|
Post by erdene on Jan 8, 2007 4:35:28 GMT 3
Was death seen as glorious to the nomadic soldiers as it was to the likes of Samurais and Muslim soldiers??? Would nomadic armies rather retreat and fight another day than die on the battlefield for honour and glory. I read somewhere that Mongol soldiers, at one of their battles with Mameluks, dismounted to fight off a Mameluk charge, could this have also shown their willingness to fight to the last?  ?? Is there any mention anywhere that the 'Eternal Blue Sky' will look after the soldiers after their death?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 8, 2007 16:13:25 GMT 3
The Ancient Turks such as the Xiongnu and Blue Turks considered dying in the battlefields as a glorious style of death. It was considered a pity if you died in your bed. But of course they also did not like wasting them fo nothing; they ran away if needed and they were not ashamed of it - they were practical people, not like the Japanese samurai 
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Jan 9, 2007 12:10:37 GMT 3
True.  Steppe people were practical soldiers, not mindless kamikazes.
|
|
|
Post by Saran on Jan 9, 2007 15:01:16 GMT 3
Glorious death for the steppe nomads is fighting till their last blood drop drips and die with a pillow (Remember that Tataars!) ;D
|
|
|
Post by temur on Jan 10, 2007 18:49:42 GMT 3
Hi sister! I agree with you to this point  Glorious death for the steppe nomads is fighting till their last blood drop drips and die with a pillow (Remember that Tataars!) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Apr 27, 2007 23:26:04 GMT 3
Well I understand fighting untill you die
but what the hell is with the Japanese harkiri thing thats just the easy way out to me
|
|
|
Post by Bor Chono on Apr 28, 2007 11:20:04 GMT 3
Harakiri is very strange & stupid way to die. ;D
|
|