|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 30, 2011 19:55:44 GMT 3
Agreed that Russia was too divided to pose any real threat from the Mongols. China however wasn't even fully conquered by the time Chingghis Khaan passed away.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 30, 2011 23:03:53 GMT 3
I dont call shouting your own soldiers as a good stragetic tactics which the soviet army did, also there wasnt enough weapons so they only handed out bullets to some when attacking, , do u call that good tactics, ? Is the source of your knowledge the great Hollywood movie "Enemy at the Gates"? What u describe really looks like a scene from this inaccurate movie. And killing deserters, was one of the Mongol tactics btw... Somehow, it worked quite well. did u forgett the human sacrifice soviet did, over 20 million dead soldiers, that really gigantics numbers , isnt it, much more than the germans suffered, Yes, the number is gygantic, but this number doesn't represent military casualties only, most of it are CIVILIANs who died in the Nazists occupied territories. Overall, the Soviet military casualties were higher than German ones, but the number you cited isn't representative of that ratio. maybe later soviet stragetics were better than previous, but dont forgett that the nazist took several million as prisoners of war from the soviet army , u tend to be blind for the causilties soviet had during the war but of course u are native of the land, and I presume are proud of getting rid of nazi , which I also would be if I was a russian, Russians took even more German PoWs. If u just want to go by the number of the PoWs than the Soviets won. It also doesn't matter what I am proud of. I care more about historical facts and accuracy here.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 31, 2011 0:53:17 GMT 3
well, both, I also heard not read of course ,
I also heard that russian during the occupation boiled shoes to than drink the water , dont know if its true,
well the cilivan for the soviets were 8 million or 13 million out of 20 million causlities dont remember the accurate numbers, either way soviet lost somehow 8 to 13 million soldiers which is gigantic number , not as many as germans , the total german loss of soldiers were 4,4 million and not as high as 8 to 13 million,
What is PoWs, I presume you mean prisoners of war, well the number collected by the germans were more one million which the soviets never came close to, you mean the 400,000 or was it 100,000 that surrender after the war with general paul in command? its still not even near the numbers germans caught,
anyway
I would have been proud if my countrymen kicked out the nazis during ww2, not something u shouldnt be proud of ,
I respect your knowledge and also your accurate rate for historical
fact but remember without proud and glory history isnt fun according to me , of course u should take the fact considerd the acurate and primary sources, but your forgett to remember the angel or point of view u see it from, I dont think you can find any single history book that is written in a objective way, all are subjective,
so are also the facts of what I have both read and heard,
back to topic,
so what was the main reason mongol was successful in the war against china, khwarazmian other kingdoms?
But as I read somewhere , maybe here, dont remember , there will always be a force that is going to defeat u sooner or later when it comes to medieval warfare,
Modern warfare is different isnt it, the us tactics of today theory was put by soviet generals saying that a war in the future will have minimal causulties for the developted country like soviet due to superior weaponary and combined useage of , airforce, marine, army , airbone and other forces ,
but when it comes to guerilla warfare is something else,
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 31, 2011 8:40:23 GMT 3
Yes, a whole arban gets killed even if one man from that "squad" deserts. It's very harsh discipline and isn't really fair but it worked.
Excellent generals and leadership, battlefield intelligence, discipline, and the incompetence of their enemies. Very simple rules of war, and it was a bloody steamroll really.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Jan 1, 2012 3:18:43 GMT 3
this isnt something other armies lack of as much as u may think, in the case of the khwarazmian, the leadership was really bad, but sure there were excellent generals , also the leadership lead to incompetence,
but thats not usually what make the winner, I think that the most important thing is competence and strategic thinking and strategic useage of weapons, for those who play strategy games you surely know what I mean, its also luck, and to be always alert, to win a battle or a game, I know its different in real life but the basics are the same then it comes to gameing but instead the real life battles was and is much more complex,
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Jan 1, 2012 3:30:12 GMT 3
I wonder how succesful the mongols would have been to pike men, were there any pike men at that time? Was the pike mens same strategic vonrable to flanking as the phalanx was?
which weapon was the most deadly to mongols in europe at that time? I read that the steppe people feared the crossbow, is it true?
How come the mongols won such a succesfull victory over a more powerful enemy at the battle of mohi?
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jan 1, 2012 7:45:19 GMT 3
The second crossing.
Where did you read that? The Mongols were faced with crossbows as soon as they decided to invade China. Didn't stop them. As for the most deadly weapon - it's terrain.
Yes they were, and the Mongols could have simply just withered them down with arrows in their tight formation. Pikes are two-handed as well not leaving room for shields.
In games you can control a medieval army with a click of a button, micromanaging all the tactical movements. Back then, it was much more complex. The Mongols however, compared to other armies at that time, was like a modern military system with well-trained officers, excellent communication, and command wasn't completely centralised.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Jan 3, 2012 1:20:57 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jan 5, 2012 23:55:35 GMT 3
Yes they were, and the Mongols could have simply just withered them down with arrows in their tight formation. Pikes are two-handed as well not leaving room for shields. no there were no pike-formations at this time in europe at all. pike-formations only re-appeared after the medieval period in europe again.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jan 7, 2012 14:06:40 GMT 3
I thought there were with the flemish and such, but wait, that's 14th century I guess, not 13th. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 7, 2012 17:10:49 GMT 3
True, pikemen formations started to appear only in the 14th century in regions like Switzerland, the Netherlands and Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Jan 7, 2012 22:00:20 GMT 3
ok
which one is supposedly be the worst senarium for mongols to meet in europe, ?
maybe the templar knights?
|
|
|
Post by coldwinternights on Jan 8, 2012 1:07:02 GMT 3
ok which one is supposedly be the worst senarium for mongols to meet in europe, ? maybe the templar knights? Hard to say. I'm almost tempted to say the Poles. But then again, we've got to look at either early or later Golden Horde. The Templars and Teutonics have a great track record, but then again the Rus did well after they got a foothold a couple centuries later. The Mongols essentially defeated almost everyone they came across in Europe.
|
|