The mongols defeated the chinesse.....without any martial arts??

[Zepp]

Originally posted by KennethKu
It was easy to use rumour to the maximum effect after you have created a reputation of putting the whole population of a defiant city to the sword. The enemies have two choices, to die or to accept Mongol rule and live. If they surrenderred then they joined the Mongols to go pillaging and plundering others. Tough choices, huh?

Kinda like Count Vlad the Impaler, but on the offensive instead of the defensive. Isn't psychological warfare grand?

 

[Blindside]

Actually the mongols were the first to mass produce (not like a factory...but they made a lot of them) the short, laminated, recurved bow...it had a draw in excess of 100 pounds...

I'm not sure this is correct. The design of the mongol bow is very similar to that used by the Huns some 800 years previous. The Hun military tactics were very similar to the mongols as both forces were mounted archers. I don't know how you differentiate mass production when essentially every fighting male would generally have one.

The composite bow of the Mongols had a pull of I think about 166 pounds, which was great in its day. The Mongols also had a longbow that was more powerful and had a bit more range.

Actually, I think both bows were composite bows, one was designed for rapid fire from horseback, the other was for long range shots when dismounted. It should be noted that they also used two types of arrows, a light and a heavy that would also modify the range.

It was easy to use rumour to the maximum effect after you have created a reputation of putting the whole population of a defiant city to the sword. The enemies have two choices, to die or to accept Mongol rule and live. If they surrenderred then they joined the Mongols to go pillaging and plundering others. Tough choices, huh?

Actually in central asia at this time this was a common practice with besieged cities. If a city gave up without resistence it was spared, if it resisted, then no mercy was shown. It wasn't just the mongols who used this practice.

But psychology was certainly used to good effect by them. In one of the major battles when Hungary was defeated, the mongols surrounded the opponents camp, but appeared to leave an ungaurded escape route. Rather than forcing their opponents to "fight like a cornered rat" they allowed them to escape in a disorganized rout. They then spent the next several days wiping out the disorganized (and demoralized) remains of the Hungarian military.

 

[chufeng]

Below is an excerpt from Encyclopedia Brittanica...
The origin of the Huns is unknown...just that they came from the Asian steppes...there is some speculation that they may actually have been Mongols...It's certainly possible that there was an exchange of ideas/tactics between the two groups, either through warfare or by cooperation.

The Technology of War
THE HORSE ARCHER
The age of cavalry came to be viewed from a European perspective, since it was there that infantry was overthrown and there that the greatest and most far-reaching changes occurred. But it was by no means an exclusively European phenomenon; to the contrary, the mounted warrior's tactical supremacy was less complete in western Europe than in any other region of comparably advanced technology save Japan, where a strikingly parallel feudal situation prevailed. Indeed, from the 1st century AD nomadic horse archers had strengthened their hold over the Eurasian Steppes, the Iranian plateau, and the edges of the Fertile Crescent, and, in a series of waves extending through medieval times, they entered Europe, China, and India and even touched Japan briefly in the 13th century. The most important of these incursions into the European and Chinese military ecospheres left notable marks on the military technology of East Asia and the Byzantine Empire, as well as on the kingdoms of Europe.

The Huns and Avars.
The first of the major horse nomad incursions into Europe were the Hunnish invasions of the 4th century. The Huns' primary significance in the history of military technology was in expanding the use of the composite recurved bow into the eastern Roman Empire. This important instance of technological borrowing constituted one of the few times in which a traditional military skill as physiologically and economically demanding as composite archery was successfully transplanted out of its original cultural context.
The Avars of the 6th and 7th centuries were familiar with the stirrup, and they may have introduced it into Europe. Some of the earliest unequivocal evidence of the use of the stirrup comes from Avar graves.


The Byzantine cataphract.
Although they continued to make effective use of both shock and missile infantry, the Byzantines turned to cavalry earlier and more completely than did the western Roman Empire. After an extended period of dependence on Teutonic and Hunnish mercenary cavalry, the reforms of the emperors Maurice and Heraclius in the 6th and 7th centuries developed an effective provincial militia based on the institution of pronoia, the award of nonhereditary grants of land capable of supporting an armoured horse archer called a cataphract. Pronoia, which formed the core of the Byzantine army's strength during the period of its greatest efficiency in the 8th through 10th centuries, entailed the adoption of the Hunnish composite recurved bow by native troopers.
The Byzantine cataphract was armed with bow, lance, sword, and dagger; he wore a shirt of mail or scale armour and an iron helm and carried a small, round, ironbound shield of wood that could be strapped to the forearm or slung from the waist. The foreheads and breasts of officers' horses and those of men in the front rank were protected with frontlets and poitrels of iron. The militia cataphracts were backed by units of similarly armed regulars and mercenary regiments of Teutonic heavy shock cavalry of the imperial guard. Mercenary horse archers from the steppe continued to be used as light cavalry.


The Turks.
The infiltration of Turkish tribes into the Eurasian military ecosphere was distinguished from earlier steppe nomad invasions in that the raiders were absorbed culturally through Islamization. The long-term results of this wave of nomadic horse archers were profound, leading to the extinction of the Byzantine Empire.
Turkish horse archers, of whom the Seljuqs were representative, were lightly armoured and mounted but extremely mobile. Their armour generally consisted of an iron helmet and, perhaps, a shirt of mail or scale armour (called brigandine). They carried small, light, one-handed shields, usually of wicker fitted with an iron boss. Their principal offensive arms were lance, sabre, and bow. The Turkish bow developed in response to the demands of mounted combat against lightly armoured adversaries on the open steppe; as a consequence, it seems to have had greater range but less penetrative and knockdown power at medium and short ranges than its Byzantine equivalents. Turkish horses, though hardy and agile, were not as large or powerful as Byzantine chargers. Therefore, Turkish horse archers could not stand up to a charge of Byzantine cataphracts, but their greater mobility generally enabled them to stay out of reach and fire arrows from a distance, wearing their adversaries down and killing their horses.


The Mongols.
The 13th-century Mongol armies of Genghis Khan and his immediate successors depended on large herds of grass-fed Mongolian ponies, as many as six or eight to a warrior. The ponies were relatively small but agile and hardy, well-adapted to the harsh climate of the steppes. The Mongol warrior's principal weapon was the composite recurved bow, of which he might carry as many as three. Characteristically, each man carried a short bow for use from the saddle and a long bow for use on foot. The former, firing light arrows, was for skirmishing and long-range harassing fire; the latter had the advantage in killing power at medium ranges. The saddle bow was probably capable of sending a light arrow more than 500 yards; the heart of the long bow's engagement envelope would have been about 100-350 yards, close to that of the contemporary English longbow. Each warrior carried several extra quivers of arrows on campaign. He also carried a sabre or scimitar, a lasso, and perhaps a lance. Personal armour included a helmet and breastplate of iron or lacquered leather, though some troops wore shirts of scale or mail.
Mongol armies were proficient at military engineering and made extensive use of Chinese technology, including catapults and incendiary devices. These latter probably included predecessors of gunpowder, of which the Mongols were the likely vehicle of introduction into western Europe.

Copyright © 1997 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved

If they were distinct groups, the Huns made it into "recorded" history before the Mongols...

:asian:
chufeng

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by believer
its wierd, i try looking up mongolian martial arts.......but I cant find anything. Did the ancient mongols defeat the chinesse just by using brute stregth and courage?? I'm not saying its true, but its an interesting question. Was there a martial art for the ancient mongols??

The Mongolians made use of their superior riding skills and weaponry.
Here is a nice URL that gives mpeg demos of their technique:
http://www.atarn.org/subject_index.htm

As for Mongolian Wrestling……..it is actually the where Japanese Sumo originated.
Oddly enough Sumo wrestlers from Mongolia are doing very well in Japanese Sumo these days.

 

[RyuShiKan]

As for Mongols/Huns…………read a book called Management Techniques of Attila The Hun. Interesting read.

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by KennethKu
Commodore Perry and his gunboats defeated the Shogun's samurai warriors and I don't believe Perry and his men knew anything about MA neither.

They actually never went to war.

I live just down the road from where Perry came into Japan.
There is a nice museum there and it has some interesting artifacts.

Perry basically said “Open your doors or we will blow them open” then demonstrated the superior fire power of their cannons.

Originally posted by KennethKu
Military warfare is not martial art.

You may want to read up on some of the works of Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, and a few others I think they would tend to disagree with you.

 

[KennethKu]

Sun Tzu was a military strategist. He was neither a warrior nor a martial artist. The Art of War is all about strategies.

As regarding Musashi, I have to admit to my total ignorance of him and his work.

But I see your point about the common ground where organized warfare and individual confrontation meet. Strategic issues such as knowing thy enemies, use of deception, attacking your enemy's weakness using your strongest attributes etc, are common in both warfare and fighting.

What I was referring to previously, was about the fact in organized warfare, use of weapons and technology surpecedes martial art skills. There has never been any fighting force of which the martial art skills of the troops is the determining factor of their fighting capability. Granted, someone may argue that use of weapon is a martial art. Then it is moot point.

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by KennethKu
There has never been any fighting force of which the martial art skills of the troops is the determining factor of their fighting capability. Granted, someone may argue that use of weapon is a martial art. Then it is moot point.

Gee, I hope for all the Arnis peoples' sake that use of a weapon is a martial art.

 

[KennethKu]

and they were defeated, first by the Spanish, then by the Americans, and then by the Japanese Imperial army.....

 

[Kingston]

Originally posted by KennethKu
and they were defeated, first by the Spanish, then by the Americans, and then by the Japanese Imperial army.....

who are you talking about here?

 

[Blindside]

who are you talking about here?

Presumably the Phillipine Islands, using the term "arnis" as a reference point.

Lamont

 

[chufeng]

and they were defeated, first by the Spanish, then by the Americans, and then by the Japanese Imperial army.....

Who was defeated? the Phillipinos or the Mongols?

If you are talking about the Philippinos, we went in to kick the Spanish out...the Philippines then became a "territory" under our protection (we didn't conquer them)...they were offered statehood but chose independance...and that is what we gave them...

Subic Bay was an excellent deep water base which allowed us to have a forward presence in the Pacific (remember WWII) which seemed to be in our interest (remember Pearl Harbor?) especially since the Korean War never officially ended and there is still the concern over China's intent in the Pacific theater, even to this day.
But when we were "asked" to leave, we did...but the Philippinos still wanted American aid...was more than willing to take our cash at the same time they bad-mouthed us...whatever.

If you're talking about the Mongols...you'll have to fill in the details...I don't remember an American/Mongol war...

:asian:
chufeng

 

[chufeng]

As far as the escrimadors, the practitioners of kali, the adepts at arnis go...most people who came up against them, feared them...one on one they were hard to beat...but they never really organized an effective "army" to repel invaders.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by chufeng

But when we were "asked" to leave, we did...but the Philippinos still wanted American aid...was more than willing to take our cash at the same time they bad-mouthed us...whatever.

And to this day it is hard as hell for an American to get a job on an American Naval Base in Asia due to some stupid agreement with the Philippines that lets them take/have most if not all the jobs on base, not to mention they can join our military for 20 years collect a pension and are not required to even become citizens.

 

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by chufeng
Who was defeated? the Phillipinos or the Mongols?

If you are talking about the Philippinos, we went in to kick the Spanish out...the Philippines then became a "territory" under our protection (we didn't conquer them)...they were offered statehood but chose independance...and that is what we gave them...

Of course I was referring to the Philippinoes.

We didn't go in to kick the Spanish out as liberators and offerred the Philippinoes statehood. We took over the colony after defeating the Spanish in the Spanish-American war. It was a war booty.

Later on, we have to send troops to wipe up rebellions by the Philippino tribes. It was then that we found out how nasty the boro can be used. It was also then we discovered that the 45 ammo was needed to stop a fanatic tribeman charging at the troops. I remember reading your post on this episode in some thread about guns and weapons a while back then.

Only after WWII, the Phillipines and most of the colonies in Asia were granted their independence.

 

[chufeng]

The moros looked upon any non-Philippino as an invader.
We certainly occupied the Philippines...after the war with Spain...but still viewed it as a territory...not part of the union.

I won't squabble over semantics...with the exception of Native American lands and Hawaii, we have limited our "colonialism."

:asian:
chufeng

 

[KennethKu]

I agree that the US was never in the same league as the other western powers in colonizing other countries. The Philippines as a colony was by and large a by product of the Spanish-American war, despite some revisionists' allegation that the colony was the real purpose of the US "initiating" the war with Spain.