Fastest general

**The Stranger** · 08-10-2007, 15:49

yeah... but the mongols were an all cavalry force... even though some may have fought on foot they all rode horses... and thats not it... every rider had more horses so if one got tired they just switched to another. they ate lived slept on a horse... there were more horses than men in that army... so i doubt it would count since swordsmaster said no horses.

they had between 50.000-100.000 men i think

**Randarkmaan** · 08-11-2007, 17:21

True about the Mongols likely being out as they moved on horseback, but they weren't as many as 50 000 when they invaded, I think 20-30 000 at most, they were often severly outnumbered.

**The Stranger** · 08-11-2007, 18:58

hmm, but they divided their forces, one to poland (decoy) and one to hungaria (main attack). so the entire force prolly was around 50000 if im not mistaken.

**SwordsMaster** · 08-12-2007, 11:26

Ok, ok, since everyone is so thrilled about the mongols, let's include them...

Let's do it scientifically though. Numbers is the name of the game, names, numbers, try and provide their exact route, terrain, number of men, groups, commanders that actually led the forces, opposition, etc..

The whole point of this thread and the ones that will follow is to determine what factors make generals stand out, so repeating schoolbook myths is not a good enough approach. Numbers people! this is a historian forum dammit!

**The Stranger** · 08-12-2007, 15:10

well... they will be the fastest probably... still i think you cant compare very long distances with very short... i can march an army very quick by just charging them for 30 miles and be the fastest... but it can be done over 300 miles... over long distances foodsupplie, fatigue and moral start to play a much larger role.