Political Crossfire Forums

[Rockgod214]

I was wondering what would the world look like if Ogedai had lived another say five years. Would the Mongols take over all of Continental Europe and Asia? I think they would because they seemed to decimate every army and country they did battle with. I mean they were masters of the feigned retreat and even made all of their cavalry (practically their entire army) learn it. They also were smart enough to use the compound bow on horse back to increase mobility and striking range. Also the conquest of Hungary was nothing short of pure military beauty. But what do you guys think? Could they have conquered Europe and Asia or would they have been defeated before accomplishing that goal and if so by whom?

[TNBiologist]

They may have coonqured it at first but would have lost it pretty fast. They did npt have a garrison army that is required to hiold that much territory. They had light cavalry which is great for combat but no forces to occupy and keep the peace. Many of the conquered peoples would started small rebellions and this would have cracked any empire they created.

[Fido]

Rockgod214 wrote: I was wondering what would the world look like if Ogedai had lived another say five years. Would the Mongols take over all of Continental Europe and Asia? I think they would because they seemed to decimate every army and country they did battle with. I mean they were masters of the feigned retreat and even made all of their cavalry (practically their entire army) learn it. They also were smart enough to use the compound bow on horse back to increase mobility and striking range. Also the conquest of Hungary was nothing short of pure military beauty. But what do you guys think? Could they have conquered Europe and Asia or would they have been defeated before accomplishing that goal and if so by whom?


Not a compound bow. It was a double re-curve, and don't forget the silk shirt, that was in their day the equivalent of the bullet proof vest. Terror often did their work for them, but civilization doomed them. When they spared the native populations which were the wealth of the land their days found a number. We do not have the same taste for cruelty that for them made empire possible, and we would do well to remember that they once owned Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are they today? In Mongolia with their tails between their legs? But in their day were they not something?

[Rockgod214]

Fido wrote: Rockgod214 wrote: I was wondering what would the world look like if Ogedai had lived another say five years. Would the Mongols take over all of Continental Europe and Asia? I think they would because they seemed to decimate every army and country they did battle with. I mean they were masters of the feigned retreat and even made all of their cavalry (practically their entire army) learn it. They also were smart enough to use the compound bow on horse back to increase mobility and striking range. Also the conquest of Hungary was nothing short of pure military beauty. But what do you guys think? Could they have conquered Europe and Asia or would they have been defeated before accomplishing that goal and if so by whom?


Not a compound bow. It was a double re-curve, and don't forget the silk shirt, that was in their day the equivalent of the bullet proof vest. Terror often did their work for them, but civilization doomed them. When they spared the native populations which were the wealth of the land their days found a number. We do not have the same taste for cruelty that for them made empire possible, and we would do well to remember that they once owned Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are they today? In Mongolia with their tails between their legs? But in their day were they not something?

It seems that civilization and christianity are the roots of destruction for all the germanic tribes, vikings, huns, and mongols. And with the advancement in civilization and christianity there is more guided system of warfare. Do you think with all this insurgency we would learn a lesson that kindness should be shown only when recipricated whereas terrorism like the insurgencies and 9/11 should be shown terror at its zenith of power?

[Fido]

Rockgod214 wrote: Fido wrote: Rockgod214 wrote: I was wondering what would the world look like if Ogedai had lived another say five years. Would the Mongols take over all of Continental Europe and Asia? I think they would because they seemed to decimate every army and country they did battle with. I mean they were masters of the feigned retreat and even made all of their cavalry (practically their entire army) learn it. They also were smart enough to use the compound bow on horse back to increase mobility and striking range. Also the conquest of Hungary was nothing short of pure military beauty. But what do you guys think? Could they have conquered Europe and Asia or would they have been defeated before accomplishing that goal and if so by whom?


Not a compound bow. It was a double re-curve, and don't forget the silk shirt, that was in their day the equivalent of the bullet proof vest. Terror often did their work for them, but civilization doomed them. When they spared the native populations which were the wealth of the land their days found a number. We do not have the same taste for cruelty that for them made empire possible, and we would do well to remember that they once owned Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are they today? In Mongolia with their tails between their legs? But in their day were they not something?

It seems that civilization and christianity are the roots of destruction for all the germanic tribes, vikings, huns, and mongols. And with the advancement in civilization and christianity there is more guided system of warfare. Do you think with all this insurgency we would learn a lesson that kindness should be shown only when recipricated whereas terrorism like the insurgencies and 9/11 should be shown terror at its zenith of power?

If I may offer this:.. Christianity alone did not work the destruction of Germanic peoples; but rather the law sponsored by the Catholic Church, which held a large portion of German law, yet was modeled after the law of Justinian, with the opposites reconciled with the help of Plato. This goes for the Vikings, and the Franks, and Saxons and all the peoples of Europe. The influence of the church left people tied legally to the earth, and in time that system of law turned them off the land, and took their rights in it. Law as the most obvious quality of civilization has broken the communities that have existed, and sapped the vitality of whole peoples without supplying the basic justice that would prevent wars. Law is power.

Now if I can address your seeming call for violence. Those who know how to conquer seldom know to govern. More than this, without the essential ability to become homogeneous with the resident population the conquerers days in residence will be few. There is a reference in literature the the grave of a man who would hustle the East, and now it contains the body of an American Soldier. Worse that this fools errand is to attack a man who can be hired. Every tribe and group in the middle East exists by virtue of its ability to make a deal. Who kills a man in good conscience when his willing help and well being can both be bought with the same dime? Can we say we have what it takes to stick in Iraq long enough for those people to accept us when for sixty years the Jews, as people of their own lineage have worn out their welcome and exhausted their moral superiority many times over for less wealth. How can we, short of becoming a tool of Israel, and Israel's hangman ever subdue the hornets we have enraged? We should understand that the price of owning Iraq is the same as for owning America: the absolute destruction of the indigenous population, and having less moral authority than the Jews to squander. I do not believe we are up to that, and I hope we are not.

Violence is not necessary to change the world, and in fact it changes nothing, as only more of the same. We may want those who make us feel terror to feel fear, but nothing is as natural to the east as Hate, the child of fear, and people there find it easier to live with fear than dishonor.