|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 20, 2008 15:27:12 GMT 3
Have you noticed whoever entered battle against steppe armies VERY VERY few actually survived compared to sedentary battlefields where routers who ran actually lived post-battle.
Also note the lesser numbers used by steppe armies compared to rather massed numbers used by sedentary armies. Yet few of 'em got away!
Is it all due to great tactics and outflanking the enemy?
Is it due to the simple mobility of the horse where we can chase them to the ends of the earth?
Or is it because we had the ability to chase them down on our horses and cupid-style their backside with arrows at the same time?
Is it all those factors above?
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Bor Chono on Dec 21, 2008 6:13:12 GMT 3
Strange question!  Do we need slaves that can`t look after livestock? Do we have sedentary partners who buy slaves? Do we have food for prisoners? No no & no Ok if we are fighting each other, we need slaves (who can ride a horse ) for blacksmith, saddle makers, bow makers, jewelery..etc=Darhan=Craftsmen. Darhan ppl always been in high or in middle class.  |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 21, 2008 7:33:13 GMT 3
Is this fact documented? Or is it just that history is written by the victor? Is this like how the Tanguts, who were "exterminated" after being defeated by Chingis Khan, down to every last one of them, rose up again to rebel against the Khan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 21, 2008 13:34:25 GMT 3
Erm, I'm not talking about actual populations of either nomadic tribes or sedentary cultures. Both were subjicated not exterminated. I'm talking about the armies themselves, not the general population.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikebg on Dec 23, 2008 13:05:03 GMT 3
Erm, I'm not talking about actual populations of either nomadic tribes or sedentary cultures. Both were subjicated not exterminated. I'm talking about the armies themselves, not the general population. I'd say it's because of mobility and style of warfare. Mobility simply because you can indeed "chase them to the ends of the earth" if you're on a horse, while if you're on foot you can not. Style of warfare because I remember some European chronicler (either Byzantine or Frankish) wrote f.e. about the Bulgars that unlike other (sedentary) people, when the Bulgars routed their enemies, they chased them till the very end. No stopping for loot and plunder (which was highly unusual for the undisciplined Westerners) and even if the enemy found "refuge" in some fortress, the Bulgars surrounded that fortress and besieged them as much as possible (i.e. tried to starve them out or use some tricks to enter the fortress). While the sedentary people simply routed their enemy (eventually), chased them till they reached their camp and then all soldiers simply started looting and going home (thus exposing themselves to a counter-attack). Of course, this is also a matter of discipline, but I'd say that discipline is exactly a part of the style and mentality of warfare... |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 24, 2008 1:40:25 GMT 3
Hmmm, now it's starting to make sence that this ferocity of chasing them to the ends of the earth ended up with the Mongol invasions further into Europe ->
Batu: "Hand over the Kipchaks!"
Bela: "Errr... um... no!"
Batu: "So be it, war it is!!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by mongol194 on Jan 7, 2009 13:30:16 GMT 3
A lot of it might also be doctrine. So called civilised or sedentary nations often indoctrinated thier troops with idealogies centered around nobility and chivalry and all that rubbish. Just look at the classical battles between rome and carthage. the Romans persued carthage and raised it to the ground but apparently Scipio Africanus let Hannibal live despite the fact that he had been the worst offender. (a bit like a terrorist to the romans!) Same goes with Alexander the great and Porus at the Hydaspes almost a century earlier. You just didn't finish a beaten enemy who was of noble blood. However whole nations of Nomadic peoples were massacred by sedentary armies of the classical and medieval world. In tribal societies you live by raiding the enemy. The idea here was to totally anahilate your enemy or at least weaken him to the point that he cannot retaliate. Therefore Nomadic armies with thier greater mobility would hack down the entire reserves of manpower in thier foes to prevent future problems.
Besides in the west Rome was the great superpower it was becuase it would trample anyone who posed a problem. However it declined in the imperial era becuase it failed to quash the northern and eastern enemies and instead tried diplomatic means rather than brutal. This may be due to the new Christian doctrine which prevented mass slaughter on moral grounds. Except Emperor Constantius sent one of his pagan cousins to fight for him. Here it was the last example of Roman legions actually wiping out an enemy army cannot remember the guys name though he was known as the apostate emperor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jan 7, 2009 19:08:10 GMT 3
Well we didn't shed noble blood, we just tied them up under the table and racked them suffocating them to death instead (Russian princes). Heh guess we didn't see such 'nobility' in people as by that time we were a meritocratic state. The only people we let live were those who fought hard enough and became respected on the battlefield.
Btw mass slaughter has been continually performed by Christians since ancient times unless your enemy is also Christian. Crusades, inquisition, reconquista, colonisation, etc.
|
|
