|
Post by sarmat on Dec 13, 2010 18:55:52 GMT 3
Well its ok if you believe this, but history says otherwise ;D What I wrote is exactly what history says no more and no less.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 13, 2010 19:07:18 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. What defeat? If you mean the battle of Ain Jalut, Mongols were outnumbered, exhausted and bertrayed by their Crusader "allies." It's not the best example of Mongols "failures." But, you may be right that at least there was a real battle at Ain Jalut, while in Japan it was the taiphoon that crashed the Mongols and not the Japanese sword, and that's the fact. The most notable defeats that Mongols suffered was in Volga Bulgaria that is, nevertheless, has to be mentioned that it's still disputed that it, actually, happened and also, perhaps, at the siege of Song's Diaoyucheng.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 14, 2010 0:26:11 GMT 3
And even in Ain Jalut it was Mamluks from the Kypchak Turks who defeated the Mongols! lol
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 14, 2010 0:38:46 GMT 3
The worse defeats in my opinion have to be the invasion of Vietnam. Seriously, THREE times. Then again, the terrain of Vietnam is one of the most horrid for war and one that their warriors throughout history learnt to use effectively. Americans too should have learnt from history - don't try to invade Vietnam lol.
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Dec 14, 2010 1:10:46 GMT 3
The worse defeats in my opinion have to be the invasion of Vietnam. Seriously, THREE times. Then again, the terrain of Vietnam is one of the most horrid for war and one that their warriors throughout history learnt to use effectively. Americans too should have learnt from history - don't try to invade Vietnam lol. Hell yeah! And Vietnamese used exactly the same methods from exactly the same book against Americans
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 14, 2010 2:13:02 GMT 3
The Mamluks were the group I was referring to. I never said the Japanese sword was the reason for the defeat in Japan or totally credited their victory to the storm. The Mongol force that landed was still quite formidable. Not an easy Japanese victory but the Samurai had great weapons and armor, bows of serious accuracy and strength as well as good tactics and organization. Its not like the Mongols got steam rolled but the Japanese gave them a fight. They were no mere rabble like most of the army of King Henry the pious.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 14, 2010 4:40:00 GMT 3
Samurais' weapons of that period were inferior to Mongols' weapons and armour. They didn't even have katanas at that time yet and the Japanese asymmetric bow was much weaker than the Mongol composite bow. And there was no victory for Japanese, there were some inconclusive skirmishes with Mongols getting the upper hand until their fleet was destroyed by the typhoon.
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 14, 2010 6:35:24 GMT 3
true the actual curved Katana sword didnt appear until after the Muromachi period which was 1390sish to 1570s I believe. The swords of the time were straight but still hardened, it was the encounters with the Chinese that the Japanese began the push to perfecting the sword itself. I think we will have to agree to disagree my friend. just like when my buddy and I watch the Ravens play Pittsburg. Even though Pittsburg came back in the end to win it he always says its because the reffs made bad calls or this that and the other, when in the end two people saw the same game and we both simply have different views concerning how the outcome was achieved. Remember too that outward stats dont always insure a particular outcome. Sometimes in history the guy with the worse armor fatter horse and rustier sword still gets lucky. Not describing an analogy to the Japanese vs mongols here but just saying in general.
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 14, 2010 6:43:15 GMT 3
And to answer you Subu'atai yes most military trecs into Vietnam have been nothing less than disasterous. Bamboo vipers pungii sticks hit and run guerrilla warfare tactics always makes for a very bad day! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Dec 15, 2010 1:45:06 GMT 3
arguably, the first invasion (better: raid, incursion) of Dai Viet by Sube'edais son was a complete success, and overall the Mongols were successfull in making the Dai Viet and Champa tributary.
what's more interesting but completely neglected are the invasions of the Delhi Sultanate by the Chaghatay Khanate. the Delhi Sultanate was able to fend off the invasions and expand further south at the same time. and northern india has been taken most of the time by mounted invaders.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 15, 2010 16:56:17 GMT 3
The Mamluk victories over the Ilkhanate at Elbistan and Homs should be mentioned as well.
|
|
|
Post by greyknight on Dec 15, 2010 23:18:51 GMT 3
Good point Babur! That fact is seldom mensioned
|
|
|
Post by schiirschach on Jun 22, 2011 10:34:45 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 23, 2011 20:17:18 GMT 3
Welcome aboard schiirschach
|
|
|
Post by Tobodai on Jul 19, 2011 21:53:53 GMT 3
I didnt see it mentioned here so far but having a really good team that works well together is very important. Yes its critically important that Temujin was a great leader, and even more important that China was disunited and the Kwarzemian Empire was new and fragile. But its also worth noting how good leadership comes from a good council of people who work well together fleshing out ideas. In the Mongol Empire you had Chinggis Khaan at the top delegating administration to the very capable Yelu Chutsai and other learned Khitans, independent military operations to Subedei and Jebe, and the rapid integration of skilled artisans, siege weapon builders, and the like. I would like the think the religious and cultural toleration espoused by the Yasa had something to do with keeping this meritocracy going, but who knows?
|
|