Mongol Cavalry at the Alamo? Discussion

[Sheng_Pao]

Many threads involving fun anachronistic pondering involve modern weapons being introduced into historical battles, like machine guns at the Alamo. Howver, lets have a thread that is exactly the opposite, an ancient army known for it's sheer ferocious fighting tactics versus a more modern one.

Imagine that a Mongol cavalry force of 20,000, led by Hulagu Khan himself, while they are charging into battle against the much larger army of the Abbasid Caliphate on the Uzbek prairie, is suddenly transported into the Texas plains of 1836 so now, the enemy they are charging is the Mexican army led by Santa Anna, in the process of laying siege to the Alamo. Except for the fact that the charging Mongols don't know this at all. The Uzbek steppes are virtually identical to the prairie in Texas, and now, the Mongols are within 400 yards of the Mexican besiegers. They still think that the army ahead of them is the colossal Abbasid army. They see them attacking some kind of strange fortification.

FACTS TO NOTE:
* The Mongols will not be intimidated by the Mexican muskets and cannon at
all. Genghis Khan had used Chinese engineers to build massive siege guns
called bombards when they defeated a large Turkish khaganate one year
earlier.

* The Mongol mounted archer can fire 20 aimed shots a minute with deadly
accurary, and the Mongol laminate composite bow, packing almost 120
pounds of draw, is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards.
* This Mongol force knows they are facing an Arab force almost 3 times their
size, so each warrior is equipped, physically and mentally for a vicious and
merciless fight. The Abbasids had just beheaded one of their diplomats
weeks earlier, so these charging horsemen are bloodthirsty for revenge.

* Aside from their deadly bows, Mongol horsemen are armed with the Charay
sword, a lethal curved sword that would later be used by the Ottoman
Empire. Mongol horsemen are also wearing heavy leather, silk, and metal
armor.

* Behind this Mongol attack force of 20,000 is 100,000 support troops,
infantry, charioteers, artillerists, weapons builders, and sappers.BUT IN
OUR SCENARIO, THEY HAVE NO COMBAT ROLE, NOT AS  OF YET

Now lets discuss who would have the advantage, win, and why? And what would be the consequences of such an incident, and how the history of this piece of land, would be altered. Have fun
 

[roo_ster]

Depends entirely on the training and morale of the Mex infantry.

If they are decently trained and have decent morale, no 13th century cavalry is going to rout them out of their infantry squares. 

If you recall, ~20 years earlier Wellington's infantry did not rout in the face of Napoleon's many field guns and curiassiers.

Also, that same Napoleon turned a Mamluk army (similar to the Mongol one you described) into dog meat.

If the Mex infantry is good only for terrorizing campesinos and mojados and requires 20:1 odds to take an itty bitty mission church, the Mongols would have their way with them.

[HankB]

20,000 Mongols attacking the rear of +/-2400 Mexicans engrossed in surrounding and besieging a small mission, and they're already within 400 yards? The charge on horseback should take less than a minute from that distance.

Given the likely formation of the Mexicans (directed inward), their training, and the fact that this being 1836 they weren't using cartridge firearms, I think 20,000 Mongols would pretty much roll over them.

[TommyGunn]

   Just equip the Mexican army with phased plasma rifles in the 40 megawatt range and be done with it.  

[Jamisjockey]

Whatever you're smoking, please, please please don't bogart it.

[TommyGunn]

Whatever you're smoking, please, please please don't bogart it.

[Jamisjockey]

I was referring to the OP.  Your post, though, that was pretty funny. 

[seeker_two]

Sure, the Mongols will win....but what's to keep them from wiping out the Texans too?.....

Oh, wait.....maybe the Texans can call in Stuka Dive Bombers...... 

[Jamisjockey]

Negative.  Expect the Texans to dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure....

[MechAg94]

Anytime you are talking about a thoroughly professional veteran army that is highly skilled and disciplined, you could probably put that army against many different groups that don't have the same attributes.  Of course, 20,000 against 5000 in the open field and you could probably give them spears and they would still win.

Now you need to include a similar size civil war era unit with rifled muskets, revolvers, and flying artillery.  

Where the hell did this idea come from?

[Jamisjockey]

Anytime you are talking about a thoroughly professional veteran army that is highly skilled and disciplined, you could probably put that army against many different groups that don't have the same attributes.  Of course, 20,000 against 5000 in the open field and you could probably give them spears and they would still win.

Now you need to include a similar size civil war era unit with rifled muskets, revolvers, and flying artillery.  

Where the hell did this idea come from?

Hatched over a round of cosplay or COD chat no doubt.

[Doggy Daddy]

Anytime you are talking about a thoroughly professional veteran army that is highly skilled and disciplined, you could probably put that army against many different groups that don't have the same attributes.

But could the thoroughly professional Mongol Horde make Starbucks in the field?  Under rape and pillage conditions?

DD

[seeker_two]

But could the thoroughly professional Mongol Horde make Starbucks in the field?  Under rape and pillage conditions?

....only if they were trained by the Canadians..... 

[cambeul41]

20,000 Mongols attacking the rear of +/-2400 Mexicans engrossed in surrounding and besieging a small mission, and they're already within 400 yards? The charge on horseback should take less than a minute from that distance.

Given the likely formation of the Mexicans (directed inward), their training, and the fact that this being 1836 they weren't using cartridge firearms, I think 20,000 Mongols would pretty much roll over them.

Agreed!  The Mongol bows had sufficient range and were much more rapid fire than anything Santa Ana had.  I suspect the Mexicans woud be wiped out before all of them got turned around to face the attack.

[makattak]

Agreed!  The Mongol bows had sufficient range and were much more rapid fire than anything Santa Ana had.  I suspect the Mexicans woud be wiped out before all of them got turned around to face the attack.

I'd say your scenario was set up to reach that conclusion. As anyone said, a force of 20,000 versus an unsuspecting force of 5,000 would nearly always wins but for the invention of repeating firearms.

I'd take a company of Marines over those Mongols, though.

[roo_ster]

OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:

* The Mongol mounted archer can fire 20 aimed shots a minute with deadly
accurary, and the Mongol laminate composite bow, packing almost 120
pounds of draw, is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards.

Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G

This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).

Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.

[Devonai]

Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G

This entire thread just became useless to me.

[Waitone]

I can't believe I wasted 3 minutes of my life reading this thread.  WTH was I thinking. 

[MechAg94]

OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:

Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G

This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).

Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.

I think when people say "accurate out to 300 yards" what they really mean is they can hit an enemy formation.  However, it is the actual 300 yard range I have always been skeptical about.  That is a long damn way for a bow.  I also have my doubts about the effectiveness of the arrows at range.  Down here near the coast we get pretty heavy wind gusts some days.  I really doubt arrows would be accurate at all in winds gusts beyond close range.  

Essentially, I would think a formation of musketeers firing at 300 yards would be just as accurate and more deadly than a formation of archers at 300 yards.  Certainly true if you require equal training time.  The reload time would be longer though. 

But as said above, a big force attacking an unsuspecting smaller force is at an advantage with just about any combination of weapons short of full-on modern stuff. 

[MechAg94]

OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:

Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G

This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).

Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.

Devonai makes a good point.  How accurate would an arrow be in a vacuum?   

[MechAg94]

OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:

Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G

This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).

Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.

Also, don't forget the 20 shots per minute stipulation which is one shot every 3 seconds. 

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Oh hell. The Mongols would hand Santa Anna his ass, on a plate, butterflied. In no time. Since we are "what iffin" here. In place of the Mongols, insert Hannibal's army at Cannae. That would be interesting. 

[seeker_two]

* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G

Oh, great....now we're gonna have to have Monguls IN SPACE..... 

Since we are "what iffin" here. In place of the Mongols, insert Hannibal's army at Cannae. That would be interesting. 

I'd kinda like to see the Monguls vs. the Apaches.....horse warriors vs. horse warriors....maybe throw in a few medeval knights for a skirmish or two..... 

IRL, the Apaches kept the Mexican Army hoppin' for years after they learned to ride horses....

[cambeul41]

Essentially, I would think a formation of musketeers firing at 300 yards would be just as accurate and more deadly than a formation of archers at 300 yards.  Certainly true if you require equal training time.

The problem as stated does not have two formations facing each other. It has cavalry at full gallop charging the Mexican rear. The training has already been done and is not part of the problem.

I suspect that the Mongols were not so much trained as raised to be bowmen.

As to maximum range, Google it.  I just did, and you won't believe me. Effective range?  As we often say -- I don't want to be the test case.

When I was an undergrad, we had a similar "What if."  What if all the Chinese armies started marching west?"

[birdman]

Devonai makes a good point.  How accurate would an arrow be in a vacuum?  

More accurate than in air.  True, no fin stabilization, but also no aerodynamic negative effects, so you'd be trading imperfectly corrected aerodynamic effects for no effects at all.  Winner: space bow

As for the OP question, without magazine fed, repeating firearms, the Mongols win.

Let's look at the stats.
First, can we stipulate that the Mongols begin 400yds away, and also stipulate that if they close this distance before losing more than 15,000 of their number, (2:1 ratio cavalry vs. Foot soldiers at lover range? Cavalry wins).

Okay, the math.  A horse at full gallop travels at about 30+ mph (not a racehorse remember), or about 44fps.  To cover 1200ft, it takes about 27 seconds.  The 2400 mexicans therefore need to kill 15,000 Mongols in 27 seconds, or roughly one Mongol per Mexican every 4.5 seconds.  Given a typical single-shot hit percentage on a 30mph moving target of 20% increasing to 80% at near zero range (giving the defenders the benefit of the doubt), or an average of 50%, the defenders would need to fire an average of 12 shots, accurately aimed, at a rate of one shot every 2.25 seconds or faster.  

Given the above, I would conclude that without WWI level weaponry at least, the Mongols win, in fact, I think even a WWII infantry force would be close to losing

My logic:
WWII US weapons:  M1, M2, browning 30, and the BAR
M1: 10 shot stripper clip...assuming 4-5 seconds to reload and re-aim, 12 aimed shots takes too long
M2: infantry emplaced tripod had limited arc of fire, can't traverse 180 degrees in less than 27sec and then fire the 30-50 rounds needed (3 man crew, thus 18 kills, lower hit percentage means 72+ rounds needed, so the traverse and reset has to take less than 20sec)
Browning30: same issue
BAR...now it's possible, 20rnd magazine, but low issue rate means minimal overall impact, and "oh crap" realization will likely reduce effectiveness of aimed fire, and again, reloads take too long.

Basically, without modern repeating, large capacity firearms, AND vehicle mounted rapid traverse crew served weapons, it's the Mongols...or it's damn close (and I'm really giving the defenders the benefit of the doubt in hit percentages on a horse mounted rider...cut the hits down to 20%, and even with modern weapons, it would be the Mongols (let's see someone hit 6 of 30 against a jinking mounted rider with an M4/16).

What stopped the use of cavalry and human powered weapons wasn't the individual firearm (at least against a threat who didn't care how many died, e.g. The Mongols in this case), it was artillery with grape or exploding shot and/or large capacity crew served weapons.