|
Post by zinnmartina on Jan 17, 2010 23:52:04 GMT 3
I agree with Sarmats comments.
And in my opinion it is also the prson of the leader. The charakter of a Temujin lateer Genghis Kahn. The owerhelming knowledge of a Subutai. They wre leaders the followers did trust and more. Other examples in history are for me Alexander the Great, Hannibal or Napoleon. This is military it can be political or cultural, too.
|
|
|
Post by kenmirzz on Jan 18, 2010 4:40:41 GMT 3
No Anda Subu'atai, you deserve the good Karma because of your hard work and also to include your childhood challenge that you went through before.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Jan 22, 2010 16:48:45 GMT 3
Both hannibal and Napoleon lost under their life time, unlike gengis khan and alexander, but the difference between alexander and gengis khan is that alexander only defeated one large empire unlike gengis khan which faced many strong empires like Jin , Song, Khawarazm , Kipchaks and others, while alexander only faced one large empire the achemainiads
If u want to compare people with gengis khan than there is only two people Emir Temur and alexander
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jan 22, 2010 17:24:41 GMT 3
Being a general is just like any other trade, a plumber, a cook, a businessman, a manager, etc. If your good at your job, success will be no surprise.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jan 22, 2010 17:44:23 GMT 3
Both hannibal and Napoleon lost under their life time, unlike gengis khan and alexander, but the difference between alexander and gengis khan is that alexander only defeated one large empire unlike gengis khan which faced many strong empires like Jin , Song, Khawarazm , Kipchaks and others, while alexander only faced one large empire the achemainiads If u want to compare people with gengis khan than there is only two people Emir Temur and alexander Genghis Khan defeated only one large empire during his life time which is Kwarezm. All the other states you mentioned were conquered many years after his death. However, it's true that there never was again such an impressive Eurasian conquest as Mongols were able to perform.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Jan 23, 2010 0:01:03 GMT 3
One person we tend to forgett is that modu chanyu or Batur Shanyu was invincible during his reing ,
maybe he could he counted as the forth great general through history even he didnt conquer that much as the other three
|
|
|
Post by zinnmartina on Jan 31, 2010 19:45:34 GMT 3
Genghis Khan did lose, too. Or better was not sucessful. First in his youth aigainst the Naimans ( If I remebr correct ) later against the chinese Sung empire. It was not possible for his forces to conquer Kaifeng.
What I did mean clearly in my comment and that was the question, if there is a personality as a leader warriors will follow. They will follow after defeats, too. One very good example for this is Napoleon. The soldiers did follow him after Russia 1812 till Waterloo. He is still very popular in the France of today.
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Nov 7, 2010 9:29:04 GMT 3
The mongols were successful in that they worked with the forces they were given. The tactics and weapons they used were devised to created a quick hit and run advantage. If that be in large force or not. Truth be known their armor was made of boiled leather and textiles. The mongol bow was a light composite bow. Most likely 45-60 pound draw weight. designed for fast hit and run, unlike the heavy English warbows which were employed in mass artillery fire.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Nov 7, 2010 10:44:18 GMT 3
Actually the Mongol bows used in these times were quite heavy (60-150P), not up to the draw weight of longbows (70-200P) as it was to be used repeatedly on horseback, but much more powerful then comparative bows. They could annihilate whole armies with mere arrow-fire alone.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 7, 2010 19:46:19 GMT 3
Genghis' nephew Yessunge once hit a target from about 535 meters away. That says a lot about the power and accuracy of a Mongol archer
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 9, 2010 11:31:36 GMT 3
The Mongol force that attacked eastern Europe in the 1240s was a very well trained force. The European forces they encountered were not as well conducted and fought as groups vrs individuals. The Europeans allowed their forces to be drawn out and individually cut down as they attempted to chase down the much more manueverable Mongols, and as a result were tired down and exhausted. The horses of the Tuetonic Knights were shot to pieces with archery fire as the Mongols realized their arrows could not penetrate the armour of the knights so they merely circled around them wearing them down and once the knights were dismounted they slaughtered them to a man by mere numbers. A much different story would be the MUCH FAILED attacks against the island of JAPAN. The mongol host was dashed to pieces against the rocks of the island by the incoming monsoon season winds or as the Japanese call it the "Devine Winds".
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 9, 2010 11:44:10 GMT 3
Once the Mongols made land fall and attacked the Japanese forces they were met by the most formidable force in hand to hand, swordsmanship, or archery they had ever encountered. The Samurai were experts in Ju-Jitsu empty hand fighting as well as experts swordsman. The Mongols learned that the Japanese archery was more than a match for them and that the battlefield formations and movements of the Japanese were equally as swift and powerful. An individual Samurai was more than a match for any Mongol warrior and once the Mongols were disoriented in the heat of battle the Japanese took advantage of this and cut and tore them to pieces in hand to hand combat. Japan has a monument which depicts a Samurai warrior standing above a Mongol after their defeat. The Samurai "which is depicted empty handed" has thrown his enemy to the ground on his back, defenseless. The Mongols never again attempted to invade the island of Japan.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 9, 2010 20:36:08 GMT 3
Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Japanese samurais were not match for mongols. And Japanese archery is the biggest joke compare to Mongol archery by all mean. Japanese were smashed in close hand to hand encounters with Mongols. That's why they are so greatful to this day to the gods sent kamikaze, the only thing that could save their asses from the rage of Mongols. And, btw, we have already a detailed thread about this topic here. steppes.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=board13&action=display&thread=638&page=1
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 13, 2010 13:23:24 GMT 3
Well its ok if you believe this, but history says otherwise ;D
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 13, 2010 13:28:27 GMT 3
Not to mention the Mongol defeat by the Islamic armies in the later 13th century. The Islamic warriors had just about the same weapons, armor as well as the fact that they utilized many of the same tactical approaches.
|
|