Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5080905" data-attributes="member: 5834">We have both studied. But a major reason the Mongol Horde had success was their numbers. It is a documented fact.Yes they were good warriors. Better than say the best Chinese or European? Arguable, very arguable. Especially if you took a Mongol warrior one on one.There's a reason Genghis Khan united Mongolia before going on his empire building spree. One or two Mongol tribes weren't going to conquer China, Russia, and Europe. China had fight Mongols before successfully.Ultimately, Genghis amassed a huge army of trained soldiers and went on a conquering spree. When an army the size of the Mongol army showed up on your doorstep, you had better be ready or bow down. That is why so many bowed down without a fight once they learned Genghis knew how to bring a city down.China and Europe both believed their city walls would stand against the Mongol Horde without a problem. Little did they realize the Mongols had learned how to take down cities. And a city that wasn't prepared for a sieged was going to be destroyed.And the Mongol army often had a numbers advantage on top of a mobility advantage against the places they attacked in Europe and China. One thing about the feudal system and the like is that it did not encourage large standing armies. It encourage a loose federation of individual armies that worked through various agents such as dukes, knights, and the like. And there were also various mercenary units such as the Swiss Pikeman that took time to gather and pay. Thus slowing down the gathering of an army in Europe.Whereas Genghis Kahn and his descendants had their army gathered and ready when they showed up on the doorstep. It was a bit too late then to put out the call to conscript the peasants and get all your knights and mercenaries gathered.Even during the Crusades, those armies were mostly made up of gathered knights, mercenaries, and peasants loosely tied together by a cause. Even then there was massive infighting.But the Mongols were unified. They were one large army that had been working together to conquer for ages, much like Rome. I would have loved to see the organized armies of Rome during their peak go up against the Mongol Horde during its peak. That would be very interesting.Just to add, mounted archers were nothing new when the Mongol Horde came. They existed ages back and are well-documented during Rome's conquests. No need for a heavy argument. People are going to do what they want in D&D. Some will throw guns in for a little added fun. And I'd go with them if a world builder did a good job integrating them into the campaign world rather than them being an afterthought as they usually are. Otherwise, I don't like guns. Just like at one time I couldn't stand monks in campaigns based in Western civilization. Having a Eastern style martial artist as a primary class in a standard Medieval type campaign I found annoying. I've learned to live with that. So if someone does guns up right, I'll learn to live with them. Otherwise, I'll keep them out of my campaign unless I want to do them up properly.</blockquote>

Verification