|
HEY GAIL posted:now how do you administer desolation, exact tribute from nit, or make it part of your political order? these aren't cartoon villains or a force of nature, they're people and they make rational decisions based on the preconceptions they have It would come down to the question of why they would come west in the first place. But the Mongols have utterly hosed over places for various rational, albeit psychopathic reasons. To eliminate a threat, or punish a perceived slight, to seed terror, to encourage surrender. It *was* part of the playbook for the Mongols to go 'oh this place isn't worthwhile for the Empire, let's just kill everyone so we don't have to worry about it any more'.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
most war is psychopathic, painting these people as uniquely terrible because you heard it in a pop-culture podcast is bad science
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:most war is psychopathic, painting these people as uniquely terrible because you heard it in a pop-culture podcast is bad science I wouldn't say things like uniquely terrible. But I don't think the Mongols operate under the parameters many other conquerers typically did, and certainly not what the western nobility of the time were used to in their wars. They ultimately killed a shitload of people very quickly. The assumption they would not continue that in some alternative scenario where they went west seems doubtful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
I've been reading "Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world" recently, abd it makes the point that Genghis himself mostly started wars because he wanted plunder for his people, so he didn't give a poo poo about leaving kingdoms with people left to rule over. If they surrendered to him and obeyed his rule great, if not whoever he left behind would inevitably start something with him again, so best to just kill them all first time round.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Did a lot of folks in those regions not just gently caress off to greener pastures? Even if they did, it wouldn't have changed much when we're talking about this amount of loving off. Cities and artefacts still get destroyed, people are reduced to refugees and starve...
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I wouldn't say things like uniquely terrible. But I don't think the Mongols operate under the parameters many other conquerers typically did, and certainly not what the western nobility of the time were used to in their wars. They ultimately killed a shitload of people very quickly. The assumption they would not continue that in some alternative scenario where they went west seems doubtful. They did invade Hungary, they did kill a shitload of people, and they also failed to conquer it. The Hungarians seemed to think fortifications were really useful because they built a lot of them afterwards, and easily defeated the Mongol's next invasion in 1285.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:They did invade Hungary, they did kill a shitload of people, and they also failed to conquer it. The Hungarians seemed to think fortifications were really useful because they built a lot of them afterwards, and easily defeated the Mongol's next invasion in 1285. Sure, the survivors can declare victory. In the event 25% of the population was killed in the span of a single year, and if the Mongols stuck around longer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:considering the logistical basis of mongol operations y'all are being slightly paranoid: one cav has a string of about five horses and possibly a sheep, minimally. That is what they live on, on campaign. One horse needs about 40 acres per horse per year. One mongol division is 10,000 cav, which assuming five horses/cav needs this much of Hungary at minimum to graze: is the 40 acres for European horses? steppe horses like the mongols used were significantly smaller animals. I'm sure it would still take an enormous amount of land though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:24
|
|
Fangz posted:I wouldn't say things like uniquely terrible. But I don't think the Mongols operate under the parameters many other conquerers typically did, and certainly not what the western nobility of the time were used to in their wars. They ultimately killed a shitload of people very quickly. This only remotely holds true for wars against Coreligionists. Tell me this about someone on crusade.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Also expansionist war to extract tribute to prop up the national economy is pretty much early German kingship 101.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
The mongols are one of those groups of conquerors that didn't share the values of the ones they were conquering, and seemed extra vicious as a result, like how the vikings didn't respect churches as sanctuaries. The only thing is the vikings were from a society with its own farmers and civilians back in scandinavia, whereas the mongols lived by even more different rules. Most notable was their policy of punishing any and all resistance with death. And then there was all the creativity the mongols had when doing their work, like eating lunch atop a pile of the surrendered. edit: Also, scale. Edgar Allen Ho posted:Did a lot of folks in those regions not just gently caress off to greener pastures? That's a looong way to gently caress off to get away from their territory, and the people they're loving off away from are the ones with horses. SlothfulCobra fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This only remotely holds true for wars against Coreligionists. Tell me this about someone on crusade. Disinterested posted:Also expansionist war to extract tribute to prop up the national economy is pretty much early German kingship 101. There's a difference between expansionism and even wars of conversion, and mass genocide on an industrial scale. Ghengis Khan killed 11% of the world population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Because most Christian warfare is against other Christians. Any time they fight elsewhere the results are comparable. Just look at the Baltic. There just wasn't the scope for Christians to go as postal across Eurasia.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Because most Christian warfare is against other Christians. Any time they fight elsewhere the results are comparable. Just look at the Baltic. I think you're trying to draw me into a debate about How Evil Were The Mongols On A Relative Scale, when my point there is that the argument 'they won't kill everyone, surely' is undermined by the fact that a lot of the time they kinda did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:38
|
|
Fangz posted:I think you're trying to draw me into a debate about How Evil Were The Mongols On A Relative Scale, when my point there is that the argument 'they won't kill everyone, surely' is undermined by the fact that a lot of the time they kinda did. It's you who made the cross cultural comparison really, I'm just saying maybe don't take the Christian perception at face value.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's you who made the cross cultural comparison. My literal first sentence was saying that "I wouldn't say things like uniquely terrible". Yeah, most christian warfare is against other christians, that doesn't contradict but rather partly explains why the Mongol style of war would be quite alien to what the western nobility were used to. EDIT: VVV I think 'don't get seriously invaded, also send them tribute' is kinda cheating. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
If I remember right, the Serbian response to the Mongols was something along the lines of: 1) Have lots of heavily armored cavalry who aren't too proud to use a bow 2) Intercept Mongol raiding parties in places where they're at a disadvantage, like river crossings 3) Crush nearby Mongol vassals, and then tell the Khan that you were just defending yourself from his disobedient vassals who kept stealing the generous tribute you were sending him, followed by sending him a portion of the stuff you looted from his vassals along with a couple of noble hostages. It worked for the most part 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT: VVV I think 'don't get seriously invaded, also send them tribute' is kinda cheating. To some degree, yes.  Though when the tribute is poo poo you stole from them, and not getting seriously invaded is a function of being a pain in the rear end while actively trying to avoid presenting yourself as an actual threat, it kinda has to count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also expansionist war to extract tribute to prop up the national economy is pretty FTFY 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
my dad posted:If I remember right, the Serbian response to the Mongols was something along the lines of: cav is good, bows are good
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:considering the logistical basis of mongol operations y'all are being slightly paranoid: one cav has a string of about five horses and possibly a sheep, minimally. That is what they live on, on campaign. One horse needs about 40 acres per horse per year. One mongol division is 10,000 cav, which assuming five horses/cav needs this much of Hungary at minimum to graze: The thing you have to be careful of here is that the Mongols weren't 100% cavalry armies by the time they started hitting europe. THis is my big problem with the thesis that they couldn't have gotten into western europe because it didn't have the grasslands to support their horses. 1) Southern China isn't exactly the steppe either, yet they conquered it, probably because they had a lot of more conventional forces that they were raising in N. China. 2) See also: the middle east. The siege of Baghdad is a good example because we have good evidence of them bringing Chinese siege engineers out to reduce those walls. By the time the mongols get off the steppes they really aren't just a nomadic tribal confederation any more. They're a legitimate empire (although one that didn't survive its founder) and one that can draw upon a huge number of resources and isn't totally dependent on mounted soldiers any more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
One thing to add was that the second Mongol invasion of Hungary took place in winter (the first took place in spring), which just seems like a bad idea. Less forage available, meanwhile the defender's food were in stored stocks already which can be defended or destroyed if necessary. And that's not before we get to the snow. I don't really understand why they did it that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Hubris?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Maybe the Mongols gently caress up and lose sometimes like everyone else because they were not invincible super saiyans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Fangz posted:One thing to add was that the second Mongol invasion of Hungary took place in winter (the first took place in spring), which just seems like a bad idea. Less forage available, meanwhile the defender's food were in stored stocks already which can be defended or destroyed if necessary. And that's not before we get to the snow. I don't really understand why they did it that way. In my experience when it's possible for us to figure out the answers 9 times in 10 baffling military decisions like this are made because of political considerations. In the case of the mongols it could be as simple as the guy who led the attack needed a win to fend off a rival in some court intrigue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
I believe the second invasion of Hungary is because the Mongols were demanding an alliance, and in return for that alliance Hungary's army would be used as the spearhead for an invasion into the rest of Europe, and Hungary said "nah"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:In my experience when it's possible for us to figure out the answers 9 times in 10 baffling military decisions like this are made because of political considerations. In the case of the mongols it could be as simple as the guy who led the attack needed a win to fend off a rival in some court intrigue. A Tuvan dared the general and you know all Tuvan dares must be answered
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Argh, I can't keep up with this thread. Continuing the "realistic post apocalyptic fiction" discussion from a few pages back. I propose that the Mad Max films are a believable depiction of societal breakdown following a global nuclear war. The retconned prologue from Road Warrior implies that a nuclear war wiped out coastal Australia and left only small Outback towns intact. In a case like that, some people would try to keep a government running, if only to provide basic public safety. But small gangs of brigands would soon overpower sedentary towns and anachronistic law enforcement. That's the gist of Mad Max, as well as any number of 20th century civil wars. Once society continues to break down, nomadic groups formed around brutal and charismatic leaders would fight amongst themselves. The last remnants of the industrial age--firearms, vehicles, and the gas and bullets to run them--would be bitterly fought over. You'd see far fewer maintained firearms and vehicles and far more improvised weapons and transportation. In an inhospitable environment like the Outback, sedentary settlements would starve. Cue the Road Warrior. Decades later the first settlements would start to reappear. Any place that could master methane from pig poo poo would become a city state, with the ability to enslave and dominate the region. In time, they would be recognized as a fair arbitrator between parties. Here comes Tina Turner in chainmail fishnets. With no communication to share culture, new dialects ("guzzoline") and fashions (hockey masks and assess chaps) would develop. The world would look as insane as any of the Mad Max movies. Your thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Haha, it's probably because they were the only ones who tried invading Russia in winter and succeeding? They used the frozen rivers as highways for their forces...perhaps they thought they could do the same in Hungary? Plus, they could always rely on drawing blood and milk from their mares for sustenance. Mongols get a lot of crap, but the fact is they were only particularly bloody to people who didn't surrender. They weren't particularly brutal overlords, they allowed religious freedom, valued useful skills, took a tithe and pretty much left you as you were. They really thought they were meant to be rulers of the world, can't blame them for being angry when people try and mess that up. I recall reading somewhere that somebody had a thesis that their brutality could have saved lives, as stories of their brutality often went ahead of them (from the small amount of people they let escape) and resulting in more surrenders. They may have killed 10% of the population, but they conquered the most populated parts of the world in very little time. As for the empire only lasting Genghis' life, you could argue that the sheer size of the empire made governing it as impossible as the roman empire was, which explains why it was split up into a tetrarchy, and finally split into two halves. There's only somewhat convoluted lines from Genghis' empire to the Crimean khanate, which lasted till the 1700s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Another, often forgotten aspect of the Mongols, is that by the standards of the time they were astonishingly progressive regarding women. If you were a woman in that era, the Mongol Empire was about the safest place on earth and gave you the greatest freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Another, often forgotten aspect of the Mongols, is that by the standards of the time they were astonishingly progressive regarding women. If you were a woman in that era, the Mongol Empire was about the safest place on earth and gave you the greatest freedom. and yet CK2 nomad titles are strictly agnatic, without even a law change option otherwise 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Another, often forgotten aspect of the Mongols, is that by the standards of the time they were astonishingly progressive regarding women. If you were a woman in that era, the Mongol Empire was about the safest place on earth and gave you the greatest freedom. A story I read in Jack Weatherford's book is that they sent a female negotiator to try and get surrender off some Russian cities when they invaded. When the locals, panicking over a women being sent as a diplomatic representative of an army, took her as a witch and killed her, the mongols killed everyone (as most mongol stories end)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
"Only particularly bloody to people who didn't surrender" is a pretty low bar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:"Only particularly bloody to people who didn't surrender" is a pretty low bar. No one here is defending the Mongols as humanitarians, bud. But the Mongols were very big on intimidation tactics, they'd rather conquer and loot without fighting for it so they liked to make examples of those who did choose to fight to encourage their next target to surrender instead. nothing to seehere posted:A story I read in Jack Weatherford's book is that they sent a female negotiator to try and get surrender off some Russian cities when they invaded. When the locals, panicking over a women being sent as a diplomatic representative of an army, took her as a witch and killed her, the mongols killed everyone (as most mongol stories end) From what I've read, before becoming an empire Mongol society was strikingly meritocratic - women pulled equal weight to the men on the steppes, and the Mongols kept the mentality later of giving jobs to the person most able. See the Mongols bringing Chinese siege engineers to Persia. For the most part, the Mongols didn't give a drat if you were a woman or from another culture or nation, if you could do your job well you would be employed and rewarded accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:For the most part, the Mongols didn't give a drat if you were a woman or from another culture or nation, if you could do your job well you would be employed and rewarded accordingly. We are the Horde. Disband your levies and surrender your castles. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
What happens when a complicated formation like a tercio takes casualties? Do people remain in place or are people trained to shuffle around to keep the shape of the formation with a smaller number of people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm pretty sure we've had that argument before, but I don't really buy that argument - the "we'll hole up in castles" theory seems to me to be based on the idea of the armies going after the nobility (and not the peasantry, because controlling the peasantry is kinda the point), so if the nobility keep themselves safe eventually the attackers will bugger off and the nobles will reappear and re-establish the status quo. But the Mongols will go after the peasantry and put them all to the sword in a pretty short period of time, and those fortresses can't protect and feed the common folk for an extended period of time. So it seems like what would happen is that the nobles can hole up and try and wait it out, but when they come out their lands would be utter desolation. Is that really a victory? Hungary seemed to pull itself back together, and the nobles weren't playing a history game or anything. So long as they could regain military control at some point (like they did), it's a victory for them. Fangz posted:There's a difference between expansionism and even wars of conversion, and mass genocide on an industrial scale. Ghengis Khan killed 11% of the world population. Genocide is not just killing large amounts of people Libluini posted:Some probably fled, yes. But mostly, people probably fled into cities and strongholds. That's what they knew as a safe haven, after all. Which is why the deathtoll when the Mongols finally cracked a stubborn city was amplified, since it's kind of hard to run away on foot from a cavalry army, especially if you were hiding inside the city they were besieging. If you're a skilled worker, the Mongols preferred to take you captive and send you to do something useful for the empire. You're still getting enslaved though so that's a bummer. Cyrano4747 posted:The thing you have to be careful of here is that the Mongols weren't 100% cavalry armies by the time they started hitting europe. THis is my big problem with the thesis that they couldn't have gotten into western europe because it didn't have the grasslands to support their horses. I don't think the Batu-Subutai horde was able to recruit as many local soldiers as the Mongols in China were. Batu Khan spent the entire campaign worried about manpower issues, apparently due to the toll of assaulting all the Rus principalities, capped off with some brutal fighting at Mohi. There was a bunch of failed sieges in Hungary that would not have been good to them either. It may just be that he and the Golden Horde just had less resources than the other hordes and couldn't get the murderball going as hard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So I've mentioned a few times, this relatively minor but (ostensibly) remarkable piece of engineering from WWII Japan: the Nakajima Homare. Sadly it doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of information on in, at least in English, so I'm still a little bit in the dark about what its deal is. I'll post a bunch of info and thoughts and see where this goes. Oh mighty post, RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE ahaHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ok, so I just received my copy of Japanese Aero-Engines (1910 - 1945) by Mike Goodwin and Peter Starkings. Its fantastic and everyone interested in this topic or engines in general should buy this book. I plan on  ing some information from the book, and probably do a super-condensed version of the book pointing out the important stuff for each company/plane/engine.For example: The book gets pretty in-depth in its research of all known/documented engine, whether its a foreign purchase, secret import, forgotten indigenous design, or factory produced example. I'm only 40 or so pages in and here are some interesting tidbits -90% of all exhaust valve production was in the hands of one company - Kyoto Machine Works. Mitsubishi was instructed to start producing some as well, but this never fully rectified the issue. Additionally, a shortage in mid- to late-1944 of exhaust valves impeded manufacturing of engines. -Propellers are listed, by the authors, as one of the main reasons for poor high-altitude performance (the other being their lovely superchargers). Metal propellers were in the minority, as Japanese companies tried to forgo them in favor of modified and/or strengthened wooden propellers. They also suffered from a severe lack of testing, only having two test-beds, each with a 1,500HP engine. A wind tunnel at the same testing plant (Sumitomo Kanzaki) wasn't completed until 1945. This problem was compounded by the fact they lacked proper stress and vibration testing equipment. -Japanese superchargers were in their infancy in the 1926, after Japan imported a French turbo-supercharged plane. Work on development was slow to progress, and when Japan bought more aircraft to try to get more data/speed things up, the ship carrying the planes was sunk by a tidal wave. This would cause the turbo-supercharger research to stall for some time. By the time interest in such a system had regained momentum, Japan's manufacturers were split between mechanically-driven turbo-superchargers and exhaust-driven turbo-superchargers. The problem with this was that diesel engine exhaust gas needs to withstand 500 degrees Fahrenheit, petrol-based exhaust required 700 degrees Fahrenheit. -A tandem engine with a reported 5,000HP rating was supposed to be used in G10N before the project was cancelled. -A 1942 project engine allegedly reached 5,000 RPM(!). The Napier Sabre can reach 3,850 RPM. Also, let's see what my book says, compared to the below from the same post. bewbies posted:Some vital specs comparing it to other 18 cylinder late-war monsters. I won't get into variants and whatnot because who gives a gently caress Homare engines: Bore/stroke(mm): 130/150 Capacity: 35.8 litres Homare 11 Output: 1800 hp RPM: 2,900 Weight - 830 kg Compression Ratio - 7.0 -The Homare 12 is the same as above, except with a rated HP of 1,825. Listed as having "Finer Cooling Fins" Homare 21 Output: 1990 hp RPM: 3,000 Weight - 830 kg Compression Ratio - 7.0 -Raised compresion ratio, bigger supercharger Homare 22 Output: 2,000 hp RPM: 3,000 Weight - 820 kg Compression Ratio - 8.0 -Larger reduction gear -The Homare 23 is the same as above, except with indirect fuel injection. -The Homare 24 is the same as the 23, except with an exhaust turbo-supercharger. Homare 25 Output: 1,970 hp RPM: 3,000 Weight - 840 kg Compression Ratio - 8.0 -Stiffened crankshaft Homare 26 Output: 2,000 hp RPM: 3,000 Weight - ? Compression Ratio - 8.0 -Mounting shaft for VDM propeller Homare 31 Output: 2,200 hp RPM: 3,100 Weight - ? Compression Ratio - 8.0 -High Altitude?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Was Hungary just more heavily fortified than the areas the Mongols were in the Middle East? I know the ME was heavily fortified but my understanding is that the Hungarians just had absolute fucktons of fortifications, especially after the first failed invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
I think if you look at the patterns Mongol-conquest-induced death, it's highest in the earliest conquests, like the Khwarezmian Empire, and declines substantially over time as the Chinggisids move from a piņata model of hitting nations until the candy comes out to a more conventional imperial rule. So I'm not sure it's really supportable to say that, because they killed many people in the past, they are just as likely to kill as many people in the future. The trajectory isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:18
|
|
