|
SRB, bro, I hate to dismiss big part of what you have said, but I have to.
It is true that general point of view here, as well as in history as I learn it, is euro-centric, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Roman and Graeco-roman civilization was FAR more influential than any other, and Mongols are not an exception. Remember, Roman Empire, with all its turbulences, maintained stability and superiority for centuries. In any aspect, including military.
You overlooked the fact that Roman Empire was in its downfall while on the other hand Attila was on top of his power. So, he isn’t an exception either, especially considering that his state collapsed with his death and that Roman Empire outlived it.
Also, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the phrase “big empire”. Especially if you are revaluating a size of state of a nomadic army. And I’m not talking about cultural aspect.
Where did you get the assumption that Romans were dependant on climate (or even worse mild climate)? Mere fact that they controlled territory that included such various climates for so long is more than sufficient rebuttal for this. Fact that “Britain isn’t cold as Ukraine or Russia” is irrelevant. You do know that Balkans is not cold as Russia and Ukraine either but that doesn’t negate the fact that it could be -20 or less. “Stop” in their conquests is more matter of logistics.
How is “Mongol army organization on the same level as Roman”!? Starting from cohesion?
And finally, on the top of this is your theory of light cavalry/mounted archers vs. heavy west European style cavalry. You have forgotten that our knights fought against both mounted archers and heavy cavalry in the Battle of Angora?
__________________
For King and Fatherland ~ Freedom or Death
|