Mongols on Pelennor Fields

[Zenos]

I know this is a vs thread, but anyways:

If the Rohirim on Pelennor were replaced with an equal amount of Mongols, who would be the ones doing better?

[stm177]

Mongols. Horse archers beat everything until the age of gunpowder.

[Thinker]

I think da real question here is whether or not da Mongols have Mike Ditka. Its close though. The Mongols win with a kill:death ratio of only 190 to 0

[GimliFett]

Mongo beat orkies! Mongo beat trolls! Where Handsome Stranger?
:smallwink:
Which Mongol ruler leads?

[Tweekinator]

I think da real question here is whether or not da Mongols have Mike Ditka. Its close though. The Mongols win with a kill:death ratio of only 190 to 0

Da Bears.I type in white to make my post postable

[Zenos]

Who do you think? Ghenghis Khan.

[13_CBS]

Well, I don't know. AFAIK, horse archery almost never wins alone. Horse archery, combined with a heavy charge (from, say, cavalry) is the win button.

The sheer number of orcs could give the Mongols trouble. And remember that the orcs had archers themselves! (I think).

[Swordguy]

Orcs.

Horse Archery depends on mobility, both tactical (I can run away from the guy with the sword) and operational (our army can run away long enough to keep those guys with swords for getting close). With the battle of Minas Tirith, the Mongols have no mobility - they're pinned to a specific location that they MUST defend. The orcs will eventually force them into a corner or against the walls and overwhelm them.

[Solo]

How well did the Mongols fair at defensive warfare? Mongol cavalry was great, but htat can't have been their only strong tactic.

[13_CBS]

How well did the Mongols fair at defensive warfare? Mongol cavalry was great, but htat can't have been their only strong tactic.

Do they need to fight defensively, though? All the Mongols have to do is treat the orcs outside Minas Tirith as just another army in the field.

[stm177]

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

Mongols were really good. If they are replacing the riders of Rohan, then the Mongols can volley arrows at the orcs at their leisure. Mongol bows were the best of their time, so I'm assuming orcish bows are inferior in distance and accuracy.

[Dervag]

I think da real question here is whether or not da Mongols have Mike Ditka. Its close though. The Mongols win with a kill:death ratio of only 190 to 0I think you're in the wrong thread, but I like your thinking.


Who do you think? Ghenghis Khan.Ghengis Khan would take one look at this situation and call for Subotei, who was a much better general. Ghengis Khan's main talent was his ability to organize the Mongols and pick good commanders for them. Commanders like Subotei.


Well, I don't know. AFAIK, horse archery almost never wins alone. Horse archery, combined with a heavy charge (from, say, cavalry) is the win button.The Mongols could do lance work too, y'know. They did manage to beat many enemy armies, which suggests that if melee cavalry tactics are required for a cavalry army to break an enemy, that they must have bene able to do that. Now, they're famous for their archery, but that doesn't mean it was all they were good for.


Orcs.

Horse Archery depends on mobility, both tactical (I can run away from the guy with the sword) and operational (our army can run away long enough to keep those guys with swords for getting close). With the battle of Minas Tirith, the Mongols have no mobility - they're pinned to a specific location that they MUST defend. The orcs will eventually force them into a corner or against the walls and overwhelm them.You mean the wall around the field?

Remember, the Mongols are coming in from the flank like the Riders of Rohan. They should be able to hammer at the flanks and rear of the large orcish army attacking the gates, hopefully drawing off some of the pressure from the defenders.

[SurlySeraph]

Mongols. I didn't see this thread before contributing to the "What would YOU do at the Battle of Pelennor Fields" thread, but the strategy I posted for the Rohirrim was basically Mongol horse-archery skirmishing.

[13_CBS]

The Mongols could do lance work too, y'know. They did manage to beat many enemy armies, which suggests that if melee cavalry tactics are required for a cavalry army to break an enemy, that they must have bene able to do that. Now, they're famous for their archery, but that doesn't mean it was all they were good for.


I never said that the Mongols could only do horse archery :smalltongue:

The thing is though, I have to wonder of a big cavalry charge could work on so many orcs bunched up together. There were 180k of them, right? I don't think any Mongol army has ever faced that many at once, especially with only 8 or 9 thousand horsemen.

So if we have 8 or 9 thousand horsemen, and assume that about half were horse archers, then that leaves only 4 or 4.5 thousand or so to be lancers (unless Mongol archers were so good that they could lance too :smalleek: ). That's still not enough to take out 180k, regardless of what the movie shows.

[warty goblin]

One important point is that Sauron had Harradrim Horse Archers at Pelennor Fields, and they lost to the Rohirrim. This establishes that Rohirrim > Horse Archers, and the Rohirrim were losing the Battle before Aragorn showed up. This forces me to conclude that the orcs and their allies will win handily by transitivity.

Orc Army > Rohirrim Army > Horse Archers. Mongols = Horse Archers. Hence Orc Army > Mongols.

[Zenos]

One important point is that Sauron had Harradrim Horse Archers at Pelennor Fields, and they lost to the Rohirrim. This establishes that Rohirrim > Horse Archers, and the Rohirrim were losing the Battle before Aragorn showed up. This forces me to conclude that the orcs and their allies will win handily by transitivity.

Orc Army > Rohirrim Army > Horse Archers. Mongols = Horse Archers. Hence Orc Army > Mongols.

I don't remember anything about haradrim horse archers, but I do remember Theoden and co cutting their way through the haradrim cavalry, then Theoden cutting down the Serpent Lord of the haradrim and his standard bearer, I don't think the rohirrim are any better close combat fighters than the mongols.

EDIT: Oh yeah, all those other armies are there too, the questian was would they do worse or better than the rohirrim?

[Satyr]

If I remember correctly, the Orks wore heavy plate armor and big shields. In this combination, they are pretty much archery resistant. Not immune, but not really troubled by archers. If the Golden Horde wants to best them, they must enter melee, and in that case the overwhleming numbers of Orks makes it very difficult for the light armored mongol riders.

The great strength of the mongols were not their power in actual battle, but their enormous travelling speed and strategical advantages deriving from said speed. Becaiuse winning is a war is about attacking when and where you are strong and when and where your enemy is weak; and great speed gives you this advantage. But in a siege situation, this advantage is undone.

[mainiac]

180k wouldn't be the biggest force the mongols faced.

I think that with the mongols it would really be down to how much contact those fighting them have had. Mongolian tactics were pretty simple, and thus predictable. Someone who'd fought them before, had some time to get his troops ready and was a decent general could be evenly matched with relatively equivilent forces (I'm thinking between 10-1 and 1-1 depending on the quality and type of troops. 10-1 being all peasant levies and knights. 1-1 being a force with some crossbows, light cavalry, disciplined shielded infantry)

After the initial Mongol universal pwnage there were examples of Mongols being clearly outfought and outthought. However, this was all after the horde had started coming apart at the seams. But on the other hand, the horde in it's prime never faced the adapted tactics that were used against it after the disintegration. I also think that the orc armies would be better equiped for this task then the various medival armies, though I'm not really sure.

[mainiac]

If I remember correctly, the Orks wore heavy plate armor and big shields. In this combination, they are pretty much archery resistant. Not immune, but not really troubled by archers. If the Golden Horde wants to best them, they must enter melee, and in that case the overwhleming numbers of Orks makes it very difficult for the light armored mongol riders.

Armor doesn't protect you all that well from arrows in the quality the mongolians dished out. The mongolians tore through knights like nothing else. I don't remember the typical orc having shields.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Orcs wore crude armour and had spears or crude shields and weapons. You're thinking of Uruks, who were reasonably resistant to arrows but as Helm's Deep showed, not resistant enough to avoid taking reasonable casualties.

[Zenos]

I remember reading about a battle in which the romans fought parthians, and though they used testudo the arrows often pinned their feet to the ground or their arms to the shields, hampering them, and when they did testudo some cataphract lancers charged into the tightly packed group of romans who had no room to fight effectively.

[Satyr]

Armor doesn't protect you all that well from arrows in the quality the mongolians dished out.

Well, I don't know your sources, but I would distrust it outright. The effectivity of arrows esspecialy against armor is almost every times completely overestimated. And apart from that, I know only abou ONE masjor batrtle between an organised army of loricatores and the Golden Horde on Liegnitz/Wahlstatt - and there most of the mongol troops were lithuanian and russian mercenaries, instead of true mongol riders.

Steppe rider armies were not a match for a well organised army of well equipped loricatores. See the Lechfeld. There is a reason why the mongols never advanced further than Poland.

[Glaivemaster]

Ghengis Khan would take one look at this situation and call for Subotei, who was a much better general. Ghengis Khan's main talent was his ability to organize the Mongols and pick good commanders for them. Commanders like Subotei.

No - Genghis Khan was an amazing general and leader in his own right. There's a reason Mongols were still winning battles even while Subedei was in the West fighting Europe


Orc Army > Rohirrim Army > Horse Archers. Mongols = Horse Archers. Hence Orc Army > Mongols.

Mongols were more than just horse archers. They had their own tactics probably separate to the Harradrim, and probably more effective against such large armies.

The Mongols' main advantages were:
Speed/mobility and Hit & Run type tactics
Spies and scouts and all sorts of useful information
Striking at weak points in the enemies lines, when they were weak or otherwise engaged - just look at Hungary. Due to the constant infighting in Europe, the Mongols had no trouble from other countries while they came in and punished Hungary


Steppe rider armies were not a match for a well organised army of well equipped loricatores. See the Lechfeld. There is a reason why the mongols never advanced further than Poland.

Yes, there is a reason the mongols never advance further than Poland. Whether or not it was due to the European military superiority or the death of Ogodei is greatly debatable. There were a number of factors in it, but I won't bore you with that. Suffice to say, plate armour might not be the reason the Mongols retreated after Hungary