Top 100 Generals

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

   Indeed Seko: the Asian steppes are not that monotonous. 

rider, I think it becomes relative; unorthodox to whom? The main, very broadly speaking, distinguishing feature of the steppe warrior to that of the littoral was indeed affected by geography. One could argue that Timur's vast conquests, never an intent of consolidation, were indeed so successful not only because of the force of his leadership, but because of the ability of his army to extend their force over great distances. This came due to the nature of the army he led - one of mounted men.

The Mamelukes, a professioanl force developed from a sedentary state, accomplished what the Chinese, Khwarezmians, Russian principalities, eastern Europeans, and Persians could not. I don't think they defeated  the Mongols because Mamelukes were necessarily better than the best Mongols per se (what if Subotai with three tumen had been the opposed force to the Mamelukes at Ain Jalut rather than a rearguard led by Kitbuka?), but finally the Mongols finally faced a terriffic force composed of soldiers akin to themselves, unlike heavy Europena knights, who could ride and shoot just about as well as they could. 

Moreover, they were at their pinnacle following decades of development. It will not do to undermine the genius of leaders such as Chinggis, Subotai, or Timur, but the fact is they rolled over enemies, though by no means incompetent, who were internally divided and unstable. But this was their nature; to take advantage of an opportunity of weakness in an enemy neighbor. Gustavus was no different when he entrenched himself in both Poland and Germany. But there must have been thousands of such opportunities throughout the history of the Asian steppes for warlords to exploit, and we basically have just Chinggis and Timur, at least before the so-called 'age of radical change' (a military evolution affected by firearms which came about in the late16/early 17 centuries). Thus they certainly are two leaders that must rank in the top 10, even top 5 (Chinggis is a good argument for #1). As with Alexander, a decadent empire(s) may be ripe for the picking, but it takes a brilliant leader at the helm of a brilliant army to succeed at the task of conquering it.

Another primary distinction between the steppe and the sedentary warriors etc. lay not only in the nature of their styles of fighting, but a political one; because they were shaped by their environment, they were, for the most part, limited to it. But it can work both ways: Attila entered Europe and thrived for a while because the Roman Empire at the time was a beleaguered polity, rife with usurpations. But in Attila's case, there was much conciliation, and the Huns became involved, along with many other groups, with Roman civil wars. That's all delicate and complicated, though.

On whole, the steppe warrior seemingly holds the advantage over his sedentary foe, thus the best hope for the settled peoples were either, (a) they lived in a place like Switzerland, where steppe warriors would not bother coming into in mass, or (b) ambushes, as the Volger Bulgars achieved on Subotai (but this success was usually fleeting), and (c) the nations, polities and empires of the steppe warriors would keep to themselves long enough, a condition which would result in them breaking   apart after some time. There was also the issue of cultural malleability, as in the case of China, where their Mongol overlords became sinicized over some time, and in Persia, where many Mongols quickly became Persian. In Russia, the Mongol domain broke up into smaller khanates which eventually could be dealt with. 

It does come down to a conflict of interests, rider. But it's all fascinating. Leaders were still individuals, and both styles developed some of the best in history. Under tactical advantages, one could beat the other. In some notable clashes, Alexander beat the Scythians and Publius Ventidius defeated the Parthians; Surena defeated the Romans and Subotai and his subordinates destroyed the flower of the European knights. All victorious leaders were superb commanders.

Thanks, Spartan 