Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Thinking About Mongols

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:49 pm    Post subject: Thinking About Mongols


My son and I just finished reading a marvelous book: Professor Jack
Weatherford's "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World". Anyone
familiar with Weatherford's previous works, such as "The History of Money",
knows that he is not only a superb scholar but one who enjoys shattering
conventions in his interpretation of history.

"Genghis Khan" is no exception to this. Weatherford argues persuasively that (a)
the nomad way of life is a pervasive influence on modern society, (b) most of
the notorious images we associate with the Mongols derives from Timur, not
Genghis, and Timur was more Arab than Mongol (think Afghan warlord run amok),
(c) Genghis Khan instilled in the Mongols and their subject peoples a respect
for the rule of law and a tolerance of religious diversity that few nation
states today have equaled.

The book also has some interesting discussions of various Mongol military
tactics, and military campaigns. Included in this discussion is a description
of the first major field battle between Mongols and Russians, the Battle of the
Dnieper River in 1223, in which the Mongol general Subodei's reconnaisance force
faced off against the Grand Prince of Kiev, allied Russian city states, and a
contingent of Kipchak allies. The description of the battle that Weatherford
gives matches descriptions I have read elsewhere, and here is the passage that
confounds me with respect to Warrior:

"With their infantry cut to pieces, the Russian archers took aim and began to
return the volley of arrows, but with the shorter range of the less-powerful
European bows, few hit their mark. In mockery, the Mongols chased down the
Russian arrows; but rather than breaking them, they fired back at their
original owners, since the notches of the arrow easily fit the Mongol
bowstring. The stunned Russian forces quickly began to fall back in panic."
(Weatherford, page 141)

Just to be clear: the Russian archers are primarily foot, and the Mongol archers
are entirely mounted. My question, then, is how to simulate the effects of this
apparent range difference in Warrior?

This isn't directed to Jon or Scott in particular, it's more just a topic for
general discussion with the imminent release of Oriental Warrior. And you can
think of it as several questions:

Can this range difference be simulated within the existing rules, and if so how?

If you think it cannot be simulated, does it need to be, or is this just within
the small variabilities in weapon type that no system can or needs to perfectly
simulate?

If you think it cannot be simulated but should be, what sort of X rule would
make sense in this context?


-Mark Stone

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Thinking About Mongols


"With their infantry cut to pieces, the Russian archers took aim and began to
return the volley of arrows, but with the shorter range of the less-powerful
European bows, few hit their mark. In mockery, the Mongols chased down the
Russian arrows; but rather than breaking them, they fired back at their
original owners, since the notches of the arrow easily fit the Mongol
bowstring. The stunned Russian forces quickly began to fall back in panic."
(Weatherford, page 141)>>

I obviously have my own opinions on Mark's questions that follow in the mail he
sent containing this quotation. I will let Oriental Warrior and the core rules
serve as 'my answer'...lol

But, despite my bias, I would like to point out that even as good as I think the
Mongols were - 'chasing down an arrow' from horseback is not likely to have
happened in any systemic way, if at all....
if this engagement did occur as described, it was quite probably local and
between dismounted archers. in that case it was more of an issue of accuracy,
volley-fire etc... than of a significant difference in effective range.

It's a good read, but not a primary source...
J


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Kelly Wilkinson
Dictator
Dictator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4172
Location: Raytown, MO

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Thinking About Mongols


Mark,

I've read similar things about the Huns and the power of their
bows verses that of many of the steppe tribes they encountered. This
penetrating bow power was evidently strong enough to penetrate
catphract armor unlike conventional horse bows thus giving The Hun
nation a rather awesome edge and added to their reputation.

Of the Mongols I am aware of the Ring of Iron rules equating
the Mongol horse bow with the power of the longbow in both distance
and combat factors. Additionally, the DBM people must have felt this
way in the middle ninety's as per a conversation I had with Jon a
day or three back concerning how they used to dismount as Bow
Superior. That has since changed most likely for purposes of game
balance. My advice is to simply wait and see what FHE presents for
the Mongols and move on from there. From what I've heard, it's
pretty cool. I can't wait to get my hands on a copy. I really feel
like a kid on his way to Disneyland saying to my mom and dad, are we
there yet?

kelly


_________________
Roll down and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Tim Grimmett
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 406
Location: Northern Virginia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:17 am    Post subject: Re: Thinking About Mongols


Or in Warrior terms the Russians were shooting "tired".

JonCleaves@... wrote:"With their infantry cut to pieces, the Russian archers
took aim and began to
return the volley of arrows, but with the shorter range of the less-powerful
European bows, few hit their mark. In mockery, the Mongols chased down the
Russian arrows; but rather than breaking them, they fired back at their
original owners, since the notches of the arrow easily fit the Mongol
bowstring. The stunned Russian forces quickly began to fall back in panic."
(Weatherford, page 141)>>

I obviously have my own opinions on Mark's questions that follow in the mail he
sent containing this quotation. I will let Oriental Warrior and the core rules
serve as 'my answer'...lol

But, despite my bias, I would like to point out that even as good as I think the
Mongols were - 'chasing down an arrow' from horseback is not likely to have
happened in any systemic way, if at all....
if this engagement did occur as described, it was quite probably local and
between dismounted archers. in that case it was more of an issue of accuracy,
volley-fire etc... than of a significant difference in effective range.

It's a good read, but not a primary source...
J



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


_________________
Tim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Thinking About Mongols


--- On Jan 19 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> But, despite my bias, I would like to point out that even as good as I think
the
> Mongols were - 'chasing down an arrow' from horseback is not likely to have
> happened in any systemic way, if at all....

Oh, I'm sure it happened in a quite systematic way. The Mamelukes made an
explicit training practice of it, and I'm sure the Mongols did the same.
Remember, most "long range" arrows that miss will end up sticking out of the
ground at a 30 to 45 degree angle; not too difficult to pluck up from
horseback.

That, however, was not my main point, as I can think of no game mechanical
effect this behavior can or should have.

> if this engagement did occur as described, it was quite probably local and
> between dismounted archers. in that case it was more of an issue of accuracy,
> volley-fire etc... than of a significant difference in effective range.

There is no evidence from any of the accounts I have read that the Mongols
dismounted to fire in this battle. I'm not saying they never did -- we have
documentation that they did on occaision dismount -- but this wasn't one of
those cases as far as we can tell from the historical record.

>
> It's a good read, but not a primary source...
>

Well, it's been about 10 years since I've had easy access to a university
library, so I can't quote primary sources to you off the top of my head. But I
don't think it's even remotely controversial -- from primary sources -- that
_some_ Mongol horse archers, firing while mounted, consistently outranged
_some_ European foot archers.

That's my point. And the question is, does Warrior currently handle this
phenomenon adequately, and if it does not, could or should it, and if so how?


-Mark Stone

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Thinking About Mongols


Oh, I'm sure it happened in a quite systematic way. The Mamelukes made an
explicit training practice of it, and I'm sure the Mongols did the same.
Remember, most "long range" arrows that miss will end up sticking out of the
ground at a 30 to 45 degree angle; not too difficult to pluck up from
horseback.>>

Ok, Mark, I'll bite this once....

I am sure that on an individual basis it is possible to train a skilled horseman
to pick up an arrow of 30" or more length that happened to stick into the dirt
at a 45 degree angle and was reachable by someone leaning well out of the
saddle, then to be shot back at the same opponent who fired it.

The idea of 300 such men doing this in a fashion that permits them to maintain
an ordered formation rather than shooting their own arrows in a volley strains
this amateur historian's belief... the simple fact that there is no 'need' to
do this makes me skeptical..

BUT - an x-rule would be cool.

AND - just this lunchtime we discussed adding this skill into my skirmish and
role-playing games where it would be more accurately simulated and relevant as
well as cool to have happen.

J


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group