Here's the great part about number 4. They do not train these soldiers in Mongolian cavalry tactics, but let the soldiers fight as they usually would. This added diversity and many strongpoints to the army.
Damien wrote:Not to devalue their capabilities. They were excellent tacticians and warriors. And they won some superb and impressive victories in their time. However, those are facts that apply equally to groups as varied as the Assyrians to the Western Europeans.
(1)= A generic term for Mongols, Turks, and anyone else living on the steppe and taking part in empire building.
The Nomad rider was the highest trained, most effective horsemen in the ancient and medieval worlds.
ragnarok wrote:(1)= A generic term for Mongols, Turks, and anyone else living on the steppe and taking part in empire building.
Do you mean Ghingis Khan's empire, Tamerlan's empire or the Mamay's tribal union known as the Golden Horde? And I think under the term Turk you don't include Seldjuk (not sure about the English spelling) Turks and later the Ottoman Turks which quite differ in comparison to the Turkish peoples from the former USSR? The Ottomans in fact were crushed by the Mongols during the reign of one of their great early rulers Bayazid Ildarum (the Lightning).
BTW, Are there active cavalry regiments in your countries and what they do? Ours were finally discharged somewhere in the 1950s.
ragnarok wrote:BTW, Are there active cavalry regiments in your countries and what they do? Ours were finally discharged somewhere in the 1950s.
I suppose there might still be some for purely ceremonial purposes. In some US cities there are mounted police, and elements of the Park Rangers use horses in wilderness areas.
and used the gladius-type broadswords which cannot be used for slashing
think you devalue the Steppe Nomads(1) a little bit.
Western Europeans didn't match Nomad tactical superiority until the advent of cannon and didn't become the preeminent power in the world until the development of breech loading rifles.
Damien wrote:think you devalue the Steppe Nomads(1) a little bit.
Not to be argumentative. . . but I prefer to think that I just see the value and merits of all different types of warriors. The Steppe nomads were impressive. I don't attempt to claim otherwise. But, like any group, they had their area of expertise.
I also think comments like this:Western Europeans didn't match Nomad tactical superiority until the advent of cannon and didn't become the preeminent power in the world until the development of breech loading rifles.
Anyway, don't mean to ramble. Just suffice to say that it wasn't my intention to denigrate the Steppe peoples, but I also don't think one should denigrate the Western Europeans just because they largely fought other Western Europeans.
The nomads have been defeated at times because they were out-witted, out-matched, or out-tacticed (if thats a word). But, on a whole, nomad tactics, which emphasized mobility and adaptability, combined with their training and horsemanship, made them typically better than sedentary land forces.
you are supposing why I am denigrating West Europeans. And unfairly, too. I denigrate West Europeans because I think, given warfare on a plain, that nomads would destroy them (and did, during the shortlived invasion).
out-tacticed (if thats a word).
But, on a whole, nomad tactics, which emphasized mobility and adaptability, combined with their training and horsemanship, made them typically better than sedentary land forces.
As far as being a world power - I'd define it as playing a political/military role outside one's own region. And West Europe definately did that, especially after the advances in sailing and gunpowder. But fighting amongst themselves does not make into advancing power outside your region. It also doesn't help the rating on culture or science. During most of the middle ages, it was the Middle East or China who led in military might, cultural, and scientific achievements.
Don't think I hate European medieval history or that Europeans were all backwards.
Damien wrote:It's unfair to denigrate a culture based on the fact that they would lose a battle in which the odds are against them. Not to mention the fact that you're basing your denigration on unprovable supposition.[.quote]
Careful, I am not denigrating a culture, but instead, a cultural military. But, the Mongols decisively defeated the Russians, Polish, Teutonic Knights, and the Hungarians. I don't think it is a giant assumption to say that they'd defeat the French and English too. The only reason why they didn't was internal Mongolian politics.
This also ignores earlier steppe nomads who invaded Europe - like the Huns, Avars, and Hungarians. All of whom had stunning successes against sedentary armies.I disagree. It makes them different. Besides, Western Europeans also practiced 'adaptability.' Most military organizations did. That's why a huge portion of Europe made lasting use of mercenaries from other areas - to maintain a tactical edge via adaptable armies.
I'm not sure the assumption that mercenary=adaptable is sound. Mercenaries can be just as rigid as non-mercenaries, it depends on their individual tactics, strategy, etc.Who was the -better- army is a matter of bias and not fact. You being biased in favour of the Mongolians and Steppe peoples does not factually make them a better force (I mean no offense by the word bias here).
It is certainly not a factual issue, since the Mongols never bothered invading western europe, but it isn't 100% bias either. The Mongols were able to defeat a wide variety of powerful militaries, and the Europeans they did fight, the Mongols defeated them decisively. It isn't a huge leap to say that the Mongols could have beaten the Western Europeans. And it isn't an insult to the Europeans either.
By the time the Mongols had reached the west, they had conquered the Abbassids and Song China, as well as every nomadic kingdom inbetween. They had heavy cavalry, seige engines, trebuchets, and were very experienced in large scale invasions. They had a modern style system of organization and military planning and the speed of their attacks were not matched until the German Blitzkrieg in 1939. Without an actual battle fought, I'd have to say the Mongols would have won easily.I'm confused by this. First you state that the Western Europeans "definitely did that" in reference to being a world power - and then the rest of the paragraph seems to imply a different viewpoint? Again - not trying to be negative, I just honestly am confused by this paragraph.
It isn't whether Europe is a world power or not, but when it was. By your own admission, Europe in the medieval period was mired in internal conflicts. The Seljuqs (a nomadic empire) were a serious threat in the south east, and the Almoravids were a serious threat in the south west (Spain).I also seriously disagree with China being any kind of world power in the Medieval period. China had more internal conflict than Van Halen, and never really maintained any kind of anything outside of their own area.
Song China played an important role in Mongolia and Turkestan in an effort to control the nomad threat. They recieved tribute from Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Tibet, and other smaller kingdoms. To say the Song China was less of a world power than England or France is illadvised, at best.Don't think I hate European medieval history or that Europeans were all backwards.
I don't. I do think, however, that you don't fully appreciate them. I assume that's just because it isn't your primary area of interest. That's fully understandable.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest