What made the Mongols so good?

RE: Japan

It's worth noting that the Mongols didn't bother trying to conquer Japan for a good reason... it was over a frikkin' sea!

It wasn't until many years after Genghis Khan that one of his sons (or grandsons?) decided to try and conquer Japan, towards the end of the Mongol era.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

sword-dancer said:
the only Problem is, thart this bow is far better than the normal longbow.
But the longbow was better in Range and penetration than the composit horse bow.

If you think that (which it's not according to the stats someone gave above) make it a comp shortbow.
 


Sanguinemetaldawn said:
Hmm.
I really have to completely disagree with this.

The simple advent of the gunpowder empires would render the tactics of the Mongols obsolete. Especially the ability of the Seljuk Turk armies to move while firing (one rank fires, the rank behind reloads, the rank behind moves forward to take firing position, etc.)

Then of course there is 19th Century Prusso-German military, which the United States military was modelled on.

Really? That's great to know. I was wondering why the field marshall was having all the men in my local draft militia march and fire in large scale formation today.

I am sure Mongolian warfare is taught in war colleges today, but there is something to be learned from every battle throughout history, and recounts of Mongol battles don't strike me as particularly noteworthy.

I'd also be interested in what this "whole corps of nigh on revolutionary thinkers" actually thought of. To my knowledge, the Mongols contributed basically nothing. They passed over whole cultures and left little in their wake except animosity and resentment.

Well, your knowledge certainly is at the crux of this disagreement. What precisely have you read on Mongol battles? I can't account for your idea of noteworthy without a larger discussion of your tastes. Mostly I'm just impressed that you don't find the phenomenal success of what was essentially a Mongol exploratory expedition into Eastern Europe perfectly astonishing. Perhaps picking a particular Mongol campaign to analyze might provide a means of both elucidating the strengths of the Mongols in combat and illustrating any number of prior points on this board?

The Mongols were actually very good at preserving the domains they conquered, the disruption comes primarilly from the various episodes of reconquest. It is not the Mongols, for instance, who really spelled the doom of the Sufis so much as the Mamelukes who replaced them.

The lack of direct influence by the Mongols on the nature of warfare in the modern period is precisely why I think we've taken so long to catch up to them. If the European powers had been able to combine field artillery with Mongol principles of mobility and battlefield control the horrors of WWI ideas of tactics might have been countermanded.

A point by point breakdown of a Mongol campaign would be extremely helpful for this, but look at the tactics, organization, and strategy of a WWII army and ask yourself which they resemble more the Mongols or the Romans?

Much of the excellence of the Mongols is only now being felt as we begin the process of recovering their legacy and discovering the nature of world systems in general, but that doesn't make it any less revolutionary or incredible.

You've got some good points, but you're placing far too high a level of importance on legacy without considering the quality of the actual situations and technologies of the time. History is as much about calamity and recovery as it is any sort of gradual progression.
 

Just a nitpick at SHARK's post: The Vikings were gone in the late 13th century. By that time Scandinavia had been Christian for about 300 years. There were pirates in the Baltic Sea that attacked Sweden and those pirates had some attributes in common with Viking but AFAIK they aren't called Vikings.

The Mongols conquered Russia and held it for a century. It took them two years to conquer it and they attacked during the winter due to logistical reasons (frozen rivers). The Russians built great walls and had big problems with the Mongols until Ivan the Terrible made an army that defeated them in the field (I think in the 15th century).

In the Krim-peninsula the Mongols held power until the 18th (or 19th, I can't quite remember) century (the Krim-khan).

---

I think their great expansion was due to weak enemies, a superbly trained army and the fact that they didn't try to change cultures as they took cities. When you can chose between lower taxes and total annihalation it is an easy choice.

The Europeans were really weak at the time, the Arabs had been hamstrung by the crusades and China was in decline. It was the perfect opportunity for warriors such as the Mongols to rise.
 

SHARK said:
Greetings!


The Huns were responsible for driving the Goths and Visigoths into the Roman Empire, as well as other tribes. Keep in mind that the Visigoths were the *Eastern* Goths, which differed to some degree in customs from their cousins, the Goths.
Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I hate to disagree with you, Shark, but the two branches of the Goths were the Visigoths, who took over the western and southwestern portions of the Roman Empire, and the Ostrogoths, who took over the eastern portions.

I think the Visigoths ended up in Spain and North Africa, while the Ostrogoths took over Italy.
 

med stud said:
Just a nitpick at SHARK's post: The Vikings were gone in the late 13th century. By that time Scandinavia had been Christian for about 300 years. There were pirates in the Baltic Sea that attacked Sweden and those pirates had some attributes in common with Viking but AFAIK they aren't called Vikings.

The Mongols conquered Russia and held it for a century. It took them two years to conquer it and they attacked during the winter due to logistical reasons (frozen rivers). The Russians built great walls and had big problems with the Mongols until Ivan the Terrible made an army that defeated them in the field (I think in the 15th century).

The Muscovite Empire (based on Moscow) was founded by a Viking tribe called the Rus, I believe. Perhaps that's the Vikings SHARK is talking about? And by this time, they were Greek (or maybe Russian?) Orthodox, no longer pagan.

But they were still descendants of the Vikings.

Oh, and the Vikings went there because they were trading with and mercenaries of Byzantium. Apparently, on their way there, they decided to conquer themselves a little kingdom.

Edit: They're different than the other Russians, the ones based around Kiev. I believe the Muscovites got wiped out, while the Ukrainians became vassals for centuries.
 

johnsemlak said:
When did the Europeans defeat them?

Never, actually.

The closest thing to a European victory was the Battle of Leignitz (April 9, 1241 AD), where the Mongols didn't pursue; some have interpreted that as evidence the Mongols were so roughly handled they couldn't. However, given that the European forces were the ones retreating, and that the Mongols had achieved their objectives, it really wasn't. The Battle of the Sayo River (April 11th, but a different body) was an encirclement of the Hungarian forces, who were pretty much wiped out.

The real reason the Mongols never came back to Europe was the death of Ogatai halted operations; the Mongol army returned to Mongolia to elect a new leader. That took four years, and they never made a serious effort to come back to Europe afterwards.

And the temptation to say "A brave Rasalhagian figher pilot" was simply overwhelming.

Brad
 


Heretic Apostate said:
The two stories don't mesh well. The Mongol leader wasn't killed by the actions of a defender.

Tyra Miraborg, right?

I believe that was the name. My Clan Wolf sourcebook managed to disappear sometime about 5-7 years ago, though.

For those not in the know, the Clan Invasion storyline from Battletech resembled the Mongol invasions of Europe and China. Of course, it diverged pretty quickly (the Mongols not being former Romans, and the Church armies not beating the snot out of the Mongols). The aforementioned pilot wound up accidentally killing the ilKhan of the Clans while covering the retreat of a Rasalhagian government ship that had misjumped into Clan-held territory. (Accidentally, because it's not like she knew he was going to be killed when she rammed the Clan warship...)

Brad
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top