|
Post by tadamson on Feb 12, 2009 14:56:22 GMT 3
The sources vary and some modern commentators are sceptical of them.
That said it appears that there were relatively few actual Mongol troops present - a few thousand and most of them officers.
Tom..
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Feb 12, 2009 22:39:49 GMT 3
Not sure about this. The descriptions from Japanese chronicles, especially, regarding the first invasion clearly describe typical Mongol horsemen tactics.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 13, 2009 2:03:26 GMT 3
I have also seen in Japanese scrools that they depict ordinary Mongol warriors, not some Sino-Korean guys.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 15, 2009 23:59:04 GMT 3
the soldiers with the pavise-style shields are definately not Mongol though.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 16, 2009 1:51:17 GMT 3
I thought they were also Mongols, as their helmets and armor looked like. Of course I might be wrong. Does anyone have detailed shots from those scrools?
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 16, 2009 22:39:57 GMT 3
www.bowdoin.edu/mongol-scrolls/but see it that way, German helmets were used by more countries than just Germany, so that's not a perfect way of identification. Mongols never used those square pavise-shields and their armour wasn't so unique. i've seen a few horsemen on the scroll one of which clearly has lamellar armour, those are most likely Mongols. most infantrymen seem to be auxiliaries, the one with bows perhaps dismounted Mongols.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 17, 2009 20:30:42 GMT 3
Ah finally, thanx!
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Feb 17, 2009 22:05:00 GMT 3
Mongols never used those square pavise-shields and their armour wasn't so unique. i've seen a few horsemen on the scroll one of which clearly has lamellar armour, those are most likely Mongols. most infantrymen seem to be auxiliaries, the one with bows perhaps dismounted Mongols. Why couldn't Mondols use these shields? I remember reading about Mongols holding similar kind of shield during the assaults on Ancient Rus fortresses in one Ancient Russian chronicle.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 18, 2009 21:32:16 GMT 3
because it's clearly an infantry shield, unlikely to be carried by 'real' Mongols. in the Osprey book on medieval Chinese armies the author says that this kind of shield was typical for southern China so we can assume it was carried by south-chinese auxiliaries. maybe not in case of the Rus invasion but such pavise shields are universally known.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 13, 2009 14:05:48 GMT 3
^ Mongols were rather inovative and flexible, I doubt when one is going up against a fortress full of enemy archers, and has a choice between a round shield and a big-ass pavise shield, he would choose the round shield. Well, I know I'll take the pavise shield... at least until I get into close range to cloink the mofos with my nice macey
|
|
|
Post by aynur on Jan 26, 2010 17:23:55 GMT 3
Steppe warrior. Samurai used to add alot of useless ritualizations into their battles ( with all due respect towards the samurai class ).
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jan 27, 2010 20:32:52 GMT 3
I was just curious about that 'deadliest warrior' show they had on TV actually. And I think let's get into detail: Let's compare the following... Sword quality: Japanese blades despite being works of art, are not as strong as non-Japanese blades due to much weaker raw Japanese iron compared to mainland cultures. Melee weaponry styles - the sword/shield fighting style has been proven to be superior to a twohanded weapon style or dual weapons in single combat. An untrained kid with a sword and shield obviously wont automatically win, but 2 soldiers with different setups - the sword/shield warrior has an IMMENSE advantage with his shield. Samurais use either 1 and half or both hands for their katana, or sometimes 1 hand but with wakisashi on the other. Unlike a steppe warrior who utilises both and sword and shield. Bows - yes, Samurais are famous for their swordsmanship because the media has propagated katanas as the limb slicing kill-bill style unstoppable lightsaber weapons. They were actually very skilled with other weapons too, the yari spear, the bow (and yes even horse archery). However, in the case of bows, yumi bows are much less powerful then a steppe bow. Martial Arts - Unlike many other nations actually, the Japanese have their own forms of grappling (Jujitsu am I correct?), though Sumo is obviously not for the battlefield. Personally I find striking martial arts such as kung fu/kickboxing/karate/etc, inferior to grappling martial arts. Raw strength is hard to argue with. Any strike can be grabbed. So in the case of martial arts, I don't really know who is better in unarmed since Japanese also grappled. Armor - well, the Japanese dont have shields. I wonder what they do during an arrow shower. No they arent Jedi Ne ways Japanese armor is meant to deflect arrows too am I correct? Is it effective? Actually I'm stop my post right here for now, can someone tell me about Japanese armor?
|
|
|
Post by ceonni on Jan 28, 2010 13:12:18 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jan 28, 2010 21:12:59 GMT 3
Bows - yes, Samurais are famous for their swordsmanship because the media has propagated katanas as the limb slicing kill-bill style unstoppable lightsaber weapons. They were actually very skilled with other weapons too, the yari spear, the bow (and yes even horse archery). However, in the case of bows, yumi bows are much less powerful then a steppe bow. that's not all, Japanese sword fighting techniques with the Katana emphasize on slashing moves, while the european technique of using either sword & buckler that you described, or sword & dagger in particular emphasize on using the straight tips of the blades to keep an enemy at bay and be able to strike both thrusting or if needed slashing towards the enemy. depends on the period. if we compare Mongols during the Mongol conquest with contemporary japanese armour the Mongol armour is easily superior, the Japanese armour of that time (O-yoroi). due to its construction the torso of the warrior was very inflexible and they were only able to shoot arrows to the left side of the horse. all in all Samurai easily suck, i mean who conquered that huge empire and who didn't? and if you check Japanese history, they never won wars except the first sino-japanese war and the russo-japanese war around 1900s and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jan 28, 2010 22:14:51 GMT 3
Well. They actually achieved some impressive victories in WWII and also they were victorious against a small German force in WWI. And during the Imjin was they performed quite good as well.
But it's true that the peak of the Samurai succesed is perhaps a period starting from the end of the 16th century and a relatively small period in the late 19th early 20th century. Early medieval samurai warfare apparently was inferior to the steppe war tradition.
Ohh, yeah, actually, I remember another confrontation between samurais and steppe people it was also during the Imjin war, Japanese tried to invade in Manchuria and took a small Jurchen fortress, but the next day the Jurchen came back with large cavalry force and Japanese had to run back to Korea as fast as they could.
And I also read that in the 11th century Jurchen pirates were raiding Japanese island of Kyushu.
|
|