View Poll Results: Samurai vs Medieval Knight

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Samurai

    20 62.50%
  • Medieval Knight

    12 37.50%
Page 44 of 49 FirstFirst ... 353637383940414243444546474849 LastLast
Results 646 to 660 of 728

Thread: Samurai against knight

  1. #646
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    subodai was co-ordinating transnational strategy - no country commander had ever done that before, so the dynamics of the battleplanning was literally hundreds of years before any other commander achieved the same thing - the mongols were communicating battle changes far faster than anyone else had done before. their signalling and comms was the the mil equivalent of the pony express

    2 days in contemp terms seems trivial - but even then messages went from the battlefield to home in months. tactically they were light years ahead of anyone else - it was a paradigmm shift. and Legnica was always meant to distract and bleed enemy forces so that the battle around Mohi was in as good as a position as possible

    managing transnational armies hundreds of kms from each other to deliberately trigger an effect for the larger battle is not insignificant by any means as it goes towards the issue of tactical mindset and battle planning

    bear in mind that the third army was prepared to be the sacrificial cow in the broader endgame

    we'll just have to agree to have differing views on the chicken or the military egg conundrum
    We are not in a disagreement, I was just looking at the bigger battle since that was the original question.

    The game was set long before Legnica, which IMV was a side show. If this is where we split views, I am happy to disagree
    Last edited by Doktor; 31 Jul 16, at 17:44. Reason: Bloody autocorrect and thicky fingers
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  2. #647
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    The original point was that the Mongols never met a first rate knight army. The Mongols smashed through modern day Russia, Ukraines, Georgia well enough.
    Chimo

  3. #648
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    plus a number of other small details here

    prev, knights were the kings of the battlefield (before being displaced by more accurate canon and barrel, canon shell developments) - and typically it had been about blunt force dealing with blunt force

    the mongols were an army based on manouvre/speed warfare long before any other country recognised it as a fighting tool that could be employed as day to day doctrine.

    the mongols demonstrated at legnica a clear strategy in dealing with knights and heavies as they were not feared to the point where prev some countries exhibited tactical and strategic paralysis

    sure knights had been suckered and often by accident (lured into swamps, forests where their own manouvre was compromised) but Legnica was a visceral display of delaminating their enemy in a controlled and planned combination of tactics, feint, fight, feigned flight, deception, kill box, envelopment etc....

    IMO its the first clear demonstration of deliberate tactical preplanned intent rather than defeat of knights by tactical opportunity and not by blunt force heavy against heavy etc....

    legnica and mohi also reinforced that the mongols were "everywhere" as they had a deliberate two front engagement plan, hundreds of km's separating the force de main and the third army

    instead of prev behaviour of castle hopping, or country hopping as prev practiced, the mongols attacked on a broad front meaning that smaller towns and provinces were loathe to send of troops to fight elsewhere in case they were exposed. often or not they folded before fighting

    its not the first time that knights are destroyed en masse but its the first time there is a converging of tactical and strategic paradigm shifting fighting philosophies co-ordinating multiple armies across multiple kingdoms and with a set piece strategic outcome in mind
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 31 Jul 16, at 22:51.

  4. #649
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,965
    sort of strange in that there were also plenty of times where the Mongols were beat pretty bad, even during the peak of their strength.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  5. #650
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    sort of strange in that there were also plenty of times where the Mongols were beat pretty bad, even during the peak of their strength.
    yep, but that's also consistent with history for other tier one armies. some days are a "WTF happened today?"' day...


    edit:

    (I think every superpower has had battleplans that derailed at an unfortunate point in time and where expectation management required a bit of a visit, lessons learnt applied, commanders replaced, planners revisit their assumptions and or troops are given extra training in a prosecution capability that was either deficient and/or poorly executed.)

    some days are just bad ones
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 01 Aug 16, at 02:42.

  6. #651
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,465
    In fairness to the European 'knight' who forms half of the topic under discussion the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century came at a time when Europe lacked any political structure capable of matching what was (by the standard of the day) the most superbly organized army in the world. Europe simply lacked any centralized national/imperial power capable of raising and organizing a force of knights and men-at-arms matching the Mongol invasion force in size. Certainly no kingdom in Europe at the time in question had 300,000 plus soldiers at it's disposal, let alone 300,000 expert horsemen. Not under the kind of highly centralized military authority the Mongols possessed.

    As a result every Western Army they encountered was a hodgepodge of vassal lords and hastily arranged alliances between former enemies each of whom jealously guarded their own military prerogatives. In a modern context it would be kind of like expecting the Western European democracies to defeat a Soviet invasion in the 80's without the US or NATO as an origination. On paper they might have been able to raise the numbers and equipment necessary to do the job (perhaps) but they simply wouldn't be able to co-ordinate well enough to do the job.

    I know it's been argued in another thread but what was needed at the time was an Imperial power like ancient Rome which was capable of massing and organizing large numbers of mounted knights and other supporting elements under one central authority - then the fight might have gone another way. After all when the Mongols did encounter large imperial powers capable of mustering and organizing armies on an equivalent scale (the Imperial Jin and Song) the ensuing campaigns were no walkover - both empires bled the Mongols before they finally won their victories.
    Last edited by Monash; 09 Aug 16, at 15:03.

  7. #652
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    In fairness to the European 'knight' who forms half of the topic under discussion the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century came at a time when Europe lacked any political structure capable of matching what was (by the standard of the day) the most superbly organized army in the world.
    The other half of this topic is the Samurai who were exactly what you just described and they've also got clobbered by the Mongols.

    I raised the Mongol horseman, not to as much as to trump their military superiority but to shut this argument down. The knight and samurai were not the end-all, be-all of middle age warfare. The Mongol horseman was.
    Chimo

  8. #653
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I raised the Mongol horseman, not to as much as to trump their military superiority but to shut this argument down. The knight and samurai were not the end-all, be-all of middle age warfare. The Mongol horseman was.
    I don't think it was the Mongol mounted archer per se that was the issue so much as their superb organization and scale of operation. Mounted archery as a style of warfare could be and was defeated/countered on numerous occasions by armies deploying a combination of different weapons, troop types and tactics. But again this took planning and organization - exactly what the Mongols had.
    Last edited by Monash; 10 Aug 16, at 01:39.

  9. #654
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    I don't think it was the Mongol mounted archer per se
    My point was that samurai ninja skills meant squat all!
    Chimo

  10. #655
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    My point was that samurai ninja skills meant squat all!
    True. If the 'Divine Wind' hadn't arrived on cue everyone in Japan would be speaking Mandarin today.

  11. #656
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Mongolian.
    Chimo

  12. #657
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,465
    I may well be wrong but I think by the time the attempted invasions started the Mongol ruling class of China had more or less been completely assimilated by the dominant (is it Han?) culture of northern China. Kublai Khan may have been linearly Mongol but the culture and language of his court was Chinese as were the bulk of his armies.

  13. #658
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    The official language is Mongolian since there's no one Chinese language. Some Yuan emperors learned Mandarin. Others didn't and Cantonese was the language of Southern China.
    Chimo

  14. #659
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    The language would still be Japanese... The Mongols though late to ancient empire game were the stereotype for invaders turned local in language, cultural and religion. Rome turned barbarians into Romans, barbarians turned mongols into locals.

    Monash, IIRC, we had a thread Mongols vs Rome and I argued Rome's absolute command of the sea and road network would let them move legions and supplies in a way the Mongols simply could not counter. They could take the interior of the empire and dominate any coastal region where they were but could not take the big ports and risked being bottled up and trapped in any key area of the empire they invaded like the Levant, Italy, Spain, Greece or Dacia.

    It was Rome's strategic mobility and supply lines that would prove the edge. Any other empire not having a giant mongol proof lake in the middle of it would be subject to the horse archers of doom. Though had the Mongols invaded a `100 years later and penetrated deeper into Central/Western Europe or had they gone to the Levant the massive crusader style castles would have stumped them.

  15. #660
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    A few thoughts. Rome never enjoyed the communications advantage of the Mongols. Thus, Rome never planned a multi-battle campaign where no one single battle could affect the outcome, Genghis fought a 100 mile campaign, luring his enemies into a trap over a 10 day period, That kind of thinking was absent during Roman height.

    Hell, the Mongols were the first who thought a battle can last more than a day. That alone gave them a leg up on the Romans.
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ninjas & Knights
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08 Jan 09,, 13:40
  2. Last Samurai gun question
    By Beaugeste93 in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11 Jul 05,, 00:16

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •