Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Secret power of Mongol Conquerors Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 21:42 |
I read about mongol conquest.
1. Army Discipline
2. Great generals
3. Great leader
4. Combat tactics
5. Diplomacy ------ ?????
|
|
sinosword
Consul
Joined: 29-Jan-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 302
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 23:47 |
1. movability
move faster than enemy. defeated, can escape from enemy almost without losing. win, can catch up escaping enemy and kill all of them.
their movability also represent in strategic movement. they always can avoid the main force of enemy who can't move fast, and strike the weakest place(storehouse or supply line something) of enemy.
every mongol warrior has 3~5 horses, they can be used by turns. so mongol army always can move fast without the tire of horses.
2. archer
almost without close combat, but shoot enemy in a distance. in this case, mongol force almost won't lose people. the worst situation for them is enemy can defence their arrows by forming lineup. the enemy might be able to defend several times but nothing more. once their lineup break because chase of mongols, they will be killed.
|
|
|
sinosword
Consul
Joined: 29-Jan-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 302
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 23:59 |
the mongol troops are only useful in champaign or grassland. their movability advange will disappear once they get into mountanious region or forest such as japan or vietnam.
its easy to defend in mountanious region coz there are only several certain ways to pass those gorges. just need to build stronghold on those ways, the mongols can't use their movability to pass and strike weak places.
they can't use horses in forests. once mongols get down their horses, they will lose.
|
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 20:26 |
Its a combination of factors a main reason however was
1 MILLION HORSES
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 23:08 |
People usually tend to forget that until modern times, virtually all armies could either move or shoot. The Mongols were the one army before the tanks appeared on the scene, who could move and shoot at the same time. They took advantage of that split second when the horse's hoofs are all off the ground, to shoot their arrow with an accuracy that would have been otherwise impossible whiel moving. They achieved this feat by life-long training, spending so much time on horseback.
That is the Mongols great secret weapon. It was a tactical advantage which no other army could duplicate, and it always gave them an edge.
To be fair, the Mongols were not the only ones with this advantage though. Most of the steppe nomads had it, including turkic tribes and scythians.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 17:02 |
The Mongol Military was in many ways similar to previous nomads. For
example, decimal organization was used as early as the Xiong
Nu period. Horse archery had been part of the culture there for thousands of
years. Warriorship had been an element of steppe life long before their
time. If the Mongols were able to conquer so many parts of both inner
and outer Asia, why were other groups like the Xiong Nu or Ruruans, or
even the Gokturks not able to do the same? I think that's the main
question, and I don't think the key is in the military units.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
sinosword
Consul
Joined: 29-Jan-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 302
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 17:10 |
the xiongnu and ruruan were almost destoryed by china before their possible conquest.
|
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 18:19 |
Since the Khitans they invented new tactics for cavalry and the mongols learnt from them more combined arms of heavy and light cavlaries
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 18:59 |
...and which type of tactics were those?
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 20:03 |
Horse team tactics the use of light and heavy cavalry we are still discussing these tactics see Mongol heavy cavalry and a similiar discussion on chinese history forum
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 21:12 |
Originally posted by Falco
5. Diplomacy ------ ?????
|
Definitely Diplomacy. The Mongols would send an emmisary to a city, to
request its surrender, if it refused, the mongols would butcher the
city. All the neighbouring cities would hear of it and surrender when a
messenger came to them to avoid the same fate.
Terror tactics. Shock and Awe.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 23:03 |
The tao of warfare states no army can take over the world as their strengths will eventually become their weaknesses.
Mongols strenghts started with their warrior like tradition,incessent infighting and fighting others not only made them great warriors but great strategists and tacticians.But this eventually become their weakness as their empire crumbled when they started fought each other.
Another strenght of theirs was their open mindness to othere cultures using troops and technology from other countries,but the mongols eventually became sinizized and (persianized?) losing their mongolian culture.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2006 at 09:47 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
Originally posted by Falco
5. Diplomacy ------ ?????
|
Definitely Diplomacy. The Mongols would send an emmisary to a city, to request its surrender, if it refused, the mongols would butcher the city. All the neighbouring cities would hear of it and surrender when a messenger came to them to avoid the same fate.
Terror tactics. Shock and Awe.
|
Yeah, i agree with you. But Genghis and mongol leaders use diplomacy in many ways, for example:
1. Genghis sent his son Jochi to conquer Oirds (Southern Siberian people) without battles. Genghis worried about his northern front his empire. And Jochi made it.
2. During first battle against Hsi-Hsia Empire, he made peace with Jin Empire and with Koryo.
3. During battle against Jin Empire, one of his general Jebe organized an idea, which was allied with Song Empire against Jin.
4. ...
That's why mongols use diplomat in many ways, word "Ambassador (ambassad+or)" is mongolian word "Ambansaid" meaning Diplomat.
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2006 at 10:44 |
Originally posted by Falco
word "Ambassador (ambassad+or)" is mongolian word "Ambansaid" meaning Diplomat. |
Middle English ambassadour, from Old French ambassadeur, from Medieval Latin ambactia, mission, from Latin ambactus, servant, ultimately of Celtic origin. See ag- in Appendix I.
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2006 at 19:54 |
Originally posted by Falco
word "Ambassador (ambassad+or)" is mongolian word "Ambansaid" meaning Diplomat. |
Originally posted by Yiannis
Middle English ambassadour, from Old French ambassadeur, from Medieval Latin ambactia, mission, from Latin ambactus, servant, ultimately of Celtic origin. See ag- in Appendix I. |
Well I'm sure the Mongols didn't get it from Latin. Is the mongol language(s) Indo-European?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2006 at 17:57 |
Originally posted by Falco
That's why mongols use diplomat in many ways, word "Ambassador (ambassad+or)" is mongolian word "Ambansaid" meaning Diplomat. |
I don't agree with your play of word.
AMBAN is Manchu word
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
"DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY" is something Mongols really created and reinforced.
"DO NOT KILL MESSNGER"
Violation of Messenger right is reason for many wars by Mongols, so they really took it seriously.
|
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-May-2006 at 10:04 |
don't forget pride and fear of dicrease. the ego of a man plays a huge role. The light cavalary archer was important of course.
Try to imagin a horseman who has almost no armor riding not a horse but a pony with little bows who look like toys. the archer could't eaven fire a arrow when retreading. you know you can handle him if you can get to him but you can't how fast you ride your horse it dusn't matter you never can catch him.
They don't fight the way you want to they attack & retrea constanly. No opertunety for you to attack
It spooks you out
so i think the mongols had an psycologic advantige
(sorry for the grammar and vocab)
|
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
|