|
Hydrolith posted:Sorry, I meant more the tactics of skirmishers, rather than the specific equipment of velites. As in: harassing the main body of the enemy infantry with ranged weapons (running away when they try to chase you rather than giving battle), and screening your own main infantry from enemy skirmishers. My understanding was part of why skirmishers can hit-and-run is because they aren't heavily armoured and so faster. But then, this thread did establish that armour isn't an impediment to speed or maneuverability, but rather to stamina, so... maybe I should take the Total War games with a grain of salt. The difference in equipment is more due to cost and social class rather than a deliberate choice to be unencumbered. But I think constant physical training and being conditioned to fight in armour is also a huge factor in the way knights use armour. Again that's also because the military nobility have nothing better to do but train full time while the peasants feed them. There are articles that claim that skeletons of medieval knights indicate highly developed muscles that are only possible from constant training from childhood.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Alekanderu posted:The only thing you should take seriously from the Total War games (if even that) is the historical background descriptions of units, buildings and factions. The gameplay itself, both strategic and tactical, has very little in common with how things actually worked historically. The only valid thing to take away from strategy is that you can go broke as gently caress waging war. And from tactics that you often kill fall more in the rout than in the battle. Over in the Ancient thread, I made the somewhat careless assertion that the blood taboo of the Mongols was a cause of their archery culture and therefore their military success. Since it's a derail there, I'm porting it over to here to take my licks. The point has been made that the Mongols had plenty of lancers too, and I'd agree but I'd say the way they were used was also governed by the blood taboo-- that they attacked only after disorder had overtaken the enemy, mainly being used to impale fleeing enemies. They weren't generally used as shock cavalry to slam into the line with lances and cause the disruption. I totally concede that causation with tabboo and action are highly interrelated, so saying that the blood taboo was causative of the archery culture rather than resulting from it is a contention I've done nothing to support, except for adding now the very trivial support that the way they used lances was similarly more blood-phobic than the way that lance cavalry was used elsewhere. The question has been asked if the same blood taboo existed in the other nearby steppe cultures that were similar in tactics to the Mongols in emphasis on horse archery: I do not know and I will attempt to find out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also, since we're talking about idle amusements for common people, I've gotten addicted to the game Crusader Kings II, and if any of the history people here know about it and had comments on its historical accuracy, etc. (either here or in the Games thread if it's too off-topic) that would be pretty rad. For instance, was gavelkind succession or a similar partible system the most common form of inheritance in western Europe circa 1100-1400? In the game, this is the default for most duchies/petty kingdoms/kingdoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:For instance, was gavelkind succession or a similar partible system the most common form of inheritance in western Europe circa 1100-1400? In the game, this is the default for most duchies/petty kingdoms/kingdoms. I can tell you one thing for free, if they did use some sort of system similar to gavelkind, it sure as poo poo wasn't as retarded in the distribution of assets as CK2. Edit - a quick wiki search suggests that gavelkind is an english\british area thing although germanic parts of europe had similar but differently named rules. The move towards primogeniture kicked off ~1300 over some dispute in France. Both articles look pretty good and worth a read. Edit2 - That wiki line lead me to Charles IV of France seems the crazy poo poo in CK2 is actually pretty realistic. 3 Marriages, failed attempts to become byzantine emperor, pope decided to not let him have a crusade because he'd just steal all the money, bitch slapping vassals, deposing the king of England so a nice pliable kid would inherit, grooming your nephew to be the holy roman empire. gently caress, its a drat simulation, history reads like a lets play. Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The only valid thing to take away from strategy is that you can go broke as gently caress waging war. And from tactics that you often kill fall more in the rout than in the battle. Uh, didn't they massacre civilian populations using axes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Uh, didn't they massacre civilian populations using axes. Don't be ridiculous, random peasants/civilians don't count.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I'm no expert, but I bet the only real difference in terms of amusements to modern times would be the relative popularity of bloodsports, and even then only when we're talking about as compared to middle-class Americans. We still love bloodsports and orgies and all that, we just legitimate it by televising it. Action movies and football are crazy popular for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure gladiatorial fights were nothing like what's been portrayed in Hollywood either. Imagine how successful a prize fighting circuit would be if half the performers/fighters died every round. Gladiators dying wasn't unusual but it also wasn't routine, and gladiators dying on purpose was unusual. Gladiators were valuable assets. There's nothing morally objectionable about orgies anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:We still love bloodsports and orgies and all that, we just legitimate it by televising it. Action movies and football are crazy popular for a reason. God, they would have loved True Blood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:We still love bloodsports and orgies and all that, we just legitimate it by televising it. Action movies and football are crazy popular for a reason. When those don't suffice there's always computer games for your mass violence needs. Though I doubt there would be much demand for Farmville back then. Too much like work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm pretty sure gladiatorial fights were nothing like what's been portrayed in Hollywood either. Imagine how successful a prize fighting circuit would be if half the performers/fighters died every round. Gladiators dying wasn't unusual but it also wasn't routine, and gladiators dying on purpose was unusual. Gladiators were valuable assets. Are you speculating or do you have some legit knowledge in this field? I'm pretty curious about this now but I think it's a little early for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
I can't speak to proper academia, but a lot of mass market stuff has been de-emphasizing the blood in the gladiatorial games, going to so far as to liken it to professional wrestling where occasionally someone gets stabbed. These are "History" (  ) channel documentaries, though, so take them with a grain of salt. Rome/Ancient world thread had some discussion on the subject a while back, maybe around pages 20-30.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
To some extent it's just about common sense. Gladiators were a serious investment for their owner. To have them slaughtering each other in droves as portrayals like Gladiator depict would be ludicrous from an economic standpoint. It's also about slavery in Rome. The Romans had their own point of views and set of laws about slavery that evolved over time. By the Antonine dynasty (the golden age where most media about Rome is set) slavery was an unpopular institution in civilized society, i.e. major urban centers not the provinces where slaves would be worked to death in mines or whatever. Not that it was any less widespread in the cities, but it had become unfashionable for all the obvious moral reasons. At this time in Roman society slavery was not a certain doom to lifelong servitude and a slave of a middle to upper class man in a city could reasonably expect to be freed if he performed his job well for some years. Freeing slaves was a popular thing to do for wealthy romans both to demonstrate wealth and because being a hardline conservative on slavery was an unpopular position by this point. This trend had started way back in the early 1st century with the beginning of the freedman class in roman society but by the Antonines they were a major demographic of roman cities. People could become slaves by either selling themselves into slavery, selling their family members into slavery (roman society remained extremely patriarchal so the eldest male in the family got to make that decision, thanks grandpa) or as a legal punishment for crimes or capture in war. However as Rome experienced a golden age with few interruptions in the Under Roman law at the time (don't know about earlier times like the Servile Wars) slavery could only be passed down from a slave mother to a child. However, since being freed sometime around middle age was a not-unreasonable ambition, slave couples would postpone having children until after they were freed for obvious reasons. These factors led to a significant fall in the population of slaves during the Pax Romana period, especially in the relatively tranquil inner provinces where Germans captured on the frontier would have to be transported a long way. Which, getting back to Gladiator, is why the portrayal of mass death among the gladiators is so unrealistic. This movie is portraying a time period in which the value of a slave is at its all-time high in Roman history, portraying very expensive, very lucrative slaves massacring each other in the arena as if it was routine. This all comes from the History of Rome podcast, which uses a long list of mostly secondary sources, although he seems to really like primary sources from the late republic and early principate as well. I know it's off topic but the common understanding of Roman bloodsport is just offensively stupid. The Romans were a lot of things, many of them not nice, but they weren't stupid. With no evidence, I suspect this is yet another fabrication of Victorian era amateur historians, who have repeatedly demonstrated that they were stupid. Ridley Scott isn't entirely to blame; he is on record as saying that audiences were still influenced by early hollywood historical epics in what they will and won't accept as real. For example, they wanted to show gladiators endorsing products before the match because that was really something gladiators did, but they decided viewers wouldn't believe it. They mention some of the reality of being a gladiator in dialog, like the chance to become wealthy and popular and retire at 30 like some kind of slave NFL star, but the action doesn't really match up with the descriptions even in the movie. Oh and "we are who are about to die salute you" is a one-time thing recorded as a conversation between Claudius and some felons who had been sentenced to death. The confusion probably arises from the practice of sentencing people to die in the arena, but convicted felons and professional gladiators are not the same people! Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Uh, didn't they massacre civilian populations using axes. There are some reports of that, but they tend to be mixed in with exaggeration of the number of those killed by the Mongols. The most famous account of it has, after a terrific battle where the Mongols have already killed a ton of people, the Mongols, after having separated out the tradesmen and the rest, killed fifty civilians apiece. If the population actually outnumbered the Mongols by a lot more than fifty to one, it is difficult to imagine the city falling or surrendering. By the time the Mongols got to those areas, they also had a lot of non-Mongol support staff with them, so it's conceivable they farmed out that task. That they had a blood taboo isn't really under dispute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm pretty sure gladiatorial fights were nothing like what's been portrayed in Hollywood either. Imagine how successful a prize fighting circuit would be if half the performers/fighters died every round. Gladiators dying wasn't unusual but it also wasn't routine, and gladiators dying on purpose was unusual. Gladiators were valuable assets. So you're saying that it was basically like pro wrestling with swords. And bonus rounds where they actually do kill wild animals or condemned criminals. Kaal posted:We still love bloodsports and orgies and all that, we just legitimate it by televising it. Action movies and football are crazy popular for a reason. Sorry, I meant to say blood sports as in like bear baiting, cockfighting, etc. Modern Americans are just fine with watching people beat each other up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There are some reports of that, but they tend to be mixed in with exaggeration of the number of those killed by the Mongols. The most famous account of it has, after a terrific battle where the Mongols have already killed a ton of people, the Mongols, after having separated out the tradesmen and the rest, killed fifty civilians apiece. If the population actually outnumbered the Mongols by a lot more than fifty to one, it is difficult to imagine the city falling or surrendering. By the time the Mongols got to those areas, they also had a lot of non-Mongol support staff with them, so it's conceivable they farmed out that task. There are a usually more civilians than there are soldiers. The Mongols' first conquests were in China. I don't even know if there was this blood taboo at all, what's your source on this? Is it specifically a taboo of the Mongol tribe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:There are a usually more civilians than there are soldiers. The Mongols' first conquests were in China. I don't have it with me, but it's secondary (or primary, depending on how you view it) source, from The Secret History of the Mongols (Mongγol-un niγuca tobčiyan). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_History_of_the_Mongols The blood taboo is represented frequently, and it is among the traditions that Ghenghis Khan codified in his laws, though the translation of that isn't sure if it only applied to fellow Mongols or everyone. And like I said, I don't know much about the cultural differences between the Mongols and the many tribes near them that they absorbed during their expansion. It may have been shared, it may not have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
I can only imagine them as being pragmatic warriors. When you gotta stab a dude you gotta stab a dude, blood taboo be dammed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I can only imagine them as being pragmatic warriors. When you gotta stab a dude you gotta stab a dude, blood taboo be dammed. Sure, but it's more about whether it influenced the development of technology in weapons or if it is the result and codification of that development of technology and particular tactic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
bres0048 posted:There were, however pre crusade stone was much rarer. Most fortifications were wood motte and bailey types. Or at least as far as I understand. There were stone fortifications, they were just less common. The reason I bring up Chateau Gaillard is, as soon is Richard gets sprung from jail and gets back following the third crusade he builds this monster in just under 2 years. Very very quick back then. Spends nearly double what Dover's budget was and implements a 3 tier system with a keep at the top. Should have been impregnable so long as a QRF force relieved them within 8-10 months. This however didn't happen as John was rather inept and it fell to the French early in it's life. 1196-1204. So yes, the Castle design was revolutionary in Western Europe. It dominated the Seine and had a dock that stretched a good way into the river which could control traffic. While using a fortification system atop the hill that was based on redundancy. Eastern influence is all over it. What 'Eastern influence' are you seeing exactly? Multiple layers of defence were nothing new, nor were castles atop hills. The contest over the Seine was actually a fairly recent development, which John Gillingham gets into in his 'Richard I, Galley-Warfare and Portsmouth: The Beginnings of a Royal Navy'. Though Chateau Gaillard was perhaps the strongest fortress of its day I would hardly call it revolutionary. Obdicut posted:It's been my impression that spears shortened considerably and then lengthened again, but I certainly overstated it by saying that they started getting used again. There definitely always were some people using them, but my main point was that plate armor didn't reach its zenith until hundreds of years after the pike had been in very common use and so plate didn't fall out of favor due to pikes. The sarissa was a long spear or pike used by various peoples during the 4th-1st centuries BC but you are still over-generalizing. The spears of Roman triarii, for example, were never as long as the sarissa, and were more in-line with hoplite spears in length, around 8 feet. While the sarissa was widely used within the remnants of Alexander's empire still more people did not use it. It's an iffy assertion. Charlie Mopps posted:here is a huge post about Byzantine swords, should be of some interest to people here. This post makes a lot of logical assumptions that cannot safely be made. The two most crucial are: 1. if it is depicted in an icon it must be an accurate representation of the real object and 2. if it is depicted in an ERE icon it must be a sword of ERE origin. This is especially contentious for the later period when the empire was seriously diminished in size. That he ascribes few dates to the weapons and icons depicted makes the post of little use within historical analysis of the evolution of sword forms, and some of his assertions (that, for example, globular pommels and narrow-ish blades are an especially Byzantine feature) are highly dubious. The sword he pulls from Oakeshott's book, which is in the Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow, is one I've spent a long time looking at. It is in very good condition and bears some deep nicks in the edge, which could just as easily be from a collector loving around with it or from actual combat use. I never took a picture of the inscription unfortunately, but it has long puzzled me because I found it inscrutable. That it was written with Greek letters is something I had never considered but would perhaps explain my confusion. I'll see if I can get a friend to snap a photo. The pommel has also confused me significantly, but that it is a shape unusual in the West is not a valid reason in itself to reassess the sword's origin. Additionally, the pommel is not truly globular, but cuboid. Very strange. Here's a picture 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
So what is a blood taboo in this context?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:So what is a blood taboo in this context? There are two in the Mongol tradition, one is that letting an enemy (or friend, actually)'s blood touch you lets them curse you or haunt you or defiles your soul with them-- Mongol religion from that time period is either very pithy or very much interpreted by one Shaman one way and one another. The second blood taboo is that the spilling of blood-- and translation is messy again here, it's either noble blood or foreigner's blood or anyone's blood-- onto the ground wasn't good. The Mongol form of execution for 'nobility' (or maybe foreigners, or maybe just anyone) was to roll them up in a carpet and trample them, or break their legs and let them die of exposure, or rarely, garroting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There are two in the Mongol tradition, one is that letting an enemy (or friend, actually)'s blood touch you lets them curse you or haunt you or defiles your soul with them-- Mongol religion from that time period is either very pithy or very much interpreted by one Shaman one way and one another. It definitely isn't just foreigners, as (I believe) the Secret History specifically recounts how Temujin granted his blood bro turned rival Jamuga an honorable death by breaking his back. However, that's the only 'blood taboo' I know of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Multiple layers of defence were nothing new, nor were castles atop hills. I'll say! The motte in motte and bailey is an artificial hill and the bailey is the outer layer of defence, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
To what extent was chivalry actually practiced? I'm under the impression that there was a chivalric code that knights had to swear by, and that they were expected to behave in an honorable and noble manner. But at the same time, I get the impression that knights in reality behaved more like mob enforcers and regularly did things in warfare that would directly oppose any sort of code of honor to protect the weak and innocent- chevauchee raids for example. It seems like a complete dichotomy and I don't understand which end of the spectrum knights truly fall in. If knights really did swear by a code, did they just ignore the code as a formality or did they somehow justify their actions in war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Seems likely it might have been an ideal people would aspire to, but not necessarily follow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
There was no code to swear by, because knights aren't a trades union. Being a knight is a pretty loose career, the job title is defined by being some sort of hereditary soldier, but there's a lot of give from a lot of factors. The idea of chivalry was definitely a thing, but it was more like a set of social expectations for the nobility. The idea of being "good" is more tied to religious piety and the expected behaviour of a diligent Christian. It's also not like all these nobles are personally out slaughtering peasants and stealing poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
You only get to slaughter peasants and steal their stuff if they had a tenuous link to someone your lord doesn't like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 07:59
|
|
Sartana posted:To what extent was chivalry actually practiced? I'm under the impression that there was a chivalric code that knights had to swear by, and that they were expected to behave in an honorable and noble manner. But at the same time, I get the impression that knights in reality behaved more like mob enforcers and regularly did things in warfare that would directly oppose any sort of code of honor to protect the weak and innocent- chevauchee raids for example. It seems like a complete dichotomy and I don't understand which end of the spectrum knights truly fall in. If knights really did swear by a code, did they just ignore the code as a formality or did they somehow justify their actions in war? They weren't the heroes of a tabletop fantasy game but the code did exist as an idea. Often the valorization of knighthood has more to do with courage (possibly of the insanely badass variety) in battle and not being a treacherous gently caress to your social peers and betters. Being merciful to peasants figures in but isn't quite as high on the priority list. Knights did indeed show mercy in battle on an appreciably regular basis, but this was more to other nobles (they had economic and political incentive to do so, for ransoming and bargaining). Try reading Jean Froissart's chronicles if you want to see pretty good examples of this. It details chevauchees but also letting peasants leave a siege unmolested (and actually given provisions). It also painstakingly records whenever people do hilariously ballsy things like go into battle as a blind old knight fully expecting death (and guided by his friends to the melee because they respect his wish to go out fighting).
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 08:04
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Just to be clear we're not talking about the whole Divine Right of Kings, right? Because that's a deal later. I think. Ah gently caress it, too long since I've studied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogion A collection of Welsh Arthurian tales that hearken back to an earlier, more mythological kind of King Arthur. It's been a long time since I read it, but I recall knights being able to talk to animals. And giant animals doing crazy things. And killing a giant by combing its hair. Fun stuff. Also, all the various things written about King Arthur have been kept up with pretty well, at least insofar as they survive. There's an obvious gap the earlier you go, but a paper trail exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_about_King_Arthur Celtic mythology in general is a source of inspiration for Arthurian writers. The Grail is something of a holdover of Celtic ideas of lifegiving cauldrons to just say the very basic thing. Anyway, I'm rusty with this stuff and this is a history thread anyway, so I'll let off here.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The only valid thing to take away from strategy is that you can go broke as gently caress waging war. And from tactics that you often kill fall more in the rout than in the battle. Many cultures had horse archers and light cavalry, but didn't develop blood taboos. Horse archers shooting enemies from far away and using light cavalry in an exploitation and pursuit role is generally how such units were used across the world. Do you have any sources describing the Mongol blood taboo and how it is related to their military practices?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Since gladiators and stuff was touched upon, I've been wondering: What was the status of slavery of europe during the middle ages? While the roman empire relied on it a great deal, it seems to have become fairly rare afterwards, especially as time went on. I get the impression that after the end of the middle ages slavery had become virtually nonexistant in most of europe and even illegal in some places. How did that change come about, was it merely impractical or maybe even out of disdain for the concept?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that slavery slips quite nicely into feudalism. Slavery and indentured servitude aren't that different anyway, so maybe over time it became quite un-christianly to call them "slaves", but they were essentially slaves? And the word "slavery" went on to mean exclusively chattel slavery?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Since gladiators and stuff was touched upon, I've been wondering: What was the status of slavery of europe during the middle ages? While the roman empire relied on it a great deal, it seems to have become fairly rare afterwards, especially as time went on. I get the impression that after the end of the middle ages slavery had become virtually nonexistant in most of europe and even illegal in some places. How did that change come about, was it merely impractical or maybe even out of disdain for the concept? Serfdom was a form of bondage in the feudal system where a serf had to work his Lord's lands in exchange for a plot for his own subsistence. A serf was not allowed to leave or migrate without his Lord's expressed consent. However, the lowest rank of serf described in William the conqueror's doomsday book was a Cottar, who was given just enough land to feed a family, and this was said to be a minimum of 4 acres, which is very generous compared to the size british peasant landholdings before William. Serfs could also be taxed and levied into armies. In the early middle ages, coinage was not widespread, and the main medium of exchange was labour and food. Serfdom can be seen as an agreement of protection between a Lord and his subjects. There were also unlanded laborers and slaves. But these were not as common as peasant serfs. Serfdom is seen as an evolution of slavery, where you have dependent labour in exchange for tenancy. Slavery declined in western europe with the fall of the roman empire as markets were lost and supplies of slaves and means to trade cash crops like olives and wine plantations declined. Slavery was completely outlawed in England at the end of the middle ages by Elizabeth 1 in 1569. In the 1600s the african-atlantic slave trade began, and slavery was legal in the United States and in British Canada. Slavery was also prevailent in British Indian colonies during the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1772 an english court judged the use of slaves in the colonies to be illegal, and the Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed the use of slaves anywhere in the empire. The British navy combated the slave trade throughout the 19th century. Slavery declined before the early middle ages because of the lost of roman markets and systems of trade. It probably became taboo in England at the end of the middle ages because of the rise of the theory of the social contract. Amyclas fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:Many cultures had horse archers and light cavalry, but didn't develop blood taboos. Horse archers shooting enemies from far away and using light cavalry in an exploitation and pursuit role is generally how such units were used across the world. Do you have any sources describing the Mongol blood taboo and how it is related to their military practices? As I said, The Secret History of The Mongols, the primary (or secondary, depending on how you view it) source is the main source of information about the blood taboos, though contemporaries (like Marco Polo) confirm it. I am not making the argument that the blood taboo is the sole reason for military tactics; I think with a lot of cultural stuff that self-perpetuates it's both a repository and an active agent. And yes, using light cavalry in an exploitation role is hardly news, but the Mongols use of-- early on-- nothing but horse archers and light cavalry, with no shock troops, infantry at all, is not unique but still unusual. These tactics were definitely shared by some of their immediate neighbors, and it's somewhat difficult to get a good read on those other cultures because of their absorption into the Mongol empire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:As I said, The Secret History of The Mongols, the primary (or secondary, depending on how you view it) source is the main source of information about the blood taboos, though contemporaries (like Marco Polo) confirm it. I thought the blood taboo applied to nobles, which is why they came up with rather creative ways to execute captured princes and caliphs and such as well as rivals within the Mongol empire. Edit: Would it be possible for you to link to where you found the info that they had no lancers at all early on as well? The casual googling I'm doing is not turning up dates on the development of lancers, just quoting the ratio of 6 out of every 10 being bowmen, and 4 being lancers. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I thought the blood taboo applied to nobles, which is why they came up with rather creative ways to execute captured princes and caliphs and such as well as rivals within the Mongol empire. I didn't say they had no lancers early on, I said that they didn't employ them as shock troops. The standard use of lancers (and I don't think calling them light cavalry is accurate, they had lamellar armor and horse armor as well) was to charge and disrupt formations, or to flank after infantry had engaged and fixed the middle. The Mongols usually operated with no infantry, did not fix a middle, and used horse archers to disrupt and then lancers to pursue. I mean, they had no fixed strategy, but they almost never used cavalry in a shock role. And the translation and cultural interpretation of the blood taboo is difficult to interpret. Most of the Secret History is about nobles, and there's definitely an idea that noble blood (or noble people) have more power to harm, but it's still kind of weirdly iffy. There's definitely still blood taboo represented in the early part of Temujin's story before he has any claim to nobility. It may be that nobles had to be killed, when executed, by others of high rank, too. The text suffers from the problem common to most historical texts, which is that it doesn't spend much time stating what would have been obvious to those reading it, but unfortunately isn't so obvious to us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Can you explain where the blood taboo is in the secret history? A google search of "Mongol blood taboo" brings up no results, and the only refrences I can find with searches like "Mongols shedding blood" are refrences to their custom of not killing nobles by shedding blood, but by such lovely methods as wrapping them in a carpet and kicking them to death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Can you explain where the blood taboo is in the secret history? A google search of "Mongol blood taboo" brings up no results, and the only refrences I can find with searches like "Mongols shedding blood" are refrences to their custom of not killing nobles by shedding blood, but by such lovely methods as wrapping them in a carpet and kicking them to death. I'm sorry, I don't have it with me so I should really shut up about it until I do. Even worse, it was probably a felt carpet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
They came up with carpet death but never thought of hanging?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 17:27
|
|