Genghis Khan-the greatest warrior of all (1 Viewer)

[fmethorst]

This admiration of a self serving mass murderer still puzzles me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

I don't buy into the whole historical relativism argument either, "Oh, that's just the way things were done back then, we can't judge them by todays standards."

 

[Aleš]

Simply stated, a disciplined square, especially with long spears and archers, could hold. But there was more to the Great Khan's tactical genius than just attacking with a horde of cavalry.

haha,are you serius?
What square can hold 100000 cavalry?
There is not enough man who can make such a big square.They just go around you,circling with their arrows and you stood there like an idiot with long spears and watching how they destroy you with bow and arrows
You my friend are a bad general.
If i say they are unbeated at the time that mean they were unbeated,no square can and did not hold them down.
And the other tactics they use,sure they starv town to death.So people after a few months die from hungry.
They also break China wall at where it is the end or the begining,they simply go around the wall,because it is just a wall,it is not a square,it is a wall in one long line.
And yes for attacking the town they use catapults,...but i was talking if someone wish to fight them in the open land,to hold them down,IMPOSIBLE!
Not this Mongols at that time!

 

[Deitz]

Well i never say Genghis Khan is romantic perosn.Yes he rape,he kill,he steal,he torture people,....and thsi is what i wannt to see in the movie,ACTION!
He didnt make his empire by crying,talking,...and in this movie they talk too much,i wannt to look two hours of action,of killing,spiling blood,...something like Braveheart,a lot of soldiers marching than fighting,...who cares about his age of 9,give us Genghis Khan as an emperor,not some poor and helpless sheperd

Sounds like you like to see Genghis Khan in a slasher movie. Not my kind of movie.

 

[marco55]

Ales,
I thought you didn't like people who invaded and conquered other peoples lands.Sorry moderators I know I shouldn't say this but I can't help myself.
Mark

 

[OzDigger]

Ales,
I thought you didn't like people who invaded and conquered other peoples lands.Sorry moderators I know I shouldn't say this but I can't help myself.
Mark

The Mongols weren't invaders and conquers, they were freedom fighters battling to free other countries from oppressive regimes

 

[mikemiller1955]

Ales,
I thought you didn't like people who invaded and conquered other peoples lands.Sorry moderators I know I shouldn't say this but I can't help myself.
Mark

Mark...Mark...Mark...hehehehehe

 

[Spitfrnd]

haha,are you serius?
What square can hold 100000 cavalry?
There is not enough man who can make such a big square.They just go around you,circling with their arrows and you stood there like an idiot with long spears and watching how they destroy you with bow and arrows
You my friend are a bad general.
If i say they are unbeated at the time that mean they were unbeated,no square can and did not hold them down.
And the other tactics they use,sure they starv town to death.So people after a few months die from hungry.
They also break China wall at where it is the end or the begining,they simply go around the wall,because it is just a wall,it is not a square,it is a wall in one long line.
And yes for attacking the town they use catapults,...but i was talking if someone wish to fight them in the open land,to hold them down,IMPOSIBLE!
Not this Mongols at that time!

Sorry but the facts are that the Mongols were successful because of their battlefield flexibility and their ability to learn and adapt to the tactics of their enemies, not simply their hordes for horseman. Their prime tactics were flanking, encirclement and feigned retreats and they seldom employed a direct attack against a strong enemy. Hence they were very good at preserving their experienced troops. They could be and were often beaten but when they were, they were careful to minimize their losses by withdrawing in an orderly manner before the tide turned badly against them. Then they would analyze their enemy's tactics and re-engage at a more favorable opportunity. Thus it is not that they never lost but rather they never lost badly and hence were able to soon reverse their loss.

These were very advanced tactics for the time and well beyond those used by most they faced, including the Europeans who had by then lost the military prowess of the Romans and Macedonians. As noted several times now, despite the myths, the success of Khan and the Mongols was enabled by far more than their hordes of charging horseman. Ultimately of course, they did meet their match against a comparable number of Mamluks near Jerusalem at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, a battle they were not able to later reverse.