|
Talking about the biggest land empires of all times and if their main weaponry and tactics are actually working in theory is a waste of time. I gotta return some arrows.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Talking about the biggest land empires of all times and if their main weaponry and tactics are actually working in theory is a waste of time. I gotta return some arrows. Are they rentals?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:An actually good argument against the Mongols defeating the English is that the Mongols never managed to conquer Japan despite trying twice. I don't think it's a matter of couldn't, so much as it was a matter of cost/benefits. And maintaining those coastal defenses utterly wrecked the Shogunate and led to its collapse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Yes. Candy? Here's a suit of plate for tournaments that I saw today: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I was under the impression that the reason the 'expedition' to Europe stopped was because of a succession crisis. We don't really have to imagine the Mongols doing a tactical coup. It is exactly what they did on the rare occasions they did venture into Europe. It's not that they are mystical superior ubermensch, it is just that when it came to war they were in a higher league than Europe or Asia Minor. They had an initial advantage in communications, though I would disagree with your assessment that they were in a higher league than Europe or Asia Minor. For instance, the Mongols lost the Mongol-Il-Khanate wars in Asia Minor, and Hungary repelled the Mongolian invasion in 1285. The Hungary part is important to me because if you read Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary (Pal Engel), the military reforms in-between the two Mongol invasions (1241 & 1285) amounted to just adopting the methods western Europe had been using since at least 1150. Namarrgon posted:I don't know, defeating the Byzantine Empire around 1265 has to count for something. It counts for how badly off the Byzantine Empire was in 1265. The Byzantine Empire was strained to breaking point before the Mongols turned up. The Sack of Constantinople in 1204 had led to the founding of several Latin kingdoms in Greece. The Byzantine Empire only reclaimed Constantinople in 1261. Not only was it a war torn mess that had lost most of its former power, it was still fighting Frankish kingdoms in Greece to the west and raids from Muslims ghazis to the east. They were pulling troops from Asia Minor and levying crippling taxes on the peasantry just to reclaim the lands lost in Greece. They were in no fit state to fight yet another war. Paying tribute was much better than having to defend yet another front. I’ve never really looked at the Mongol invasions of Europe this way before, but perhaps I should – the kingdoms the Mongols found on their borders in Eastern Europe were weak and vulnerable; that was probably why the Mongols chose to invade them. Railtus fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Railtus posted:They had an initial advantage in communications, though I would disagree with your assessment that they were in a higher league than Europe or Asia Minor. For instance, the Mongols lost the Mongol-Il-Khanate wars in Asia Minor, and Hungary repelled the Mongolian invasion in 1285. The Hungary part is important to me because if you read Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary (Pal Engel), the military reforms in-between the two Mongol invasions (1241 & 1285) amounted to just adopting the methods western Europe had been using since at least 1150. And again, you also have to look at who the Mongol leaders were in the two occasions. That they adopted those methods does not mean those were the sole, main, or even a large part of the reason there was a difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Mongols vs Western Europe chat somehow manages to be worse than Tank-destroyer chat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
I think this kicked off with a comparison of longbowmen and horse archers and a (self-consciously) silly request about who would win in a fight. Then all of a sudden we were off in the British Isles talking about rain and the problems of amphibious assault, and then the Byzantines and whaaat... There's a lot of evidence mostly from China and central Asia that horse archers are more valuable than foot archers. This is pretty obvious when you think about it because a horse archer is a guy with a bow plus some number of horses, whereas a foot archer is one guy with a bow. Horse archers just by that truth can do a lot of things that a foot archer can't, and can also shoot a bow. Talking about the Mongol Empire is another topic entirely. Reducing the conversation to Western Europe vs. Mongol Empire ends up with a horribly confused argument where everyone is talking past each other because it's just not a clear idea. I mean, you can argue Mongols! Europe! Or you can point out that Bela IV survived the Battle of Mohi and the shock of the defeat strengthened his position with the fractious and powerful Hungarian nobility that had hosed up the first defense by murdering the King of Cumania. Bela IV had always favored a more defensive approach and with his new authority convinced a bunch of Hungarian nobles to start building stone castles. When "the Mongols" came back 50 years later Subutai was dead, the Mongol polity was disunited and distracted, and Hungary had more than doubled its number of stone fortifications. The Mongols ended up leaving frustrated. I know its boring to say but details are important and every campaign is different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
I still haven't seen any evidence that the Mongol invasion of 1285 was comparable in scale to the action in 1241, and evidence from other Mongol campaigns in Europe in the 1280s suggest conquest wasn't even an objective of the second Hungarian campaign. I still think the Hungarians just chased off some second rate raiders and blew it up for propaganda reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
First of all, heads up to everybody. I am considering closing down this thread. I have been biting my tongue a lot, to obey the no backseat modding rule, when I have seen rude comments in this thread (mostly towards other people, I don’t care so much if they are rude towards me). If I have to bite my tongue too much then checking this thread would become a chore rather than fun. EDIT: I will not take offence or see it as competition if someone else decides to make their own Ask/Tell thread about medieval history. Obdicut posted:And again, you also have to look at who the Mongol leaders were in the two occasions. That they adopted those methods does not mean those were the sole, main, or even a large part of the reason there was a difference. Well, the old methods were essentially no method. Hungary actively hamstrung its defences beforehand: prior to Bela’s reforms the crown prevented nobles from building up strong armies or fortifications. I struggle to see it not making a difference. The claim being challenged is; “it is just that when it came to war they were in a higher league than Europe or Asia Minor.” To say the Mongols are in a higher league needs more consistent results than a successful campaign by Subutai & Batu Khan followed by an unsuccessful campaign by Nogai Khan & Talabuga. Arglebargle III posted:I think this kicked off with a comparison of longbowmen and horse archers and a (self-consciously) silly request about who would win in a fight. Then all of a sudden we were off in the British Isles talking about rain and the problems of amphibious assault, and then the Byzantines and whaaat... Well said. Best summary of the subject I have heard yet. Railtus fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I still haven't seen any evidence that the Mongol invasion of 1285 was comparable in scale to the action in 1241, and evidence from other Mongol campaigns in Europe in the 1280s suggest conquest wasn't even an objective of the second Hungarian campaign. I still think the Hungarians just chased off some second rate raiders and blew it up for propaganda reasons. Turn it around. What evidence or reasoning do you have for that belief? Why make the assumption that is most generous to the Mongols? The records (at least in English) of these later campaigns are much more limited than the attacks in the 1240s, but what we do know is that they ranged extensively throughout the Balkans, subjugating and extracting tribute from Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc. They attempted to do the same to Hungary but failed, and in fact were defeated severely enough that they chose to flee the area via the Carpathian mountains in the middle of winter, where most of the survivors perished. They would not have taken this route had they had any alternative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Funnily enough the person who said the Mongols were in a league above was also me. I really meant the Mongols under Subutai though. Still, the Mongols who were part of the European expeditionary force were veterans of the conquest of northern China, a series of military feats which were unrivaled in Europe at the time. They were a professional army with decades of campaign experience from the Caspian to the Shandong Peninsula, organized and equipped by a system stretching back to China. They had the edge in (most) technology, tactics, logistics, communications, and strategic flexibility compared to any European army you could find at the time. I mean, they conquered most of Asia. They conquered the largest, wealthiest, and most technologically advanced states in the world, namely Jin & Song China and the Caliphate. They displayed a level of imagination and adaptive genius on par with the greatest empire-builders; they came from nomadic steppe people and became generals, accountants, siege engineers and statesman. The generation that came up under Genghis Khan's leadership really was special. "The Mongols" is a category that covers hundreds of years, but the Mongol military in 1250 was one of those special dream-teams that only comes along ever so often in history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Really, all such comparisons should be prefixed with the era and empire, but it's pretty pointless anyway. The perfect combination of politics, circumstances and great men isn't likely to happen at the same time for two empires, especially given that some of these great conquests require resources that involve kicking the rear end of their neighbors/uniting the tribes to get. Nothing as simple as a technology difference. Never mind that most of the successful conquerors would gladly adopt effective tactics from their enemies where possible, so sustaining a tech difference is pretty hard to start with once the steamroller got going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Railtus posted:F That's not my claim. My claim is the Mongol empire at certain points had an astonishing number of awesome generals, nifty tactics, great logistics-- basically a perfect storm-- and that it's pretty interesting to see the stark differences in Mongol success during the Ghengis and immediate post Ghenghis-era and the later Mongol empire. I think it teaches us some really important stuff about war, and especially how important generals and officer corps are. I don't think the fantasy scenario of them invading Western Europe is a very important conversation, since it's a fantasy scenario.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
If Subutai and others hadn't been called home before they got done wrecking Eastern Europe they inevitably would've reached the British Isles, right? Supposing they conquered the Holy Roman Empire first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:If Subutai and others hadn't been called home before they got done wrecking Eastern Europe they inevitably would've reached the British Isles, right? Supposing they conquered the Holy Roman Empire first. There's no inevitability to anything. It also depends on a lot more politics than that: it wasn't just that Subotai had been called home, but that he hadn't really convinced a large portion of the Mongols that they should continue campaigns in the West. By that point, even before the actual succession crisis, there was already a lot of jockeying for position, consolidation, etc. among the Mongol hierarchy, especially since so many people felt snubbed by Ghenghis's choice of Ögedei. All the possible claimants to the Khanship had conflicting desires: to achieve military success-- both to demonstrate fitness to rule and actually to conquer stuff-- but also to conserve their power for a possible upcoming civil war, or at least to be able to pivot quickly back to the Mongol homelands. Subotai wanted to conquer Western Europe, and I definitely feel that with the strong, consistent backing of the Mongol empire he would have achieved that, but the likelihood of him actually gaining that post-Ghenghis was low-to-middling. I think it would have been harder and harder for him to convince other Mongol leaders, the farther he penetrated into Western Europe, that it was a good idea to continue, both because the return in wealth and technology wouldn't have been that great compared to what the Mongols were used to seeing, and because their logistics problems, while still far less than a medieval army at the time, would mount increasingly. The Mongolian empire post-Ghenghis shows some interesting facets about multi-front wars, specifically the political components of multi-front wars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
One thing I don't fully understand is why the Mongols conquered so much. It seems to me that a people perfectly adapted for their environment, and with a fairly simple form of government doesn't need to go anywhere else to thrive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:One thing I don't fully understand is why the Mongols conquered so much. It seems to me that a people perfectly adapted for their environment, and with a fairly simple form of government doesn't need to go anywhere else to thrive. The answer to that is highly contingent, and the differences in the eastern and western expansion are large. In the east, Genghis's original invasion of China was on at least the pretext that one of his rivals had sought sanctuary with the Xia in one region, and that one of his allied groups were the 'true' rules of that group. This turned into a war of submission, and the Xia eventually did submit to Mongol rule; ironically, they then attacked the Jin for not helping them defend against the Mongols, an attack in which the Mongols supported them. Meanwhile, back in the east, the Khwarizmi leaders made one of the biggest political mistakes of all time and allowed a Mongol trade and diplomatic caravan to be slaughtered. Whether this was just an insult that needed to be avenged or Genghis saw it as a sign that no true trade relationship would be possible when this sort of thing could go on isn't really clear, probably a bit of both, but Genghis marked on the Khwarizmi. He requested aid from the Xie, who told him "If you don't have enough soldiers for this, maybe you shouldn't go to war", which Ghenghis responded to with basically, "You're next, Cuddy." Then he stomped the Khwarizmi, and afterwards returned to the Xie, who had now made alliances with the Jin and others, and campaigned against them. When they wouldn't re-submit, he started an annihilatory campaign (though still systematically picking out valuable prisoners, technologies, goods, etc) against them. This expanded into attacks against the Jin to prevent them from aiding the Xie, and set the stage for the later Mongol destruction of the Jin. So we see a lot of contingent circumstances. If the Khwarezmia leaders hadn't destroyed that trade caravan and killed ambassadors, would there eventually have been war between them? It seems from the writings and his reaction that Genghis was sincere in feeling a kinship with them and offering a mutually beneficial trade treaty, so I think probably not, but it's impossible to tell. If the Xie had sent soldiers and otherwise not rebelled, would Genghis had not destroyed them? Almost certainly, judging by Genghis's treatment of client states who did behave, provided manpower, etc. If you did what the Mongols told you, especially in terms of providing manpower, they tended to let you rule your kingdom undisturbed. So in general, there was a pattern of Mongols trying to establish trade relations, and if those were problematic or rebuffed, turning to conquer, a pattern of attacking allies of their enemies as well as their direct enemies, expanding conflicts, and of, when a client-state rebelled or enemies resisted strongly, changing from conquest to annihilation or at least annihilation of the ruling classes--though the Mongols certainly slaughtered ordinary citizens too, they often simply attempted to eradicate the nobles and other powerful members of a nation; whether this was a calculated plan that the nation was then less likely to rebel or out of 'emotional' reasons isn't really discernible. All of this is more understandable if you also look into the way that Mongols viewed kinship relations, and the way that Genghis changed that towards meritocracy, but there's a lot of cultural values at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Funnily enough the person who said the Mongols were in a league above was also me. I really meant the Mongols under Subutai though. Still, the Mongols who were part of the European expeditionary force were veterans of the conquest of northern China, a series of military feats which were unrivaled in Europe at the time. They were a professional army with decades of campaign experience from the Caspian to the Shandong Peninsula, organized and equipped by a system stretching back to China. They had the edge in (most) technology, tactics, logistics, communications, and strategic flexibility compared to any European army you could find at the time. Yes, it was the Mongol’s turn. Macedon had their turn under Alexander the Great. The Franks had their turn under Charlemagne. This was the Mongol’s height. Obdicut posted:That's not my claim. My claim is the Mongol empire at certain points had an astonishing number of awesome generals, nifty tactics, great logistics-- basically a perfect storm-- and that it's pretty interesting to see the stark differences in Mongol success during the Ghengis and immediate post Ghenghis-era and the later Mongol empire. I think it teaches us some really important stuff about war, and especially how important generals and officer corps are. I don't think the fantasy scenario of them invading Western Europe is a very important conversation, since it's a fantasy scenario. It's important to some people. I'm not going to forbid people from discussing a fantasy scenario if that's what they enjoy. Personally I poke holes in the image of invincibility surrounding any warrior/culture whether Spartans, Mongols, Samurai or Viking. Sexgun Rasputin posted:If Subutai and others hadn't been called home before they got done wrecking Eastern Europe they inevitably would've reached the British Isles, right? Supposing they conquered the Holy Roman Empire first. If they managed to conquer the Holy Roman Empire first they would nearly have reached the British Isles already. There would be only parts of France or English holdings in Normandy in the way. How would such a conflict change if Europeans adapt to the Mongol thermal weapons? Would the European kingdoms join forces or fight amongst themselves? Do the Mongols even want to go further west or does the terrain not appeal to them? Hungarian forts held out reasonably well against the Mongols, so I think the many-castled HRE or France would put up far more resistance than the comparatively demilitarised Hungary. Also, at Mohi, Batu Khan lost a good chunk of his personal guard and his lieutenant (A History of the Yuan Dynasty or so I am told, I’ve not read it myself), which seems like he was in danger of getting killed. If that had happened, Mohi could have ended in a Mongol defeat. So if that battle was a close call, how will the next river crossing go? And the next? Are the Mongol leaders more cautious next time (possibly losing the advantage of some bold or daring actions) or do they carry on as before and risk losing the leaders?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Everything I have to say on this : 1) Jesus Christ were the Europeans retarded at Legnica. And Mohi. Like, a four year old would have led the armies better. gently caress. 2) The whole thread should read Mongoliad. Is it 100% historically accurate? gently caress no. (Although it's the only historical fiction I know to get language correct, e.g. getting by in distant parts of Europe is hard and loving hope you speak Latin or you're hosed.) But it's basically Neal Stephenson sidling up to you in a dark alley, opening his trenchcoat and going, "I heard you liked swordfights." It's literally thousands of pages of quite excellent sword-sperging carefully honed into the perfect airport book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Yeah, Neal Stephenson has a thing for swordfights, bless his heart
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
I think the real answer is that the Mongols would not have continued the campaign into Europe in any case. Subutai (or his superior, a younger royal) had 20,000 men. Hungary and Silesia are notable for being the edge of the European plains; after that it's mountains and forests all the way to Lisbon. As Railtus already said Germany and France were also more heavily fortified than Russia or Hungary had been. The areas on the flanks of such an invasion, the Baltic Sea and Caucasus, were either already hostile or likely to be hostile. And the supply lines, though impressive, were already stretched a long way. And Europe just wasn't that wealthy compared to the real prize in the Mongols' backyard. The really important thing to remember is that as of 1250 China is still not conquered. The Mongols have gotten through the Jin but the Song state still controls China south of the Yangtze and with it most of the wealth of China. Southern China isn't exactly good terrain for horse archers either and the Song have heavily fortified the Yangtze. The Yangtze by itself is a formidable natural barrier; it's not like the Rhine or any major river in Europe, it's a large river that cuts through very rough terrain along most of its run. With huge river forts protecting it, it's going to be a tough campaign and the Mongols are aware of this. So if you're Ogedai Khan and you've managed to cut down the drinking enough to not keel over and die at 40, you have a choice to make. You've got one of your best generals running around with a pair of veteran army corps subjugating the dirt-farmers of Buttfuck, Slovenia, which you discovered yesterday and seems kinda lovely. Meanwhile while the Chinese Imperial treasury in Hangzhou is only 40 miles from your front line, but you can't get it. Where are you going to assign that renowned siege commander and his veteran corps?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
I decided to just up an make a Mongoliad thread in the Book Barn : http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3572428 It's a really cool book series, and I recommend it highly. How can you not love a book that actually bothered to choreograph its fight scenes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:One thing I don't fully understand is why the Mongols conquered so much. It seems to me that a people perfectly adapted for their environment, and with a fairly simple form of government doesn't need to go anywhere else to thrive. Loot. And raping anything with legs. Arglebargle III posted:I think the real answer is that the Mongols would not have continued the campaign into Europe in any case. Subutai (or his superior, a younger royal) had 20,000 men. Hungary and Silesia are notable for being the edge of the European plains; after that it's mountains and forests all the way to Lisbon. As Railtus already said Germany and France were also more heavily fortified than Russia or Hungary had been. The areas on the flanks of such an invasion, the Baltic Sea and Caucasus, were either already hostile or likely to be hostile. And the supply lines, though impressive, were already stretched a long way. And Europe just wasn't that wealthy compared to the real prize in the Mongols' backyard. The province of Austria bordering Hungary is called "Burgenland" for a reason. Mostly it should be called "Land of stinking, tractor driving drunks that can't spell their names or speak proper german", but that's another story. They're famous since centuries for keltering wine that gives you a headache, the shits and makes you agressive. Nothing more, nothing less. So, to offer some content to my post. There is a shitload of castles there. Mostly because of the centuries of Hungarians raiding the the area to no end. Places like Lockenhaus. Apparently the guides there claim that this fine woman resided there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory Power Khan fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Yes, it was the Mongol’s turn. Macedon had their turn under Alexander the Great. The Franks had their turn under Charlemagne. This was the Mongol’s height. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by 'their turn'. Obviously, there are lots of groups for whom it's never been their turn. What is the use of saying it was their turn, and what do you mean by it? quote:It's important to some people. I'm not going to forbid people from discussing a fantasy scenario if that's what they enjoy. Personally I poke holes in the image of invincibility surrounding any warrior/culture whether Spartans, Mongols, Samurai or Viking. None of those groups have images of invincibility if you know anything about them, though. It's not necessary to poke holes in them for anyone who's looked at them at all seriously. Talking about whether the Mongols could have smacked around Medieval Europe is not a conversation about Mongol invincibility, but I think it's impossible to really have in a serious fashion because it's based on too many contingencies, and I think a repeated problem is that people keep talking about "Mongol" vs. "European" as though "Subotai leading a group of veteran Mongols" is equivalent to "Some much-less good Mongol commander leading some Mongol veterans but mainly Kipchaks." Likewise, "European" could mean "Elite professional troops" or "A bunch of Bavarian miners that got conscripted". The larger conversation of "Could the Mongols have successfully invades Western Europe" still depends on these contingincies, because we see so much difference in the military operations of the Mongols depending on the political situation, unified under Ghenghis, unified but starting to fracture under Ogdoi, and then fractured after him. Likewise, "Europe" has it's own brew-mess of politics. I agree with Arlebargle that it's very, very, very unlikely that the Mongols would have decided to continue their westward expansion, as only Subotai really thought it was worthwhile. It's interesting to think about why Subotai would have found it worthwhile, but that's a very tricky question to begin to answer. It may actually have been a desire to beat a new kind of enemy, since that sort of adventurousness is something that's ascribed to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by 'their turn'. Obviously, there are lots of groups for whom it's never been their turn. What is the use of saying it was their turn, and what do you mean by it? That many civilisations have had spectacularly successful conquerors over the ages and that when that conqueror is successful it is misleading to assume this applies to the entire civilisation. It looks like you have been trying to make a similar point so I will let you decide what the use of it is. Obdicut posted:None of those groups have images of invincibility if you know anything about them, though. It's not necessary to poke holes in them for anyone who's looked at them at all seriously. Talking about whether the Mongols could have smacked around Medieval Europe is not a conversation about Mongol invincibility, but I think it's impossible to really have in a serious fashion because it's based on too many contingencies, and I think a repeated problem is that people keep talking about "Mongol" vs. "European" as though "Subotai leading a group of veteran Mongols" is equivalent to "Some much-less good Mongol commander leading some Mongol veterans but mainly Kipchaks." Likewise, "European" could mean "Elite professional troops" or "A bunch of Bavarian miners that got conscripted". Those images do persist in historiography and documentaries. The work of guys like Stephen Turnbull & Ian Bottomley promote the invincible warrior myth under the guise of scholarship, usually by using some legitimate information taken completely out of context to create a very misleading picture. You could argue that knowing anything about the groups in question includes knowing which historiography is flawed, but I’m not going to require readers to know what historiography is reliable. The rest of your post I agree with. You might feel I am cracking on you when I point out I am not going to place restrictions on other people for your benefit, where I am coming from is that I made this thread largely for people who haven’t made an in-depth study of history. I want to hear from people who have misconceptions about the medieval world. I want to hear from people who got most of their information from pop-culture. I’m not aiming for an exclusive thread. Part of the reason I get annoyed when someone makes a rude comment to other people is because it discourages people from asking a question when they don't know much about the subject. Essentially, my message to anyone looking at this thread is it’s OK to ask a stupid question. And if I’m completely honest, I prefer the more basic questions because they are less work. I start my Master’s Degree tomorrow (well, a week from now but I move to campus tomorrow), and research for university is going to take priority over research for here. One of the reasons I suggest someone starting their own Ask/Tell thread is because I recognise this thread is not suitable to everybody, and I really don’t expect it to cover every niche at once. Which reminds me, Babe Magnet is still waiting for me to analyse the duel from Vikings. Sorry for the wait. I'll get to it soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Railtus posted:That many civilisations have had spectacularly successful conquerors over the ages and that when that conqueror is successful it is misleading to assume this applies to the entire civilisation. Well, yeah. But just as obviously, there are structural parts of those empires that matter as much as the conqueror. I'm saying it's all contingent, basically. What's really interesting are the actors in these times who were sort of self-aware, as Alexander was, as Genghis was to a much greater extent, people who actively changed the system. It was the changes Genghis made to the kinship system that allowed him to have so much success-- Subotai wouldn't, in traditional mongol society, have been one of his main generals, since he wasn't closely related enough-- but how those changes then created a structure that operated very successfully without him, even with a son who explicitly did not share his military genius. Independently of that, many aspects of Mongol culture made them excellent at invasive war. So I think it's also misleading to think that a civilization that conquers in such a fashion is only differentiated by a great leader emerging. There's a lot more contingency than that, and the very most interesting part to me is in the self-conscious changing of culture and acceptance of that change. I mean, we say that Ghenghis changed the Mongol culture, but he obviously couldn't do that without the support of other Mongols, and in his case both very literally in saving his life repeatedly and in contributing their own ideas both on a military and political level, a large number of other Mongols were very important, one of those being Subotai. In addition, the civilization is going to have a lot of elements unrelated to the leader-- and in the case of the Mongols, they had a cultural attitude towards technology that allowed them to incorporate foreign technologies quickly, and in turn the particular technologies they acquired through conquest are another highly contingent part of the tale. In other words, there aren't 'turns' in any sense of the words. quote:You might feel I am cracking on you when I point out I am not going to place restrictions on other people for your benefit, where I am coming from is that I made this thread largely for people who haven’t made an in-depth study of history. I'm not asking for any restrictions to be placed, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. quote:I want to hear from people who have misconceptions about the medieval world. I want to hear from people who got most of their information from pop-culture. I’m not aiming for an exclusive thread. Part of the reason I get annoyed when someone makes a rude comment to other people is because it discourages people from asking a question when they don't know much about the subject. I haven't really made any rude comments to anyone, so again, I'm not sure how this is in reference to me. quote:And if I’m completely honest, I prefer the more basic questions because they are less work. I start my Master’s Degree tomorrow (well, a week from now but I move to campus tomorrow), and research for university is going to take priority over research for here. One of the reasons I suggest someone starting their own Ask/Tell thread is because I recognise this thread is not suitable to everybody, and I really don’t expect it to cover every niche at once. Okay, so are you saying that you don't want discussions of Mongols here, or what? I can't really tell what you're getting at. Are you saying looking at military stuff sociologically, so to speak, is beyond what you want this thread to be and I should cut it out, or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In other words, there aren't 'turns' in any sense of the words. quote:Okay, so are you saying that you don't want discussions of Mongols here, or what? I can't really tell what you're getting at. Are you saying looking at military stuff sociologically, so to speak, is beyond what you want this thread to be and I should cut it out, or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Can it be my turn?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
I would like to say as a dude with a boner for the Mongols who got his history education from historical fiction and Wikipedia that I have immensely enjoyed the discussion and all of the posts made. I understand why counterfactual speculation irks historians but even those arguments are interesting. To me, at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
The other day in my Renaissance History class, the professor just offhandedly remarked that Marco Polo probably never existed. Is that true? I know that he embellished his writings (I still want to believe, though  ), I just want to know if this is a common belief in historical circles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The other day in my Renaissance History class, the professor just offhandedly remarked that Marco Polo probably never existed. Is that true? I know that he embellished his writings (I still want to believe, though Marco Polo was probably just an invented character as a narrative device to connect various tales of the unknown East. The tales themselves are fantastically crazy for the most part and can't possibly be true, or at least not recorded by a first-hand observer. They are more likely the products of a vivid imagination, inspired by 3rd or 4th-hand tales of journeys to China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:I would like to say as a dude with a boner for the Mongols who got his history education from historical fiction and Wikipedia that I have immensely enjoyed the discussion and all of the posts made. I understand why counterfactual speculation irks historians but even those arguments are interesting. To me, at least. I think thinking about it can be kind of interesting, but only up to a certain point. It's instructive in examining facets of both 'aggressor' and 'defender', but past the initial point of contact there's so much contingency that only very broad statements can be made. In terms of Mongols actually fighting knights, that really happened, so we don't have to kind of game that. In terms of Mongols conquering, say, Germany, only very broad and simplistic statements can be made. The horse archer vs. foot archer thing is actually really interesting because I'm fairly sure the Mongols fought battles with groups that contained large contingents of foot archers, and I want to investigate and see if there's any good primary source descriptions of how that happened, because the conventional wisdom is that foot archers cure horse archers. Deteriorata posted:Marco Polo was probably just an invented character as a narrative device to connect various tales of the unknown East. The tales themselves are fantastically crazy for the most part and can't possibly be true, or at least not recorded by a first-hand observer. They are more likely the products of a vivid imagination, inspired by 3rd or 4th-hand tales of journeys to China. This is by no means a consensus view among historians, and there are many things in Il Milione that are accurate. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:One thing I don't fully understand is why the Mongols conquered so much. It seems to me that a people perfectly adapted for their environment, and with a fairly simple form of government doesn't need to go anywhere else to thrive. Ideology. The Mongols got the idea into their heads that they were lawful sovereigns of everywhere, and that people who didn't recognize this were in rebellion -- which if you heard their punishments for rebellion was a pretty serious deal. I think they started with this sort of notional idea that they were better than settled peoples but then once they started conquering everything it became real for them. And all the normal reasons. Loot and glory, because you need to be recognized as a great leader to advance in Genghis Khan's meritocratic royal family politics. Or at least you nominally did, because that fell apart within three generations. Obdicut posted:I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by 'their turn'. Obviously, there are lots of groups for whom it's never been their turn. What is the use of saying it was their turn, and what do you mean by it? Is this kind of pointless argumentative response really necessary? Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
I can't tell if you're joking. How is asking him what he meant pointless argumentation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The other day in my Renaissance History class, the professor just offhandedly remarked that Marco Polo probably never existed. Is that true? I know that he embellished his writings (I still want to believe, though This is a great question. There are a lot of simple but big problems with Marco Polo's (Rusticello's) account, and I'll list some of them. 1. He uses Persian place-names for everything, which sound nothing like Middle Chinese or Mongolian. 2. He is not mentioned in any Chinese account of history. This is more notable than you might think, because Polo makes some pretty grand claims about his audiences and privileges with Kubulai's court. Official business like the Emperor having an audience with a foreign merchant and granting him special privileges are exactly the sort of thing that the Chinese would have recorded. 3. He does not mention Chinese characters. 4. He does not mention chopsticks. 5. He does not mention foot-binding. This is just from memory, I haven't actually read his story or any academic books on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
hey yall I'm back from purgatory and I've brought you this cool-rear end flickr account where the guy focuses pretty heavily on taking pictures of armour and of tomb effigies and such. http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilami/ This carving in particular blows me away because a) its early/mid 12th century and b) the paint is still there, which one of the Vatican councils is supposed to have done away with: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I can't tell if you're joking. How is asking him what he meant pointless argumentation? Because it is a very common turn of phrase. It is like jumping on someone going "what do you mean for all intents and purposes? Literally ALL of them?" and stretching that over several posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Because it is a very common turn of phrase. It is like jumping on someone going "what do you mean for all intents and purposes? Literally ALL of them?" and stretching that over several posts. I don't actually think it's a very common phrase, the only time I've heard it said seriously is about the nominee for president or other political positions here in the US, like, why the hell was Kerry nominated-- it was his turn. I've never used it heard to describe anything else other than a literal turn. But anyway, my problem is not the common usage, it's the usage of it in relevance to 'how do civilizations or individuals wind up conquering large swathes of countries'? I mean, frankly, I found it kind of a rude, flippant thing to say, but it's not a big deal since he then expanded on what he meant by the phrase, even if I still very much disagree with what he said. Content: A lot of you are probably familiar with the medieval poem "The Canterbury Tales", but there's another really important poem and manuscript, called "Piers Plowman". It is a really interesting text, full of almost surreal theology but also containing a representation of the working class that you rarely see in poetry from that (or many other) time periods. It's a really interesting portrayal of attitudes towards various professions and classes. Here's a link to some translated portions of the poem: http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/authors/langland/index.html And here's a link to one of the original manuscripts for those that dig that funky writing. The companion translation is very outdated, I'm afraid. http://www.s4ulanguages.com/piers-plowman.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is a great question. There are a lot of simple but big problems with Marco Polo's (Rusticello's) account, and I'll list some of them. Are you sure he wasn't just hanging out in a bar in Antioch for a few months, living it up and writing rumors that he heard? Real question, how accurate are the carvings in Basilica of St Denis? In particular, the ones that pre-date the statues that started being carved in the mid 13th century. (I assume the more recent ones are very good copies of the real people and the real fashion/armor). Would the faces have been given the marble equivalent of "soft focus" for the post 1250 burials? Is the fashion for pre- 1250 burials reliable? How about facial details? Also, anyone visiting Paris, St Denis is FAR more interesting than Notre Dame and well worth the trip. And it doesn't have the lines and hoards of tourists trying to take photos on their iPads. (Pro-tip, St Ouren markets are on the way there...) Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 14:38
|
|