Were Kazakhs the Russian equivalent of Native Americans for the U.S.?

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by Trigger-f

Hmm strange way to put it, Nazis? Maybe that's why Hitler was fixated with history, particularly Alexander the Great?

Originally Posted by Trigger-f

The Greeks believed that any other civilization was beneath them - including the Romans. "Nazis" was a bit of a joke. Although if you look at the Spartans and the helots, perhaps more appropriate than you'd think.

Originally Posted by Trigger-f

Barbarians or not, the Romans kind of fused together with the Greeks forming the Eastern Roman Empire. Plus half of ancient Italy had been colonized by Greeks.

Well, it's more complex than that. First, the Romans adapted much of Greek culture and religion, while retaining their own political views. Then they conquered Italia and kicked the Greeks out or enslaved them. Then they conquered Greece and incorporated it into Roman Empire. One empire, with Romans dominating. Then, after centuries, the economic center of the Empire shifted East. Then Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople. Then the Empire split in two. The Eastern Roman Empire had a major Greek population so eventually it became Greek speaking. However by this time, the Greeks were thoroughly Romanized in many ways. So the Eastern Roman Empire was really the Roman empire of the Greek speaking people - not the fusion of Ancient Greece and Rome. Unless this is what you meant, and I misunderstood.

Btw, the official title of the rulers of Byzantium was "Basileus ton Romaion" - "Emperor of the Romans". In Greek.

[quote=Trigger-f;45664294]I think Subutai would be no match for Alexander, had they lived in the same era. In addition, Mongols did not live in the shadow of 2 major military powers for ages (the rest of Europeans did) The rest of Europe did not advance militarily until about the time of the Crusades(1000AD). Maybe cut them some slack when you judge them.[quote=Trigger-f;45664294]

The Mongols conquered the whole of China. Which was united under two dynasties, and had major military and fortified cities and huge resources.

They conquered Persia, also not a weakling.

They conquered the various principalities of the Kievan Rus. The small principality of Novgorod, that was spared by the Mongols, around the same time gave a thorough thrashing to the crusaders and nearly completely eliminated the Livonian Order of German knights. So it's not like Rus was not a major military power.

They conquered India.

I think you fail to appreciate just how powerful they were at their peak.

As to the military advancement - the European armies of the era (1240s) were not any better armed or armored than any of their opponents. European technology started to progress in the 1400s but really took off around 1500, and even then the Ottomans were every bit their equal for most of the century. Europe was not exactly the backwater of the world, but it was definitely not the technological leader it became later. Combined with very high degree of fragmentation and infighting, and relatively harsh climate that made losing even one crop season a mortal danger, Europe would be in a very precocious position had the Mongols made it a real priority for their conquest. As it was, they nearly destroyed the Hungarian Kingdom, which was a powerful entity, and depopulated Poland, another powerful (in it's time) country. And raided Germany. All with a decoy (!) force.

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

Realize, too, that in the XIII century, Europe was hardly the most developed or the most advanced part of the world. It started to accelerate in knowledge and development during Renaissance, but until the XVII century or so, there was always someone just as strong and just as advanced - the Ottoman empire probably being the last such enemy until the modern times. In the 1200s, it was just another part of the world, with it's strong and weak points, arguably the weakest being it's political, economic, and as a result, military fragmentation. It was never the target of the Mongol conquest in the first place - they merely sent a large decoy expedition to Central Europe to protect their Russian and Hungarian holdings. If they were determined to conquer Europe, it's debatable how this would turn out in the end. However, they were far more interested in the far richer China, India, and the Middle East (the only place they were soundly defeated).

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

As to the military advancement - the European armies of the era (1240s) were not any better armed or armored than any of their opponents. European technology started to progress in the 1400s but really took off around 1500, and even then the Ottomans were every bit their equal for most of the century. Europe was not exactly the backwater of the world, but it was definitely not the technological leader it became later. Combined with very high degree of fragmentation and infighting, and relatively harsh climate that made losing even one crop season a mortal danger, Europe would be in a very precocious position had the Mongols made it a real priority for their conquest. As it was, they nearly destroyed the Hungarian Kingdom, which was a powerful entity, and depopulated Poland, another powerful (in it's time) country. And raided Germany. All with a decoy (!) force.

You give way too much credit to the Mongols here. While it is true that the Mongols had very advanced warfare tactics for the time, they mostly and wisely fought already weakened opponents, or encountered amateur troops.

Europe wasn't top of the world in technology then, but it had learnt valuable lessons from the crusades both within and outside Europe. Attritional warfare and heavy fortificitations trickle down even the most fearsome opponent. The Mongols' ONLY tactic was to meet the enemy on the open field. It worked well in the steppes of Asia and Russia, but if they would've a disaster in heavily forested Western and Northern Europe. The Mongols themselves noticed in Hungary that if every city is fortified like this, it's a battle we never can win.

Additionally, the Polish and Hungarian kingdoms were very fragmented and weak, not the strong kingdoms you claim. In Legnica people were given a spear and told "you're now in the army, kill the enemy".

And despite this, I want to say that the Mongolian horde adopted all technological advances and would've butchered all European or Asian armies as long that they got to choose the battlefield.

[Trigger-f]

[quote=Ummagumma;45671437]Well, it's more complex than that. First, the Romans adapted much of Greek culture and religion, while retaining their own political views. Then they conquered Italia and kicked the Greeks out or enslaved them. Then they conquered Greece and incorporated it into Roman Empire. One empire, with Romans dominating. Then, after centuries, the economic center of the Empire shifted East. Then Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople. Then the Empire split in two. The Eastern Roman Empire had a major Greek population so eventually it became Greek speaking. However by this time, the Greeks were thoroughly Romanized in many ways. So the Eastern Roman Empire was really the Roman empire of the Greek speaking people - not the fusion of Ancient Greece and Rome. Unless this is what you meant, and I misunderstood.

Btw, the official title of the rulers of Byzantium was "Basileus ton Romaion" - "Emperor of the Romans". In Greek.

[quote=Trigger-f;45664294]I think Subutai would be no match for Alexander, had they lived in the same era. In addition, Mongols did not live in the shadow of 2 major military powers for ages (the rest of Europeans did) The rest of Europe did not advance militarily until about the time of the Crusades(1000AD). Maybe cut them some slack when you judge them.

Originally Posted by Trigger-f

The Mongols conquered the whole of China. Which was united under two dynasties, and had major military and fortified cities and huge resources.

They conquered Persia, also not a weakling.

They conquered the various principalities of the Kievan Rus. The small principality of Novgorod, that was spared by the Mongols, around the same time gave a thorough thrashing to the crusaders and nearly completely eliminated the Livonian Order of German knights. So it's not like Rus was not a major military power.

They conquered India.

I think you fail to appreciate just how powerful they were at their peak.

As to the military advancement - the European armies of the era (1240s) were not any better armed or armored than any of their opponents. European technology started to progress in the 1400s but really took off around 1500, and even then the Ottomans were every bit their equal for most of the century. Europe was not exactly the backwater of the world, but it was definitely not the technological leader it became later. Combined with very high degree of fragmentation and infighting, and relatively harsh climate that made losing even one crop season a mortal danger, Europe would be in a very precocious position had the Mongols made it a real priority for their conquest. As it was, they nearly destroyed the Hungarian Kingdom, which was a powerful entity, and depopulated Poland, another powerful (in it's time) country. And raided Germany. All with a decoy (!) force.

I wouldn't quite put it this way...technically this is what happened:

"Life in Greece continued under the Roman Empire much the same as it had previously. Roman culture was highly influenced by the Greeks; as Horace said, Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit. ("Captive Greece captured her rude conqueror".) The epics of Homer inspired the Aeneid of Virgil, and authors such as Seneca the younger wrote using Greek styles. While some Roman nobles regarded the Greeks as backwards and petty, many others embraced Greek literature and philosophy. The Greek language became a favorite of the educated and elite in Rome, such as Scipio Africanus, who tended to study philosophy and regard Greek culture and science as an example to be followed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Greece

That's what I meant by "fused together"..