|
Post by cataphract on May 10, 2008 23:23:49 GMT 3
In the new film 'Mongol' I saw Mongols performing a frontal attack with in both hands a sword directed to the outside of the horse. They held their arms in front of them and slashed the bodies of opponents crossing them at both sides. Is this reality or fiction? Cataphract
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 11, 2008 21:58:32 GMT 3
fiction. the movie was very dissapointed, including the warfare displayed. even though i admit it looked very cool.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 12, 2008 23:56:23 GMT 3
Steppe peoples never had such a fighting style, as far as we know from written records. Like at least half of the movie, that scene was also pure fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on May 27, 2008 12:09:18 GMT 3
The worse scene was with that rider just 'holding' his swords to his sides - that was just... ****
|
|
|
Post by Nomad (Daz) on Jun 19, 2008 14:12:49 GMT 3
Ok lets discuse the mongol warfare! Many belives that mongols won the battles with a bow and arrows. Tactics such as attack and retread. I say its hardly possible to win the war with a bow and arrows. Its possible at the begining of the battle to cut the numbers of the enemy vanguard but its will not turn the point of war. Vanguard usually heavily armed and such things as arrows is not a big obsticle. There is also a big problem with the supply of arrows. A horseman can carry 5-10 arrows a 1-2 bows, 1 spear, 1-2 sword, 1 knife, shield and an armour. With all this he should easily change weapons and keep being mobile if he doesn't wish to be a dead meat. If he will be heavily equiped such tactics as hit and run will not do. Horse will move slower and eventualy it will be too exhausted even to run. (Everything has its limits). The idea of suicide groups that will scare the hell out of nomads is possible. (How is it possible) Nomads all over the worlds historically recorded as not a big fighters. As they were mobile whenever they felt the battle will turn messy they fled. (Why will I die. I wana live. I have childern and wife here and abroad. Save you live let others fight those monkeys.) Only though strick discipline that will be brought up with blood and sweat. Soldies who will not know the word turnback and retried. Fanatics and suiciders. Only with this peoples you can crumble the world and make it yours. I think in "Mongols" they pointed correct that suicide group. How else you will put fear in your enemies hearts. World feared mongols during Chingis Khan because they did not know how to turn away and only knew to move forward. (I would fear is kind of enemy)
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 19, 2008 19:41:29 GMT 3
do you really believe Mongols were just brainless suicide bombers like Al-quaida?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 19, 2008 20:55:21 GMT 3
I never saw any references to suicide troops used by the Mongols or any other steppe peoples.
|
|
|
Post by Nomad (Daz) on Jun 20, 2008 8:42:03 GMT 3
In historical books you some times bump into it but not everybody notice what was it! In WWII The bloodshed was mostly on the easten front. The harders front for Germans to fight was Russian front. Why, because they were fighting at the human limits. Why Stalingrad became the graveyard for Hitlers ambitions? It was Soviet soldier who shatted his plans. How did they made it? Firsh the was a famous Directiv that considered any soldier a traitor who will retread. Then it was a NKVD groups who were placed machin guns "Maksim" behind the armies and shoot on sight any soldier who was retreating. Then it was a detention armies who had to wash their disgrace with blood and they where at tne peak of human limits. THis detention armies where placed at the most difficult fronts.
|
|
|
Post by Nomad (Daz) on Jun 20, 2008 8:43:26 GMT 3
If you saw a film you could probably remember the law read out by Chingis Khan
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 20, 2008 13:00:46 GMT 3
In historical books you some times bump into it but not everybody notice what was it! In WWII The bloodshed was mostly on the easten front. The harders front for Germans to fight was Russian front. Why, because they were fighting at the human limits. Why Stalingrad became the graveyard for Hitlers ambitions? It was Soviet soldier who shatted his plans. How did they made it? Firsh the was a famous Directiv that considered any soldier a traitor who will retread. Then it was a NKVD groups who were placed machin guns "Maksim" behind the armies and shoot on sight any soldier who was retreating. Then it was a detention armies who had to wash their disgrace with blood and they where at tne peak of human limits. THis detention armies where placed at the most difficult fronts. Provide us with sources to back up your claim about steppe nomadic armies using suicide troops. And don't compare WWII armies with steppe armies; it's like comparing apples with oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Bor Chono on Jun 21, 2008 12:07:28 GMT 3
It is very easy to stop sedentary army. 1st U need to stole/burn their food/water supply. 2nd don`t let them sleep for 2-3 days!(=good sleep is more important than water!) Job is done! they are sheep now. No suiciders needed ;D
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 21, 2008 13:51:47 GMT 3
That is what exactly the Turks did in Manzikert
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 25, 2008 14:21:59 GMT 3
Nomad you have to study deeper into history and evaluate it by your present as well. Almost ALL historical sources are written by the conquered. You think they will want to admit getting their a**es owned so easily by nomadic warriors? They make excuses everywhere they turn. They even somehow mistranslated the Mongol word "camp" into horde to the point the English term for the Golden Khanate is the Golden Horde yet every soldier fought outnumbered and won. If you lose the best of your soldiers against just a few nomads you're going to be bitter as f**k.
Suicide troops? This is misinformation. Mongol armies were disciplined into a strict military doctrine. Military doctrine that is known as "modern warfare" today. Ne ways the lines of the main battlefront were formed simply into 3 lines of light cavalry and 2 lines of heavy cavalry. Reserves of ambushes were also set with dismounted warriors annouched by the naqara. Light cavalry is more a strategic tool then a pure weapon of warfare. Our bows could outmatch any bow of enemy standards. Our lances could cut down even the most trained knight, our maces could knock out even the most heavily armored soldier, our swords could cut down masses of undisciplined foes, our strong wrestler warriors could throw any enemy off down their city walls. These are facts that foreign historians (who comprise almost ALL of historical texts) try to destroy.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 25, 2008 14:29:53 GMT 3
On the battlefield, using horse archery we could lead the enemy ANYWHERE we wanted, we could displace them, isolate them, toy with them as wolves toy with their prey, before we sheath our bows and pull out our maces and swords then slaughter them all the way back to their pathetic city walls (which didn't last long either)
On the battlefield we could afford to play, we never had to use total brute force in an all out charge - that's reserved for the cities and sieges. Once we crack down their walls it's time for nomadic wolves to feast on sedentary flesh. This is the success of a Mongol warrior, the true nomad over sedentary armies. Our weakness and our greatest sin, has always, is always, and will always be fighting amongst ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 25, 2008 20:31:40 GMT 3
Actually, the English name Horde used to be used with the exact meaning in Turkic and Mongolian: royal camp. The very word itself is Turkic, with that meaning - the Mongols just borrowed this word from Turkic. The name Golden Horde and Blue Horde also indicate that when this word passed to English, it preserved the original meaning. As time passed, the name Ordu changed it's meaning in Turkic and became used for "Army" (which was Sü in Old Turkic, though this word survived also), though it preserved the original meaning in the word "Ordugâh" in Ottoman and Modern Turkish, meaning "Army Camp". The name of the Urdu language also comes from Ordu, meaning "Army", because it was created in the armies of Turkic dynasties that ruled Northern India. Like in Turkish, the word Horde also got a meaning change, becoming the equivalent of "very large (and disordered) group of men".
|
|