Which culture circle possessed the greatest military power?

Which culture circle possessed the greatest military power during the Middle Ages?

  • Total voters
    23
D

dsj

Banned
Which culture circle possessed the greatest military power during the middle ages? I think it was the europeans.
 
aussiejohn said:
The Mongols were absolutely amazing. Western Europeans were pretty lucky they stopped when they did.
Click to expand...
I think that they were actually stopped by the europeans due to logistics and defeats. They suffered heavy losses at Grobnok and their army was exausted with a extremelong deployment range. The death of the khan triggered it but they would probably soon retreat after a bit if he didn't die. The european army was not weaker than the mongol army.
 
I believe that the main reason they stopped when they did was because Khan died, and most officers and Generals returned home.
 
Spartan said:
I believe that the main reason they stopped when they did was because Khan died, and most officers and Generals returned home.
Click to expand...
I believe that is a wrong aphorism. The mongols were at the end of their flooding wave and have been weakened by the end of their conquest. They were lucky to own so much land because china alone was more powerful than them. They have risen at the right time when the song dynasty was so deprived and corrupt. Europeans were more democratical than the chinese. Is in their history that their fuondations and doctorines are hore democratical than the chinese and asians. The chinese ideal was to have serious echelons and every one is below the king and the emperor to own them although there are some sayings that says differently. So since that europe was not as corrupt and they are at least as strong as china, korea and japan togther, they should be able to hold back the mongols. Their army which I believe and have reasons for, are not worse than the mongol's most eliete which were the ones sent to europe. They sufferred heavy losses and their army was extremely exausted and they can't afford many losses but the europeans can. The europeans had every advantage against them. The europeans were just unused to the mongol tactic at Sajo which is the old asian faint retreat. Tactics changes through the ages through human advancement and they do expire when the enemy adapts to gain advantage.
 
I will have to read some more about this topic. There must have lots of complex reasons as to why they didn't swallow up most of Europe. The death of Khan would have been the most dramatic one.
 
Most of the sources are inaccurate and exaggerated. The mongols were not as good. They were defeated many times. They lost too many troops and were too tired.
 
If you just take in what books like the devil's horsemen says it is very biased and favours the mongols. It barely mentioned defeats like grobnok,Kladsko,monastery of St. Martin of Pammonia and other mongol defeats. all it says is europe was devasted, feeble, pathetic. evem I'm a better source if you want to ask about the invasion. The mongols suffered heavy losses in seiges and even in the battles it had won. The mongols lost serious battles and are depleted of their strength. They knew that they couldn't go on no more and the death of the khan finally blew thier interest.
 
i believe this might settle the question of why the mongols left europe: it was their law and its enforcment to the death of the Khan.

As it developed, the Mongols did not remain long in Hungary, either. On December 11, 1241, Ogadei died in Asia. Upon learning of the great khan's death, Subotai reminded the three princes in his army of the law of succession as laid down by Genghis Khan: "After the death of the ruler all offspring of the house of Genghis Khan, wherever they might be, must return to Mongolia to take part in the election of the new khakan." Recalling all their forces, the Mongols started back to their Mongolian capital of Karakorum, postponing their invasion of central Europe for another time--a time that would never come.

the condensed version of the mongol invasion can be read here at this link for those interested.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/bl1mongolinvasion.htm

:D
 
so post your link. post your support for your opinion.

i guess the generals were disobediant to their commanders. ok. seems fair. i posted mine

:D
 
I can't really name one for you. It's from various books and I forgot their name. The mongolians bust be idiots to go back for tradition and give up their conquest. it's like being supersticious. The mongols were losing and that's the reason they give up.
 
Actually that's not true about the mongols, they were a very smart traditional people. Kahn was on his way back to china to go to war with southern china when he died. The mongols did lose battles of course, but so does every major army. I believe that the Mongols could have conquered more of europe if they really wanted to. However the fact of the matter was that Kahn had already controlled a vast empire, and it was nearly impossible to keep control over so much land without breaking up. Even after the death of kahn his sons and generals broke up his empire and controlled different sections. The kahns weren't also as greedy as the europeans, and they really did not want so much more land.
 
dsj said:
I can't really name one for you. It's from various books and I forgot their name. The mongolians bust be idiots to go back for tradition and give up their conquest. it's like being supersticious. The mongols were losing and that's the reason they give up.
Click to expand...


I really must reply (again, since the post I made before is gone). The fact of the matter is that there WAS NO TRADITION compelling the Mongols to head back, it was something MUCH BIGGER. The fact of the matter was this: The currently Great Khan, Ogedai, was chosen by Ghengis Khan to be his successor. Nobody even tried to debate Ogedai's position because of the tremendous respect the Mongols had for Ghengis Khan. At the death of Ogedai Khan, no certain tradition existed for succession, so much was made up as they went.

The leader of the Mongol armies attacking Europe was Batu, with Subedai (the most brilliant general the Mongols ever had) accompanying and Gayuk along as "co-commander". Batu and Gayuk were cousins and both grandsons of Ghengis Khan. Gayuk was the son of Ogedai Khan as well. They also didn't much care for each other. Gayuk and Batu clashed on several occasions and ultimately, Batu sent a very pissed off Gayuk packing back to Mongolia.

In Europe, Batu's forces annihilate the best that Europe can muster at the Battle of Liegnitz. True, they lost a couple battles, but consider the fact that very shortly following Grobnok, the cities of Lahore and Pest were razed by Batu's forces. One of the big things that drew the Mongols into Eastern Europe was the Cumens. The Cumens had appeal to King Bela of Hungary for protection, pledging to convert to Christianity in return. The Cumens were from the same region as the Mongols and there was some significant bad blood between the two groups. Batu warns King Bela to cease his protection of the Cumens or suffer the wrath of the Mongol armies. King Bela refuses and Batu attacks. He relentlessly pursues the Hungarian monarch until he is dead, tearing further into Eastern Europe in the process. Having punished Bela, and having already achieved what the Mongol armies set out to do (the conquest of Russia), Batu elects to continue with his invasion of Europe.

That pursuit continues until he receives word that Ogedai Khan had died. At the moment of Ogedai's death, Batu was the most respected of Ghengis Khan's grandsons, and the most likely to succeed Ogedai as Great Khan. So, naturally he head home post haste. He backs his armies up to Russia and has them setup rulership there, and takes a portion of his army with him back to Mongolia.

What happened while Batu was hurrying back home was Töregene. She was one of the wives of Ogedai and mother of Guyak. She was also a master saboteur at court. Guyak was not a strong candidate for succession initially, but Töregene managed to make it happen anyway. So by the time Batu arrives back in Mongolia, his greatest worry had come true. Guyak was all but guaranteed to succeed is father as Great Khan. The council of the grandsons of Ghengis Khan was only a formality at that point, and Guyak is made Great Khan of the Mongol Empire.

What followed was an escalating feud between Batu and Guyak that very nearly resulted in a very messy civil war, but the tragedy was avoided by the unexpected death of Guyak from some illness or another. Then you have a relatively long period of ironing out that mess, and naturally Batu is central to that process. By the time Batu returns to Russia, many years have passed (and Subedai is dead of course). Rather than resuming the conquest of Europe, he sets up his own rulership what became Khanate of the Golden Hoarde. The steppes of Russia were a lot like home and the Mongols were quite happy there.

And consider this: Europe in the 1200's wasn't all that desireable of a prize, why bother conquering it?
 
Now correct me if I am wrong, but were the Arabs not the most powerful militaries in the world at the time. The reason Ghengis Kahn was so successful against them was his ruthless tactics. Running through cities decapitating everyone. The Arabs would submit to these kinds of tactics in those days. At the time, the Islamic empire was not only the most dignified but also the most powerful army in the world. I am pretty sure the Arabs won the Crusades as well, they did still occupy Bethlehem and Jerusalem into the 20th century. So with all this in mind, was it not the Middle East that had the most powerful military in the world in the Middle Ages.
 
As it relates to the Mongols... Well, during the height of their power, they sacked the greatest city of all Islam - Baghdad. They pulled off the complete conquest of China and Korea. The argument that the did not RETAIN their dominance militarily would be the greatest argument against them.

As it relates to the Arabic power, it was very great, diminished after awhile. Then there were invaders from the same region as the Mongols (truthfully, they are essentially the same people) called the Turks. The Turks were in control of Islam and determined its destiny from roughly 950 AD on. It was the Turks in control for ALL of the Crusades. The Turkish conquerers varied of course. So the question is this: Are they Middle Eastern or are they from the Far East? The Turks originate from the broad reagion of western Siberia, western Mongolia, and around modern Kazakstan. IMO, they are sorta both, but more Eastern than anything else.

So that puts Turks and Mongols both coming from the East, and those two groups were to make a bigger splash throughout the Middle ages than any others. We could throw in the Huns as well, but there is substantial dispute over their place of origin. That and depending on how you classify the "Middle Ages", they might be too early.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top