history

[jimmy]

the mongols for example were always depicited as horse archers? yet with more historical finds relating to the discovery of graves relating to the time periods around the mongol rise to power. the discovery off heavy infantry/horsemen /non mongol allies etc were unknown?. how much can we trust to history or the historical acccounts written before the advent of 20th century or even after or historical writers of the period mentioned.?
for instance propaganda was used very successfuly during WW2 [which for all intents and purposes supported the side who was winning or had the upperhand at the time. giving false accounts of various situation depending on how bad the situation was?] a prime example in recent history as been the gulf war regarding saddams claims of victory or the americans/english for the second war in the gulf this is in the same situation as regarding vietnam/korea /russia/germany stalingrad the lists are endless how much can we disregard off say the secret history off the mongols or works by ata malik juvaini? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[crazyviking03]

Funny, I just got about half way through a very good book called The Devil's Horsemen, on the Mongol Invasion of Kwarzmihm (sp?) and Europe. While it is safe to say that much of what we know about them from European accounts is just propaganda. For example most of Europe did not even want to admit that they were a power, only maruaders. Some of Europe even believed they were Christian Soldiers from an Oriental Christian Kingdom coming to help in the Crusades What is safe to deduce is that most of their army had to have been mounted, as the vast amounts of land they were able to cross in such little time, and the complexity of their pincers and enevlopements makes it almost impossible for them to have had much infantry. This isnt to say that they did not dismount for seiges. Sadly, not alot of people survived those, so not many non-mongol accounts survive of seiges. It is probably safest to assume what we can from their tactics alone.

[katank]

Quote[/b] ]Christian Soldiers from an Oriental Christian Kingdom coming to help in the Crusades
ROFLMAO that's hilarious and interesting

They likely didn't have much infantry and were master horsemen but were definitely flexible and capable of fighting well on foot.

I believe most of them carried two bows one for mounted and another for dismounted use.

their tactics were also mostly HA tactics along with what can be best done by shock cav. infantry would not have nearly as much flexibility although some of their subjugated people probably contributed foot soldiers and siege engines.

[crazyviking03]

Haha, yep. Apparently a bishop from Constantinople had set out to the East in the 900's, and they believed he had established a Kingdom around India or Southeast Asia. When the Mongols began destroying Russia, many Europeans believed they must have changed course and decided to punish the Orthodox Christians. Stupid ignorant medieval people... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

[Duraz_asks]

coming from someone who reads many things about the mongols and is very interested in their culture: this is how we know they used mainly horse archers, CAUSE TO THIS DAY THEY ARE VERY SKILLED IN SHOOTING ARROWS FROM A HORSE, and i highly doubt they had these skills and rode horses far distances to jump off and use a sword. also they werent a high populated people and u dont take over that much land by melee with such few soldiers

[jimmy]

but recent finds regarding graves also show and by some eye witness accounts a sizeable force of heavy cavalry.
infantry would be my most accounts from china. siege etc as for why the mongols required so many horses per person the most recent studys point to food on the hoof so to speak. prester john was the christian king confused with genghis.
also a few books point to how superstious the mongols were
my point is there is so much we dont know but yet may stil find out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (jimmy @ Mar. 21 2004,14:38)]but recent finds regarding graves also show and by some eye witness accounts a sizeable force of heavy cavalry.
infantry would be my most accounts from china. siege etc as for why the mongols required so many horses per person the most recent studys point to food on the hoof so to speak. prester john was the christian king confused with genghis.
also a few books point to how superstious the mongols were
my point is there is so much we dont know but yet may stil find out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
A bit off topic, but you mentioned Prester John - an interesting (and tongue in cheek) account of Barbarossas failed crusade and the hunt for Prester John can be found in Umberto Eco's book Baudolino - enjoy

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

nick

[Red Yak]

Quote[/b] ]A bit off topic, but you mentioned Prester John - an interesting (and tongue in cheek) account of Barbarossas failed crusade and the hunt for Prester John can be found in Umberto Eco's book Baudolino - enjoy


I've been reading Baudolino over the past few weeks. Great book, but it's getting a little bizarre now I'm nearing the end. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

[jimmy]

try reading secret history off the mongols http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif