This is a discussion on The battle of Liegnitz 1241 within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I have been studying the invasion of poland by the mongolians for a history paper of maine, and came across ...
I have been studying the invasion of poland by the mongolians for a history paper of maine, and came across the famouse battle of liegnitz. In this battle an army of nearly 30000 men composed of Silesian knights, Teutonic knight, Knights Templar and remenants of three other polish armies, command By Duke Henryk the II (also called Henry the Pious), fought withe the Mongolian armies under the Command of Orda and Baider, the Mongolian army was aproximatly 20000 strong. The Mongolians won the battle by having a minor skirmish at Lignitz and then retreating to Wahlstadt, where they were able to surround and outmanuver the Polish army. They utialized arrows, and incidery rockets to defeat the army and were quite victorious, the Mongolians suffered minor casualties, where as the Polish army was almost complety wiped out, Henry the Pious was killed and in the end the mongolians suceeded in capturing Liegnitz. The interesting thing was that this was not the Mongols main goal, the primary target was infact hungary. So Orda's army was sent to tie up any armies that may have possibly hindered the larger army of Batu Khan in the conquest of hungay. this was a brilliant tactic. Attack both the main enemy and any one who could possibly interfeer in the taking of the primary goal before adequate defences could be put up.
Has anyone else heard of this legendary battle? The poles to this day claim it as a victory, because Orda's army did not remain in Poland they travelled to Hungary to aid Batu in his conquest their task being done. From the Mongolian perspective it was a flawless victory, and from the Polish perspective Henry the Pious was a marter because his death 'drove the mongols out of Poland'.
I have read of it through a number of sources. The Mongols are actually one of my favourite historical studies - esp Subodai.
In simplistic terms it's seen by the Poles as a victory because the Mongols turned back - what the Poles have always failed to understand was that the Mongols were engaged in a theatre operation - not a localised battle.
It hilights the total disconnect between european and mongolian tactical thought.
I recently read an article where the Mongols were described as using 21st Century tactics in an age of amatuers.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Yes, where the threat of Henry the Pious's army was iradicated at the same time as the actual invasion of Hungary was ocuring. And the feigned retreat was a tactic ahead of its time, to retreat for the europeans ment dishonour, for the Mongolians it was a tried and true technique. It was truly amazing how the mongolian army was constructed.
yes their military division wer based on multiples of 10.
Also their bow technology was far superior to any europeans at the time, It could fling an arrow further, and the mongolians carried arrows of variouse weight and design to accomadate any situation
they use composite bow. they are both superb horseman and excellent marksman.
in european style battle tactics, their commander usually fight alongside their men. it's good if they want to inspire their men but this also make them vulnerable and they can't properly organize their troops. Mongols commander on the other hand usually position themself in the good vantage point where they can see most of the battlefield. order was passed visualy using signal flags. the tactis the mongols use also considered ahead of their time, with proper use of diversion and screening force to cover their exposed flank. in their campaign against hungary, the mongols army were divided to three groups. the first one heading northwest to draw away any reinforcement. the second one, the main force will be the main effort for their primary objective. the third group strung to the south is their screening force.
________________ Here's how you make a good soldiers. First you train them, then you trust them.
Mongolian style was similar to the Islamic style. Islamic armies were composed of mainly horse archers (armed with composite bows) and who could also fight as light cavalry. The role of infantry and heavy cavalry was less significant. As to the technique of retreating and then hitting back, here again, Mongolians and Islamic armies were almost identical in using it to their advantage to leave the Europeans wondering about what had happened.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
I didn't realize that the islamic people used the same techniques. But it does make sense, it was a brilliant strategy, especially against the europeans.
Yes, infact from what I've researched, Islamic armies were the first to use the composite bow and pretty much the 'horse archer' (they way they used them). Reason for that was the desert nature of the Middle Eastern (as called today) land. Crusader armies had a tough time fighting Islamic armies because their heavy cavalry (their most effective weapon) would get tired and bogged down because of the terrain while the Islamic horse archers and light cavalry were highly mobile and extremely effective at inflicting heavy casualties at the opposing forces.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
actually, Composite bow was believe to be use as far back as 5000 BC by the chinese and the Babylonians who then brought the design to the hall of the pharaoh.
The Muslim army of middle east deployed their light cavalry armed with composite bow against the heavy cavalry of the byzantines and later on the crusaders. they first attack the knights with the arrow and then quicly retreated when pursuit. once their momentum spent and they are away from the protection of their infantry, this knight is vulnerable and the Muslims light cavalry will then swiftly counterattack.
There must some form of common ancestry or perhaps, contact between the islamic world and the mongolian empire, It is really interesting that both used the same tactics.
There must some form of common ancestry or perhaps, contact between the islamic world and the mongolian empire, It is really interesting that both used the same tactics.
No, there is only a link after Ghengis Khan establishes the Kingdom. he invited scholars from all over the known world set up religius houses and teach their faith at the capital. So the first contact with Islam was about 20 years after establishing the Golden Horde. One of his sons converted to the faith some years after - and that did impact upon some battles as he refused to attack some fellow muslims when they went west. This was prior to the sacking of Bagdhad though.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Gary is partly right on that. Part of the failure of the Golden Horde to expand westwards in to the Islamic world was because of the fact stated (one of Genghis' sons adopted Islam and didn't want to get involved in battles with fellow Muslims) and the other part of the failure came from the historical defeat(s) of the Mongols by the Islamic Mamluks from Egypt. They were pretty much the first ones to hold out their own quarter against the Mongols and then drive them back.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
Actually it was the sacker of baghdad himself, that is Hulagu Khan, who converted to Muslim. From him, descend some of the famous muslim rulers such as Timurlenk or Tamerlane ruler of samarkand.
The mongol expansion westward through the muslim lands was stop when the mongol was defeated by the egyptian army at the battle of ain jalut. the detail of the battle is quite sketchy but it was said at some point, the mamluk army was at the brink of defeat when their right wing collapse. how they manage to seize victory i'm not sure.
