Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
"Each soldier had two to four horses so when a horse tired they could use the other ones which made them one of the fastest armies in the world. This, however, also made the Mongol army vulnerable to shortages of fodder; campaigning in arid or forested regions were thus difficult and even in ideal steppe terrain a Mongol force had to keep moving in order to ensure sufficient grazing for its massive horse herd."
It is also why the Mongol armies had trouble invading the arid lands of Syria, because there wasn't much for them to graze off of. I don't care if you do not believe it, IT IS HISTORICAL FACT. It doesn't matter whether you BELIEVE it, that doesn't make it any less true. Later Mongol Empires might have stockpiled Grain prior ot invasion, but Chingis Khan did not. The Yuan Dynasty was known for it, though.
"Mongolian horses are small, sturdy and have incredible endurance. They didn't match their contemporaries in sprinting speed, but it was very common for opposing cavalry to be heavily armoured, which meant less speed and manoeuvrability. This usually resulted in a technical draw in speed over short distances but they excelled over long distances.
The majority of mounts were mares, which produce milk. Mongolian cavalry could rely only on milk from their horses, foraged food, and dried meat they carried with them. It was also common practice when necessary to drink horse blood. This nutrient rich liquid would be accessed by making a small nick in the neck of the horse, sucking a few mouthfuls of blood, then sealing the wound with a mixture of spittle and dirt. Because Mongolian horses could survive by grazing on grass (larger, more ubiquitous horses required grain, which required a supply line, which in turn drastically limited the speed, range and efficacy of an army), the Mongols could travel for weeks with no supply line, something completely unheard of".
"It was a shortage of pasture rather than the military resistance encountered that prevented the Mongols from overruning Syria and the same argument has been applied to Subotei and Jebei's Black Sea Camoaign, and to Genghis' own abortive incursion into India. Professor Smith has produced some detailed calculations in support of this thesis. Starting with an estimate for a large Mongol Army of 60,000 men and allowing five horses per man it would have been necessary to find pasture for 300,000 horses.
On this basis it would clearly be impossible for a Mongol army to remain very long in one place, even in well-watered grazing country, while the lower productivity of more arid regions might prevent campaigning by large armies altogether.
It is important to bear these constraints in mind when considering the movements of Mongol armies and espiecally those inexplicable withdrawal which often confused contemporaries. For example, the Egyptians appear to have thought Hulegu's withdrawal from Baghdad to Azerbaijan in 1261 was permanent, encouraging their puppet Caliph to risk a counter-attack, when in fact he was simply migrating in search of grazing just as a Mongolian community would do in peacetime. Marco Polo, writing forty years later, says the Mongols in the Middle east were still following the same route, concentrating in Azerbaijan for the summer grazing, then moving to the warmer lowlands of Iraq in the winter."
-Genghis Khan and the Mongol War Machine, Chris Peers.
"Chris Peers is a leading expert on the history of ancient armies and warfare and has written widely on the subject. He has contributed many articles to military history, wargaming and family history magazines, and his major publications include Warlords of China: 700BC-AD1662, Warrior Peoples of East Africa, Soldiers of the Dragon, The African Wars: Warriors and Soldiers of the Colonial Campaigns and Offa and the Mercian Wars: The Rise and Fall of the First Great English Kingdom."
Also, no. The Mongols did not carry their siege equipment around with them. Chingis Khan kept skilled engineers with his army who BUILT the siege engines as they were needed and discarded them afterwards.
They were also logistical masters, being able to live off their surroundings and supplying enough horses to keep the army moving (and, as importantly, communicating). For starters, the army traveled light, lessening the burden of supplies. Furthermore, each soldier carried the tools necessary to hunt and survive off the land. Finding enough supplies was rarely a problem for Mongol armies.
I stopped reading your post after that, because I can see that it's going to be utterly pointless to continue having this conversation with you because you have this insane idea that the Roman Legions were the best thing ever.
They weren't.
They frequently got their asses handed to them.
So, no. You're being absurdly pedantic with your obsessive love of Rome. In no way is anything you are saying grounded in historical fact.
Also, Rome could not even beat PARTHIA. Roman Legions were ripped to shred by the Parthian Cataphract because the Roman Legion could not fight against Heavy Cavalry.
There is no way that Rome would win against a Mongol Horde at the height of its power. The Mongols had all of the discipline of the Roman Army and none of the inflexibility. The Roman Legion could move 25 miles a day if forced to march, whereas the Mongols could cover 100 miles in a day.
The Romans relied on rigid supply lines.
The Mongols did not.
The Romans relied on auxilia.
The Mongols had coalition forces consisting of Chinese, Persian, Central Asian, and Mongol forces.
The Romans had siege weapons.
The Mongols could build siege weapons when needed.
The Mongols bow out-ranges most Roman ranged weaponry with the exception of the Scorpio fired parabollially.
The Romans employed agents and spies.
The Mongols employed agents and spies.
The Romans integrated foreigners.
The Mongols integrated foreigners.
There is plenty about the two civilizations that mirrors each other, but when it comes down to it ROMAN TACTICS ARE INADEQUATE to face Mongolians just as THEY WERE INADEQUATE agains the PARTHIANS.
Romans could not beat the Parthians.
Romans would not be able to beat the Mongols.
It is literally that simple.
Also, at the time of Gaius Julius Caesar the Roman Empire had JUST AS MUCH DISCORD as the Mongols would have had in your scenario considering as not long into his rule CAESAR AS MURDERED BY THE ENTIRE SENATE.
TL:DR for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTFwAxfHgSA
Here some points for you to rethink:
- The Roman army inflexible? Strange that the common accepted notion is that the strength of Roman legions was founded in their flexibility.
- The Romans could not beat Parthia? Neither could Parthia beat Rome. It was a stalemate.
- Mongolian armies consisting mostly of mares to live from milk? Hardly. 1. Mammals only give milk when having to take care of offspring. No foals, no milk. 2. You want imply that they lived from milk. What happened to the foals? Killed/Starved? Hardly. That way you loose your supply of horses. Which is a bad idea for nomads. And when the foals are gone the mother will stop giving milk. 3. If they lived from milk then 3-4 horses per rider are not enough. 4. You want to imply they rode to battle with pregnant horses and risk to loose their supply of new horses and food (if they really lived from milk)?
- All horses can live from grass. 2 reason why non-nomadic factions substitute horse food with grain: 1. Grain can be stored, Grass not. 2. There were not enough close by pasture for a reasonable large horse herd. Nomads were not capable of sufficient agriculture. Hence they had to keep moving.
- Mongols under Genghis Khan were one trick ponies. Horse archer-based armies are good for pillaging and foraging. They are terrible to defend or fortify a territory. That's why his 'empire' never stretched into more civilized regions and crumbled instantly after his demise.
seems most ppl just have a favorite faction and sticks to it no mather what.
educate yourself,read,learn,and look at things from a wider perspective...instead of me me me
Rome is actually my favorite faction, but looking at it objectively as one who studies History, the Mongolians under Chingis Khan would take the win. Gaius Julius Caesar was not that great of a general, and the Roman Empire has nothing going for it that the Mongol Empire didn't have as well.
At its height the Roman Empire only had an army of 447,000 men under S. Severus in 211 AD.
The Mongols mustered 450,000+ Soldiers in their siege of the Song Dynasty.
With their tactics and the sheer numerical superiority, the Mongols would easily beat the Roman Empire. The Mongols were not tethered to rigid organization or to supply lines like the Roman Empire was.
Just because the Legions of Rome were able to manuver better than a Phalanx does not mean anything toward the rigidity of their structure. The Roman Legions were a rigid force, they fought in rigid formations. They were not a highly mobile army. History has proven if you disrupt the Roman legions ability to fight in a formation, they crumble.
Teutonburg Forest, the Romans were unable to fight in formation and they got slaughtered because individually the Roman soldier is not that fantastic. Unit cohesion was what the Roman Legions were all about. It made them devastatingly effective against their contemporary enemies, but against the Parthians they were utterly smashed. It would be the same with the Mongols.
Secondly. I am not implying anything, and I cannot stress this enough:
EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID ABOUT THE MONGOL EMPIRE AND THEIR ARMIES IS HISTORICAL FACT. IT IS DOCUMENTED. THIS IS HOW BEING A HISTORIAN WORKS.
Screaming does not make your points any more plausible. Actually you failed to answer my arguments.
Besides that: Where does a bunch of horse archers fight? Right, in open territory. Please show me how your light horsemen prevent the Romans from getting into formations in open territory.
You're an idiot and you are arguing against things I have stated which are based in well documented historical facts, of which I even provided some sources...With nothing but your opinion and your raging boner for the Legions of Rome.
No, the Parthians beat the Romans. It wasn't until after Parthia collapsed due to internal strife that the Romans had any chance.
No, Genghis Khan's Empire did not collapse immediately upon his demise. Mongols were extraordinarily effective administrators.
The Mongols did invade into civilized territory. They captured the majority of Persia/Iran and modern day Iraq. The Mongol Empire did not divide into different states until 67 years AFTER Genghis Khan had died upon which it broke up into 4 different Mongol Empires.
By the way, the Mongols did not collapse due to foreign invasion -- they split into 4 due to Civil Strife. Their ability to hold and defend territory had nothing to do with it. There is absolutely no evidence that the Mongols would have been unable to fight defensively considering as they were all expert marksmen with bows, were capable siege engineers, and employed phalanx infantry. You are yammering on about how the Mongols were nothing but horsemen and raiders, but that narrative is false. They were a high discilpined, mobile fighting force who made use of infantry as well as Mongol horsemen.
No. Horses do not have to be pregnant to produce milk, nor do all mammals. Lactation occurs in all post-pregnancy female mammals. Lactation can also be induced on mammals, including Humans, without having actually been pregnant. It is an entirely hormonal trigger. Just like you can milk a cow without the cow being pregnant. Infact, ingesting any form of soy or greens with phytoestrogens is proven to make Horses lactate. Likewise, a horse that has previously born offspring can still produce Milk.
Your entire argument is based in fabrication and your own deluded mind.
By 1279 AD, the Mongol Empire had conquered into Europe, Anatolia, and all of China. Mind you the Middle East and China were more technologically advanced and "civilized" than Europe was at the same time frame.
There is a reason why even Romans abandoned the military formations used under Julius Caesar. They were consistently proven more and more obsolete.
The Battle of Carrhae in 52 BC took place during the First Triumvirate of which Caesar was a member of, shortly before his demise actually. The Roman Legions were utterly destroyed by the Parthians.
"Despite being heavily outnumbered, Surena's cavalry completely outmaneuvered the Roman heavy infantry, killing or capturing most of the Roman soldiers"
Cavalry outmanuvered the Roman heavy infantry and destroyed them. Who was the General of the Roman forces would hardly matter, the Roman legion was limited in its mobility. Keep in mind that Crassus, the general who suffered the defeat, was also an accomplished military commander.
GG Mongols win.
11,000 Parthians consisting of 9,000 Horse Archers, 1,000 Cataphracts, and 1,000 supply camels DEFEATED SEVEN ENTIRE LEGIONS in a Roman army which had 52,000 total men.
They killed:
30,000 and Captured 10,000
TL;DR for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymPpIzaanhY
In other words: you lack arguments and the ability to comprehend arguments not in line with your opinion.
Consult Wikipedia for a start. Then come back when you have actual arguments.
1. Lactation without pregnancy has been described for primates, and primates only. Which makes sense from the evolutionary point of view because they live in families of related individuals. It has not been described for animals that live in anonymous herds like horses. And yes, cows have to have given birth recently to give milk.
2. Explain where the Mongols should have aquired the necessary amount of soy beans without agriculture (and ignoring that it would still not induce lactation).
3. Explain how 3-4 horses should give enough milk for their own foals and their human. FYI the ones with the big udder and the horns are cows.
4. Explain how someone rides into war with 3-4 pregnant horses. What did they do with the foals during battle?
5. Cite any scientific source for your claim.
1. Those numbers and descriptions are based on Plutarch. He does not even count as historian but as philosopher. And is known to enrich his writings to emphasize his moral lessons. Hence you better be sceptical about them.
2. After Carrhae Parthia failed to take Syria and Rome sacked their capital several times. That does not leave the impression that Parthia in any way beat Rome.
3. Take off your Mongol-centric glasses and read about history.
Posting Youtube videos to compensate the lack of arguments and facts was a thing how many years ago? 4? 5?
Yes I only read two smaller posts, but just those two completely put me in favor of the Mongols, so I don't know what Dragnipurake's problem is.
You should read my post.
But in short: those numbers are based on Plutarch who is in no way a reliable source. And this is just one battle. The bigger picture saw a stalemate between Rome and Parthia.
This is all I have to say to you after reading your whole post (yes, I did go back to the second page). As to Plutarch, I don't know.
Now I want the Chineese Character Guy to prove why a full out war on the Romans won't be won't end a stalemate because the Mongols would have to either cross the Mediteranian Sea, or the Swiss Alps to get to Rome; both of which will resault in starvation for the Mongols.
Here is the good thing about historical facts -- they're proven and are not subject to ones opinions. You are the one trying to interject your opinion to say the information I provided which was backed by historical research is false.
It isn't. It is historically proven that (a) Mongols did milk their horses on the Campaign (b) That Mongol Horses did not require grain. (c) Plutarch is a primary source, you blithering moron. In the field of historical research you have no more reliable a source than a primary source. (d) Whether or not Rome and Parthia had a stalemate is a moot point, BECAUSE THE MONGOLS WERE 100x BETTER THAN PARTHIA.
You are arguing with nothing more than your opinion and absolutely 0 sources and absolutely 0 historical basis.
Maybe you should stop incessantly masturbating to Rome as if it were the most glorious thing to ever be. Even at its height Rome had only 425,000 soldiers in their employ...Stationed all across their Empire. Attacking the Song Dynasty the Mongols brought forth 450,000 soldiers. Just to attack the Song Dynasty, not counting the forces they had elsewhere.
Not only did Mongolian soldiers have superior tactics and a superior general (Genghis Khan was never defeated, Gaius Julius Caesar was) but they also had a massive technological and numerical advantage. The fact that Rome later went on to sack the Capital of Parthia over 100 years after Crassus died, when Parthia was weak from internal strife, and long after Gaius Julius Caesar was dead has no basis on this conversation.
When faced with 9,000 Horse Archers, 30,000 Romans died. History has shown times inumerous that when the Roman Legions are forced to fight outside of their rigid formations, they are not as effective. The Parthians were able to slaughter 7 Roman Legions with only 11,000 troops.
Furthermore, only in your deluded narrative of the world is Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus not considered a Historian.
Your entire argument about lactation is LITERALLY scientifically false. All a mammal needs to lactate is to have given birth at least ONCE in its life, and EVEN THAT is not necessary.
Your argument is 100% unequivocally wrong. It is so wrong. You would be laughed out of a community college level history course.
They do not need to be pregnant to produce Milk. They need to have foaled at least ONCE.
"The making of airag is of huge importance in Mongolia. It serves as a
needed source of vitamins in the diet14, and in the olden days in summer
Mongolians subsisted only upon dairy products including airag, although this
practice is rapidly changing. Though I had not asked about airag production at all,
Monkh-Erdene insisted upon telling me, because it is a vital part of Mongolian
horsemanship. Mares are milked 6 times a day, every 2 hours, during the summer
(they foal at some point in the spring or summertime). This milk is churned in a
bag (“beaten”) with a starter culture and because of its high sugar content
ferments into a low-alcohol drink rapidly1"
The one who needs to open up a History book is you. Good grief.
I have cited sources -- you haven't cited a single thing except for your naive opinion this entire discussion. I see no reason as to why I should continue to cite anything when you'll simply ignore it. You're also the jackass who believes Plutarch was not a historian.
I am 100% Done with you. You are hilariously retarded.
And no. Caesar was NOT in the Second Triumvirate. Caesar was in the FIRST Triumvirate.
It would either end in a stalemate or in capitulation. After the Parthians destroyed the Roman Legions, they didn't come back to Parthia for over 100 Years.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/Hist303/Sources_P2_assass.htm
"Plutarch (Reliability A) – Plutarch, c. 46-120 AD, a Greek biographer and author. In addition to his parallel lives he wrote 2 rhetorical compositions on kings which are included in a collection of his literary works entitled Moralia. He became a Roman senator under the empire. A philosophical writer – wrote a series of “Parallel Lives” of famous Greek and Roman figures as examples of moral lifestyles. 40 of these have survived. He had access to the imperial library in Rome. Possibly the most well-read man of Roman antiquity – refers to scores of ancient sources that are now lost. As a biographical writer he was willing to include anecdotal materials that portrayed his subjects in the worst possible light. Some of this material is polemical, that is, it possibly arises from scurrilous tracts written by political adversaries of his subjects. He also relied extensively on the personal memoirs of people such as Sulla, Lucullus, and Caesar, equally though oppositely biased in content. Leaning toward the sensational, Plutarch nevertheless relied on available sources for every thing he wrote. He made nothing up himself and can be considered as reliable as his source material."
Romans were known to pay gold to stop big bad enemies from attacking them and Mongols were known to demand tribute in exchange for not attacking people. It is overly probable that Rome would have simply paid the Mongols off if the Mongols suddenly appeared and devastated several of Rome's legions.
Crossing the Alps is also not that impossible of a task for the Mongols to accomplish when you considered that Genghis Khan crossed the Tien Shan mountains when he invaded Khwarezmia and during the Invasion of Europe the Mongols had an army cross the Carpathian mountains. Hannibal crossed the Alps with Elephants.
The highest mountain in the Alps is 15,781 ft high. The Highest Peak in the Tien Shan is 24,406 ft. Crossing the Alps isn't overly hard assuming you don't try to do it at winter.
What Dragn fails to understand is the war against Parthia in which The Battle of Carrhae took place, the Romans LOST.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/49*.html#22
Oh, and since he said to "Check wikipedia"
"After that defeat, the Parthians under Pacorus invaded Roman territory in 40 BC in conjunction with Quintus Labienus, a Roman erstwhile supporter of Brutus and Cassius. They swiftly overran Syria, and defeated Roman forces in the province; all the cities of the coast, with the exception of Tyre admitted the Parthians. Pacorus then advanced into Hasmonean Judea, overthrowing the Roman client Hyrcanus II and installing his nephew Antigonus (40–37 BC) in his place. For a moment, the whole of the Roman East was captured to Parthians."
and
"With Roman control of Syria and Judaea restored, Mark Antony led a huge army into Azerbaijan, but his siege train and its escort were isolated and wiped out, while his Armenian allies deserted. Failing to make progress against Parthian positions, the Romans withdrew with heavy casualties. In 33 BC Antony was again in Armenia, contracting an alliance with the Median king against both Octavian, and the Parthians, but other preoccupations obliged him to withdraw, and the whole region passed under Parthian control"
"Romans were known to pay gold to stop big bad enemies from attacking them and Mongols were known to demand tribute in exchange for not attacking people. It is overly probable that Rome would have simply paid the Mongols off if the Mongols suddenly appeared and devastated several of Rome's legions."
I agree with this, and that if they did go to war, history would dictate that the Mongols would win. Any other likely or unlikely outcome is open to speculation I suppose (such as the Romans assassinating key Mongolian leaders, or salting the earth in all paths that the Mongolians might take, thus destroying their supplies.)
Unfortunately the match-up is really just an absurd one because the Mongols have a sheer advantage in terms of technology and numbers. Even setting their gunpowder aside, the Mongols Bodkin Arrows were capable of piercing medieval armor that was of a much higher grade and quality than what the Romans had. The Bodkin arrows could pierce through Damascus Steel armor.
So yeah. It's not really a fair matchup.
In terms of Generals, Gaius Julius Caesar lost battles...Chingis Khan is one of histories only undefeated Generals.
Mongols would devastate the Roman Empire. Rome might survive with its African and Italian holdings in tact but the Mongols would have rampaged all across Gaul and Iberia. There isn't a way that Rome would be able to contend with the Mongol numbers, Rome wouldn't even be able to go on the offensive.
At its height of power Rome only had 425,000 soldiers at their command. These soldiers were spread across a -vast- swath of terrain. If these legions were moved, the chances of massive insurrection were incredibly likely. The Mongols invaded the Song Dynasty with 450,000 soldiers. That is more soldiers than the Roman Empire had in total for -one invasion-.
Rome would have lost most, if not all, of Europe save for Italy.
Rome, however, is not stupid and would simply offer Chingis Khan a sweet pile of Gold to leave them alone.
Assassination attempts aside, the Mongols were also notorious for spies and assassins so there is no promise that Romans would have been able to assassinate Chingis Khan.
a Nobody is argueing that. The point is that combined with your claim that every warrior had 3-4 horses there would simply not be enough milk to feed him.
b Nobody argued that. The point is that you claimed that other factions horses needed grain. Which is not true. They could feed from gras only. They would have just have to switch to nomadic ways too. The grain simply allowed for cavalry garrisons.
c Nobody is argueing that. The point is that primary sources should be handled carefully. Especially when they are known to enrich their writings to support their morale message. As is known for Plutarch. That is called critical source analysis. You learn that in highschool.
d That is your own opinion. Which you fail to support by other means than stomping your foot and name-calling.
There is no archeological evidence for that numbers.
Nope. For starters read the Wikipedia. Especially the part about his 'Parallel Lives'.
You are so misinformed that it actually hurts. Here for starters a quote from Wikipedia
This text does not support your strange assumptions. Where is the part that 3-4 horses can feed one human? Where is the part that they led them foal only once and have milk forever? It rather describes standard procedures and it actually reads like one of the countless books about someone traveling through the world. Not scientific at all.
Hillarious comment from someone who does not understand basic biological processes.