Talk:Military of the Mongol Empire/Archive 1

message: "When - for example - Alexander the Great, used the tactic of close combat, heavy cavalry and not very much weight on archery, Genghis men were the total opposite" -- aside from being nearly incomprehensible at an English level, this sentence pretty much describes what's wrong with this article. Bias, random insults, childish slander, etc. The whole thing needs to be scrapped, locked, and rewritten by someone competent rather than read like a five year old attempting to regurgitate a communist-era Mongolian history textbook.
---------------------------------
While I agree this article is very POV, it is largely factually correct.  It could use a re-write to present the information in more encyclopedic terms.
Also, I deleted the "Mongol warrior versus European opponent" section, as the most important detail of the paragraph centered around the ability of arrows to penetrate European plate metal armor (and how silk made for a superior garment in combat).  No arrow ever penetrated plate iron or steel (although an arrow could have penetrated mail armor, the paragraph seemed to mean plate armor), not even one fired from a 'famous' Mongol bow. 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old discussions 

message: ...Mostly came from the fact that European armies of the time consisted mostly of light infantry and conscripts, and a very small core of armoured knights. Sure, yes, the knight cannot chase down the mongol, yada yada. Knights in Russia were well-armoured AND used their bows well, after all they've practiced the horse archery thing for centuries on end, living and fighting in the Steppes. So had the Kwarazmians, the Qipchaks, the Alans and so on. Russian, Arab, German, Polish and Hungarian armies also had horses with more stamina and strength. One on one, a wealthy Mongol warrior and a "knight" from Eastern Europe/Central Asia are probably evenly matched. What everyone forgets when they rave about the mongol raid of 1241 is that when the Mongols routed the 100,000 or so at Mohi, of those 100,000 about 80,000 would have been peasants. Same with any Islamic or European opponent. The average quality of the fighting man was much better among the Mongols; European armies consisted of small elites and a mass of bodies, while the Mongols could bring several tens of thousands of PROFESSIONAL warriors to the field, a thing no other country on Earth bar China could at the time.
Combine that with strict hierachical command, greater mobility of the entire force, and the fact that European feudal armies were a nightmare and a half to raise, maintain and command, and you can see that the victories of the Mongols in Europe and elsewhere in the west were not at all dependent on the arrow penetrating the armour. Which it could, by the way, but not reliably.
::  I think Europe proved plenty of times with the crusades that it could bring professional soldiers to the battlefield en masse.  To the best of my knowledge the only time in the Middle Ages when China had a professional army was during the Tang Dynasty.  The Mongols didn't have a professional army either.  Horse archery and hormsemanship was a way of life for the Mongol nomads which history has proven is also an effective form of warfare.  In fact in the true sense of the word, a professional army could only have been produced by civilised regions like China, Europe and the Middle East because they had the administrative abilities.  England was one of the most centralised states in Europe. It proved in the 14th century that it could produce a professional army (more accurately an Army of professionals).  So did the Italian city states with the Condottieri.  The fractured cities in Europe could also well trained militia much similar to a professional army than the the Mongols.  What you should be contrasting is the style of warfare between the two regions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.113.198 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superioriy over European Opponents

message: I have a doubt.In the case of irregular resistence against them(in other words guerrilla warfare), what mongols made against this form of resistence??.I say that in Vietnam they had problems with guerrillas and partisans.
After all truth is Mongolians beat them all. Not because China was divided into three kingdoms and Russia were not united nation. Simple truth is Mongols brought new era of warfare. Chinese were, yes, technologically advanced. But in a battle field they were no match with Mongols. Mongols were militarily much more advanced then others. It was like every mongolian possesed some sort of talent of warfare.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.3.139 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-guerilla inteligence