Cyrus The Great vs Alexander The Great vs Genghis Khan

Avatar image for qpzmg
Qpzmg

1116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Qpzmg

Round 1: Who was a better leader, military strategist & conqueror. Round 2: all of them with their armies vs each other which one wins.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d945143d79a
deactivated-59d945143d79a

5227

Forum Posts

10782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

I'd hate to say it, but Alexander for both

Avatar image for totalbalance
TotalBalance

749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By TotalBalance

Where on earth are all these greatest conqueror threads coming from...

Avatar image for qpzmg
Qpzmg

1116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Qpzmg

I just saw the other threads and saw it was missing Cyrus so I made this thread.

Avatar image for jbhdbc
Jbhdbc

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Jbhdbc

Cyrus was easily the best leader he respected the religion and the tradition of all the lands he conquered not like the other 2. all of them are good strategist but probably Genghis is the best since he had the biggest empire. all of them were good conquerors because they had the biggest empire of their time. if they fight it could go either way since they all have large armies and are good strategist but i dont know much about their armies but i will give it to cyrus because of his immortal army.

Avatar image for d3athstroke
D3athstroke

5113

Forum Posts

187

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By D3athstroke

1) Alexander

2) Khan

Avatar image for joseph_heydrich
Joseph_Heydrich

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Joseph_Heydrich

@D3athstroke said:

1) Alexander

2) Khan

Avatar image for biteme_fanboy
BiteMe-Fanboy

8951

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#8  Edited By BiteMe-Fanboy

@D3athstroke said:

1) Alexander

2) Khan

Avatar image for gtg12
GTG12

1584

Forum Posts

7616

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#9  Edited By GTG12

1. Alexander

2. Khan

Avatar image for qpzmg
Qpzmg

1116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Qpzmg

Provide reason.

Avatar image for omgomgwtfwtf
OmgOmgWtfWtf

7513

Forum Posts

4246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By OmgOmgWtfWtf

1. Genghis Khan by far was the a beater leader. He actually set up a succession plan, unlike Alexander, and had a long term outlook on his empire, which Alexander didn't have. His empire fell apart once he died. Genghis Khan actually had a legacy plan setup. As for military strategist and conqueror, that is a little harder to decide, in terms of pure conquest then it would be Genghis Khan, he conquered a larger area than Alexander did.

2. Easily Genghis Khan.

@Jbhdbc: Genghis Khan respected the religions of all of his people. He was avid in learning religion and philosophy, he adopted Taoism and Buddhism in the later parts of his life, while still keeping to his own Mongolian roots. He was also known to gather Christian thinkers to teach him the Bible, though he found their concepts a bit silly. Genghis Khan had no reason to bash religion, he allowed his conquered people full religious freedom, it wouldn't help him much to discriminate based on religion. It would serve no purpose in the long term.

Avatar image for princearagorn1
PrinceAragorn1

31807

Forum Posts

53

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By PrinceAragorn1

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: No offense, but Isn't he particularly known for being a merciless slaughterer? Am I confusing him with someone else?

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By Kratesis

Alexander the Great wins each and every round. Not only that, but he utterly stomps with ease.

Khan was fighting against the soft underbelly of the world. His foes were weak, to be frank.

Not Alexander. He took a small and unstable kingdom of roughnecks against the greatest empire in the world. He smashed it, utterly destroyed every force to ever face him in battle. He lead from the front by taking his most mobile and hardest hitting element (the Companion Calvary) and driving them directly into the most critical point. His personal skill in battle was unmatched by anyone before or sense.

He defeated insurgence, he defeated titanic armies, he once stormed the walls of a city by himself before his army could catch up. He inspired absolutely fanatical devotion in combat. When Alexander lead them his men fought like men possessed.

Were he to meet Cyrus or Khan in battle he would crush them.

Avatar image for omgomgwtfwtf
OmgOmgWtfWtf

7513

Forum Posts

4246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By OmgOmgWtfWtf

@PrinceAragorn1: There are misconceptions, particularly in Western views of him. Europeans never did have a nice time with barbarians of any sort, look at the Vikings for example. While he was known to be a great warrior and killed many people, that was the natural outcome of fighting. People are bound to die in any given conflict, Genghis Khan was known to be merciful when people deserved it. He wouldn't pillage a town if they surrendered to him, if they didn't surrender, it pretty much means they were ready to fight and die. He's no more worst than Alexander the Great or any other conqueror in history. It's kind of hard to be a merciful conqueror and control every action of your soldier. There are accounts of rape and plain out murder throughout his conquests, but how much of that is attributed to him, rather then the acts of his troops, remains inconclusive (American troops would rape women during the Vietnam War and even in World War II, yet those acts are widely attributed as independent acts rather then condoned violence by the military). He was known to use psychological warfare to a large degree. Such as sending the headless men of enemy soldiers back to their cities strapped to horses. Employing the use of screamer arrows which maimed and wounded targets instead of killing them. Basically my point is, the perception and relevance of certain historical people and events are relative too each individual culture and people. Some people thought he was a barbarian, other's believed he was a wise benevolent ruler, and there are those who thought he was a monster. From what I have learned and read about Genghis Khan, he was warrior who held to a strict code of honor and ethics, he was versed in philosophy (having learned from the best in Europe and Asia), and despite the amount of bloodshed he caused, he tried his best to make things smooth as possible, for him and the people he conquered.

Avatar image for princearagorn1
PrinceAragorn1

31807

Forum Posts

53

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By PrinceAragorn1

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: Ok.

Avatar image for lord_johnathan
Lord_Johnathan

3304

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Lord_Johnathan

Genghis stomps, Alexander is horribly poverrated. When I have a computer with reliable internet access I'll make a detailed post showing why Genghis is hands down the greatest commander of the pre military age, rivalled only by his right hand man Suboutai.

Avatar image for qpzmg
Qpzmg

1116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By Qpzmg

What about Cyrus.

Avatar image for atphantom
AtPhantom

14434

Forum Posts

25163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#18  Edited By AtPhantom

@Kratesis said:

Khan was fighting against the soft underbelly of the world. His foes were weak, to be frank.

He was fighting freaking China. At that point quite probably the largest and most powerful nation in the world. Alexander fought an ill and decaying Achaemenid empire. The soft underbelly can at least be employed on both sides of the equation.

@OmgOmgWtfWtf: Something like two million people were killed in the pillaging of Baghdad. The Mongol conquests radically altered the demographics of the conquered areas, in some cases bringing the population down to a tenth of what it was. Until the 20th century the Mongol conquests were by far the bloodiest wars ever fought on the planet. I don't think that can simply be attributed to a strict code of honor.

Avatar image for lord_johnathan
Lord_Johnathan

3304

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By Lord_Johnathan

Also, there's considerable evidence that Alexander's historians were embellishing a lot of details and in some cases, flat out made sh!t up or covered up any facts that would make him look bad. Like the fact that Alexander was a drunkard party boy who threw hissyfits whenever things didn't go his way, that was downplayed a lot and would impair his judgement. Had he faced the Persian empire at it's zenith rather than the old and dying nation that was just waiting for some serious opposition to kick it down, he would have failed to get past turkey. Not to mention, Genghis destroyed a persian empire too. Remember the kwarzhems? No? Well they were the greatest persian empire since the glory days of the achmaenids, and Genghis utterly stomped them at their height, and stomped them so hard that it's hard to find much about them. Genghis would destroy Alex, he would march into Macedon and torch it, and he would destroy the hellenic world utterly.

Avatar image for herb_roy_33
herb_roy_33

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By herb_roy_33

Alexander benchpressed 5000lbs. Alexander curbstomps.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By Kratesis

@AtPhantom said:

@Kratesis said:

Khan was fighting against the soft underbelly of the world. His foes were weak, to be frank.

He was fighting freaking China. At that point quite probably the largest and most powerful nation in the world. Alexander fought an ill and decaying Achaemenid empire. The soft underbelly can at least be employed on both sides of the equation.

At no point in all of its history could China have ever been considered a first rate military power. They were ONLY considered powerful in their region because of the weakness, and small size of the surrounding countries.

They have had considerable culture, education and economic power, but NEVER did this translate to great military power.

@Lord_Johnathan said:

Also, there's considerable evidence that Alexander's historians were embellishing a lot of details and in some cases, flat out made sh!t up or covered up any facts that would make him look bad. Like the fact that Alexander was a drunkard party boy who threw hissyfits whenever things didn't go his way, that was downplayed a lot and would impair his judgement. Had he faced the Persian empire at it's zenith rather than the old and dying nation that was just waiting for some serious opposition to kick it down, he would have failed to get past turkey.

This is completely untrue. Earlier Persian empires displayed more economic power and cultural cohesiveness, but not tactical ability or warfighting skill. All an earlier empire would have done is require Alexander to kill larger armies. Considering no army EVER threatened to attain victory over him by virtue of size alone its safe to say this wouldn't have changed anything but the body count.

Not to mention, Genghis destroyed a persian empire too. Remember the kwarzhems? No? Well they were the greatest persian empire since the glory days of the achmaenids, and Genghis utterly stomped them at their height, and stomped them so hard that it's hard to find much about them. Genghis would destroy Alex, he would march into Macedon and torch it, and he would destroy the hellenic world utterly.

Not hardly. His forces would certainly fair better against other generals then Alexander but destroy the Hellenic world utterly is simply hyperbolic and not reflecting the actual fighting power of the two sides.

Its also irrelevant. He is fighting Alexander here, not a random general.

Genghis never demonstrated tactical skill on the level, or even near the level, of Alexander. On the contrary he focused on logistics and organization At heart he was a bureaucratic man, not a tactician. While it helped him maintain large borders and sustain extensive armies it wouldn't serve him in a battle against Alexander.

Avatar image for omgomgwtfwtf
OmgOmgWtfWtf

7513

Forum Posts

4246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By OmgOmgWtfWtf

@AtPhantom: The historical background on why he ransacked Baghdad would be important. The Khwarezmiam Dynasty that ruled Baghdad at that point were pretty cruel to Genghis Khan's peaceful attempts to further open the silk road. He sent a caravan of 500 men at one point full of precious items and they killed and pillaged the caravan. Genghis Khan then sent two emissaries and a Muslim to explain his position even further. The emissaries had their beard shaved (which is a major no-no, this is worse than death, this is super shame) and beheaded the Muslim. After that debacle, which was a basic 'up yours' to Khan, only then did he decide to fight. I don't deny that it was indeed a very blood conflict for both sides, and that Genghis Khan did use prisoners as shields in this conflict, and destroyed a lot of stuff. Also Genghis Khan was never responsible for the destruction of Baghdad, that was by Ilkhanate Mongols, who were an offshoot group, and were ruled by Hulaga Khan. Even then in that given situation they were ordered to attack only if the ruling Caliph refused to pay tribute to them. Also the two million dead is highly exaggerated, the only sources were from Mulsim scribes, who are notorious for over-exaggerating events. Unless you are referring to his conquest of Urgench? They refused to give up and many Mongolians died during the assault. Also, they only massacred the men and took the women and children as slaves. I am not disputing that Genghis Khan didn't murder a lot of people, being Chinese I can say there is still a lot of animosity towards him even to this day. But as a conqueror and empire builder, fighting and bloodshed are the normal consequences of these actions.

Avatar image for omgomgwtfwtf
OmgOmgWtfWtf

7513

Forum Posts

4246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By OmgOmgWtfWtf

@Kratesis: But of course ancient China had a good army, but specify which time period, because their relative strength fluctuated from time to time, dynasty to dynasty. In fact, during nearly the entire span of the Roman Empire, the Han Empire easily rivaled their military prowess and extension of influence over neighboring regions (Vietnam, Manchuria, Northern Korea, Central Asia, etc.)

Like very rare examples in times of antiquity and the middle ages, since China had such a large population to boast (although only about 10% of the ancient Chinese population were true urban dwellers, while 90% were more rural or definitely in the rural category), then China was able to muster gigantic armies. Although many records from many different societies boast and brag about military sizes and provide inaccurate figures for later historians to ponder over, there is pure and undeniable evidence that Chinese emperors (and warlords in times of division and civil war) were able to muster enormous armies, ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of different troops.

By the time of the Song Dynasty (960 - 1279 AD), while Europe was struggling to crawl out of its subsequent Dark Age (although Europe was aided by such things as the Carolingian Renaissance or the Scholastic Age spurred by such Arab writers like Ibn Rushd), the Chinese were in control of a massive empire (although not in the scope and size of the earlier Tang Dynasty spread into Central Asia), and in China there was actually a proto-Industrial-Revolution occuring, where each year the Chinese economy, industry, and military were so strong that roughly a hundred thousand tons of iron and steel products a year were being produced, satisfying the general populace in rural or sprawling urban markets for every general commodity under the sun in the Chinese empire, as well as providing the standing military of over a million soldiers (including naval marines) with the steel and iron armor and weaponry they required to defend China's massive borders, worrying over such threats as pirates across the eastern coasts, or their Khitan (Liao Dynasty) and Tangut (Xi-xia Dynasty) neighbors to the north (of course, the Song's greatest enemies would prove not to be these two, but the Jurchens and Mongols who later invaded China from Manchuria and Mongolia).

Long before the naval exploits of Zheng He that seem to be so popular these days with Western interest, the Chinese at the time of the Song Dynasty had massive trade interests as far as Persia, Arabia, and East Africa, and most notably with the expansive naval superpower from southern India, the Tamil-ethnicity Chola Dynasty, which conquered Sri Lanka, the Malaysian/Indonesian Kingdom of Srivijaya, and sent naval raids and expeditions into modern Thailand and Cambodia, threatening the Khmer Empire which was undergoing all sorts of inner political strife and conflicts with neighbors (like the Champa from southern Vietnam) during the 11th century AD. As for the Chinese, with all of these overseas contacts, they required a gigantic aggregate naval fleet to act as entourage to their trading vessels (as well as to constantly guard the various lakes and rivers of southern and central China). These ships were also quite impressive for their day, as seen through the 1974 excavation of the Quanzhou shipwreck from the Song era, or the one found soon after off the shores of Korea (ironically, 1974 being the same year that Chinese discovered the Qin Dynasty's enormous Terracotta Army dedicated to the tomb of Emperor Qin Shihuangdi, who lived in the 3rd century BC).

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Kratesis

@OmgOmgWtfWtf said:

@Kratesis: But of course ancient China had a good army, but specify which time period, because their relative strength fluctuated from time to time, dynasty to dynasty. In fact, during nearly the entire span of the Roman Empire, the Han Empire easily rivaled their military prowess

What? That is simply untrue. At no period did China ever near the Roman's military prowess. That is an extraordinary claim by any measure.

and extension of influence over neighboring regions (Vietnam, Manchuria, Northern Korea, Central Asia, etc.)

As I stated before, this was due to the relative weakness of neighbouring countries and the size of china. Not military prowess.

Like very rare examples in times of antiquity and the middle ages, since China had such a large population to boast (although only about 10% of the ancient Chinese population were true urban dwellers, while 90% were more rural or definitely in the rural category), then China was able to muster gigantic armies. Although many records from many different societies boast and brag about military sizes and provide inaccurate figures for later historians to ponder over, there is pure and undeniable evidence that Chinese emperors (and warlords in times of division and civil war) were able to muster enormous armies, ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of different troops.

The ability to mobilize large numbers of people while in a fertile and populated land is to be expected. That a country with a large population could mobalize a large army has never been in dispute.

Numbers and military power may be related, but one is not the other.

By the time of the Song Dynasty (960 - 1279 AD), while Europe was struggling to crawl out of its subsequent Dark Age (although Europe was aided by such things as the Carolingian Renaissance or the Scholastic Age spurred by such Arab writers like Ibn Rushd), the Chinese were in control of a massive empire (although not in the scope and size of the earlier Tang Dynasty spread into Central Asia), and in China there was actually a proto-Industrial-Revolution occuring, where each year the Chinese economy, industry, and military were so strong that roughly a hundred thousand tons of iron and steel products a year were being produced, satisfying the general populace in rural or sprawling urban markets for every general commodity under the sun in the Chinese empire, as well as providing the standing military of over a million soldiers (including naval marines) with the steel and iron armor and weaponry they required to defend China's massive borders, worrying over such threats as pirates across the eastern coasts, or their Khitan (Liao Dynasty) and Tangut (Xi-xia Dynasty) neighbors to the north (of course, the Song's greatest enemies would prove not to be these two, but the Jurchens and Mongols who later invaded China from Manchuria and Mongolia).

I'm sorry, but this massive force was simply a joke and would likely have been crushed by any western army of equivalent size.

The development of explosive weapons and their production was the only thing even remotely distinctive or impressive about them.

Long before the naval exploits of Zheng He that seem to be so popular these days with Western interest, the Chinese at the time of the Song Dynasty had massive trade interests as far as Persia, Arabia, and East Africa, and most notably with the expansive naval superpower from southern India, the Tamil-ethnicity Chola Dynasty, which conquered Sri Lanka, the Malaysian/Indonesian Kingdom of Srivijaya, and sent naval raids and expeditions into modern Thailand and Cambodia, threatening the Khmer Empire which was undergoing all sorts of inner political strife and conflicts with neighbors (like the Champa from southern Vietnam) during the 11th century AD. As for the Chinese, with all of these overseas contacts, they required a gigantic aggregate naval fleet to act as entourage to their trading vessels (as well as to constantly guard the various lakes and rivers of southern and central China). These ships were also quite impressive for their day, as seen through the 1974 excavation of the Quanzhou shipwreck from the Song era, or the one found soon after off the shores of Korea (ironically, 1974 being the same year that Chinese discovered the Qin Dynasty's enormous Terracotta Army dedicated to the tomb of Emperor Qin Shihuangdi, who lived in the 3rd century BC).

That's cool, and their ships were nice, but I'm not actually sure how its relevant?

Avatar image for lord_johnathan
Lord_Johnathan

3304

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By Lord_Johnathan

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the chinese armies would roflstomp medieval europe's due to superior equipment, better tactics, training, actual combined arms, and an actual professional officer corps.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By Kratesis

@Lord_Johnathan said:

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the chinese armies would roflstomp medieval europe's

Not unless you compare a very late period and large army against a very early and small european army. I'll go over the Song Dynasty which is what is being argued here.

due to superior equipment,

Like what? The Song dynasty looked down on the military as one of the lowest casts. There was little investment in equipment beyond the very bare basics a solider needed. Weapons were often low quality and poorly maintained.

better tactics,

Again, like what? The Song dynasty contained a big fat ZERO tactical innovations. In fact it would not be unfair to say the Song dynasty was tactically inept.

training,

Athleticpractices, training, and military tests were all neglected in this period. When a solider did receive actual training it was likely to be very poor in quality.

actual combined arms,

Did they have combined arms? Sure. But so did Philip of Macedon almost a thousand years earlier. Secondly the structure of the Song Dynasties military was so poor they would be lucky if they were actually able to employ multiple weapon systems at once, much less in any kind of synergistic manor.

and an actual professional officer corps.

Confucian bureaucrats were in charge of the army of the Song Dynasty. They were soft, pacifist and convinced that their moral superiority would prevail and others would simply pay them the tribute they deserved.

The Song Dynasty was so bad they were defeated by virtually every military that engaged them in protracted combat.They had to hire mercenaries from their rivals to even compete.

Its safe to say they were not going to be overthrowing ANY of the hardened armies of western Europe. I mean I can do a breakdown on what such a conflict would be like, but I don't think its necessary.

Avatar image for omgomgwtfwtf
OmgOmgWtfWtf

7513

Forum Posts

4246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By OmgOmgWtfWtf

@Kratesis said:

What? That is simply untrue. At no period did China ever near the Roman's military prowess. That is an extraordinary claim by any measure.

Just look up the Han and Tang Dynasty. Many experts agree that they had military prowess greater than Europe in that time period. The fact that Europe remained in the Dark Ages during the entirety of the Tang reign, and admired the Han empire's ingenuity in both scientific achievements and military knowledge.

As I stated before, this was due to the relative weakness of neighbouring countries and the size of china. Not military prowess.

You're under the impression that China was unified during the Song Dynasty, which was not the case. There were two other neighboring Chinese dynasties during this time period, and such conflict arose between all of them. To attribute their success merely to its size would be false. The fact that some of these Chinese empires managed to unify such a large demographic area, consisting of hundreds of ethnic groups, is a marvelous feat. Don't forget, that China is relatively the size of Europe, with people just as diverse as the different European nations. The fact that the Tang and Han managed to hold an area comparable to Modern China, plus areas of southeast Asia, Central Asia and parts of Russia, is an amazing feat within itself. So to simply label 'China' as a singular entity was your first mistake.

@Kratesis said:

The ability to mobilize large numbers of people while in a fertile and populated land is to be expected. That a country with a large population could mobalize a large army has never been in dispute.

Numbers and military power may be related, but one is not the other.

Have you visited China before? China has many different climates. To say that all of China was fertile would be false. China contains mountains, deserts, and dense forest. Only areas following the two rivers in China are considered very fertile. The entirety of its empire wasn't one big paradise. Their ability to grow food in some areas of China is no different then some parts of Europe. The Roman Empire and parts of Greece are considered fertile land as well, but no one seems to bring that up in regards to their success. Once again your labeling China as one big entity, which wasn't the case for much of China's history, each of these states were unified through conquest.

Numbers may not determine victory, but it plays a large role. History has shown that large numbers play a significant role in military victories (just look at the Russians in World War II, the fall of the Roman empire and the fall of Greek city-states). The Spartans who were considered one of the greatest fighting forces in ancient Greece, lost to neighboring city-states because their army was smaller (due to the fact that only full-blooded citizens could join the army in Sparta). Larger armies mean you can take more losses and cover more area, which is a very important factor in battle. Positioning and location can make and break a battle.

Also its funny how no one mentions that Alexander's army mutinied because of the fear of facing a much larger army while campaigning in India.

At no point in all of its history could China have ever been considered a first rate military power. They were ONLY considered powerful in their region because of the weakness, and small size of the surrounding countries.

They have had considerable culture, education and economic power, but NEVER did this translate to great military power.

The Roman Empire and the Greek city-states had considerable culture, education, and economic power. To say that they don't benefit one another would be false.

@Kratesis said:

Not hardly. His forces would certainly fair better against other generals then Alexander but destroy the Hellenic world utterly is simply hyperbolic and not reflecting the actual fighting power of the two sides.

Its also irrelevant. He is fighting Alexander here, not a random general.

Genghis never demonstrated tactical skill on the level, or even near the level, of Alexander. On the contrary he focused on logistics and organization At heart he was a bureaucratic man, not a tactician. While it helped him maintain large borders and sustain extensive armies it wouldn't serve him in a battle against Alexander.

Genghis Khan's weaponry and tactics are already hundreds of years more advanced than Alexander's. His longbows would prove very effective to the slow moving nature of Alexander's army. Alexander's horsemen would never be able to reach the Mongolian army who will just circle Alexander's army. Genghis Khan was as much a general as he was political man. They went hand in hand in ancient times. Unless Alexander can find a way to counter an endless barrage of arrows and reaching his horseback army, his army will be decimated. His bronze age weaponry and tactics would prove to be useless versus iron and steel of Genghis Khan's army and more effective tactics.

The Chinese empire is not as weak as you make out. The fact that they had to fight the Muslims to the west, the barbarians to the north, and individual nations to the east would show that their army were not that bad. Chinese history is full of warring states and continuous fighting. To say that they weren't well versed in combat would be foolish. The Greeks and the Romans gained exceptional fighting prowess from fighting amongst each other before their eventual union (Augustus for Rome and Macedonian conquest of the rest of Greece). The Roman empire and the Macedonians, despite their strength in combat, were no different. The majority of their enemies were barbarians to the north or other people within their own regime. Alexander the Great inherited an already strong army and nation from the death of his father, to attribute everything solely to his military expertise would be false. His army was already well versed in combat and for the most part his conquest of Persia was that of full functioning army versus an empire of antiquity. The Persian empire was nowhere as great as it once was and was a relic of its former self. The Song dynasty inherited great fighting prowess of the Tang Dynasty, just look them up, and were considered mighty in themselves. The fact that they could equip their troops with the finest steel and iron armor, and was capable of mustering large armies at a moment notice, shows that they were ready for combat whenever necessary (which was quite often since their neighbors were three other Chinese dynasties). A wealthy nation, would be able to muster a large and very well armed army, while this doesn't necessarily mean victory over their enemies, it does provide them with a strong foundation. Also, to say that China's prowess only came from their large population and wealth would be erroneous. A common trend in history is that wealthy and fertile lands are subject to numerous invasions and assaults. The fact that many Chinese empires managed to fend off continuous assaults from outside and within their own empires is pretty impressive.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By Kratesis

@OmgOmgWtfWtf said:

Just look up the Han and Tang Dynasty. Many experts agree that they had military prowess greater than Europe in that time period. The fact that Europe remained in the Dark Ages during the entirety of the Tang reign, and admired the Han empire's ingenuity in both scientific achievements and military knowledge.

Now we are talking about the Han and Tang? I thought we were talking about the Song? I mean, I can cherry pick my cases too ;-)

You're under the impression that China was unified during the Song Dynasty, which was not the case. There were two other neighboring Chinese dynasties during this time period, and such conflict arose between all of them. To attribute their success merely to its size would be false. The fact that some of these Chinese empires managed to unify such a large demographic area, consisting of hundreds of ethnic groups, is a marvelous feat. Don't forget, that China is relatively the size of Europe, with people just as diverse as the different European nations. The fact that the Tang and Han managed to hold an area comparable to Modern China, plus areas of southeast Asia, Central Asia and parts of Russia, is an amazing feat within itself. So to simply label 'China' as a singular entity was your first mistake.

No, I feel I was quite clear in my point which was that China is a larger and stronger then its neighbors. Thus China was considered powerful, however this was only RELATIVE to its weak surroundings.

Have you visited China before? China has many different climates. To say that all of China was fertile would be false. China contains mountains, deserts, and dense forest. Only areas following the two rivers in China are considered very fertile. The entirety of its empire wasn't one big paradise. Their ability to grow food in some areas of China is no different then some parts of Europe. The Roman Empire and parts of Greece are considered fertile land as well, but no one seems to bring that up in regards to their success. Once again your labeling China as one big entity, which wasn't the case for much of China's history, each of these states were unified through conquest.

What? China obviously is fertile enough to support a large population.. or they would have starved.

Numbers may not determine victory, but it plays a large role. History has shown that large numbers play a significant role in military victories (just look at the Russians in World War II, the fall of the Roman empire and the fall of Greek city-states). The Spartans who were considered one of the greatest fighting forces in ancient Greece, lost to neighboring city-states because their army was smaller (due to the fact that only full-blooded citizens could join the army in Sparta). Larger armies mean you can take more losses and cover more area, which is a very important factor in battle. Positioning and location can make and break a battle.

Again I was quite clear before. Numbers count but other factors are more important.

Also its funny how no one mentions that Alexander's army mutinied because of the fear of facing a much larger army while campaigning in India.

I've never heard a single source even suggest this.

The Roman Empire and the Greek city-states had considerable culture, education, and economic power. To say that they don't benefit one another would be false.

And.. when did I say that the Romans and Greeks lacked culture, education, or economic power? I did not.

To be frank you are twisting my words in a very significant way, so that you can argue against points I did not make.

Again, I was clear. China had significant economic power, but they FAILED to transition that power into military power.

Genghis Khan's weaponry and tactics are already hundreds of years more advanced than Alexander's.

To suggest Genghis had superior tactics is quite extreme. I would like to see some evidence for that claim.

His longbows would prove very effective to the slow moving nature of Alexander's army. Alexander's horsemen would never be able to reach the Mongolian army who will just circle Alexander's army. Genghis Khan was as much a general as he was political man. They went hand in hand in ancient times. Unless Alexander can find a way to counter an endless barrage of arrows and reaching his horseback army, his army will be decimated. His bronze age weaponry and tactics would prove to be useless versus iron and steel of Genghis Khan's army and more effective tactics.

Alexanderfaced the Scythians, mounted and armed with bows. They were rather notarious for their warlike nature, and famous as skilled archers.

He completely destroyed them. They were nothing but a footnote in his conquests.

The Chinese empire is not as weak as you make out. The fact that they had to fight the Muslims to the west, the barbarians to the north, and individual nations to the east would show that their army were not that bad. Chinese history is full of warring states and continuous fighting. To say that they weren't well versed in combat would be foolish.

This is like saying because your cousin brawls in his his back yard a lot he is capable of fighting in the UFC. There is a serious difference between the warfighting arts of China and Europe.

China never once developed into a true military power. Getting into a lot of fights didn't really change that, and you have failed to provide evidence of this supposed military power.

The Greeks and the Romans gained exceptional fighting prowess from fighting amongst each other before their eventual union (Augustus for Rome and Macedonian conquest of the rest of Greece). The Roman empire and the Macedonians, despite their strength in combat, were no different. The majority of their enemies were barbarians to the north or other people within their own regime. Alexander the Great inherited an already strong army and nation from the death of his father, to attribute everything solely to his military expertise would be false.

Phillipprovided excellent tools for his son. When have I claimed otherwise? Once more you put words into my mouth, and argue against points which I have not made.

His army was already well versed in combat and for the most part his conquest of Persia was that of full functioning army versus an empire of antiquity. The Persian empire was nowhere as great as it once was and was a relic of its former self.

I think I've already addressed this. The Persian empire was at a weak point economic, and politically. NOT militarily. Their armies were tactically very sound, large, well equipped and relatively skilled.

They utilized proven and powerful combined arms tactics, defensive positions, and the advantage of numbers. Alexander smashed them.

The Song dynasty inherited great fighting prowess of the Tang Dynasty, just look them up, and were considered mighty in themselves.

No in fact the Song Dynasty was not considered mighty by any stretch of the imagination. Militarily they were a joke by the standards of the west.

The fact that they could equip their troops with the finest steel and iron armor, and was capable of mustering large armies at a moment notice, shows that they were ready for combat whenever necessary (which was quite often since their neighbors were three other Chinese dynasties). A wealthy nation, would be able to muster a large and very well armed army, while this doesn't necessarily mean victory over their enemies, it does provide them with a strong foundation. Also, to say that China's prowess only came from their large population and wealth would be erroneous. A common trend in history is that wealthy and fertile lands are subject to numerous invasions and assaults. The fact that many Chinese empires managed to fend off continuous assaults from outside and within their own empires is pretty impressive.

Fend off? The Song Dynasty basically lost every fight they got into, even with the advantage of gunpowder. I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here.

Avatar image for omgomgwtfwtf
OmgOmgWtfWtf

7513

Forum Posts

4246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By OmgOmgWtfWtf

@Kratesis said:

Now we are talking about the Han and Tang? I thought we were talking about the Song? I mean, I can cherry pick my cases too ;-)

I was pointing out to the fact that Europe was still in the dark ages when the Tang was going through a golden age. When Marco Polo visited China during the Song Dynasty he was amazed to how technologically advanced they were compared to his own people. Don't forget Marco Polo lived during the high middle ages during the time of Renaissance. The reason why I bring up the Tang and the Han was because you blatantly stated that no Chinese empire was militarily strong, which is wrong.

No, I feel I was quite clear in my point which was that China is a larger and stronger then its neighbors. Thus China was considered powerful, however this was only RELATIVE to its weak surroundings.

Once again your referring to China as a singular entity. China was not unified during the period of the later Song Dynasty. There were 3-4 other dynasties happening at the same time during the Song. They were locked in perpetual warfare. Anyways how do you judge their surroundings to be weak? What evidence do you have to suggest that the enemies they fought were weak?

What? China obviously is fertile enough to support a large population.. or they would have starved.

China faced starvation quite often. It was actually a large part into the fall of many Chinese dynasties. Their large population is thanks to the crops they grew. Rice gives you the most calories per acre than any other mass crop. Not to mention the Chinese ate potatoes and sweet potatoes in the north. So to say they were living in a fertile land, free to grow whatever they pleased, is very far from the truth. Ireland had a relative large population despite its small size, due to the fact they grew potatoes, which had more calories than the wheat that many other nations grew, per acreage harvested.

Again I was quite clear before. Numbers count but other factors are more important.

It's true that other factors are important. Such as equipment and weaponry. The Song had gunpowder and steel long before the Europeans, of the same time period, had written language. The Europeans of this time were barely getting over the invasion of the Vikings and subsequent lost of knowledge following the fall of Rome.

Also its funny how no one mentions that Alexander's army mutinied because of the fear of facing a much larger army while campaigning in India.

I've never heard a single source even suggest this.

Then you should read up on Alexander's fall. His army deserted him because he pushed them too far into India without an adequate supply line or army. When faced with a much larger India army, his army mutinied and returned back west. When Alexander crossed the Hellspont his army was numbering only around 60,000. That number only fell following his subsequent conquest of Persia, Egypt, and parts of Central Asia. Genghis Khan had an army of over 300,000 during his conquest of the Middle East and parts of Russia.

To suggest Genghis had superior tactics is quite extreme. I would like to see some evidence for that claim.

Genghis Khan employed the use of screamer arrows. Used to maim and cripple enemies, not kill them. For the purposes of demoralizing enemies and weakening formations. Maimed soldiers slowed the enemy army much better than dead ones. He employed the use of 'feigned retreats' where he would pretend to flee, the enemy army will pursue, and he would circle around with his horseback archers effectively surrounding them with barrages of arrows. Mongolian longbows could shoot with from over 500 meters away with a force, while their shortbows could shoot from a comfortable 200-300 meter range. They employed 'Kharash' during combat which is simply using human prisoners to protect your siege weapons and archers by forcing them to march in front of enemy troops, acting as meat shields. There are wikipedia pages dedicated to Mongolian tactics and another to Mongolian psychological warfare. I don't want to go super in depth into the separation of their army and their training or anything else. It is too time consuming.

And.. when did I say that the Romans and Greeks lacked culture, education, or economic power? I did not.

You also didn't bring up the fact that many great empires (Rome and Greece included) had exceptional culture, education, and economic powers. I only brought that up so people can see the correlation.

To be frank you are twisting my words in a very significant way, so that you can argue against points I did not make.

I'm not twisting your words. I'm bringing up valid points that need to be discussed and acknowledged. No empire or nation can have a strong military without the proper infrastructure and economy to support it.

Again, I was clear. China had significant economic power, but they FAILED to transition that power into military power.

Again I don't see how this is plausible, since Chinese empires were in a state of perpetual warfare. The Song were in constant battles. So to say they couldn't transition to military power, when they already had armies, would be implausible. This statement can be applied to the later Chinese dynasties, such as the Ming and Qing, who did not continuously fight, since China remained unified since the founding of those empires.

Alexanderfaced the Scythians, mounted and armed with bows. They were rather notarious for their warlike nature, and famous as skilled archers.

He completely destroyed them. They were nothing but a footnote in his conquests.

The Scythians were not as advanced as the Mongals, they were much smaller in terms of numbers, they did not use steel or iron arrowheads. They were basically a single tribe, Mongolian army consists of several hundred tribes. The fact they were able to conquer China, the Middle East and Russia is a testament to their skill. Not all horseback archers are the same, just as how infantry can differ from nation to nation.

This is like saying because your cousin brawls in his his back yard a lot he is capable of fighting in the UFC. There is a serious difference between the warfighting arts of China and Europe.

There is a huge difference in backyard brawls and war. Can you name the differences between European and Chinese warfare? They both involve fighting neighboring countries and cities. Their weapons and tactics may have been different, but war is essentially the same. They were fighting for territory, you treat it like the Europeans were fighting superior enemies with superior weapons and tactics, which wasn't the case until Europe's extensive use of guns. Medieval Europeans were very bad at combat, wearing heavy clunky armor and wielding outdated equipment. How little the demography of medieval Europe changed is a testament to how little impact their fighting had.

China never once developed into a true military power. Getting into a lot of fights didn't really change that, and you have failed to provide evidence of this supposed military power.

I guess the fact that some dynasties, such as the Tang and Han, managed to unify all of China and then areas of Central Asia, southeast Asia, and Russia doesn't really mean much. They must have been fighting weaklings in order to be able to spread that large :X

Phillipprovided excellent tools for his son. When have I claimed otherwise? Once more you put words into my mouth, and argue against points which I have not made.

When I was putting words in your mouth? I am just explaining the details surrounding certain events. History is all about the big picture, you can't see the little details unless you see the whole thing.

I think I've already addressed this. The Persian empire was at a weak point economic, and politically. NOT militarily. Their armies were tactically very sound, large, well equipped and relatively skilled.

They utilized proven and powerful combined arms tactics, defensive positions, and the advantage of numbers. Alexander smashed them.

This post makes no sense. The Persians were politically and economically weak. This would have a definite affect on their army. The Persian army at this time were poorly equipped, they didn't have the money to afford good equipment. Their army consisted of peasants and slaves who were conscripted to fight. The politics greatly weakened the Persians ability to respond in time, since they didn't have a single cohesive army from which to combat the threat. Alexander made political arrangements with certain factions within the empire before his invasion, they sided with Alexander and fought for him. The fact that the Persians couldn't control their own nobility, who controlled their own armies, is a testament to how low they have fallen. Their army was no way equipped to deal with a dedicated assault.

No in fact the Song Dynasty was not considered mighty by any stretch of the imagination. Militarily they were a joke by the standards of the west.

The Song Dynasty army was not very effective against fighting other Chinese, who carried the same equipment and weapons. However versus outdated Europeans, they would effectively conquer. The Song had gunpowder. They used it for fire lances, cannons, and land mines which would effectively demolish any European army of the time. Don't mistaken their inability to defeat other Chinese as overall military weakness. While they did suffer from lack of command and cohesion, their technology would be overwhelming to the bronze age weaponry of Europe. The Song wielded crossbows, capable of penetrating armor, and used iron and steel weaponry, far superior to European weaponry of the time. They also used War elephants during certain combat situations. The West was barely out of their diapers when the Song had already existed for several decades.

Fend off? The Song Dynasty basically lost every fight they got into, even with the advantage of gunpowder. I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here.

Like I mentioned before what advantage of gunpowder? The other Chinese, they were fighting, had the usage of gunpowder during this exact time. Also the Mongolians were intelligent enough to spread out versus the short range and ineffective accuracy of the guns. The Europeans of this time would have been demolished due to their closed ranks, the use of heavy Calvary, and lack of long range weaponry. The Europeans greatly favored melee combat, which prove ineffective versus guns and cannons.

Avatar image for nefarious
nefarious

35827

Forum Posts

6878

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#30  Edited By nefarious

Alex.

Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By Kratesis

@OmgOmgWtfWtf said: I'm afraid this post is full of a great deal of things which are incorrect. I shall do my best to correct them.

I was pointing out to the fact that Europe was still in the dark ages when the Tang was going through a golden age. When Marco Polo visited China during the Song Dynasty he was amazed to how technologically advanced they were compared to his own people. Don't forget Marco Polo lived during the high middle ages during the time of Renaissance. The reason why I bring up the Tang and the Han was because you blatantly stated that no Chinese empire was militarily strong, which is wrong.

No, it is correct. No Chinese empire was every militarily powerful when compared to equivalent western powers.

The reason you cherry pick your examples is because if you do not then you're left with the reality that China was quite weak historically and only appeared strong because their surroundings were even weaker.

Once again your referring to China as a singular entity. China was not unified during the period of the later Song Dynasty. There were 3-4 other dynasties happening at the same time during the Song. They were locked in perpetual warfare.

That's right, because my point is that ALL of China, all dynasties, ever, were militarily weak compared to an equivalent western force.

Anyways how do you judge their surroundings to be weak? What evidence do you have to suggest that the enemies they fought were weak?

The fact that China was able to defeat them, considering China military backwardness and relative lack of military might.

China faced starvation quite often. It was actually a large part into the fall of many Chinese dynasties. Their large population is thanks to the crops they grew. Rice gives you the most calories per acre than any other mass crop. Not to mention the Chinese ate potatoes and sweet potatoes in the north. So to say they were living in a fertile land, free to grow whatever they pleased, is very far from the truth. Ireland had a relative large population despite its small size, due to the fact they grew potatoes, which had more calories than the wheat that many other nations grew, per acreage harvested.

I'm pretty sure I answered this. They were capable of generating enough food to feed a large number of people. Thus.. they had more people. What exactly is your point, you seem to just be explaining what I've already said.

It's true that other factors are important. Such as equipment and weaponry. The Song had gunpowder and steel long before the Europeans, of the same time period, had written language. The Europeans of this time were barely getting over the invasion of the Vikings and subsequent lost of knowledge following the fall of Rome.

So your point is what? What does this have to do with the military might of China compared to the west?

Then you should read up on Alexander's fall. His army deserted him because he pushed them too far into India without an adequate supply line or army. When faced with a much larger India army, his army mutinied and returned back west. When Alexander crossed the Hellspont his army was numbering only around 60,000. That number only fell following his subsequent conquest of Persia, Egypt, and parts of Central Asia. Genghis Khan had an army of over 300,000 during his conquest of the Middle East and parts of Russia.

Which means what exactly? Again, I'm not really sure what your point is.

That Genghis had a larger army? Sure. But Alexander faced MANY large armies, it wasn't like he was suddenly going to give up because there was a lot of horses.

Genghis Khan employed the use of screamer arrows. Used to maim and cripple enemies, not kill them. For the purposes of demoralizing enemies and weakening formations. Maimed soldiers slowed the enemy army much better than dead ones.

I'm sure that was effective against the softer and weaker foes Genghis was use to facing, but things of that nature are rarely effective against hardened soliders.

Secondly, its hardly a new or novel tactic. Warriors have been attempting to scare each other in battle from the days of tribal war cries.

He employed the use of 'feigned retreats' where he would pretend to flee, the enemy army will pursue,

Feigned retreats were hardly new. Greek javelin throwers had been doing this for a very very long time.

and he would circle around with his horseback archers effectively surrounding them with barrages of arrows.

Enveloping flanks were hardly new either. In fact the Spartans were rather famous for it, and the Sacred Band of Thebes was devoted almost entirely to that purpose (That is, until Alexander killed them)

Mongolian longbows could shoot with from over 500 meters away with a force, while their shortbows could shoot from a comfortable 200-300 meter range. They employed '

A long range bow isn't much of a tactical advancement. Its just a good bow.

Kharash' during combat which is simply using human prisoners to protect your siege weapons and archers by forcing them to march in front of enemy troops, acting as meat shields.

Throwing fodder at the enemy isn't some kind of genius military tactic either.

There are wikipedia pages dedicated to Mongolian tactics and another to Mongolian psychological warfare. I don't want to go super in depth into the separation of their army and their training or anything else. It is too time consuming.

The fact these are the best tactics you can claim for Genghis tells the whole story. Alexander was MILES ahead.

You also didn't bring up the fact that many great empires (Rome and Greece included) had exceptional culture, education, and economic powers. I only brought that up so people can see the correlation.

Okay. So, both had great civilizations for their we can agree on that.

I'm not twisting your words. I'm bringing up valid points that need to be discussed and acknowledged. No empire or nation can have a strong military without the proper infrastructure and economy to support it.

We are not talking about economies. We are not talking about infrastructure except military infrastructure.

We ARE talking about military might. You seem to be attempting to turn the conversation away from this. I feel its because western military power was so vastly superior, and its easier to make an argument for other elements of society but I could be wrong.

Again I don't see how this is plausible, since Chinese empires were in a state of perpetual warfare. The Song were in constant battles. So to say they couldn't transition to military power, when they already had armies, would be implausible. This statement can be applied to the later Chinese dynasties, such as the Ming and Qing, who did not continuously fight, since China remained unified since the founding of those empires.

Let me return to my former metaphor. Just because someone DOES something a lot does not mean they are good at it. Observe boxers with very poor records. Observe workers who preform the same task every day yet do very poorly.

Now consider how much more complex it is to UNDERSTAND the reasons for success or failure. Then to PASS ON these reasons in a massive society full of diverse and varied peoples.

China failed to do these things constantly enough to keep pace with western advancement. That's just a fact.

Alexanderfaced the Scythians, mounted and armed with bows. They were rather notarious for their warlike nature, and famous as skilled archers.

He completely destroyed them. They were nothing but a footnote in his conquests.

The Scythians were not as advanced as the Mongals, they were much smaller in terms of numbers, they did not use steel or iron arrowheads. They were basically a single tribe, Mongolian army consists of several hundred tribes. The fact they were able to conquer China, the Middle East and Russia is a testament to their skill. Not all horseback archers are the same, just as how infantry can differ from nation to nation.

None of that would really mean anything except a harder battle for Alexander.

Artillery and siege weaponry fired on the horse archers (the first time in all of history this is recorded, try that for tactical innovation). The siege weaponry outranged the horse archers, and thus could engage them even when the horse archers were not anywhere close to his lines.

Then he sent forth a vanguard the archers would have to engage if they wanted to get near him. Unlike the weak and undisciplined people Khan was use to fighting Alexander had a collection of battle hardened, loyal and heavily armored troops. They were willing to endure the rain of arrows because of their armor, their shields, and their discipline.

When the large numbers of Scythians came forward to fire arrows at his vanguard they were to numerous to escape quickly. The guys in the back got in the way of the people in the front, in other words.

Then his heavy calvary charged, and the greater strength and longer legs of the heavy western horse allowed them to catch the Sythians before they could escape. It was a slaughter.

This was just another day at the office for Alexander. His level of tactical genius is likely the greatest to have ever lived in any time or place. Just throwing a bunch of guys on horses at him and saying you're going to defeat the greatest general in history is frankly silly.

There is a huge difference in backyard brawls and war. Can you name the differences between European and Chinese warfare?

I would say the main difference is the Chinese were not very skilled.

They both involve fighting neighboring countries and cities. Their weapons and tactics may have been different, but war is essentially the same. They were fighting for territory

Not exactly, and not always but close enough.

, you treat it like the Europeans were fighting superior enemies with superior weapons and tactics,

That I do, for a very simple reason. The Europeans had superior enemies (other Europeans), superior weaponry, and superior tactics on the whole.

which wasn't the case until Europe's extensive use of guns.

Somehow the Chinese acquired gunpowder first, and still fell behind. Well, farther behind.

Medieval Europeans were very bad at combat, wearing heavy clunky armor and wielding outdated equipment. How little the demography of medieval Europe changed is a testament to how little impact their fighting had

What lol? Bad at combat in clunky armor and outdated equipment? I begin to suspect the root of the disagreement is you lack knowledge of European martial arts, tactical advancements, fighting skill and historical achievements.

I guess the fact that some dynasties, such as the Tang and Han, managed to unify all of China and then areas of Central Asia, southeast Asia, and Russia doesn't really mean much. They must have been fighting weaklings in order to be able to spread that large :X

You have hit the nail upon the head. They were not militarily strong themselves, and their foes were exceptionally weak.

When I was putting words in your mouth? I am just explaining the details surrounding certain events. History is all about the big picture, you can't see the little details unless you see the whole thing.

I'm pretty sure you can see a small detail quite well, without the big picture.

For example we could examine the weaponry of foot soldiers That would be a relatively small detail, and we would be able to compare those weapons without knowledge of the price of rise in beijing.

This post makes no sense.

Lets put that to the test then.

The Persians were politically and economically weak.

Agreed

. I have stated this from the beginning.

This would have a definite affect on their army.

That is a possibility, not again not required. Repeatedly you have confused correlation and causation.

The Persian army at this time were poorly equipped, they didn't have the money to afford good equipment. Their army consisted of peasants and slaves who were conscripted to fight.

Their army consisted of many different parts.

I feel as if you are blatantly ignoring massive sections of the Persian army in order to twist the facts to your advantage. I could just as easily say all Chinese soldiers were peasant conscripts.

Its simply untrue.

The politics greatly weakened the Persians ability to respond in time, since they didn't have a single cohesive army from which to combat the threat.

Darius most certain had a cohesive army.

Alexander made political arrangements with certain factions within the empire before his invasion, they sided with Alexander and fought for him. The fact that the Persians couldn't control their own nobility, who controlled their own armies, is a testament to how low they have fallen.

Incorrect, in fact this was typical of warfare in that period. Greeks and Persians both switched sides from time to time, and in fact some Greeks fought for the Persians.

I could just as easily say that Alexanders new kingdom was fragmented, he lacked popular support at home, and he was only invading to avoid assassination by political rivals.

Their army was no way equipped to deal with a dedicated assault.

On the contrary no other Greek general would have prevailed over what Alexander did. None.

No in fact the Song Dynasty was not considered mighty by any stretch of the imagination. Militarily they were a joke by the standards of the west.

The Song Dynasty army was not very effective against fighting other Chinese,

Or anyone else.

who carried the same equipment and weapons.

So basically they couldn't fight people who were equal to them? Isn't this central to what I have been saying?

However versus outdated Europeans, they would effectively conquer.

Hardly. But let us examine your reasons.

The Song had gunpowder. They used it for fire lances, cannons, and land mines which would effectively demolish any European army of the time.

They did in fact have gunpowder. Which they did use in great qualities. And it completely failed, because they effectively used it for the same nonsense Chinese militaries always did in those days. Slightly enhanced artillery and novelties.

Greek fire didn't revolutionize the military world in the west. It shattered no empires. The crude gunpowder weapons of the Song would not somehow crush the entire western world.

Notice how the first western general with gunpowder didn't sweep his way across Europe like some god of war. It was a mild advantage, that is all.

Don't mistaken their inability to defeat other Chinese as overall military weakness.

What? So if Bob the Boxer has a record of 0 wins, 5 draws and 10 losses I shouldn't mistake that for weakness? I mean.. do we live on the same planet lol?

While they did suffer from lack of command and cohesion,

Wait, I thought they inherited the great fighting prowess of the Tan dynasty and were considered good warriors by 'experts'?

their technology would be overwhelming to the bronze age weaponry of Europe.

Perhaps you are confused. The bronze age in Europe ended in 600BC, but the Song Dynasty we're talking about didn't start until what.. a thousand years later?

The Song wielded crossbows, capable of penetrating armor,

Okay, so did the Romans. A long, long, long time before the Song Dynasty.

and used iron and steel weaponry, far superior to European weaponry of the time.

Please. If you are going to make these claims about Chinese weaponry being somehow massively superior to European weaponry then you need to show some very strong evidence, because ABSOLUTELY everything points to European melee weapons being vastly superior.

They also used War elephants during certain combat situations.

Wait, those same war elephants that Alexander and later the Romans defeated? The ones that were not really that great?

The West was barely out of their diapers when the Song had already existed for several decades.

What is your point here?

Like I mentioned before what advantage of gunpowder? The other Chinese, they were fighting, had the usage of gunpowder during this exact time. Also the Mongolians were intelligent enough to spread out versus the short range and ineffective accuracy of the guns.

So.. they weren't really that effective is what you're trying to say?

The Europeans of this time would have been demolished due to their closed ranks, the use of heavy Calvary, and lack of long range weaponry.

The Europeans didn't get demolished later by MUCH more accurate, powerful, and numerous guns. The few highly ineffective guns the Song Dynasty could pull together wouldn't somehow preform miracles.

In fact you were JUST talking about how poorly they preformed.

The Europeans greatly favored melee combat, which prove ineffective versus guns and cannons.

Except that is completely wrong. One hundred percent wrong. Absolutely incorrect.

Armored knights (you know, the kind Europe loved) was SO effective that until the invention of a convenient bayonet that would allow the gunman to fire with it equipped.. Pikemen were REQUIRED to protect the lines from being overrun by knights.

It honestly surprises me you don't know that. It was a fundamental tactical reality for decades.

Avatar image for dondave
dondave

41764

Forum Posts

345855

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By dondave

Genghis Khan

Avatar image for atphantom
AtPhantom

14434

Forum Posts

25163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#33  Edited By AtPhantom

@Kratesis said:

@AtPhantom said:

@Kratesis said:

Khan was fighting against the soft underbelly of the world. His foes were weak, to be frank.

He was fighting freaking China. At that point quite probably the largest and most powerful nation in the world. Alexander fought an ill and decaying Achaemenid empire. The soft underbelly can at least be employed on both sides of the equation.

At no point in all of its history could China have ever been considered a first rate military power. They were ONLY considered powerful in their region because of the weakness, and small size of the surrounding countries.

They have had considerable culture, education and economic power, but NEVER did this translate to great military power.

Economic power always translates into at least some military power. If anything it would mean their armies were well supplied and logistically supported, which is a good portion of any war right there.

Even if their armies sucked, they were still the greatest, most unified entity on the face of the planet. You can't knock those over with a stick.

Avatar image for lord_johnathan
Lord_Johnathan

3304

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By Lord_Johnathan

Also, Genghis and Suboutai were masters of siege warfare. Under Suboutai, the mongols easily humiliated all the major armies of europe east of germany. Poles? Gone as a choesive military force. Hungarians? Stomped. Russians? Crushed so hard you wouldn't evven believe it? Teutonic Knights? Obliterated. Templars? Arrow'd. Cumans? Ran like whipped dogs. The pope himself reasonably feared that the mongols would conquer europe. The Seljuk turks, the mightiest state that interacted with europe regularly, was curbstomped by the mongols so hard that the Byzantines didn't so much as dare say a single bad word about the mongols when they caught wind of it.

Avatar image for omgomgwtfwtf
OmgOmgWtfWtf

7513

Forum Posts

4246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By OmgOmgWtfWtf

@Kratesis:

No, it is correct. No Chinese empire was every militarily powerful when compared to equivalent western powers.

The Europeans only ever surpassed everyone else once they acquired the use of gunpowder and creation of rifles. You are mixing up historical dates. The Tang and the Han had guns long before Western civilization acquired them. If you are trying to imply that future European powers were stronger, than that is true, but to expect Middle Age European, who have just gotten out of the dark age, to challenge a nation which was miles ahead of technology would be foolish.

The reason you cherry pick your examples is because if you do not then you're left with the reality that China was quite weak historically and only appeared strong because their surroundings were even weaker.

I'm not cherry picking my answers. You're jumping from different centuries, to the point where it is difficult for me to even decipher which century you are even speaking about. The Song existed when the Europeans were in the middle ages, far beyond the technological advancement of the rest of the world. You are attributing future successes of the European empires to their Medieval selves. You are somehow bringing up advancements which have yet to happen, by the time they do, China has fallen far from its former glory, as has every other empire of antiquity.

That's right, because my point is that ALL of China, all dynasties, ever, were militarily weak compared to an equivalent western force.

Now you are blatantly being biased. So you are telling me Dark Age Europe would be able beat the Tang Dynasty? They existed during the same time period and thus are equivalent in terms of historical accuracy. If you are somehow trying to imply that Europe before their acquisition of guns as some credible threat to the world, then you are delusional. Medieval Europe feared invasion from the barbarians in the north (mainly the Vikings and Germans), Ottomans from the south, and Mongolians from the east.

I'm pretty sure I answered this. They were capable of generating enough food to feed a large number of people. Thus.. they had more people. What exactly is your point, you seem to just be explaining what I've already said.

You were saying that their population was because of fertile land, which was not the case as I mentioned.

So your point is what? What does this have to do with the military might of China compared to the west?

That China was technologically more advanced that Europeans from the same exact time period? Isn't this what whole entire debate is about?

Which means what exactly? Again, I'm not really sure what your point is.

That Genghis had a larger army? Sure. But Alexander faced MANY large armies, it wasn't like he was suddenly going to give up because there was a lot of horses.

That is he severely outmatched and outgunned? Genghis Khan came from a time far ahead of Alexander in terms of technology, weaponry, and tactics. Unless the several hundred year gap between them doesn't make a difference in your eyes, Alexander loses by virtue of being outdated.

I'm sure that was effective against the softer and weaker foes Genghis was use to facing, but things of that nature are rarely effective against hardened soliders.

Secondly, its hardly a new or novel tactic. Warriors have been attempting to scare each other in battle from the days of tribal war cries.

Haha this golden. So his arrows which could penetrate iron armor isn't going to be able to pierce bronze? Which is a weaker metal. I didn't know harden soldiers protect them from being shot with arrows. Unless they have superhuman durability, the arrow is going to maim them. You can't fight in formation if your soldiers can't move to form it.

Feigned retreats were hardly new. Greek javelin throwers had been doing this for a very very long time.

When did I say it was new? Now it seem you are the one putting words into my mouth. There is a huge difference between the range of a javelin thrower and that of Mongolian archer. Unless you can explain how Alexander's army is going to reach an enemy on horseback. They will be pelted by arrows from a distance.

Enveloping flanks were hardly new either. In fact the Spartans were rather famous for it, and the Sacred Band of Thebes was devoted almost entirely to that purpose (That is, until Alexander killed them)

The Spartans flanked their enemies through a phalanx position. Overwhelming enemies with spears and shields. The Mongolians flank with ranged attacks. Much different then what you are implying. Arrows would prove more effective than a spear, especially when these arrows can penetrate armor. Steel arrow heads will penetrate their armor like a hot knife through butter. A phalanx position were weak from the sides and rear. Easy for a mongol archer to spot.

A long range bow isn't much of a tactical advancement. Its just a good bow.

And range was never a tactical advantage? Ask the English how well their longbows fared against the heavy horsemen of the French. Just because the bow hasn't really changed in the last couple of centuries, doesn't mean it isn't a deadly weapon. Alexander the Great died from an arrow wound.

Throwing fodder at the enemy isn't some kind of genius military tactic either.

Unless you can explain Alexander would exactly counter a large force of unarmed individuals marching into his ranks then it would still be an effective tactic. You don't have to be a genius in military strategy to be effective.

The fact these are the best tactics you can claim for Genghis tells the whole story. Alexander was MILES ahead.

These are not the full facts. I already told you to look them up, there are wikipedia pages dedicated to just Mongolian battle tactics and psychological warfare. I advise you to read over them to get basic knowledge on Genghis Khan.

We are not talking about economies. We are not talking about infrastructure except military infrastructure.

We ARE talking about military might. You seem to be attempting to turn the conversation away from this. I feel its because western military power was so vastly superior, and its easier to make an argument for other elements of society but I could be wrong.

Once again, Western military was only superior once they reached a certain point in history (19th century). That point of history has not come, as we are discussing a time period before this (medieval). A military is adequately supplied by the economy of a nation. If they can feed, support, and arm a large army, then they are better suited for battle. Simple knowledge. It's not that difficult to understand. Europe had no economy as of this time, don't forget we are speaking about the Middle Ages, not the 20th century.

Let me return to my former metaphor. Just because someone DOES something a lot does not mean they are good at it. Observe boxers with very poor records. Observe workers who preform the same task every day yet do very poorly.

Now consider how much more complex it is to UNDERSTAND the reasons for success or failure. Then to PASS ON these reasons in a massive society full of diverse and varied peoples.

China failed to do these things constantly enough to keep pace with western advancement. That's just a fact.

Western advancement did no pass China at this point. I don't know what time period you are in, but I'm strictly speaking about medieval Europe (12th century), high middle ages, not 19th century Europe. Medieval Europe did not fare any better versus anyone. Hence why they were reduced to the Dark Ages only centuries earlier due to barbaric invasion.

Alexanderfaced the Scythians, mounted and armed with bows. They were rather notarious for their warlike nature, and famous as skilled archers.

He completely destroyed them. They were nothing but a footnote in his conquests.

The Scythians were not as advanced as the Mongals, they were much smaller in terms of numbers, they did not use steel or iron arrowheads. They were basically a single tribe, Mongolian army consists of several hundred tribes. The fact they were able to conquer China, the Middle East and Russia is a testament to their skill. Not all horseback archers are the same, just as how infantry can differ from nation to nation.

None of that would really mean anything except a harder battle for Alexander.

Artillery and siege weaponry fired on the horse archers (the first time in all of history this is recorded, try that for tactical innovation). The siege weaponry outranged the horse archers, and thus could engage them even when the horse archers were not anywhere close to his lines.

Then he sent forth a vanguard the archers would have to engage if they wanted to get near him. Unlike the weak and undisciplined people Khan was use to fighting Alexander had a collection of battle hardened, loyal and heavily armored troops. They were willing to endure the rain of arrows because of their armor, their shields, and their discipline.

Genghis Khan had his own artillery as well. You really think he had no siege weapons? He hired the best engineers from Asia and Europe to build them for him. His siege weapons would be light years ahead of what Alexander would use, not to mention he had to use of gun powder from the Chinese. Steel arrowheads would eat through their armor fairly easily. The whole point of a longbow was because it had armor piercing capabilities. You are some how equating Scythians to Mongols, when the difference between the two are night and day.

When the large numbers of Scythians came forward to fire arrows at his vanguard they were to numerous to escape quickly. The guys in the back got in the way of the people in the front, in other words.

Then his heavy calvary charged, and the greater strength and longer legs of the heavy western horse allowed them to catch the Sythians before they could escape. It was a slaughter.

This was just another day at the office for Alexander. His level of tactical genius is likely the greatest to have ever lived in any time or place. Just throwing a bunch of guys on horses at him and saying you're going to defeat the greatest general in history is frankly silly.

Mongolians bows have farther reach than a Grecian bow. The Mongolians circle enemy formations not rush into them.

Heavy Calvary versus Mongolian horses? Mongolian horses are some of the fastest in the world, they would outrun the Greek Calvary for miles. The Mongolians wore leather and silk armor in order to not slow their horses down. Each soldier had 3-4 additional horses in order to keep optimal speed during combat situations, replacing any tired horses. The heavily armored Greek horsemen won't ever touch the Mongolian archers on horseback. They would instead be shot in their death charge.

Alexander the Great is not the greatest general in history. That is a pretty bold statement which not many people agree upon.

I would say the main difference is the Chinese were not very skilled.

We can agree to disagree on this point. The Chinese dynasties varied in strength, and to blatantly say that they were unskilled would be false. However, since no amount of information can change your opinion on this point. I will rather not try any further.

That I do, for a very simple reason. The Europeans had superior enemies (other Europeans), superior weaponry, and superior tactics on the whole.

The Europeans were not superior any way, shape or form during the Middle Ages. The tactics and weaponry were laughably bad. The Roman Empire which preceded them had superior tactics and weaponry. They lost this all once the Dark Age came.

Somehow the Chinese acquired gunpowder first, and still fell behind. Well, farther behind.

The Chinese never wished to use guns in the way Europeans had in mind. Though this is an entirely different topic and revolves around the differences between Asian and Western philosophy.

What lol? Bad at combat in clunky armor and outdated equipment? I begin to suspect the root of the disagreement is you lack knowledge of European martial arts, tactical advancements, fighting skill and historical achievements.

The root of this disagreement is your lack of knowledge of Asian history. The clunky armor worn by Europeans greatly hindered their movements in combat, the fact that a knight needs a squire to help him on his horse is laughable. They wouldn't last a second in a fight outside of Europe, which for the most part is why they never fought outside of Europe. Saladin showed them the error of their ways during the attempts to reclaim Jerusalem. Mobility is greatly favored over armor in most situations.

You have hit the nail upon the head. They were not militarily strong themselves, and their foes were exceptionally weak.

I don't see how I hit the nail upon my head. You're under the impression that the rest of the world were in the neolithic age, while Europeans were some kind of gods. The fact remains, the Europeans were still living in the dark ages when the rest of the world was progressing. The fact the Mongolians managed to conquer the Persian caliphs who controlled one of the strongest empires during this time period eludes you. The fact they managed to conquer nearly all of Asian, and keep it, also seems to be of non importance.

I'm pretty sure you can see a small detail quite well, without the big picture.

For example we could examine the weaponry of foot soldiers That would be a relatively small detail, and we would be able to compare those weapons without knowledge of the price of rise in beijing.

Now you're going off grid. The rise of Beijing has no importance to the weaponry of foot soldiers. Two things that have no relevance of course cannot be compared, apples and oranges. If we were to examine the weaponry of foot soldiers, we would need to look at a specific demographic, then look at the geography of the region, in order to explain why those specific soldiers wielded certain weapons. History cannot ever be taken out of context, to do so would lose the whole point of history, which is cause and effect.

Lets put that to the test then.

The Persians were politically and economically weak.

Agreed

. I have stated this from the beginning.

This would have a definite affect on their army.

That is a possibility, not again not required. Repeatedly you have confused correlation and causation.

The Persian army at this time were poorly equipped, they didn't have the money to afford good equipment. Their army consisted of peasants and slaves who were conscripted to fight.

Their army consisted of many different parts.

Its simply untrue.

The politics greatly weakened the Persians ability to respond in time, since they didn't have a single cohesive army from which to combat the threat.

Darius most certain had a cohesive army.

The first error in your part is that Darius never lead a cohesive army to fight Alexander. He left the fighting to one of his satraps, the same people who would later kill him. There army was indeed composed primarily of slaves and peasants. The army also had mercenaries, nobility and some well trained men, but they did not compromise a large part of his army. The fact remained that many of his own soldiers, like the Scythians were also employed by the Greeks, pretty much left his army without well trained troops. Darius and many of his satraps had no experience in war, and were only placed in positions of power due to their noble heritage. While Darius did employ Greeks to fight for him, they were way past their former glory. The Spartans he hired, were no longer considered the greatest fighting force in all of Greece, and had been defeated in combat by numerous other factions, due to the smallness of their army. I brought up this point earlier, that the Spartans only enlisted full blooded male citizens into their army, and thus their army ranks were sorely lacking. Not to mention that Darius was a coward. He fled so fast from the capitol, that his whole family was held hostage by Alexander. To expect someone of his low caliber to be of any threat to a trained army would be foolish. The fact it took several losses before Darius decided to act in an any manner goes to show how inefficient he was.

I feel as if you are blatantly ignoring massive sections of the Persian army in order to twist the facts to your advantage. I could just as easily say all Chinese soldiers were peasant conscripts.

Many Chinese soldiers were indeed peasant conscripts during the early times of Chinese history. However by the time of the Han Dynasty, China was able to attain enough wealth to employ soldiers full time.

On the contrary no other Greek general would have prevailed over what Alexander did. None.

The Persian empire which Alexander invaded is not the same one that Cyrus the great built. One of was a great empire, the other was dying. It's like comparing the Roman Empire during the height of the Republic, to the Roman Empire of later dynastic rule. They were very different.

The Song Dynasty army was not very effective against fighting other Chinese,

Or anyone else.

who carried the same equipment and weapons.

So basically they couldn't fight people who were equal to them? Isn't this central to what I have been saying?

However versus outdated Europeans, they would effectively conquer.

Hardly. But let us examine your reasons.

The Song had gunpowder. They used it for fire lances, cannons, and land mines which would effectively demolish any European army of the time.

They did in fact have gunpowder. Which they did use in great qualities. And it completely failed, because they effectively used it for the same nonsense Chinese militaries always did in those days. Slightly enhanced artillery and novelties.

Greek fire didn't revolutionize the military world in the west. It shattered no empires. The crude gunpowder weapons of the Song would not somehow crush the entire western world.

Notice how the first western general with gunpowder didn't sweep his way across Europe like some god of war. It was a mild advantage, that is all.

Gunpowder would not mean instant victory, but it would provide great support for them. Cannons, despite their crudeness, were still effective at breaking enemy formations. An army with gunpowder and heavy artillery would fair much better than an army without it.

Greek fire was not easily weaponized, at least not in the same fashion as gunpowder, and was used mostly in naval battles. The Byzantine empire used Greek fire to brutal efficiency during assaults by the Ottoman Empire. They could set enemy ships ablaze very quickly.

Wait, I thought they inherited the great fighting prowess of the Tan dynasty and were considered good warriors by 'experts'?

The lack of cohesion and command was imposed by the government itself, because they feared the military would overthrow them if given too much power. They inherited the tactics and fighting prowess of the Tang Dynasty, hence why the imperial government feared what they could accomplish with that strength. Generals were stripped of much of their power and inefficient government officials were given control of the army.

Perhaps you are confused. The bronze age in Europe ended in 600BC, but the Song Dynasty we're talking about didn't start until what.. a thousand years later?

The weapon and armor of Alexander's army were still largely based on earlier bronze age designs. So I don't see where the confusion is. Some changes were made in the shield and armor design, but the core of it was still unchanged.

Okay, so did the Romans. A long, long, long time before the Song Dynasty.

The crossbows of Roman design were very different from the one employed by Song Dynasty. The Roman ones used a simple gear shift and took a very long time to reload. The Song Dynasty crossbows were significantly larger, easier to reload, and fired steel bolts which could penetrate armor.

Please. If you are going to make these claims about Chinese weaponry being somehow massively superior to European weaponry then you need to show some very strong evidence, because ABSOLUTELY everything points to European melee weapons being vastly superior.

Chinese weaponry of the 12th century was far superior to one used by Europeans of the same time. It's not some kind of outlandish claim. The use of cannons, crude grenades, and landmines were employed by different Chinese dynasties during this time. A simple wikipedia search would suffice to show the difference between the two, as would a simple google search on the weapons used by both.

Wait, those same war elephants that Alexander and later the Romans defeated? The ones that were not really that great?

The West was barely out of their diapers when the Song had already existed for several decades.

War Elephants had varied success throughout their employment. Hannibal was able to devastate Roman lines with his deployment of elephants. Though Alexander did fight elephants in India, his men were not very happy about it.

The Battle of the Jhelum was Alexander’s only major battle in India. It was fought against a powerful Indian rajah, an Indian equivalent to a king or warlord, named Porus. While Alexander’s forces did win the battle, his men had to face the Indian monsoon, and worse yet approximately 200 enemy elephants. As a result of this battle, Alexander’s men, tired, restless, and definitely unwilling to face elephants in battle again, mutinied when they reached the next river and forced Alexander to start heading back toward Greece. @Kratesis said:

So.. they weren't really that effective is what you're trying to say?

They weren't effective versus the mobility of the Genghis Khan's army. Early gunpowder weapons all suffered from short range and bad accuracy, they were employed because they had devastating destructive capabilities.

The Europeans didn't get demolished later by MUCH more accurate, powerful, and numerous guns. The few highly ineffective guns the Song Dynasty could pull together wouldn't somehow preform miracles.

In fact you were JUST talking about how poorly they preformed.

Byzantine empire fell to the Ottoman Turks who wielded heavy artillery and extensive use of gun powder. Their prized Janissary army carried hand guns and used it to deadly efficiency. Why you think the Europeans adopted the usage of guns? While I can't say for sure how the Song Dynasty's guns would fare against Medieval Europeans, I would say it would have the same results as when the Ottomans faced the Byzantines.

The Europeans greatly favored melee combat, which prove ineffective versus guns and cannons.

Except that is completely wrong. One hundred percent wrong. Absolutely incorrect.

Armored knights (you know, the kind Europe loved) was SO effective that until the invention of a convenient bayonet that would allow the gunman to fire with it equipped.. Pikemen were REQUIRED to protect the lines from being overrun by knights.

It honestly surprises me you don't know that. It was a fundamental tactical reality for decades.

They were effective in European combat amongst each other. But how can you say for certain that it would be effective against anyone else? The Ottoman's quickly dispatched Europeans on horseback with their hand held cannons long before their fall from grace. The fact still remains that the Chinese would have their own standing army to protect their heavy artillery and gunmen just like any good army would.

While engaged in a war with the Mongols, in 1259 the official Li Zengbo wrote in his Kezhai Zagao, Xugaohou that the city of Qingzhou was manufacturing one to two thousand strong iron-cased bomb shells a month, dispatching to Xiangyang and Yingzhou about ten to twenty thousand such bombs at a time. In turn, the invading Mongols employed northern Chinese soldiers and used these same type of gunpowder weapons against the Song. By the 14th century the firearm and cannon could also be found in Europe, India, and the Islamic Middle East, during the early age of gunpowder warfare.
Avatar image for kratesis
Kratesis

4279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By Kratesis

@OmgOmgWtfWtf said:

@Kratesis:

No, it is correct. No Chinese empire was every militarily powerful when compared to equivalent western powers.

The Europeans only ever surpassed everyone else once they acquired the use of gunpowder and creation of rifles.

Hardly. The European methods of warfare were demonstrability more powerful, versatile, and effective at virtually every turn.

You are mixing up historical dates.

What are you talking about? I said 'Equivalent Western Powers'.

The Tang and the Han had guns long before Western civilization acquired them.

And they completely and utterly failed to put them to good use.

If you are trying to imply that future European powers were stronger, than that is true, but to expect Middle Age European, who have just gotten out of the dark age, to challenge a nation which was miles ahead of technology would be foolish.

The middle ages cover around ten centuries, dozens of cultures and countries. You are going to need to be more specific.

NonethelessANY comparable European force would be more then a match for a comparable Chinese force on the field thanks to the low quality of Chinese military might, lack of common and effective tactics, poor cohesion, and and many other factors.

The reason you cherry pick your examples is because if you do not then you're left with the reality that China was quite weak historically and only appeared strong because their surroundings were even weaker.

I'm not cherry picking my answers. You're jumping from different centuries, to the point where it is difficult for me to even decipher which century you are even speaking about.

I have not named a single century. I think you may be confused by something else.

The Song existed when the Europeans were in the middle ages, far beyond the technological advancement of the rest of the world. You are attributing future successes of the European empires to their Medieval selves. You are somehow bringing up advancements which have yet to happen, by the time they do, China has fallen far from its former glory, as has every other empire of antiquity.

Again, you are looking at a period of around ten centuries. And honestly I'm not sure what your point is here. I've been quite clear, over and over, that comparable european forces would defeat chinese ones. You are talking about.. something. I'm not sure what.

That's right, because my point is that ALL of China, all dynasties, ever, were militarily weak compared to an equivalent western force.

Now you are blatantly being biased. So you are telling me Dark Age Europe would be able beat the Tang Dynasty? They existed during the same time period and thus are equivalent in terms of historical accuracy.

This is your absolute best cherry pick here. Your best shot. The point when the balance of military might favored china the most.

Sadly the overall military quality of european forces was still generally superior.

If you are somehow trying to imply that Europe before their acquisition of guns as some credible threat to the world, then you are delusional. Medieval Europe feared invasion from the barbarians in the north (mainly the Vikings and Germans), Ottomans from the south, and Mongolians from the east.

Vikings and Germans were in Europe.. Its basic things like this that make me think you may not have a lot of knowledge about Europe. Where the heck would Germany be if not Europe?

When did I imply Europe was going to go on a rampage of conquest? Again you put words in my mouth and argue against a point that I do not actually make.

I'm pretty sure I answered this. They were capable of generating enough food to feed a large number of people. Thus.. they had more people. What exactly is your point, you seem to just be explaining what I've already said.

You were saying that their population was because of fertile land, which was not the case as I mentioned.

We've reached the point of splitting hairs, I shall let this one end here unless you would prefer to continue it.

So your point is what? What does this have to do with the military might of China compared to the west?

That China was technologically more advanced that Europeans from the same exact time period? Isn't this what whole entire debate is about?

No. Not even close. I am not arguing for the overall technological superiority of Europe. That is not one of my claims, and never has been. You are arguing against points that I have not made.

Which means what exactly? Again, I'm not really sure what your point is.

That Genghis had a larger army? Sure. But Alexander faced MANY large armies, it wasn't like he was suddenly going to give up because there was a lot of horses.

That is he severely outmatched and outgunned? Genghis Khan came from a time far ahead of Alexander in terms of technology, weaponry, and tactics. Unless the several hundred year gap between them doesn't make a difference in your eyes, Alexander loses by virtue of being outdated.

Several hundred years is meaningless. The EFFECTS of that time is what count.

I'm not sure how Alexander is magically defeated by a number. Do they ride up, compare technologies and then he who has the latest bow goes home?

I'm sure that was effective against the softer and weaker foes Genghis was use to facing, but things of that nature are rarely effective against hardened soliders.

Secondly, its hardly a new or novel tactic. Warriors have been attempting to scare each other in battle from the days of tribal war cries.

Haha this golden. So his arrows which could penetrate iron armor isn't going to be able to pierce bronze? Which is a weaker metal. I didn't know harden soldiers protect them from being shot with arrows. Unless they have superhuman durability, the arrow is going to maim them. You can't fight in formation if your soldiers can't move to form it.

I'm not sure what your talking about here. Apparently the mongols now have some kind of magical machine gun bow that shoots through shields and breastplates then kills the man inside?

Please.

Feigned retreats were hardly new. Greek javelin throwers had been doing this for a very very long time.

When did I say it was new? Now it seem you are the one putting words into my mouth. There is a huge difference between the range of a javelin thrower and that of Mongolian archer. Unless you can explain how Alexander's army is going to reach an enemy on horseback. They will be pelted by arrows from a distance.

What? You claimed Genghis had some kind of tactical superiority. I asked what kind. You responded with this, one of the oldest tactics known to humanity.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Enveloping flanks were hardly new either. In fact the Spartans were rather famous for it, and the Sacred Band of Thebes was devoted almost entirely to that purpose (That is, until Alexander killed them)

The Spartans flanked their enemies through a phalanx position. Overwhelming enemies with spears and shields. The Mongolians flank with ranged attacks. Much different then what you are implying.

Flanked their enemies through a phalanx position? I don't even know what you are trying to say.

Arrows would prove more effective than a spear, especially when these arrows can penetrate armor. Steel arrow heads will penetrate their armor like a hot knife through butter. A phalanx position were weak from the sides and rear. Easy spots for a mongol archer to spot.

Haha, hot knife through butter lol. Okay, it is clear that you do not have any detailed or accurate knowledge of these technologies.

A long range bow isn't much of a tactical advancement. Its just a good bow.

And range was never a tactical advantage? Ask the English how well their longbows fared against the heavy horsemen of the French. Just because the bow hasn't really changed in the last couple of centuries, doesn't mean it isn't a deadly weapon. Alexander the Great died from an arrow wound.

The Welsh longbow was solid for a small handful of battles in the mainland, for less then 75 years and only when in positions of relative defensive safety.

Throwing fodder at the enemy isn't some kind of genius military tactic either.

Unless you can explain Alexander would exactly counter a large force of unarmed individuals marching into his ranks then it would still be an effective tactic. You don't have to be a genius in military strategy to be effective.

Wait.. a bunch of unarmed people into his lines? Clearly he is doomed. No heavily armed, armored, skilled and experienced warrior could handle this!

Seriously.

The fact these are the best tactics you can claim for Genghis tells the whole story. Alexander was MILES ahead.

This is not the full facts. I already told you to look them up, there are wikipedia pages dedicated to just Mongolian battle tactics and psychological warfare. I advise you to read over them to get basic knowledge on Genghis Khan.

I could just as easily ask you to read up on western armies and tactics. That's hardly legitimate.

We are not talking about economies. We are not talking about infrastructure except military infrastructure.

We ARE talking about military might. You seem to be attempting to turn the conversation away from this. I feel its because western military power was so vastly superior, and its easier to make an argument for other elements of society but I could be wrong.

Once again, Western military was only superior once they reached a certain point in history (19th century). That point of history has not come, as we are discussing a time period before this (medieval). A military is adequately supplied by the economy of a nation. If they can feed, support, and arm a large army, then they are better suited for battle. Simple knowledge. It's not that difficult to understand. Europe had no economy as of this time, don't forget we are speaking about the Middle Ages, not the 20th century.

What are you talking about? You seem to be referring to the medieval era, a time of about ten centuries, but then you claim they had no economy. It seems that once more you are arguing against a point that I have not made.

Let me be clear once again. Between comparable Chinese and European military forces the European was superior. Where you are getting this 'clash of civilizations' stuff from I don't know.

Let me return to my former metaphor. Just because someone DOES something a lot does not mean they are good at it. Observe boxers with very poor records. Observe workers who preform the same task every day yet do very poorly.

Now consider how much more complex it is to UNDERSTAND the reasons for success or failure. Then to PASS ON these reasons in a massive society full of diverse and varied peoples.

China failed to do these things constantly enough to keep pace with western advancement. That's just a fact.

Western advancement did no pass China at this point. I don't know what time period you are in, but I'm strictly speaking about medieval Europe (12th century), high middle ages, not 19th century Europe. Medieval Europe did not fare any better versus anyone. Hence why they were reduced to the Dark Ages only centuries earlier due to barbaric invasion.

Again, I'm not actually sure what your point is. You don't refute any of my points, nor do you seem to make any points of your own.

Reading your last sentence it seems you claim that because Rome fell to barbarians.. something? I don't get it.

Alexanderfaced the Scythians, mounted and armed with bows. They were rather notarious for their warlike nature, and famous as skilled archers.

He completely destroyed them. They were nothing but a footnote in his conquests.

The Scythians were not as advanced as the Mongals, they were much smaller in terms of numbers, they did not use steel or iron arrowheads. They were basically a single tribe, Mongolian army consists of several hundred tribes. The fact they were able to conquer China, the Middle East and Russia is a testament to their skill. Not all horseback archers are the same, just as how infantry can differ from nation to nation.

None of that would really mean anything except a harder battle for Alexander.

Artillery and siege weaponry fired on the horse archers (the first time in all of history this is recorded, try that for tactical innovation). The siege weaponry outranged the horse archers, and thus could engage them even when the horse archers were not anywhere close to his lines.

Then he sent forth a vanguard the archers would have to engage if they wanted to get near him. Unlike the weak and undisciplined people Khan was use to fighting Alexander had a collection of battle hardened, loyal and heavily armored troops. They were willing to endure the rain of arrows because of their armor, their shields, and their discipline.

Genghis Khan had his own artillery as well. You really think he had no siege weapons? He hired the best engineers from Asia and Europe to build him them. His siege weapons would be light years ahead of what Alexander would use,

Except that they were not. Except that they FAILED to take many, many cities. Except that you provide no evidence for this magical siege weaponry, nor do you explain how he is going to deploy it in an effective manner, or cope with the many counter tactics, nor how this magical artillery is somehow going to keep pace with his horses when you use your 'feinted retreat' that you were talking about.

not to mention he had to use of gun powder from the Chinese.

Which seemed to accomplish exactly squat. And again, unless he stands and fights with Alexander all these weapons are not going to be deployed together and directed in a coherent and dynamic manner.

Steel arrowheads would eat through their armor fairly easily.

Haha, here we go with this again lol.

The whole point of a longbow was because it had armor piercing capabilities.

The whole point of the bow was that you could reload and fire from a horse. It seems magical bows +1 are now required, as I have defeated many of your other arguments and presented you with one single tactic which Alexander used to utterly crush your mono tactic.

You are some how equating Scythians to Mongols, when the difference between the two are night and day.

You have failed to show me how they are so different for this battle.

When the large numbers of Scythians came forward to fire arrows at his vanguard they were to numerous to escape quickly. The guys in the back got in the way of the people in the front, in other words.

Then his heavy calvary charged, and the greater strength and longer legs of the heavy western horse allowed them to catch the Sythians before they could escape. It was a slaughter.

This was just another day at the office for Alexander. His level of tactical genius is likely the greatest to have ever lived in any time or place. Just throwing a bunch of guys on horses at him and saying you're going to defeat the greatest general in history is frankly silly.

Mongolians bows have farther reach than a Grecian bow. The Mongolians circle enemy formations not rush into them.

I covered this. The flanks were protected by horse and natural obstacles. The whole world isn't some giant plane that extends off into infinity for your horse. It has stuff on it.

Heavy Calvary versus Mongolian horses? Mongolian horses are some of the fastest in the world, they would outrun the Greek Calvary for miles. The Mongolians wore leather and silk armor in order to not slow their horses down. Each soldier had 3-4 additional horses in order to keep optimal speed during combat situations, replacing any tired horses. The heavily armored Greek horsemen won't ever touch the Mongolian archers on horseback. They would instead be shot in their death charge.

Except for the fact that is untrue.

The eastern horses were really more like large ponies. They were excellent at sustaining reasonable speeds over long distances, but not as fast as a comparable western horse over short distances.

Speed is equal to stride rate times stride length. The stronger western horses had higher stride rates, and longer legs provided greater stride length. This is relatively basic physics.

Consider race horses. You don't see a lot of ponies lol. You see tall, strong horses that can run FAST. That's what Alexander had, because that's what he needed.

Alexander the Great is not the greatest general in history. That is a pretty bold statement which not many people agree upon.

I'm afraid it is true, based upon the preponderance of evidence.

I would say the main difference is the Chinese were not very skilled.

We can agree to disagree on this point. The Chinese dynasties varied in strength, and to blatantly say that they were unskilled would be false. However, since no amount of points can change your opinion on this point. I will rather not try any further.

Skill is a relative thing. When you compare them against the armies of Europe they were unskilled. Perhaps if you compared them against other, even less developed societies they might fair better.

That I do, for a very simple reason. The Europeans had superior enemies (other Europeans), superior weaponry, and superior tactics on the whole.

The Europeans were not superior any way, shape or form during the Middle Ages. The tactics and weaponry were laughably bad. The Roman Empire which preceded them had superior tactics and weaponry. They lost this all once the Dark Age came.

I am afraid once more you refer to a large number of cultures, societies, governments, and ethnic groups that span ten centuries.

The idea that their tactics and weaponry were bad is frankly silly at best and is what makes me think you may lack specific knowledge about these peoples and periods.

Their tactics were among the best, this is the period in which the deployment of the combined arms force was developed extensively and often perfected.

The weaponry was some of the absolute best. The crossbow, the plate armor, the longsword, these are all equipment developed and mastered in the Middle Ages. Their dominance is undeniable.

Somehow the Chinese acquired gunpowder first, and still fell behind. Well, farther behind.

The Chinese never wished to use guns in the way Europeans had in mind. Though this is an entirely different topic and revolves around the differences between Asian and Western philosophy.

And judging by the results with the European guns came into contact with China I would say that Asian 'gun philosophy' was quite incorrect in their grasp of reality.

What lol? Bad at combat in clunky armor and outdated equipment? I begin to suspect the root of the disagreement is you lack knowledge of European martial arts, tactical advancements, fighting skill and historical achievements.

The root of this disagreement is your lack of knowledge of Asian history. The clunky armor worn by Europeans greatly hindered their movements in combat, the fact that a knight needs a squire to help him on his horse is laughable.

Wait.. I thought we were talking about the middle ages, not late period jousting harness?

They wouldn't last a second in a fight outside of Europe, which for the most part is why they never fought outside of Europe.

You know, except for all those times they did fight outside of Europe.

Saladin showed them the error of their ways during the attempts to reclaim Jerusalem. Mobility is greatly favored over armor in most situations.

You mean Saladin with his horse archers who was repelled by Richard's combined arms army? Lets go over how he did it.

He had pikemen and crossbow men stand together. When the horse archers rode up to loose their arrows the greater power and accuracy of the crossbow combined with the more stable platform of the ground meant the horse archers lost the archery duel.

They were not successful at charging, because of the pikemen and the waiting knights.

What happened? Saladin could not defeat the combined arms force of Richard, and he retreated to burn all the food and poison all the wells so Richard ran out of food and had to leave.

Huh. So much for the unstopable horse archer.

You have hit the nail upon the head. They were not militarily strong themselves, and their foes were exceptionally weak.

I don't see how I hit the nail upon my head. You're under the impression that the rest of the world were in the neolithic age, while Europeans were some kind of gods. The fact remains, the Europeans were still living in the dark ages when the rest of the world was progressing. The fact the Mongolians managed to conquer the Persian caliphs who controlled one of the strongest empires during this time period eludes you. The fact they managed to conquer nearly all of Asian, and keep it, also seems to be of non importance.

Where did I say this? I have been exceptionally clear, repeatedly.

I'm pretty sure you can see a small detail quite well, without the big picture.

For example we could examine the weaponry of foot soldiers That would be a relatively small detail, and we would be able to compare those weapons without knowledge of the price of rise in beijing.

Now you're going off grid. The rise of Beijing has no importance to the weaponry of foot soldiers. Two things that have no relevance of course cannot be compared, apples and oranges. If we were to examine the weaponry of foot soldiers, we would need to look at a specific demographic, then look at the geography of the region, in order to explain why those specific soldiers wielded certain weapons. History cannot ever be taken out of context, to do so would lose the whole point of history, which is cause and effect.

No, I'm afraid a detailed study of an entire culture is NOT required to understand the basics of hand held weaponry. The very idea is silly.

Lets put that to the test then.

The Persians were politically and economically weak.

Agreed

. I have stated this from the beginning.

This would have a definite affect on their army.

That is a possibility, not again not required. Repeatedly you have confused correlation and causation.

The Persian army at this time were poorly equipped, they didn't have the money to afford good equipment. Their army consisted of peasants and slaves who were conscripted to fight.

Their army consisted of many different parts.

Its simply untrue.

The politics greatly weakened the Persians ability to respond in time, since they didn't have a single cohesive army from which to combat the threat.

Darius most certain had a cohesive army.

The first error in your part is that Darius never lead a cohesive army to fight Alexander. He left the fighting to one of his satraps, the same people who would later kill him. There army was indeed composed primarily of slaves and peasants. The army also had mercenaries, nobility and some well trained men, but they did not compromise a large part of his army. The fact remained that many of his own soldiers, like the Scythians were also employed by the Greeks, pretty much left his army without well trained troops.

So what you are saying is that he did have an army that consisted of various parts and was in fact NOT entirely composed of slaves. (But I thought these unarmed slaves were some kind of genius tactic?)

Darius and many of his satraps had no experience in war, and were only placed in positions of power due to their noble heritage. While Darius did employ Greeks to fight for him, they were way past their former glory. The Spartans he hired, were no longer considered the greatest fighting force in all of Greece, and had been defeated in combat by numerous other factions, due to the smallness of their army. I brought up this point earlier, that the Spartans only enlisted full blooded male citizens into their army, and thus their army ranks were sorely lacking. Not to mention that Darius was a coward. He fled so fast from the capitol, that his whole family was held hostage by Alexander. To expect someone of his low caliber to be of any threat to a trained army would be foolish. The fact it took several losses before Darius decided to act in an any manner goes to show how inefficient he was.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Darius was no military genius, however he was a solid and sound commander who had every advantage. He had the advantage of numbers, he had the advantage of wealth, of economic systems, and many more things besides.

I feel as if you are blatantly ignoring massive sections of the Persian army in order to twist the facts to your advantage. I could just as easily say all Chinese soldiers were peasant conscripts.

Many Chinese soldiers were indeed peasant conscripts during the early times of Chinese history. However by the time of the Han Dynasty, China was able to attain enough wealth to employ soldiers full time.

Okay.. so.. again I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

On the contrary no other Greek general would have prevailed over what Alexander did. None.

The Persian empire which Alexander invaded is not the same one that Cyrus the great built. One of was a great empire, the other was dying. It's like comparing the Roman Empire during the height of the Republic, to the Roman Empire of later dynastic rule. They were very different.

Obviously they are different. Equally obviously your statement has little to nothing to do with my point.

The Song Dynasty army was not very effective against fighting other Chinese,

Or anyone else.

who carried the same equipment and weapons.

So basically they couldn't fight people who were equal to them? Isn't this central to what I have been saying?

However versus outdated Europeans, they would effectively conquer.

Hardly. But let us examine your reasons.

The Song had gunpowder. They used it for fire lances, cannons, and land mines which would effectively demolish any European army of the time.

They did in fact have gunpowder. Which they did use in great qualities. And it completely failed, because they effectively used it for the same nonsense Chinese militaries always did in those days. Slightly enhanced artillery and novelties.

Greek fire didn't revolutionize the military world in the west. It shattered no empires. The crude gunpowder weapons of the Song would not somehow crush the entire western world.

Notice how the first western general with gunpowder didn't sweep his way across Europe like some god of war. It was a mild advantage, that is all.

Gunpowder would not mean instant victory, but it would provide great support for them. Cannons, despite their crudeness, were still effective at breaking enemy formations. An army with gunpowder and heavy artillery would fair much better than an army without it.

Wait, this same gunfire that totally failed against.. everybody?

Greek fire was easily weaponized, at least not in the same fashion as gunpowder, and was used mostly in naval battles. The Byzantine empire used Greek fire to brutal efficiency during assaults by the Ottoman Empire. They could set enemy ships ablaze very quickly.

Okay. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Wait, I thought they inherited the great fighting prowess of the Tan dynasty and were considered good warriors by 'experts'?

The lack of cohesion and command was imposed by the government itself, because they feared the military would overthrow them if given too much power. They inherited the tactics and fighting prowess of the Tang Dynasty, hence why the imperial government feared what they could accomplish with that strength. Generals were stripped of much of their power and inefficient government officials were given control of the army.

So basically what you originally said wasn't true and they were terrible fighters after all?

Perhaps you are confused. The bronze age in Europe ended in 600BC, but the Song Dynasty we're talking about didn't start until what.. a thousand years later?

The weapon and armor of Alexander's army were still largely based on earlier bronze age designs. So I don't see where the confusion is. Some changes were made in the shield and armor design, but the core of it was still unchanged.

We are talking Song vs. Europe and Genghis vs Alexander. But it seems you would like to have Song vs. Alexander too, in which case I am more then happy to oblige.

Okay, so did the Romans. A long, long, long time before the Song Dynasty.

The crossbows of Roman design were very different from the one employed by Song Dynasty. The Roman ones used a simple gear shift and took a very long time to reload. The Song Dynasty crossbows were significantly larger, easier to reload, and fired steel bolts which could penetrate armor.

Okay. I'm not sure what your point is.

Please. If you are going to make these claims about Chinese weaponry being somehow massively superior to European weaponry then you need to show some very strong evidence, because ABSOLUTELY everything points to European melee weapons being vastly superior.

Chinese weaponry of the 12th century was far superior to one used by Europeans of the same time. It's not some kind of outlandish claim. The use of cannons, crude grenades, and landmines were employed by different Chinese dynasties during this time. A simple wikipedia search would suffice to show the difference between the two, as would a simple google search on the weapons used by both.

Those are hardly battle deciding weapons. In fact those are outliers, weaponry that has little to no effect on the results of a battle. Weapons that you have cherry picked for your case.

Wait, those same war elephants that Alexander and later the Romans defeated? The ones that were not really that great?

The West was barely out of their diapers when the Song had already existed for several decades.

War Elephants had varied success throughout their employment. Hannibal was able to devastate Roman lines with his deployment of elephants. Though Alexander did fight elephants in India, his men were not very happy about it.

I'm afraid Scrippo developed the answer to elephants and after that.. well.. that was it for the elephant as an effective fighting tool.

The Battle of the Jhelum was Alexander’s only major battle in India. It was fought against a powerful Indian rajah, an Indian equivalent to a king or warlord, named Porus. While Alexander’s forces did win the battle, his men had to face the Indian monsoon, and worse yet approximately 200 enemy elephants. As a result of this battle, Alexander’s men, tired, restless, and definitely unwilling to face elephants in battle again, mutinied when they reached the next river and forced Alexander to start heading back toward Greece. @Kratesis said:

So.. they weren't really that effective is what you're trying to say?

They weren't effective versus the mobility of the Genghis Khan's army. Early gunpowder weapons all suffered from short range and bad accuracy, they were employed because they had devastating destructive capabilities.

Give me a neck brace because I'm getting whiplash. First their guns are effective, then they are not effective, now they are kinda effective, but sorta not, but kinda.

The Europeans didn't get demolished later by MUCH more accurate, powerful, and numerous guns. The few highly ineffective guns the Song Dynasty could pull together wouldn't somehow preform miracles.

In fact you were JUST talking about how poorly they preformed.

Byzantine empire fell to the Ottoman Turks who wielded heavy artillery and extensive use of gun powder. Their prized Janissary army carried hand guns and used it to deadly efficiency. Why you think the Europeans adopted the usage of guns? While I can't say for sure how the Song Dynasty's guns would fare against Medieval Europeans, I would say it would have the same results as when the Ottomans faced the Byzantines.

Now we have the Ottomans vs. Byzantine? And you lay the ENTIRE result at the hands of guns.. that you just said were ineffective.

First, pass me a neck brace. Second make up your mind what you're going to argue.

The Europeans greatly favored melee combat, which prove ineffective versus guns and cannons.

Except that is completely wrong. One hundred percent wrong. Absolutely incorrect.

Armored knights (you know, the kind Europe loved) was SO effective that until the invention of a convenient bayonet that would allow the gunman to fire with it equipped.. Pikemen were REQUIRED to protect the lines from being overrun by knights.

It honestly surprises me you don't know that. It was a fundamental tactical reality for decades.

They were effective in European combat amongst each other. But how can you say for certain that it would be effective against anyone else? The Ottoman's quickly dispatched Europeans on horseback with their hand held cannons long before their fall from grace. The fact still remains that the Chinese would have their own standing army to protect their heavy artillery and gunmen just like any good army would.

Because its a fundamental fact of combat. Guns that are slow to reload do not kill thousands of horsemen before they arrive. And when they arrive if you do not have something to fend them off with you will be in serious trouble.

This is basic logic the world over.

While engaged in a war with the Mongols, in 1259 the official Li Zengbo wrote in his Kezhai Zagao, Xugaohou that the city of Qingzhou was manufacturing one to two thousand strong iron-cased bomb shells a month, dispatching to Xiangyang and Yingzhou about ten to twenty thousand such bombs at a time. In turn, the invading Mongols employed northern Chinese soldiers and used these same type of gunpowder weapons against the Song. By the 14th century the firearm and cannon could also be found in Europe, India, and the Islamic Middle East, during the early age of gunpowder warfare.
Okay, so what does this have to do with anything? I'm not sure what your point is.
Avatar image for qpzmg
Qpzmg

1116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By Qpzmg

BUMP

Avatar image for monsterstomp
MonsterStomp

37649

Forum Posts

361

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By MonsterStomp

@Nefarious said:

Alex.
Avatar image for vercingetorixthegreat
VercingetorixTheGreat

2851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Cyrus and Genghis were better leaders Alexander was a better military leader...

Anyone who thinks Genghis wouldn't win the second round is being idiotic, the time difference between Alexander and Genghis is too great for anyone to overcome. His companion cavalry would be useless against Genghis steppe army

Avatar image for hashem2200
Hashem2200

8

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By Hashem2200

People are saying Alexander and Genghis Khan without even knowing what they are talking about. It's just nostalgia and ignorance. As a human being i love Cyrus, he was a humanist, he successfully created a multi-cultural society where everyone respected their Emperor Cyrus the Great. He is truly worthy of his title. Cyrus didn't tolerate women and children being killed. The mongols killed little boys. Alexander the Great only build his Empire for it to be destroyed a short while later. Cyrus' Empire lasted for centuries. And don't come and say that Alexander the Great's and Genghis Khan's Empires population were bigger than the Empire of Cyrus. Cyrus' Empire had the population of 45% OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS, yes my ignorant friends he brought together almost HALF of the HUMAN POPULATION. In that sense it IS the most vast Empire in history. The Mongolian Empire had 26% of the population (Great feat. ofc.) and the Macedonian Empire had 30% of the world population.

- Alexander the Great thought burning Persepolis was a good way to make the persians love him. Maybe you guys can figure out how that went. He basically slaughtered people in vain, he didn't achieve hi's real goal whereas Cyrus achieved centuries of peace between people of all ethnicities.

- I am not Iranian, but Cyrus IMO is truly the best ruler there has ever been. The Greeks came and occupiet Persia 200 years after his reign and pretty much destroyed a big and very essential part of human history. And ofc. lied a lot about history. it was said by Herodotus that the persians were 2,5 millions strong at the Battle of Thermopylae wereas recent studies show that there were about 70.000. That's 2,8% of 2,5 million, pretty big lie if you ask me.

- But all great conquerors indeed. Genghis Khan went from a nobody to the Emperor of the biggest Empire in history (in terms of geography).

(I didn't even have an account but couldn't just pass this by. Most people are 12 year-old comic book fans; you should post this on another forum.

Avatar image for namor_curry
Namor_Curry

1729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for alberto_weskardo
Alberto_Weskardo

451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By Alberto_Weskardo

The Mongols from the far east reached it's armies crushing the Chinese, the Koreans, the Persians, the Arabs, the Turks, the Germanic tribes and Europe's united Crusaders. Europe actually lost 30,000 Crusaders in one night fighting the Mongols, and it took a short alliance for the Crusaders and Arab Jihadist to stop their fight against each other to team up and fight against the Mongols. During the same period, the Mongols on the north were mowing down all the tribes and kingdoms of Russia into Poland.