Mongols. - Page 2




 
--
 
October 10th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Despite some minor setbacks and losses, the best army that Europe could muster was almost completely slaughtered at Liegnitz. Europe was wide open and had virtually no chance of stopping Batu's armies. They were far too clever and Europeans were far too predictable. Had they continued, it is true, they would have left religion intact. Numerous Mongols had been Nestorian Christian all their life and the Mongols were not about to change Christendom's beliefs.

When they left suddenly, it was so unexpected that it lead Europeans to invent some very fanciful nonsense. "God saved them from the monster hoards." "The Mongol armies actually vanished by the grace of God." There is even some speculation that the Mongols lost because of a couple battles the Europeans had won. Lots of theories but nobody had any idea what REALLY happened.
Subotai the Valiant who was the principal architect of those battles is one of my favourite generals of all time and someone who is largely unknown to most people. We're talking about a man whose achievements in battle make him the equal of Julius Cesear, Napoelon or Alexander.

We really did get VERY lucky back in 1242. I wouldn't be here today had the great Khan not fallen off his horse and died unexpectantly.
October 10th, 2004  
IrishWizard
 
Great info guys. Ive always found the Mongols fascinating. Nothing for me to really repeat cause you guys covered it all but what I found so fascinating was when the Mongols would attack a city. Every time they would tell the leader of that city that he could either join the Mongol army or die. And whoever didnt would be killed. I remember learning in class about him having a city of 300,000 slaughtered. Thats crazy. But they were a very powerful army and if Genghis Khan had not died, all of the eastern world may of been speaking mongolian =/
October 10th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Ogedai Khan actually
--
October 10th, 2004  
Airborne
 
Western Europe never had large calvary forces for a reason.... forests make poor grazing grounds. Unless the mongols would want to adopt a mixed invantry/calvary force in Western Europe, they wouldn't of lasted very long pass the pillaging stage.... much less reach England. The Sinai would of stopped them in thier tracks as well; I think this would of been the maximum limits for their empire due to the technological restraints... not to say they wouldn't of adapted later on.
October 10th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The Mongol homeland contained every terain except two things: Ocean and Jungle. It just so happens that thoses are the only two terrain types that every gave them any serious problems. In truth, they were quite adapted to dense forests as a very large number of them came from the Siberian forests. I don't know of a case where forests, desert, mountain or plain ever really slowed them down much. England may have found its salvation the same way Japan did: the Ocean. They were masters of all terrain types (except the two mentioned), and made better use of it than their opponent in almost all instances.
October 10th, 2004  
Airborne
 
Then why were the steppe people's like the magyars mostly restricted to plain areas of Europe? Why didn't a normadic lifestyle like that of the steppe devolope in Europe? Western Europe of the time period simple could not sustain a long term mongol occupation of any notible size.
October 10th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
My point was that there was not much in the way of terrain that was going to stop them. They knew better how to use the terrain to their benefit in wars. Their culture thrived on plains and steppes of course.
October 10th, 2004  
Airborne
 
No, not so much. Their steangth depended on from my understanding on pre-set tactics devoloped in thier homeland, their understanding of strategy proper and engeneering appears to be largely primitive; it was tiher management capability which catipulted them to the top.
October 11th, 2004  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Hmmm


Wouldn't the European side be primitive at that time as well? I guess Mongols' primitive is a bit more advance than the European primitive? But still Primitive, no?
October 11th, 2004  
Airborne
 
no, the technology and tactics of the period were advance... despite what some historians like to tell people. Just the mongols used a better command structure reinforced bycomplimentry tactics that exposed the western weakness. You ever hear of Thracian Tactics?