Vikings vs. Mongols

[cheapshot]

If the mongols came up against troops that knew the tactics of them (genghis khans horns for example, countered by the arabians to great affect), they would have been slaughtered. If the mongols enemy had the chance to choose the battlefield, the mongols would lose.

From what i'v read, the mongols would often slowly eat away at an enemy force, taking away food supplies, and doing light raids to demoralise the enemy.

Mongol bows are often given to much credit. Yes, they could punch through mail, but thats usually at a close range. Even at aprrox 20-50 feet, they weren't able to punch through russian crusader helmets.

Mongols were good at setting ambushes because of their speed and because they were smart, they knew they would be obliterated at most-any head on assault, so they would lead an enemy off course, and strike when they least expected and after hard days of riding.

one fight between Jelaudin, (Shah Ala-ud-din Mohammed's eldest son, who was the leader of the arabians at the time of the mongol invasion, who had around 200 000 (more of a guesstimate then a statistic) vs 10 tumans. in the end mongols triumphed with 20 000 casualties. Mongol win) and his hastily assembled force of 40-50 000 vs 3 tumans.

Jelaudins men had formed up in-between a river and a mountain, so that they couldnt be flanked, and had laid the land ahead of them with spikes and trap doors. Kachiun, one of genghis' brothers and generals, decided to focus his attack on the right side, they lost close to 1000 before hitting the arabian lines. After the initial charge, they stared to be pushed back. The arabians right flank swung left to hit the Mongols from 2 sides, and press them against the mountain. one tuman broke off to meet this new threat, though their arrows only killed a few hundred, as the arabian shields were well made and easily a match for the mongol bows. The mongol force decided to do a false withdrawal, and hoped to catch the chasing arabs off gaurd. Jelaudin then ordered for his own men to withdraw, knowing the mongol tactics. Mongol loss.

I say that in a heavily forested and very snowy place the Norsemen would win. Only an idiot would try to ride a large amount of horses through a forest where you can't see the ground.

Also, the mongols HATED riding at night. even over open ground much for the same reason.

Just thought it would be nice to help the norse out, and show that the mongols were human... just.

John Wayne is THE man.

So the mongols have John Wayne...

Then the vikings get Chuck Norris.

Now the vikings will win in ANY scenario.

 

[The Mercenary]

*sigh*

Your entire post was undermined by the lack of spelling and grammar.

First off, Genghis Khan was not defeated by the Saracens. And if you mean the Khwarezmid Empire, Genghis Khan annihilated them. He completely wiped them out. He destroyed entire villages, massacred armies, and diverted a river through their Shah's birthplace.

Yes, the Mongols were defeated by the Mamelukes and their commander. However, Baibars would not come along for a long time, and the Battle of Ain Jalut would not occur for many years.

Second, Mongol bows were quite powerful. They could punch through mail at medium range. Mongols also had two quivers of arrows. One filled with armour-piercing arrows with heavy tips of tempered steel.

Mongols were not wiped out in any head-on assault. Ambush is always more effective, however. There's a reason why guerrilla warfare is more effective then grouping your troops and sending them in columns to attack people. There is also a reason why modern soldiers lay ambushes.

I've never heard of Jalaudin. However, I have heard of Ala-ud-din. He was killed very very very dead by the Mongols. As noted above, he was massacred and his birthplace was annihilated utterly. Also, his elder son, Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu, was forced to run away to India. With 5,000 men. Then, at the river Indus, the Mongols massacred his 5,000 men and several thousand refugees. Hmm. Oh, and the Mongols lost very few troops. As a matter of fact, no Khwarezmid soldiers made it out alive. They got separated from their Sultan, surrounded and wiped out. Mingburnu was forced to flee across the Indus with a few surviving refugees.

Merc, the mongols are very well capable of handling themselves in closequarter combat. just the fighting stye is different. like the Turks and Saracens their fighting style is based on agility. heavy armor and big weapons doesn't make you win. When viking raided moorish spain, the moors beat the vikings

The best swordsman in the world, if not well armoured, will not be able to kill a knight in heavy plate armour.

Well, at any given time, there might be around 20,000, maybe 30,000 mongols in a single battle. Now, If they are to be the least bit effective and be within firing range, they are going to need to clump together. Unless the vikings decided they would fight at the bottom of a steep, circled hole. Then they would be ****ed. But in any other situation, they would have to be in a formation at least 2 men deep. Besides, axes won't fling themselves away when they see the won't hit their intended target. Unless they are retarded. Or defective. Just like when you fire a bow into a massed formation, you don't necessarily have to pick out a single soldier. So unless your mongols have bows that can shoot arrows into infinity, that statement is a bit retarded. And a seperated, sparse firing of arrows isn't too effective on a shield wall. So yeah. 

Mongols made people surrender first. Also, a shield wall doesn't tend to fare too well when heavy armour-piercing, tempered-steel-tipped arrows are flying in at it from all directions. And the soldiers who are shooting at it have plenty of refills for their quivers. Also, 20,000 Mongols wouldn't need to fight. Your raiding group would just surrender.

 

[Chopa]

Anyway, the Mongol people only did so well, because they had John Wayne on their side 

  And the Vikings have: Kirk Douglas, Ernest Borgnine, Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh

  I guess it really comes down to...WHICH SIDE WILL CHUCK BE ON??????

 

[Vulkan]

Whoever it was that claimed Mongolian bows can pierce plate armour earlier in this thread, is ridiculously mis-informed. Of course, the rest of his post obviously reflected that too.

 

[The Mercenary]

Meh. It's theoretically possible. Take a heavy armour piercing arrow, loose it from a quarter meter away, aim at a weak spot.

 

[Almalexia]

Meh. It's theoretically possible. Take a heavy armour piercing arrow, loose it from a quarter meter away, aim at a weak spot.

Well, then again, you can do the same thing with a farking rock. So yeah.

 

[The Mercenary]

Meh. It's theoretically possible. Take a heavy armour piercing arrow, loose it from a quarter meter away, aim at a weak spot.

Well, then again, you can do the same thing with a farking rock. So yeah.

No you can't. Unless said rock has several hundred newtons of force behind it.

 

[Almalexia]

Meh. It's theoretically possible. Take a heavy armour piercing arrow, loose it from a quarter meter away, aim at a weak spot.

Well, then again, you can do the same thing with a farking rock. So yeah.

No you can't. Unless said rock has several hundred newtons of force behind it.

Fig newtons? Mmmmm, I love fig newtons! 

 

[Dudro]

The vikings were pirates and merchants from the primitive ass end of northern europe

Contrary to what you believe, "Vikings" were not all primitive scallywags and nutjobs.  They could definitely be considered the first modern Europeans.  They could have, for many years, be governed and controlled by a perfectly functional government.

*sigh*

Your entire post was undermined by the lack of spelling and grammar.

First off, Genghis Khan was not defeated by the Saracens. And if you mean the Khwarezmid Empire, Genghis Khan annihilated them. He completely wiped them out. He destroyed entire villages, massacred armies, and diverted a river through their Shah's birthplace.

Yes, the Mongols were defeated by the Mamelukes and their commander. However, Baibars would not come along for a long time, and the Battle of Ain Jalut would not occur for many years.

Second, Mongol bows were quite powerful. They could punch through mail at medium range. Mongols also had two quivers of arrows. One filled with armour-piercing arrows with heavy tips of tempered steel.

Mongols were not wiped out in any head-on assault. Ambush is always more effective, however. There's a reason why guerrilla warfare is more effective then grouping your troops and sending them in columns to attack people. There is also a reason why modern soldiers lay ambushes.

I've never heard of Jalaudin. However, I have heard of Ala-ud-din. He was killed very very very dead by the Mongols. As noted above, he was massacred and his birthplace was annihilated utterly. Also, his elder son, Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu, was forced to run away to India. With 5,000 men. Then, at the river Indus, the Mongols massacred his 5,000 men and several thousand refugees. Hmm. Oh, and the Mongols lost very few troops. As a matter of fact, no Khwarezmid soldiers made it out alive. They got separated from their Sultan, surrounded and wiped out. Mingburnu was forced to flee across the Indus with a few surviving refugees.

Merc, the mongols are very well capable of handling themselves in closequarter combat. just the fighting stye is different. like the Turks and Saracens their fighting style is based on agility. heavy armor and big weapons doesn't make you win. When viking raided moorish spain, the moors beat the vikings

The best swordsman in the world, if not well armoured, will not be able to kill a knight in heavy plate armour.

Well, at any given time, there might be around 20,000, maybe 30,000 mongols in a single battle. Now, If they are to be the least bit effective and be within firing range, they are going to need to clump together. Unless the vikings decided they would fight at the bottom of a steep, circled hole. Then they would be ****ed. But in any other situation, they would have to be in a formation at least 2 men deep. Besides, axes won't fling themselves away when they see the won't hit their intended target. Unless they are retarded. Or defective. Just like when you fire a bow into a massed formation, you don't necessarily have to pick out a single soldier. So unless your mongols have bows that can shoot arrows into infinity, that statement is a bit retarded. And a seperated, sparse firing of arrows isn't too effective on a shield wall. So yeah. 

Mongols made people surrender first. Also, a shield wall doesn't tend to fare too well when heavy armour-piercing, tempered-steel-tipped arrows are flying in at it from all directions. And the soldiers who are shooting at it have plenty of refills for their quivers. Also, 20,000 Mongols wouldn't need to fight. Your raiding group would just surrender.

Way to go... (That was a compliment.)

Sorry about the massive overpost.

Nah. You still lose, Ruthven. Mongols were masters of setting ambushes and skirmishing. As they are also in light armour, and had capable ground troops, they would ambush the Viking group over and over. In close quarters combat, the Mongols were assuredly lose. But this is assuming that the Mongols in question are silly enough to let the heavily armoured troops carrying large swords and axes get close enough to force them to draw their own sabres. Of course, more would be slain in such conditions; the Mongols would suffer more from Viking throwing and ranged weapons, and the slower Mongols would be caught and killed by the Vikings. But on the whole, the Mongols would be able to kill the Vikings by sheer attrition. It takes a lot of energy to run after someone in silks, leathers, and light armour, especially when you're in a heavy hauberk and carrying a large weapon, shield, and probably a spear or backup weapon. Also, with the ambush tactics, the Vikings would be taking arrows in the back and such. Really, by the time that the Mongols did run out of arrows, they would probably be able to overwhelm the few surviving Vikings by force of numbers. Also, a forest that thick is just another advantage. Harder to see the Mongols and harder to give chase.

Yeah yeah yeah, that example was just for a mongol vs. viking battle in M&B. I did say it probably wouldn't work in the RL. But sense to maximise the effect of their arrow strom, they would more likely clump together... but still. Hard to hit someone 100 yards away with a throwing weapon 

No. Mongols never clumped together. That was the English, using foot archers. The Mongols rode in circles and fired arrows while moving sideways to their target. Since they were neither riding towards nor away from their targets, they were bloody hard to hit.

Well, at any given time, there might be around 20,000, maybe 30,000 mongols in a single battle. Now, If they are to be the least bit effective and be within firing range, they are going to need to clump together. Unless the vikings decided they would fight at the bottom of a steep, circled hole. Then they would be ****ed. But in any other situation, they would have to be in a formation at least 2 men deep. Besides, axes won't fling themselves away when they see the won't hit their intended target. Unless they are retarded. Or defective. Just like when you fire a bow into a massed formation, you don't necessarily have to pick out a single soldier. So unless your mongols have bows that can shoot arrows into infinity, that statement is a bit retarded. And a seperated, sparse firing of arrows isn't too effective on a shield wall. So yeah. 

Sigh...  Vikings never actually used throwing axes, if thy did, it would be in extremely rare and isolated occasions.
You're thinking Franks.

The vikings were savage illiterate warriors who could make a sheild wall and could make a boat, thats it.

You're ignorance goes uncontested in all the land of Ignorant Person World...  The Vikings may not have been literate, but it doesn't mean they were stupid.  Many of them were very skilled craftsmen.  They fished, farmed, and lived of the land.  They had families, jobs, and currency.  So I beg of you, stop opening you're ignorant mouth and speaking about things you know little of.

But it probably helped that Genghis Khan had quite a few more soldiers under his belt than the Vikings 

Well, the Vikings would have that many soldiers too, if they were competent enough to unite an area of land the size of Mongolia and China put together.  But they're not.

100,000 thousand soldiers

i don't know whether to laugh or shack my head in disgust.  I think I'll laugh...

 

[The Mercenary]

Congratulations. You just posted about 7 times in a row. Perhaps you should be introduced to the "Modify" button at the top of your posts.

 

[Almalexia]

100,000 thousand soldiers

i don't know whether to laugh or shack my head in disgust.  I think I'll laugh...

Well, yes, the mongol horde consisted around an best estimate of 100,000 soldiers. And while, as many people have said, that is not their main reason for their success, it certainly helped.

And on the topic of them having that many soldiers if they ruled a land the size of mongolia and china; the important thing is: they didn't. Now, I consider myself a viking lover, but even I won't make that boast.

And way to have what, 7 consequ- posts.

 

[Dudro]

No, I believe you, but it says 100,000 Thousand soldiers.  See what I mean?

 

[Ruthven]

Congratulations. You just posted about 7 times in a row. Perhaps you should be introduced to the "Modify" button at the top of your posts.

Aye. I "shack" my head in disgust at you, Rowan, though I will fix your mistakes for you.

EDIT: And I hate to admit it, but Merc wins the thread.

2nd EDIT: Alright, Dudro's seven posts have now been turned into one, thanks to yours truly.

 

[Dudro]

Woohoo!

 

[Almalexia]

No, I believe you, but it says 100,000 Thousand soldiers.  See what I mean?

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I must have missed that. Redundancy Department of Redunancy?

 

[Dudro]

This is the funnest thread I have ever posted on.

 

[Vulkan]

To be honest, I found the "VIKINGS ARE AWESOME!" thread, and the discussion thread to be more entertaining.

This one is pretty high up there too, though. 

 

[Kealac]

Man, this thread makes me want to play M&B and conquer the Khanate again for the 3rd time. Say what you like about the old Khergits but they cannot defend a castle. On a historical note anyway its a pretty "out there" concept, but its probably not as Romans vs Nazis as alot of people seem to think. As far as I know early chinese sources (which I dont claim to be a massive nerd about I have to say) describe their neighbours to the north as fighting in a similar way during what we call the "Viking Age" as when the Great Khan swept across the world on pony back, and on the steppe, Vikings sadly would lose. In a pitched battle on a flat plain however, I would put my money on a pyrric victory for the Vikings if they were well led. People seem to be bashing the northmen for thier disorganisation, and I heard berserkers mentioned. Couldnt be further from the truth. Vikings it would seem were fast learners and very resourceful when it came to combat. With a footmans gear, shield, spear, axe and saex I can see the potential for Mongolians being pretty butchered as soon as they wanted to get nearer. Badly armoured vikings with shields with a weak boss and a leather bound rim using a crap wood like pine and cloth or tanned leather armour would be shot if they were not careful, and to be honest most mail shirts couldnt stop arrows, only a weak spear thrust or a badly placed sword/axe blow. As soon as there is a pony charge though, on unarmoured, tiny mongolian ponies I wouldnt hold out too much hope aginst Viking spears. Also, if Mongolians invaded scandinavia during a period where a fyrd could be raised and wealth was coming into the realm from trading furs and tusks in exchange for caliphate silver down in the south from byzantium and baghdad, you'd have a large land force of levy's and a substantial number of heavy veterans. Plus there would be too many sea battles for the mongolians to stand a chance. On the same vein, if the Vikings invaded Mongolia at the time when say Leifs saga is set, they would never come back because there arent enough easterly rivers to sail a boat down. They would need to strike out from Kiev, Novgorod and Bulghar off of the Volga, and walk to Mongolia. Its simple. If the two sides fought the first person to attack is bound to lose. Put a viking on a horse with a bow against a mongol and tell him to kill the mongol he'll probably die. Put a Mongol in Holmgang with a seasoned Viking, I would feel sorry for the Mongol, being a people of smaller stature. Emissarys from the east from the Viking age did comment that the Vikings they met along the danube were "of perfect stature and physique". Hehe.

 

[Lord Corentin]

Does anyone remember that Mongolians actually had fairly heavy armor including but limited to mail and lacquered steel, and that they had drawn large numbers of heavy infantry forces from the Jin, Xixia, and Song empires to supplement their own calvary? The Mongolian army wasn't just composed of a bunch of people in furs on light steppe horses, you know.

 

[Dudro]

He's right.  At the empires height they had access to the Chin Empires vast population, wealth and equipment.  They were by no means ill equipped.  They certainly would be better equipped than the vast majority of the Vikings.