Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Samurai against knight
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostInterior. Mongol communications was effective outside of Mongol territory.
Roman Empire (sans Byzantine),ceized 7 centuries before Mongols. Why do we compare the two?Last edited by Doktor; 13 Aug 16,, 22:13.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostInterior. Mongol communications was effective outside of Mongol territory.
The mongols big advantages were mobility way from the coast, archery and and the stirrup. Rome had strategic mobility via the navy, fortified cities, near industrial levels of economic output and the attendant superior logistics. Neither really held an advantage over the other in terms of communication, professionalism or intelligence gathering.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostHave Romans expanded so fast so far away?
Roman Empire (sans Byzantine),ceized 7 centuries before Mongols. Why do we compare the two?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostHave Romans expanded so fast so far away?
Roman Empire (sans Byzantine),ceized 7 centuries before Mongols. Why do we compare the two?
IMO this is a function of the nature of their growth. Alexanders empire also grew much more rapidly than other Empires of the era but it didn't outlast his death. The lesson seems to be that conquering a region or peoples is easy, uniting disparate groups together under one banner requires long term planning and commitment, doing things like co-opting prominent locals into your political system, implementing a centralized bureaucracy, legal system and coinage etc and .... time. Locals need to see the benefits to be gained from being part of a greater whole - if that doesn't happen they don't buy in.
From my limited reading the Mongol empire was basically a continental sized protection racket. An army appears on the horizon, threatens to loot, pillage and burn everything in sight if the local leaders don't submit and then rides away, threatening to return if the locals fail to remain 'loyal' or don't deliver regular tribute in the form demanded. As a system for extracting wealth it works well and certainly it required little or no investment by the Mongols in the conquered states but it also means the their subjects had 'zero' commitment to their rulers.
As for communication lines, while I agree that the Mongol armies had for its time a highly efficient communication system it still wasn't up to the task at hand. Europe was simply to far away from the Mongols political center of power to keep large Mongol armies in the West while maintaining 'control' from home. Every time a Mongol army invaded the West it was political considerations/emergencies at home which forced their retreat not local military reversals. From their perspective the longer the Generals in charge In Europe were away the longer they were out of the loop politically and logistically. By the same token the further they were away from the Khan and high officials at home the less authority those officials had over the commanders of their western hordes - and those armies were a large chunk of their available manpower, enough to make any royal family member a bit nervous about leaving them so far away for so long.
Assuming for example that a more independently minded general had ever lead one of the invasions we might well have seen the establishment (however briefly) of an independent Khanate in Eastern Europe. So I think technology puts a finite size on the area any one political power can directly control - unless that control grows 'organically' over time.Last edited by Monash; 14 Aug 16,, 02:52.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
e 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.
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.
The Romans fought related peoples, losing some, winning some. Had the Huns arrived a 200 years earlier they likely would have been smashed. Rome was very good at finding out what worked and copying it. hence why an infantry army that conquered the western world converted to a primarily mounted force by the 4th century when it went on to the defensive.
. hence why an infantry army that conquered the western world converted to a primarily mounted force by the 4th century when it went on to the defensive.Last edited by troung; 14 Aug 16,, 05:29.To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Comment
-
Originally posted by Monash View PostI 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.
Ref: Mounted archer tactics, yes the tactics were not new, but I don't think predecessors of the Mongolian armies practiced mobile warfare with comparable frontage, depth or numbers. Also the Mongolians made excellent use of siege technology that they captured.Last edited by Triple C; 14 Aug 16,, 14:09.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by troung View PostThree of the states became Turkic, like the bulk of their troops not like the settled public, and the descendants of the Yuan ravaged Northern China, while speaking Mongolian.
[/quote]They took bigger Chinese cities.[/quote]
They never took a crusader castle. With a few notable exceptions, city walls never really rivaled castles.
The same could be said of the Chinese, fat lot of good that did...
And dropped the javelin and short sword.
Comment
-
They never took a crusader castle. With a few notable exceptions, city walls never really rivaled castles.
Where is Mongolian used outside of Mongolia? Latin remains the root language of many European languages and the language of law, science and medicine. Roman ideas of government live on. Hell the last person to claim the title Caesar hasn't even been dead 100 years.
China never really put up a unified face to the Mongols and relied on a much less well developed road/ river network and it still took the Mongols generations to subdue China.
The Ming failed to deal the death blow to the Mongol Khanates under the Ming, got raided heavily (who were after protection money not conquest), had an emperor taken prisoner (at the head of a field army in the six figures), and ended up getting swept from history by the Qing (peasant rebel in the north turned the final knife but the Qing finished off the Southern Ming and had been pummeling them for years), who relied heavily on their Mongol allies and themselves used a similar style of cavalry. China, even when "unified", in fact had centuries of getting pummeled by people who rode horses and shot arrows; all while having advanced science, a well organized form of government, a huge military, often huge cavalry, walls, and rivers. Despite all the advancements of China, they ended up more often than not paying bribes and/or catching a beating.
Rome did not look so hot when they fought the Huns, and took plenty of losses when fighting the Parthians and Sassanian, both of whom had far less men than the Mongols. The Seljuks, with fewer men than the Mongols could muster, smashed the Byzantines.
Mounted archery is not the be all and end all; but Turks, Mongols, Turko-Mongolians, Jurchens and the like racked up huge wins in East Asia, South Asia, South West Asia, and Europe. The style of warfare was adopted by sedentary states which came into contact with them. Rome fought Celts and Germans, went back and forth with Persia, got besmirched by the Huns, and was snuffed out by the Germans; and is famous for a style of combat it dropped when they came up against non-Greek, organized opposition, and which was not picked up by another state.
====
Boxing math would suggest the Mamluks would beat the Samurai.Last edited by troung; 15 Aug 16,, 06:09.To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostBut the Mamlukes did, using the same technologies the Mongols used against Chinese cities.
The Mongols of Subudai tried to take castles in Poland,Bohemia and Hungary in 1241 and failed.They tried again in 1280,harder and they failed badly.On return they got trounced.The difference between the 2 was a 20 years program of stone castle building.Before,only a few were stone.Most were earth and wood.Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36
Comment
-
Originally posted by troung View PostRome did not look so hot when they fought the Huns, and took plenty of losses when fighting the Parthians and Sassanian, both of whom had far less men than the Mongols. The Seljuks, with fewer men than the Mongols could muster, smashed the Byzantines.
Mounted archery is not the be all and end all; but Turks, Mongols, Turko-Mongolians, Jurchens and the like racked up huge wins in East Asia, South Asia, South West Asia, and Europe. The style of warfare was adopted by sedentary states which came into contact with them. Rome fought Celts and Germans, went back and forth with Persia, got besmirched by the Huns, and was snuffed out by the Germans; and is famous for a style of combat it dropped when they came up against non-Greek, organized opposition, and which was not picked up by another state.
Its a bit like arguing that because the German Army lost the Battle of the Bulge they weren't in the same class as Allied Armies,and therefore obviously lacking the arms, tactics and leadership needed to win battles against them. I.e. pick a weak point in a specific empire or nations history and then base your assessment on that point alone. It would be more accurate to either average out the performance of both opponents over the lengths of their histories for a comparison or else simply pick both sides when they were at their strongest.Last edited by Monash; 15 Aug 16,, 10:31.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
Hmm,the Romans and Visigoths defeated the Huns in open battle.
The next year the Huns managed to take Aquilea,then retreated after losing to elements of nature.
The Byzantines did not lost Asia Minor due to Turks,but to inane civil war after Manzikert.The Kutrigurs,Uzes,Pechenegs,Cumans and Hungarians came ,tried and died.Last edited by Mihais; 15 Aug 16,, 11:29.Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36
Comment
-
What evidence suggests siegecraft was less advanced in the Chinese Jin and Song dynasties? They build stone walls around cities and used siege guns. Both had vast bureaucratic structures that could recruit huge armies. I assume this put them at at equal footing Europeans in the very least, if not suggesting a certain superiority in technique.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
Comment