian Novgordians and Livonian Teutonic Knights for example at Lake Peipus claims an army of less than 20,000 for both Novgorod and Teutonic's. The resulting defeat of the Knights was pretty devastating, yet it is suggested that less than 30 knights themselves were killed/captured. A few hundred years later when the Ottoman army decisively defeated a major Hungarian army, their size was suggested around 30,000. The major naval Battle of Lepanto also from the 16th century featured a huge combined Christian army/fleet and still seemed to have less than 70,000 men total.

If the Serbian prince fighting alongside the Ottoman's against Timur could find success, I see no reason why an astonishing 30,000 of them (I'm not even aware of a battle where there were 10,000 knights) wouldn't have been able to do some serious damage, regardless of the brilliance of Subutai.

Chinese society at the time of Mongol conquest was very likely the most advanced nation on Earth.

They had fortress cities containing more people than some European states(which the Mongols rendered into fat) and much larger better equipped militaries, millions of soldiers even. They had state of the art siegeworks and had pioneered the use of gunpowder weapons.

I don't think there is much most European states at the time could have done to an entire Mongol army besides hide in their cities and shoot at them with crossbows. I mean they were getting wiped out in detail by a Mongol scouting force.

Yeah, I have read about a lot of this stuff as well, but mostly just discussions about it. The catch for me is the difference in mindset between the Chinese and Europeans. If there was one aspect of warfare the Europeans were good at during this time period, it was of defensive siege warfare. The nature of feudalism made every small fortified area more likely to resist, whereas the Chinese were more accustomed to larger ruling dynasties, no? I've always heard that it's easier to replace an Emperor (i.e. decisively defeat them) than it is to pacify numerous small little areas.

From what I know, the crossbows were one of the things the Mongol's did have concern about as well. No doubt about their gunpowder/siege tactics though.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

In the broadest sense it's amazing how many Europeans seem to have no idea about the historical invasions and colonization of Europe at the hands of Muslims, that more free Europeans were captured by North African Muslims than slave were sent to North America over the same period. Much less do they consider Anatolia and Levant "stolen land".

Only one side of that tale is spoken of (the comparatively brief periods during which Europe took temporary holdings in the M.E.) to maintain narrative necessary to keep the extreme left dominant across the continent.

Does poverty ironically breed historical awareness/vengeance in lieu of other skills, while wealth breeds deliberate ideological ignorance/avoidance and preoccupation with professional skills? Less to lose, less incentive to perpetuate convenient lies.

Red: That tidbit was mentioned in the book I'd read recently about the wars over the Mediterranean, that Berber pirates enslaved thousands along the shores (and a good bit further into land) of the coast of Spain. That slave markets in Algiers and Tunis were hot with Christian slaves. Gotta have some poor suckers to man the ships though.

Blue: I've wondered about that too. I think the problem is that relatively speaking, we learn very, very little about history in the west. We learn the simple things, and then never take a class again past the age of about 15 (for most people). History Channel, to their credit, is also an utter joke now too, so it's not like there's a ton of exposure there outside of Ancient Aliens and Pawn Stars.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yeah, I added that book as well as the other one it cites for sources onto my future reading list. Sometime within the next month or so I'll order one/both and I'll get back to this thread when I come across where it discusses the subject. Consider me intrigued.

And yeah, that's what the wiki says. 30,000 knights as well as 40,000 light cavalry. I just don't see how that would be possible for Georgia though. It makes no mention of any Templar/Hospitaller/Teutonic/etc knights being involved, and no mention of any famous names outside of King George of Georgia, and some unnamed "famous crusader knight".

The less-than-perfect English on the wiki, the relatively little written about the battle compared to other major clashes from the same period are both points of skepticism for me.

The major clash between the Russian Novgordians and Livonian Teutonic Knights for example at Lake Peipus claims an army of less than 20,000 for both Novgorod and Teutonic's. The resulting defeat of the Knights was pretty devastating, yet it is suggested that less than 30 knights themselves were killed/captured. A few hundred years later when the Ottoman army decisively defeated a major Hungarian army, their size was suggested around 30,000. The major naval Battle of Lepanto also from the 16th century featured a huge combined Christian army/fleet and still seemed to have less than 70,000 men total.

If the Serbian prince fighting alongside the Ottoman's against Timur could find success, I see no reason why an astonishing 30,000 of them (I'm not even aware of a battle where there were 10,000 knights) wouldn't have been able to do some serious damage, regardless of the brilliance of Subutai.


Yeah, I have read about a lot of this stuff as well, but mostly just discussions about it. The catch for me is the difference in mindset between the Chinese and Europeans. If there was one aspect of warfare the Europeans were good at during this time period, it was of defensive siege warfare. The nature of feudalism made every small fortified area more likely to resist, whereas the Chinese were more accustomed to larger ruling dynasties, no? I've always heard that it's easier to replace an Emperor (i.e. decisively defeat them) than it is to pacify numerous small little areas.

From what I know, the crossbows were one of the things the Mongol's did have concern about as well. No doubt about their gunpowder/siege tactics though.

I think by knight in this instance they just mean heavily armored horsemen in the western style, not so much pure noble knights. We're talking about a very successful Georgian kingdom at this point in time. Winning many battles against Muslims in the Holy Land and in their region before this encounter for the past hundred years. They reportedly had at least 5000-6000 Royal Knights in 1121 at the battle of Didgori, before 100 years of battlefield successes.

The European crossbow at the time was no better or worse than what they'd have already encountered. China also made use of many more powerful version of crossbows that the Europeans didn't. Missile weapons in general have always been a solid counter to massed cavalry formations, the Mongols just excelled at creating conditions in which they could minimize the effectiveness of enemy missile weapons. In the book cited here is even notes that the Mongols at first made pretend they couldn't quite hit the Georgians by short shooting on purpose.. only so they could come closer and be massacred.

The Chinese cities were well fortified not to protect from invaders, but to protect from rival city states. It's also why their siege tactics were so advanced and why the Mongols were so successful, they ripped off Chinese siege tactics and equipment. The idea of a unified China is a myth that didn't really exist till probably the Ming dynasty, if not later. The conflicts between Chinese rival city states in this time period were larger than basically anything else on earth till more recent history. I mean they were having military campaigns involving millions of men going back to 250AD or even earlier.

I guess really what made them succesful isn't that Mongols were doing anything exceptional in terms of their equipment, they were just much more tactically flexible, and faster, and able to do so with such large formations that even the best prepared army just wasn't going to have a response to their tactics... and once you bring your army in range of 20,000 composite bows with no cover.. you're fucked within a few volleys.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Another major strong suit to the Mongol army was that they'd force those they conquered to supply them with men for their army. So they'd have a mix of their own horsemen, and then the benefit of taking specialists from each region they were in control of. Diverse army = dangerous army in those days.

The Battle of Didgori comparatively has much better information (at least on Wiki). I'll have to do some further reading about the subject in general, though. So very interesting. This is also why I said it could be better served as its own thread, haha, because the discussion is immense/endless.