Neither Chinese emperors, nor Turkic khans, nor Russian princes, nor Muslim emirs, nor European kings could come up with tactics to defeat the Mongol army. Although, it would seem, their armies were differently armed and equipped, used different tricks and techniques — at least someone should have succeeded. However, everything followed the same scenario: the enemy, filled with courage, attacked, but then was surrounded by light steppe cavalry, suffered losses from arrows, and then was broken in pieces.
Why could no one defeat the Mongols, was their manner of fighting unique?
The Mongols had a typical nomadic army with some innovations, the author of which was Genghis Khan himself. With the exception of the Khan’s guards, all the soldiers were ordinary herdsmen, but the officers were professionals, from centurions upwards. Discipline was at its height, and for violation of orders was punished really strictly: stories of when a dozen warriors were executed for the escape of one soldier were no joke. The army received a system of signs, with which it was possible to give orders at a distance and without the use of messengers. The commander was strictly forbidden to personally participate in the battle, his business was solely leadership.
Doesn’t seem like much. But at that time no one did it, and if they did it was much worse. At least since the times of ancient Rome, the Mongols created the first army that obeyed orders and was able to act according to a pre-approved plan. And, in case it did not work, the commander had the opportunity to change everything and bring the case to victory.
That is why it was very difficult to defeat the Mongols. If we exclude purely natural factors, with the help of which reflected the Mongol invasions of the Vietnamese and Japanese, I can remember only two people who defeated the armies of Genghisids at an early stage of their conquests. In doing so, they used very different tactics.
In the battle of Parvan in 1221 Khorezmshah Jelal ad-Din gathered a mighty force, and brought to the battlefield up to 60 thousand warriors from Turkic clans and mountain tribes. Nevertheless, his army consisted mainly of infantry. Whereas under the command of Shigi-Khutuhu, Genghis Khan’s half-brother, there were 30-40 thousand experienced cavalrymen.
Probably, the number of both armies was greatly exaggerated by medieval chroniclers. However, the ratio seems to have been conveyed correctly: the Khorezmians and Afghans were more numerous and the Mongols much smaller. Nevertheless, the latter believed in their victory and decided to attack. After all, in previous battles they always defeated the enemy.
Therefore, Jalal ad-Din put his men in a narrow mountain gorge, with some of the archers lodged on the rocks. The Mongols had no opportunity to use their circling tactics, and suffered high losses from arrows. After all, archers on foot are always stronger, as they can use a denser formation, and they fire at large targets.
By the second day of the battle, the Mongols were very tired, and ran after a decisive attack of Khorezmian cavalry. Two months later, Jalal al-Din tried to repeat something similar in the Battle of Indus. But this time the Mongols were commanded by Genghis Khan himself, and the numbers were obviously in their favor. Despite this, the defenders stood bravely and were defeated only due to the actions of the detachment, which crossed the rugged terrain and managed to reach their flank.
In contrast, the battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 was a purely cavalry battle. The Egyptian Mamluks had about 20 thousand men, the Mongols had the same number or a little less. But the armies were staffed quite differently: the bulk of the nomads were horse archers, as always. Whereas the Muslims were dominated by heavy and medium cavalry, focused on close combat.
Since the battle took place in a narrow mountain gorge, the steppe nomads also had no opportunity to use their standard tactics. Therefore, each side fought in a “hit and run” manner, i.e., conducting rapid cavalry onslaughts and retreating to repeat the onslaught again.
This gave a certain advantage to the better-defended Egyptians, who, in addition, used spears paired with swords. However, the Mamluks were still close to defeat, but outplayed tactically their overconfident enemy. When Kitbug’s commander personally led the Mongols in a final attack, he was set upon by an Egyptian unit hidden behind a wooded hill. The commander was killed and his men fled.
Subsequently, the tactics of the Mongols became familiar, and some generals learned to defeat them even in the steppe. Thus, in 1362, at the Battle of Blue Waters, the Lithuanians drove away enemy mounted archers with volleys of crossbows. Then they attacked them with their own heavy cavalry, and the infantry that came up completed the defeat.
Although, in this case, a whole century has passed since the Mongol conquests began. Crossbows have equalized with Asian composite bows and even surpassed them in some respects. In addition, compared to the 13th century, European countries had better armor. And due to a strong economy, they were able to supply more warriors than nomads.