First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Ancient Military- Before 1500A.D
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/21/08 , edited 8/21/08
The Mongols knew how to expand and create an empire, the only problem is that they were terrible at maintaining it.

You can have the best armies and win the most victories but if you don't know what to do with it, I say you've failed.

I admire Rome because they knew how to use their military politically to expand their influence.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/21/08

Eririel wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:


Eririel wrote:

The Mongols never got to Venice either.


Venice archers are very powerful!


The Venetians would have outlasted the Mongols behind their city walls. Venice has a natural moat, the world's most powerful navy (For that time) and the swamps would have spread disease and rot away the food of the Mongolians, eventually leading them away from Venice.


I agree!

Also one of the weaknesses of the Mongols is that Mediterranean Sea is just too small for the Mongol Navy and they must cross the hostile Black Sea.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 8/21/08 , edited 8/21/08

Eririel wrote:

The Mongols knew how to expand and create an empire, the only problem is that they were terrible at maintaining it.

You can have the best armies and win the most victories but if you don't know what to do with it, I say you've failed.

I admire Rome because they knew how to use their military politically to expand their influence.


eh, it was a cultural thing. the khan's possesions had to be distributed to each of his sons, including his territory, which led to infighting amongst themselves, destroying their momentum, and dividing the unified empire. if a single heir had been chosen, i think that the mongols probably would have maintained their territory, and most likely institute many chinese aspects of government into their own, and probably would have succeeded in taking a lot more territory in europe. all that happened was that the gods smiled on europe by splintering the mongols territory into bits before they could capitalize their gains.


*edit: most of what you've said doesn't have anything to do with the military anyways.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/21/08

MEMPHADON wrote:


Eririel wrote:


MEMPHADON wrote:

MONGOLS HANDS DOWN. there has never been as efficient a fighting machine as the mongol hordes. they had mobility, manueverability, long range weapons, brilliant commanders, effective lines of communication, ingenious army organization, and especially the adaptability to fight various armies from around the world (from china to hungary, and from russia to india, dominating them every time [though with india its debateable])

i don't see how you could possibly compare them to anyone else, even the romans


Horse archers are not invincible. They experienced many victories on open plains and the steppes but if they ever got to heavily forested Europe, they would discover their tactics would not be as effective as on an open field and the natives of those areas would have a severe advantage against them.

The other problem the Mongols would experience is the number of fortresses Europe had. The Mongols are superb horsemen but when it comes to sieges, they are not the best of fighters on foot. Even if they had had secured a supply line to send for Chinese engineers and siege equipment, it would take several years before they reached Europe.

During those several years, disease and famine would set in while they waited outside the city walls and the prospect of the Catholic nations descending down upon them would be something to consider.


of course they are not invincible, but they proved themselves capable in more than just the open steppes. they conquered china, india, turkey, and hungary, all of which weren't on the steppes. the mongols also proved themselve capable of siege warfare in their chinese campaigns.

yes europe had many fortresses. but the style of combat of the day was that the knights would sally forth to meet the enemy and fight them as gentlemen, but when they did that they were always cut down by the mongols. which is why hungary fell so fast. in fact, the greatest defensive victory for any european army was against italian mercenaries on the adriatic coast, who were not bound by chivalry and stayed behind the walls launching their crossbows (which the mongols greatly feared).

besides that, the mongols defeated several armies organzied by many different catholic nations throughout hungary and poland, almost always being greatly outnumbered, proving that they really were superior to knights of the day

i stand by my claim


But the Mongol Tatars are weak unlike their original Mongol predecessors because they were crushed by the Russians during the seige of Kazan and suffered setbacks.
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/21/08
I would consider the Timurids to have been the true spiritual successors of the Mongols as opposed to the Tartat Mongols.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/21/08

Eririel wrote:

I would consider the Timurids to have been the true spiritual successors of the Mongols as opposed to the Tartat Mongols.


Timurids even defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Ankara and Timur took Bayezid I as hostage!
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 8/21/08

OTAKUADDICT wrote:


MEMPHADON wrote:


Eririel wrote:


MEMPHADON wrote:

MONGOLS HANDS DOWN. there has never been as efficient a fighting machine as the mongol hordes. they had mobility, manueverability, long range weapons, brilliant commanders, effective lines of communication, ingenious army organization, and especially the adaptability to fight various armies from around the world (from china to hungary, and from russia to india, dominating them every time [though with india its debateable])

i don't see how you could possibly compare them to anyone else, even the romans


Horse archers are not invincible. They experienced many victories on open plains and the steppes but if they ever got to heavily forested Europe, they would discover their tactics would not be as effective as on an open field and the natives of those areas would have a severe advantage against them.

The other problem the Mongols would experience is the number of fortresses Europe had. The Mongols are superb horsemen but when it comes to sieges, they are not the best of fighters on foot. Even if they had had secured a supply line to send for Chinese engineers and siege equipment, it would take several years before they reached Europe.

During those several years, disease and famine would set in while they waited outside the city walls and the prospect of the Catholic nations descending down upon them would be something to consider.


of course they are not invincible, but they proved themselves capable in more than just the open steppes. they conquered china, india, turkey, and hungary, all of which weren't on the steppes. the mongols also proved themselve capable of siege warfare in their chinese campaigns.

yes europe had many fortresses. but the style of combat of the day was that the knights would sally forth to meet the enemy and fight them as gentlemen, but when they did that they were always cut down by the mongols. which is why hungary fell so fast. in fact, the greatest defensive victory for any european army was against italian mercenaries on the adriatic coast, who were not bound by chivalry and stayed behind the walls launching their crossbows (which the mongols greatly feared).

besides that, the mongols defeated several armies organzied by many different catholic nations throughout hungary and poland, almost always being greatly outnumbered, proving that they really were superior to knights of the day

i stand by my claim


But the Mongol Tatars are weak unlike their original Mongol predecessors because they were crushed by the Russians during the seige of Kazan and suffered setbacks.



they had one decisive defeat in the face of dozens of ravaging raids against Russia, Poland, Lithuania, and Hungary. much of russia was already under control of the tatars, so the russians had at least known about mongol strategies, and probably implemented some themselves. but the battle was the beginning of the end of mongol dominance in the region, true enough.
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/21/08 , edited 8/21/08

OTAKUADDICT wrote:


Eririel wrote:

I would consider the Timurids to have been the true spiritual successors of the Mongols as opposed to the Tartat Mongols.


Timurids even defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Ankara and Timur took Bayezid I as hostage!


The Timurids may have crushed the Ottomans militarily in the battle of Ankara, in 1402 when the Sultan himself was captured along with his three sons. But since Timur was advancing in age he didn't press that advantage. I would believe the fact that the Ottomans were so badly crushed only to rise once more and defeat almost everything that stood in their path, from crusading European armies to local hosts that were defending their countries only shows what a force Timur's forces defeated.

The defeat at Lepanto in 1571 was not the end of ages for the Ottomans. The attempted to siege Vienna again in 1684, so that doesn't really count as the end of their power. It did mark a certain decline, however, what with Selim's ineffective rule.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/21/08

Eririel wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:


Eririel wrote:

I would consider the Timurids to have been the true spiritual successors of the Mongols as opposed to the Tartat Mongols.


Timurids even defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Ankara and Timur took Bayezid I as hostage!


They didn't use that victory very well though. The Ottomans never fully recovered from that loss but they still managed to carve up a good empire afterward.


What I like about the Ottomans is that their military uses rifles(I dunno when the true rifle was first invented) and also their military organizations such as the Janissaries during the 14th or 15th century.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/21/08
Battle of Ain Jalut showed that Mamluks can beat the Mongols!
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/21/08
They became too reliant on the Janissaries. The end result was something near similar to the Praetorian Guard.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/21/08

Eririel wrote:

They became too reliant on the Janissaries. The end result was something near similar to the Praetorian Guard.


I agree even the Janissaries were useless during the battle of Vienna in which the European Holy League crushed the Ottomans.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/21/08 , edited 8/21/08

Eririel wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:


Eririel wrote:

I would consider the Timurids to have been the true spiritual successors of the Mongols as opposed to the Tartat Mongols.


Timurids even defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Ankara and Timur took Bayezid I as hostage!


The Timurids may have crushed the Ottomans militarily in the battle of Ankara, in 1402 when the Sultan himself was captured along with his three sons. But since Timur was advancing in age he didn't press that advantage. I would believe the fact that the Ottomans were so badly crushed only to rise once more and defeat almost everything that stood in their path, from crusading European armies to local hosts that were defending their countries only shows what a force Timur's forces defeated.

The defeat at Lepanto in 1571 was not the end of ages for the Ottomans. The attempted to siege Vienna again in 1684, so that doesn't really count as the end of their power. It did mark a certain decline, however, what with Selim's ineffective rule.


The Russians though are very powerful in the Northeast of Ottoman empire and I think the Russians showed their ferociousness during the Russo-Turkish war considering many casualties on the Turkish side.
Sorry for the off-topic.
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/21/08 , edited 8/21/08
Don't worry about it. I don't specialize in medieval history.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 8/21/08

OTAKUADDICT wrote:


Eririel wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:


Eririel wrote:

I would consider the Timurids to have been the true spiritual successors of the Mongols as opposed to the Tartat Mongols.


Timurids even defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Ankara and Timur took Bayezid I as hostage!


They didn't use that victory very well though. The Ottomans never fully recovered from that loss but they still managed to carve up a good empire afterward.


What I like about the Ottomans is that their military uses rifles(I dunno when the true rifle was first invented) and also their military organizations such as the Janissaries during the 14th or 15th century.


yes the ottomans had a very successful military as well. they totally crushed the byzantines, who were formerly the top dogs in terms of military power in the mediterranean, and their widespread use of guns made sieges easier, as well as having infantry equipped with handguns, made quite an intimidating force. besides the byzantines, they destroyed many european armies that attempted to invade egypt or the holy land or north africa, and defeated the arabs, berbers and moors, breaking apart their caliphate and claiming most of its previous territory as their own.

the janissaries, although a powerful fighting force, eventually became extremely corrupt (reminds me of the Praetorian guard actually) until one of their kings finally reformed them (though i don't know which)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.