Khuzait invincible? Council of the commons

[Apocal]

I'll repeat the part you skipped over replying to:

I directly disagreed with the idea of crossbows plus fortifications being an effective counter. From a Song official at the time, not a military manual: "The Northern Liao and western enemies are able to oppose China only because they have many horses and practice riding; this is their strength. China has few horses, and its men do not practice riding; this is China's weakness. Whenever the enemy transgresses against us, the court confronts strength with weakness. Thus in ten battles there are ten defeats and the principle of victory is rare. These days memoralists wish only to increase our army in order to destroy the enemy. They do not realize that without horses we cannot even create an army."
Director of Herds and Pastures, Song Qi, 1061.

This was well before the Mongols, BTW, and went on to become a vicious cycle wherein the Song's weakness would cause them to suffer further losses in access to militarily-useful horseflesh, which translated into even more weakness, which further limited their access, and repeating on until they had effectively none whatsoever. But, their army, numerically, was not shrinking nor were their fortifications becoming less impressive for want of good cavalry. If massed crossbows together with fortifications were especially effective, and not simply making the best of a bad hand, they should have stopped the Mongols, since the Song outnumbered them until relatively late in the conquest.

After all, the Mamluks managed to ceck the Mongol conquests in the Levant with many fewer crossbows and not nearly the same level of fortification.

The Song didn't lose "consistently": the Mongols did lose multiple battles during the invasions, managed to lose multiple conquered areas back to the Song in the 1240s, and suffered major setbacks due to prolonged sieges. They even lost a khan in the process, the only time this happened.

If they didn't lose consistently, the Song would not have been conquered in their entirety.

 

[five bucks]

I directly disagreed with the idea of crossbows plus fortifications being an effective counter. From a Song official at the time, not a military manual: "The Northern Liao and western enemies are able to oppose China only because they have many horses and practice riding; this is their strength. China has few horses, and its men do not practice riding; this is China's weakness. Whenever the enemy transgresses against us, the court confronts strength with weakness. Thus in ten battles there are ten defeats and the principle of victory is rare. These days memoralists wish only to increase our army in order to destroy the enemy. They do not realize that without horses we cannot even create an army."
Director of Herds and Pastures, Song Qi, 1061.

This was well before the Mongols, BTW, and went on to become a vicious cycle wherein the Song's weakness would cause them to suffer further losses in access to militarily-useful horseflesh, which translated into even more weakness, which further limited their access, and repeating on until they had effectively none whatsoever. But, their army, numerically, was not shrinking nor were their fortifications becoming less impressive for want of good cavalry.

Your example of the Liao Dynasty vs. the Northern Song has strayed very far from the argument (whether crossbows, stone fortifications and heavy cavalry were a significantly effective tactic against the Mongol armies, who were a majority of horse archers in loose formations supported by a minority of heavy cavalry). The Liao were not like the Mongols. They were a core of heavy cavalry supported by some light cavalry and groups of infantry (who served to provide cover for the cavalry when they were tired between charges), and they had lots of experience in siegecraft (making them effective against fortifications). Even more importantly, the Northern Song defeated the Liao, not the other way around! By the line of argument you've been using, that would mean their tactics worked.

The Northern Song fell to a different enemy, the Jurchen/Jin, who would serve your example better because they were more similar to the Mongols. However in this case, the Northern Song lost not because crossbowmen, fortifications and heavy cavalry were ineffective - quite the opposite; the strongest opposition the Song provided against the Jin was during sieges that were "not well suited to cavalry", and the Jin actually made treaties with the Song rather than continuing to try to besiege them. What actually killed the Northern Song was stupidity and treachery. They had replaced their professional soldiers with a citizen militia to save cost. They replaced generals frequently for fear of them becoming too powerful, leaving the leadership constantly inexperienced also. Song generals frequently surrendered cities without a fight, and when it came to a siege of the capital, it had hardly any defenders as the Song emperor was stupid enough to believe that one of his shamans could summon "divine soldiers" to defend it. When the Northern capital and emperor were captured, the Southern Song reacted by ceding control of all northern provinces without a fight.

After all, the Mamluks managed to ceck the Mongol conquests in the Levant with many fewer crossbows and not nearly the same level of fortification.

For the third time: I never said other tactics could not be effective in their own right. I am just saying that crossbows, stone fortifications, and heavy cavalry were a more effective tactic than most. You can use less effective tactics and still win a battle due to a variety of other factors, such as terrain, numbers, etc.

If massed crossbows together with fortifications were especially effective, and not simply making the best of a bad hand, they should have stopped the Mongols, since the Song outnumbered them until relatively late in the conquest. If they didn't lose consistently, the Song would not have been conquered in their entirety.

Consistently: "With no, or very few, exceptions". As I have already said, there were numerous exceptions, and the Southern Song won numerous battles, and even killed a Khan.

An empire doesn't have to lose battles consistently in order to be conquered, it just has to lose the majority of decisive ones, because all battles are not of equal importance. You can even win the majority of battles you fight and still lose the war due to other reasons. There were plenty of other factors killing the Southern Song from within, and even despite this, they provided "a very strong resistance" as I have already shown. A 44 year resistance against the largest empire in the world at the time. Also, I'm not sure what your source is on the South Song outnumbering the Mongols.

Therefore, their use of crossbows and fortifications is not a valid example of those tactics being ineffective. The invasions of Poland and Hungary are an excellent, almost scientific, example of how they are effective, because the Mongols used the same force each time. In the "control" invasion with a lack of stone castles and crossbowmen and heavy cavalry, the Mongols ran totally rampant everywhere except where there were stone castles. In the subsequent invasions with the same size Mongol force but more stone castles, crossbowmen, and heavy cavalry, the Mongols were decisively repulsed.

 

[Chonokhan]

I have had campaigns where the Khuzaits were rubbed out by the Blue Queen of the empire. But I mean... look at human history... The Xiongnu/Huns that invaded Europe, all the way to Germania and Italia. The Khazar Turks and the Oghuz Turks took over Crimea, Tartaria, Central Asia and Persia. Mongols conquered most of the known world, from China to Persia up to Hungary and half of the Middle East. Mughals (Persianized Mongols) conquered all of India.

The greatest empires were built on the back of the horse... except the British Empire, which was built on the back of the Opium trade and corporations.

 

[Apocal]

Your example of the Liao Dynasty vs. the Northern Song has strayed very far from the argument (whether crossbows, stone fortifications and heavy cavalry were a significantly effective tactic against the Mongol armies, who were a majority of horse archers in loose formations supported by a minority of heavy cavalry). The Liao were not like the Mongols. They were a core of heavy cavalry supported by some light cavalry and groups of infantry (who served to provide cover for the cavalry when they were tired between charges), and they had lots of experience in siegecraft (making them effective against fortifications). Even more importantly, the Northern Song defeated the Liao, not the other way around! By the line of argument you've been using, that would mean their tactics worked.

The "western enemies" were the Tanguts (Western Xia), largely operating as nomadic cavalry and having taken up the Hexi Corridor (Silk Road) possesions of the Chinese by force. The Liao were Khitans, the same Khitans who later (after being defeated by the Jurchens, not the Northern Song) fled and created the Kara Khitai before being co-opted by the Mongols. The Khitans in the early period of the Liao Dynasty absolutely fought as nomadic cavalry during their first major period of conflict with the Song, which ended in 1005 with the Song (not the Liao) effectively ceding territory and giving tribute. I'm not sure where you're getting the Northern Song defeating the Liao, unless you mean their alliance with the Jurchen Jin (who fought as nomadic cavalry) bearing fruit.

For the third time: I never said other tactics could not be effective in their own right.

Right here, you did:

You know what didn't stop the Mongols? The Kipchak/Cuman horse-archers they rolled over.

When literal Cuman-Kipchak horse archers stopped the Mongols. And not just put up a good fight that ultimately resulted in their total conquest but actually had their state survive and out-last the Mongols attacking them.

Consistently: "With no, or very few, exceptions". As I have already said, there were numerous exceptions, and the Southern Song won numerous battles, and even killed a Khan.

Consistently as in typically, usually, regularly. Obviously there were exceptions, I never wanted to imply otherwise. But if the Song could have even won a quarter of the battles, campaigns and major sieges fought, they likely would have survived; it took losing something like nine major sieges in a row before the Mongols gained militarily useful access to the Yangtze River and doomed the Southern Song dynasty.

Also, I'm not sure what your source is on the South Song outnumbering the Mongols.

Cambridge History of China, Vol. 5, Part 1, The Sung Dynasty and Its Precursors 907-1279 AD:
The military setbacks of late 1274 had so undermined morale in the south that something dramatic needed to be done to stem the enemy’s tide of victory, and to restore confidence in the dynasty and its armies.
...
Other sources inform us that the entire Sung army contained no more than 700,000 regulars, and surely the Sung court did not commit its whole army in a single campaign. Yuan sources suggest the Sung invested 130,000 men in the battle, probably a more accurate estimate. Even so, 130,000 represented nearly one-fifth of the Sung army, an indication of the importance attached to this particular campaign.

In comparison, most estimates of the forced arrayed against the Song were between 350,000 to 500,000 and not all of those necessarily active; a fair few were always rotated "home" because of the limited pasturage in southern China.

At any rate...

Therefore, their use of crossbows and fortifications is not a valid example of those tactics being ineffective. The invasions of Poland and Hungary are an excellent, almost scientific, example of how they are effective, because the Mongols used the same force each time. In the "control" invasion with a lack of stone castles and crossbowmen and heavy cavalry, the Mongols ran totally rampant everywhere except where there were stone castles. In the subsequent invasions with the same size Mongol force but more stone castles, crossbowmen, and heavy cavalry, the Mongols were decisively repulsed.

...the Mongols didn't even bring most of their siege engineers during the second invasion of Hungary. It well post-dated the souring of relations between the Golden Horde and the il-Khanate, the source of the Golden Horde's Perisan siege engineering specialists, and the likely lifetimes of their Chinese specialists.

 

[five bucks]

The Liao were Khitans, the same Khitans who later (after being defeated by the Jurchens, not the Northern Song) fled and created the Kara Khitai before being co-opted by the Mongols. The Khitans in the early period of the Liao Dynasty absolutely fought as nomadic cavalry during their first major period of conflict with the Song, which ended in 1005 with the Song (not the Liao) effectively ceding territory and giving tribute.

In 1000, 1001, and 1003 the Khitan repeatedly attacked Song fortifications, and each time retreated without actually capturing them or making permanent territorial gains. Now to me, that sounds like a prime example of the "absolutely nomadic cavalry" being poor at besieging fortifications. The tribute was just a tired empire seeking peace, a goal which it succeeded at, and was not made because the Song were facing destruction otherwise: the Song actually won the defense of Chanyuan and this is why the Khitan were willing to stop raiding and sign a treaty.

Right here, you did: "You know what didn't stop the Mongols? The Kipchak/Cuman horse-archers they rolled over."

That quote isn't implying that horse archers can't be effective (I've already said I agree they could be an effective strategy, so I don't know why you're trying to make it look like I'm arguing with you). Instead, I'm using horse archers failing in battle against horse archers to make an obvious point: even the most effective tactics can still fail due to other factors.

And not just put up a good fight that ultimately resulted in their total conquest but actually had their state survive and out-last the Mongols attacking them.

And yet, there are scores of tribes of horse archer tribes who never survived the Mongols. Because horse archery, like any other tactic, can be defeated even if it is effective. If you do consider a state's survival an example of efficacy of a tactic, then again just look at Hungary and Poland.

Other sources inform us that the entire Sung army contained no more than 700,000 regulars, and surely the Sung court did not commit its whole army in a single campaign. Yuan sources suggest the Sung invested 130,000 men in the battle, probably a more accurate estimate. Even so, 130,000 represented nearly one-fifth of the Sung army, an indication of the importance attached to this particular campaign.
In comparison, most estimates of the forced arrayed against the Song were between 350,000 to 500,000 and not all of those necessarily active; a fair few were always rotated "home" because of the limited pasturage in southern China.

The (admittedly unsourced) number I saw was 600,000 for the Mongols. I can't find your source anywhere to see the context you've left out, as all copies of that Cambridge text are paywalled. At any rate even your source sounds quite numerically close, and it's not as simple as raw numbers when defection was so extremely common among the disaffected Song nobility, who in many cases surrendered entire armies/cities/fortresses and joined the Mongols without a fight due to dislike of the Song emperor. Quickly 100,000 Song men could become 100,000 Mongol men, which meant the Mongols could overcome their inability to besiege by using the traitor locals' siege expertise.

...the Mongols didn't even bring most of their siege engineers during the second invasion of Hungary. It well post-dated the souring of relations between the Golden Horde and the il-Khanate, the source of the Golden Horde's Perisan siege engineering specialists, and the likely lifetimes of their Chinese specialists.

What about the First invasion then? During the Siege of Esztergom they had 30 siege engines. These reduced the wooden fortifications but failed against the stone castle. The Mongols then suffered heavy casualties from crossbowmen while trying to assault the castle. Because they suck at sieges. Also, why are we counting non-Mongols from areas nowhere near Mongolia as "Mongols" in the first place? If for large periods of time the Mongols were bad at sieges when they didn't have other groups available to help them, it's a very safe statement to say that Mongols were bad at siegeing stone fortifications.

This argument has only lasted this long because you refuse to address my two key points.

1: The invasions of Poland and Hungary were a prime before-and-after example of how effective crossbow/stone castle/heavy cavalry tactics could be against the Mongols.

2: Using the Song as an example of crossbowmen/fortifications not being effective at stopping Mongols is like using a DIY carpenter hitting their thumb as an example of a hammer not being effective at driving nails. The Song were an incredibly incompetent, inefficient bureaucracy which made multiple crucial mistakes, had no experienced generals, had an army mainly consisting of barely-trained peasant militia, and often had its forces defect without a fight, and their collapse was inevitable. They couldn't use the tools they had available to their proper effectiveness. Despite this, their fortifications kept them alive for much longer than they would have lasted otherwise. The Mongols would have wiped them out in 5 years instead of 45. But instead the bungling Song were one of the most difficult cultures for the Mongols to conquer. Once you acknowledge that, the Song become a positive example and the argument is over. Which is why you keep skirting around it and pushing the argument towards tangential matters.

]Mongols conquered most of the known world, from China to Persia up to Hungary and half of the Middle East. Mughals (Persianized Mongols) conquered all of India.
The greatest empires were built on the back of the horse... except the British Empire, which was built on the back of the Opium trade and corporations.

Bannerlord isn't meant to be all of Eurasia though. It represents only part of the Near East, Europe, and North Africa; a total area the Mongols only ever conquered about a sixth of. More importantly, Khuzaits aren't really Mongols! They only have partial Mongol inspiration, as Bannerlord's setting takes cues from 600-1000, well before the Mongols ever reached Europe. Khuzaits are mainly based on Gokturks, Avars, Kipchaks, and Khazars. These groups never conquered anywhere near as much as they do ingame. They were actually wiped out, for the most part.
The Roman empire utilized cavalry but the bulk of its army's strength was in its footsoldiers, and this applies for plenty of other large empires throughout history.

 

[Chonokhan]

In 1000, 1001, and 1003 the Khitan repeatedly attacked Song fortifications, and each time retreated without actually capturing them or making permanent territorial gains. Now to me, that sounds like a prime example of the "absolutely nomadic cavalry" being poor at besieging fortifications. The tribute was just a tired empire seeking peace, a goal which it succeeded at, and was not made because the Song were facing destruction otherwise: the Song actually won the defense of Chanyuan and this is why the Khitan were willing to stop raiding and sign a treaty.

That quote isn't implying that horse archers can't be effective (I've already said I agree they could be an effective strategy, so I don't know why you're trying to make it look like I'm arguing with you). Instead, I'm using horse archers failing in battle against horse archers to make an obvious point: even the most effective tactics can still fail due to other factors.

And yet, there are scores of tribes of horse archer tribes who never survived the Mongols. Because horse archery, like any other tactic, can be defeated even if it is effective. If you do consider a state's survival an example of efficacy of a tactic, then again just look at Hungary and Poland.

The (admittedly unsourced) number I saw was 600,000 for the Mongols. I can't find your source anywhere to see the context you've left out, as all copies of that Cambridge text are paywalled. At any rate even your source sounds quite numerically close, and it's not as simple as raw numbers when defection was so extremely common among the disaffected Song nobility, who in many cases surrendered entire armies/cities/fortresses and joined the Mongols without a fight due to dislike of the Song emperor. Quickly 100,000 Song men could become 100,000 Mongol men, which meant the Mongols could overcome their inability to besiege by using the traitor locals' siege expertise.

What about the First invasion then? During the Siege of Esztergom they had 30 siege engines. These reduced the wooden fortifications but failed against the stone castle. The Mongols then suffered heavy casualties from crossbowmen while trying to assault the castle. Because they suck at sieges. Also, why are we counting non-Mongols from areas nowhere near Mongolia as "Mongols" in the first place? If for large periods of time the Mongols were bad at sieges when they didn't have other groups available to help them, it's a very safe statement to say that Mongols were bad at siegeing stone fortifications.

This argument has only lasted this long because you refuse to address my two key points.

1: The invasions of Poland and Hungary were a prime before-and-after example of how effective crossbow/stone castle/heavy cavalry tactics could be against the Mongols.

2: Using the Song as an example of crossbowmen/fortifications not being effective at stopping Mongols is like using a DIY carpenter hitting their thumb as an example of a hammer not being effective at driving nails. The Song were an incredibly incompetent, inefficient bureaucracy which made multiple crucial mistakes, had no experienced generals, had an army mainly consisting of barely-trained peasant militia, and often had its forces defect without a fight, and their collapse was inevitable. They couldn't use the tools they had available to their proper effectiveness. Despite this, their fortifications kept them alive for much longer than they would have lasted otherwise. The Mongols would have wiped them out in 5 years instead of 45. But instead the bungling Song were one of the most difficult cultures for the Mongols to conquer. Once you acknowledge that, the Song become a positive example and the argument is over. Which is why you keep skirting around it and pushing the argument towards tangential matters.


Bannerlord isn't meant to be all of Eurasia though. It represents only part of the Near East, Europe, and North Africa; a total area the Mongols only ever conquered about a sixth of. More importantly, Khuzaits aren't really Mongols! They only have partial Mongol inspiration, as Bannerlord's setting takes cues from 600-1000, well before the Mongols ever reached Europe. Khuzaits are mainly based on Gokturks, Avars, Kipchaks, and Khazars. These groups never conquered anywhere near as much as they do ingame. They were actually wiped out, for the most part.
The Roman empire utilized cavalry but the bulk of its army's strength was in its footsoldiers, and this applies for plenty of other large empires throughout history.

Bannerlord's map represents a fantasy version of Europe, Middle East and Central Asia. Mongols conquered from China, Persia all the way to Hungary, Anatolia, Ukraine and raided as far as Austria and Poland with plans to raid as far as France. The only thing that spared Europe from such devastation was the death of the Khagan, in which the greatest Bataar (hero) and other important members of the empire, were recalled to the capital to elect a new Khagan.




"They only have partial Mongol inspiration, as Bannerlord's setting takes cues from 600-1000, well before the Mongols ever reached Europe. Khuzaits are mainly based on Gokturks, Avars, Kipchaks, and Khazars. "

Source? because no one even cared about these other Altaic races, before our Mongol Empire brought our entire peoples into glory. Bannerlord isn't on real history and so time period is irrelevant. The Gokturks are the ancestors of the Khazars and Oghuz Turks and the Gokturks were a Confederation of many nations and peoples.

"These groups never conquered anywhere near as much as they do ingame. They were actually wiped out, for the most part.
The Roman empire utilized cavalry but the bulk of its army's strength was in its footsoldiers, and this applies for plenty of other large empires throughout history."

The Khazar Khaganate was the most powerful empire in the Crimea and promoted great trade and development throughout it's realm. Every neighbour nation looked to them for military assistance and economic aid.

The Avars were part of the Hunnic confederation, which raided all of Europe and conquered from Kiev to Germania, subjugating entire nations of people.

Kipchaks were also part of these confederations, as well as part of the Mongol Invasions.

The Khuzaits represent the entire Altaic family tree (though not unified by language, but unified by race). Primarily this consists of Turkic and Mongolic peoples.

The Oghuz Turks eventually formed the Ottoman Empire after years of selling themselves as mercenaries and building relations in their new adopted homeland.

So yes... the Khuzaits are a representative of Mongols and other Altaic peoples, before they became Islamified by the Arabs and fellow slave Turks (mamlukes).

 

[five bucks]

Bannerlord's map represents a fantasy version of Europe, Middle East and Central Asia.

Only a tiny part of Bannerlord's world map comes close to resembling Central Asia, which is why I said "Near East" instead.

The only thing that spared Europe from such devastation was the death of the Khagan, in which the greatest Bataar (hero) and other important members of the empire, were recalled to the capital to elect a new Khagan.

That's a myth.
Rashid Al-Din, a high minister and historian of the Mongol Ilkhanate, specifically states that Batu did not know about Ogedei's death when he decided to withdraw. He states that they withdrew from Hungary to put down a Cuman rebellion, and then left Europe later in 1242 because they felt they had completed their mission, not because of the influence of any outside force.[21] Rashid had access to the official Mongol history when writing the Ilkhanate's history; additionally as historian John Andrew Boyle points out, the section where Rashid addresses the Mongol withdrawal from central Europe contains orthography that indicates he took this version of the events directly from earlier Mongol records.[22] By Carpini's account, a messenger would have to be able to make the journey from Mongolia to Central Europe in a little over 3 months in the middle of winter. Carpini himself accompanied a Mongol party in a much shorter journey (from Kiev to Mongolia) during the summer and fall of 1246, where the party "made great speed" in order to reach the election ceremony in time, and made use of several horses per person while riding nearly all day and night. It took five months.[23] The History of Yuan does not mention any particular reason for the withdrawal, but does note that Batu did not seek to attend a kurultai at all, and was only convinced to attend by Subutai in the year 1244, long after he had left Hungary.
What spared Europe from devastation was the Mongols incurring heavy enough casualties trying to besiege stone castles that they gave up and left.

Source?

Follow the ****ing link, man. The bright orange writing. That's the source.

(Everything else in your post)

Pretty much none of what you said actually contradicts my point. Be proud of the steppe peoples all you want, but Khuzaits snowballing to take a third of the map (less so in newer patches thankfully) are not an accurate representation of what their source material ever accomplished in actual Europe.

 

[Apocal]

The (admittedly unsourced) number I saw was 600,000 for the Mongols. I can't find your source anywhere to see the context you've left out, as all copies of that Cambridge text are paywalled.

I cut out the bit about their campaign's pay accounting and the hilarious lies about the campaign's troop numbers, because neither of them are important to supporting my claim that the Song outnumbered the Mongols even at that late stage. Here is a screencap.

In 1000, 1001, and 1003 the Khitan repeatedly attacked Song fortifications, and each time retreated without actually capturing them or making permanent territorial gains. Now to me, that sounds like a prime example of the "absolutely nomadic cavalry" being poor at besieging fortifications. The tribute was just a tired empire seeking peace, a goal which it succeeded at, and was not made because the Song were facing destruction otherwise: the Song actually won the defense of Chanyuan and this is why the Khitan were willing to stop raiding and sign a treaty.

The Khitan (Liaos) were willing to stop raiding because that treaty essentially amounted to long-term Liao control over the northern heartland provinces of the Northern Song (the Sixteen Prefectures). They'd already been taken by the Liao prior but the Song obviously disagreed and tried to do things about it militarily.

Also, why are we counting non-Mongols from areas nowhere near Mongolia as "Mongols" in the first place? If for large periods of time the Mongols were bad at sieges when they didn't have other groups available to help them, it's a very safe statement to say that Mongols were bad at siegeing stone fortifications.

Because then I would be calling those campaigns the Turkic invasions of Hungary and everyone would wonder wtf I was talking about. The Golden Horde was never predominately or even substantially made up of literal Mongols. There weren't that many Mongols and they'd flipped quite a few Turkic tribes along the way. And everyone used heterogeneous manpower sources back and specialist siege engineers.

Secondly, I haven't said anything about the Mongols' relative abilities at conducting siege warfare because it is secondary to my position that crossbows (with or without stone fortifications) are not some kind of inherently strong counter to nomadic cavalry. The Hungarians beat them with them; great. Mamlukes beat them without. So did the Muscovite Russians.

Anyway, I'm going to cut to the crux of the argument:

The Song were an incredibly incompetent, inefficient bureaucracy which made multiple crucial mistakes, had no experienced generals, had an army mainly consisting of barely-trained peasant militia, and often had its forces defect without a fight, and their collapse was inevitable. They couldn't use the tools they had available to their proper effectiveness. Despite this, their fortifications kept them alive for much longer than they would have lasted otherwise. The Mongols would have wiped them out in 5 years instead of 45.

Nobody conquered the whole of China (militarily) in five years. As bad as the Song were -- and they were pretty damned bad -- that was never going to be in the cards, short of the Emperor himself flopping over in complete submission. That the Song dynasty took forty-five years to lose in slow motion isn't an indication of how strong crossbows paired with fortifications are against nomadic cavalry. It is a testament to everything the Song had available being ineffective because they shouldn't have lost at all.

 

[Chonokhan]

Only a tiny part of Bannerlord's world map comes close to resembling Central Asia, which is why I said "Near East" instead.

That's a myth.
Rashid Al-Din, a high minister and historian of the Mongol Ilkhanate, specifically states that Batu did not know about Ogedei's death when he decided to withdraw. He states that they withdrew from Hungary to put down a Cuman rebellion, and then left Europe later in 1242 because they felt they had completed their mission, not because of the influence of any outside force.[21] Rashid had access to the official Mongol history when writing the Ilkhanate's history; additionally as historian John Andrew Boyle points out, the section where Rashid addresses the Mongol withdrawal from central Europe contains orthography that indicates he took this version of the events directly from earlier Mongol records.[22] By Carpini's account, a messenger would have to be able to make the journey from Mongolia to Central Europe in a little over 3 months in the middle of winter. Carpini himself accompanied a Mongol party in a much shorter journey (from Kiev to Mongolia) during the summer and fall of 1246, where the party "made great speed" in order to reach the election ceremony in time, and made use of several horses per person while riding nearly all day and night. It took five months.[23] The History of Yuan does not mention any particular reason for the withdrawal, but does note that Batu did not seek to attend a kurultai at all, and was only convinced to attend by Subutai in the year 1244, long after he had left Hungary.
What spared Europe from devastation was the Mongols incurring heavy enough casualties trying to besiege stone castles that they gave up and left.

Follow the ****ing link, man. The bright orange writing. That's the source.

Pretty much none of what you said actually contradicts my point. Be proud of the steppe peoples all you want, but Khuzaits snowballing to take a third of the map (less so in newer patches thankfully) are not an accurate representation of what their source material ever accomplished in actual Europe.

"That's a myth."

No.

"What spared Europe from devastation was the Mongols incurring heavy enough casualties trying to besiege stone castles that they gave up and left."

Now this is a myth.

Your quotation from Rashid al-Din doesn't give ANY reasoning to as why the Mongol armies stopped invading Europe. It merely points out why Batu Haan did not attend the Kurultai. So, your response is without substance and does not justify what you said earlier.


"Follow the ****ing link, man. The bright orange writing. That's the source."

I did... and it said

The Khuzait Khanate draws its inspiration from the steppe peoples of central Asia. Genghis Khan's alliance is probably the best known example, thanks largely to the remarkable document, the Secret History of the Mongols, which chronicled the Khan's rise from lone fugitive to the ruler of one of the greatest empires the world has seen. The Khuzaits are based partially on the Mongols but also on their more modest cousins, the Avars, Göktürks, Kipchaks, and Khazars, who were more regional powers than global ones.

" The horse lords now ruled over towns and farmers and counted tariffs and cropland. Urkhun imposed discipline on the unruly clans, forcing them to ride to war on his command instead of simply when they wished. But with the coming of statehood and its burdens, the spirit of unity was lost. Urkhun died, and though his descendants still rule the Khuzait Khanate, the other clans feel that they should be the ones to raise the nine-horsetail banner that symbolizes the supreme authority. "

And your telling me this is not similar to how Chinghis Haan Temujin united the various tribes and peoples of Mongolia and Tuva to conquer the settled peoples? ?

" The nomads-turned-kings swiftly took on many of the cultural aspects of the peoples they conquered, so that the various Mongol or Turkic dynasties dressed, feasted, worshipped and administered their lands like the Chinese or Persian rulers who came before them. But it's clear that they still fondly remembered their heritage out on great grasslands. Travellers to the Uyghur capital of Ordu-Baliq wrote that the khan built a great yurt on top of his palace, apparently feeling most at ease in the felt tents of his ancestors even as he also enjoyed the protection of walls. We try to make the Khuzaits' settlements reflect this cultural mixing. And for those holdouts who would never submit to a khagan no matter what security or riches he offers, we have a minor faction, the Karakhergits, who keep the old ways. "


Like how Mongol Haans adopted Persianised culture in the Ilkhanate, the Chagatai Khanate adopted Persian culture, the Mughal (persian for Mongol) adopted Persianised culture, conquered India and then adopted a Persianised Indian culture?

Chingis Haan Temujin also refused to live in a palace and preferred to live as a humble nomad, in his Ger rather than a palace.

And your telling me that the Khuzaits aren't representing the Mongol Empire? lmao This game is the creation of Turkish people, who while they love our people's achievements and claim part of it as their own, also pridefully try to side line it with their own Turkish heiritage.

" The Khuzaits are based partially on the Mongols but also on their more modest cousins, the Avars, Göktürks, Kipchaks, and Khazars, who were more regional powers than global ones. "

No, I think the majority of the Khuzait similarities are based on the achievements of the Mongol Empire.

"Pretty much none of what you said actually contradicts my point. Be proud of the steppe peoples all you want, but Khuzaits snowballing to take a third of the map (less so in newer patches thankfully) are not an accurate representation of what their source material ever accomplished in actual Europe."

So, what... you want the Empire to snow ball across the map instead? The Empire is supposedly based on the Roman Empire during it's Split (Eastern Empire vs Western Empire). During that time, the various barbarian peoples from Europe and Asia invaded Europe by migration or by war... and the empire collapsed. So I think it's about right.

 

[Apocal]

So, what... you want the Empire to snow ball across the map instead?

I don't think many people want any faction snowballing consistently.

 

[Chonokhan]

I don't think many people want any faction snowballing consistently.

Then they should fix the AI. It's not difficult to counter mounted archers, I do it in Total War games all the time (when im not playing a steppe faction). The Empire armies are more than capable of doing it, the AI is just moronic and incapable. AI diplomacy and strategy is incredibly dumb too... they declare war on too many factions, then their forces get spread out and they get wiped.

I've seen it happen to the Khuzaits as well.. They usually get snowballed at the start by a united Southern Empire attack... the lose a few cities... then the Southern Empire will declare war against the Aserai, send all their forces deep into the desert... and get divided and conquered.

When I've helped the Khuzaits conquer half of the Southern Empire and a few parts of the Aserai and Sturgia... they do the EXACT same thing... the empire is too large and their forces are too spread out, they declare war on multiple factions and get rekt (without my involvement).

 

[Moton]

You guys should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

The second invasion of Hungary Mongolia had an army of 200 000 and Hungary 30 000. Almost everyone of the Golden horde died or got captured while Hungary sustained light casualties. The first invasion was very successful but it went downhill after that.

 

[geala]

Although I enjoy a historical discussion about areas and eras I'm not very familiar with (or usually interested in), I find the direction not very helpful. Wether the Khuzaits are based on the Mongols or not or partly based on them is not of the utmost importance.

They are a faction in a video game based on factions conquering settlements from other factions mostly. All main factions are not nomadic but are settled, also the Khuzaits (unlike the early high medieval Mongols ...). All parties move on the map in a defined speed. There is usually no possibility to depart faster army parts to trap other parties (for the AI). It is not possible to use ambushes generally. Horse exhaustion is not simulated. Horses are important for the speed of parties. The game has to deal with it. Using Mongol historical achievements does not help in the faction design, even if we do ignore some modern bias which is obviously involved in the discussion.

There should be no faction in the first place which has game mechanic advantages or disadvantages that cannot be balanced by other game mechanics. The Khuzaits for me fall into this category however.

 

[Apocal]

Then they should fix the AI. It's not difficult to counter mounted archers, I do it in Total War games all the time (when im not playing a steppe faction). The Empire armies are more than capable of doing it, the AI is just moronic and incapable. AI diplomacy and strategy is incredibly dumb too... they declare war on too many factions, then their forces get spread out and they get wiped.

I've seen it happen to the Khuzaits as well.. They usually get snowballed at the start by a united Southern Empire attack... the lose a few cities... then the Southern Empire will declare war against the Aserai, send all their forces deep into the desert... and get divided and conquered.

When I've helped the Khuzaits conquer half of the Southern Empire and a few parts of the Aserai and Sturgia... they do the EXACT same thing... the empire is too large and their forces are too spread out, they declare war on multiple factions and get rekt (without my involvement).

Yeah, strategic-level AI has some lingering issues.

You guys should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

The second invasion of Hungary Mongolia had an army of 200 000 and Hungary 30 000. Almost everyone of the Golden horde died or got captured while Hungary sustained light casualties. The first invasion was very successful but it went downhill after that.

Perhaps you should read it?
A contemporary letter from Benedict, the provost of Esztergom, estimates the size of the Mongol army at 200,000. This is almost certainly an enormous exaggeration, as the Mongols almost never fielded armies larger than 100,000 men.

 

[Chonokhan]

You guys should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

The second invasion of Hungary Mongolia had an army of 200 000 and Hungary 30 000. Almost everyone of the Golden horde died or got captured while Hungary sustained light casualties. The first invasion was very successful but it went downhill after that.

Those figures are disputed, but yeah... Hungary proved it's metal and won a great victory against the Golden Horde.

Stefan Kraowski indirectly places the Mongol invasion force a fair bit above 30,000 men by estimating the smaller Mongol invasion of Poland two years later as having about that many soldiers, stating that Nogai and Talabuga personally leading an invasion suggests it is a massive force by definition.[27] Peter Jackson, using contemporary Hungarian charters, concludes that the Mongol army was very large, but is unsure if it was larger, smaller, or comparable in size to the 1241–42 invasion force.[28] A contemporary letter from Benedict, the provost of Esztergom, estimates the size of the Mongol army at 200,000. This is almost certainly an enormous exaggeration, as the Mongols almost never fielded armies larger than 100,000 men.[29] The Austrian chronicler of Salzburg recorded that the Mongol military camp covered an area of 16 km (10 mi) in width and 10 km (6 mi) in depth (whether this was Nogai's or Talabuga's army, or how this chronicler got his information, is unknown).[30] The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle puts the size of the Mongol army in the hundreds of thousands, saying that Talabuga's column alone lost 100,000 men during the march through the Carpathians.[31]

 

[Chonokhan]

Although I enjoy a historical discussion about areas and eras I'm not very familiar with (or usually interested in), I find the direction not very helpful. Wether the Khuzaits are based on the Mongols or not or partly based on them is not of the utmost importance.

They are a faction in a video game based on factions conquering settlements from other factions mostly. All main factions are not nomadic but are settled, also the Khuzaits (unlike the early high medieval Mongols ...). All parties move on the map in a defined speed. There is usually no possibility to depart faster army parts to trap other parties (for the AI). It is not possible to use ambushes generally. Horse exhaustion is not simulated. Horses are important for the speed of parties. The game has to deal with it. Using Mongol historical achievements does not help in the faction design, even if we do ignore some modern bias which is obviously involved in the discussion.

There should be no faction in the first place which has game mechanic advantages or disadvantages that cannot be balanced by other game mechanics. The Khuzaits for me fall into this category however.

There is nothing stopping other factions from using horses... ANY party that has horses in it's inventory will move faster mechanically. It even says it in the game.. Every town (even the Battanian cities) have access to horses. People like to complain about the Khuzait... but when Swadia was the power house with it's super OP knights in M&B 1... no one cared... I wonder why?

 

[Gandamula]

I use to run, in peace times, across Khuzait lands, recruiting peasants and training them. I have about 20 horses archers in my party. And I know that they allways send their horses archers to my left flank, so I put there my cavalry to counter them.

 

[Moton]

Yeah, strategic-level AI has some lingering issues.



Perhaps you should read it?
A contemporary letter from Benedict, the provost of Esztergom, estimates the size of the Mongol army at 200,000. This is almost certainly an enormous exaggeration, as the Mongols almost never fielded armies larger than 100,000 men.

Yes okay sure, 100 000 vs 30 000 and still Hungary had minimal losses while the Mongols got their **** handed to them. The point is that the Mongols was a formidable force but they had some clear weaknesses and it isn't historicaly correct that they dominate everything. In the game they dont seem to have a clear weakness since they win mostly every fight they go into and take castle after castle with ease.

There is nothing stopping other factions from using horses... ANY party that has horses in it's inventory will move faster mechanically. It even says it in the game.. Every town (even the Battanian cities) have access to horses. People like to complain about the Khuzait... but when Swadia was the power house with it's super OP knights in M&B 1... no one cared... I wonder why?

Everyone hated the fact that Knights was OP in M&B 1, people even hate the Swadian nights in Warband. One single unit shouldn't be totally OP, the game should encourage you to have a mixed army.

 

[Chonokhan]

Yes okay sure, 100 000 vs 30 000 and still Hungary had minimal losses while the Mongols got their **** handed to them. The point is that the Mongols was a formidable force but they had some clear weaknesses and it isn't historicaly correct that they dominate everything. In the game they dont seem to have a clear weakness since they win mostly every fight they go into and take castle after castle with ease.



Everyone hated the fact that Knights was OP in M&B 1, people even hate the Swadian nights in Warband. One single unit shouldn't be totally OP, the game should encourage you to have a mixed army.

Really? I was around during that time on the old forums. I don't ever remember seeing a thread about it... yet every week or so, there is a thread "I got ass kicked by Khuzaits, NERF THEM" type comments.

 

[Apocal]

Really? I was around during that time on the old forums. I don't ever remember seeing a thread about it... yet every week or so, there is a thread "I got ass kicked by Khuzaits, NERF THEM" type comments.

That's because the Swadians had the best troop type but the worst strategic situation. They were always getting wrecked on the map, which produced all the Harlaus feasting butterlord memes.

Also, because of regenerating AI parties, factions didn't actually get much stronger from conquering, whereas in Bannerlord, it is snowball city, right out of the gate. Late game Khuzaits are like the final boss, even if they aren't really faster or coming with as much cavalry. They have 20,000+ troops and a huge number of holdings and basically unlimited influence to create armies and plenty of money.