UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Who were the best Ancient Warriors OG?


3/27/13 5:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8148

 

Tactics and Campaigning
 
Because the modus operandi of Rangers remained unknown to the bulk of the regular army, Rogers was ordered in 1757 to pen a compendium of “rules, or plan of discipline,” for those “Gentlemen Officers” who wanted to learn Ranger methods. To ensure that the lessons were properly understood, 50 regular volunteers from eight regiments formed a special company to fall under Rogers’ tutelage. His job was to instruct them in “our methods of marching, retreating, ambushing, fighting, &c.” Many of these rules, totaling 28 in number, were essentially derived from old Indian tactics and techniques, and were well known to New England frontiersmen.
 
Rule II, for instance, specified that if your scouting party was small, “march in a single file, keeping at such a distance from each other as to prevent one shot from killing two men.” Rule V recommended that a party leaving enemy country should return home by a different route, to avoid being ambushed on its own tracks. Rule X warned that if the enemy was about to overwhelm you, “let the whole body disperse, and every one take a different road to the place of rendezvous appointed for the evening.”
 
Other rules required that even the most proficient recruit had to undergo special training in bush-fighting tactics. If 300–400 Rangers were marching “with a design to attack the enemy,” noted Rule VI, “divide your party into three columns … and let the columns march in single files, the columns to the right and left keeping at twenty yards [20m] distance or more from that of the center,” with proper guards in front, rear, and on the flanks. If attacked in front, “form a front of your three columns or main body with the advanced guard, keeping out your flanking parties … to prevent the enemy from pursuing hard on either of your wings, or surrounding you, which is the usual method of the savages.”
 
Rule VII advised the Rangers to “fall, or squat down,” if forced to take the enemy’s first fire, and “then rise and discharge at them.” Rule IX suggested that “if you are obliged to retreat, let the front of your whole party fire and fall back, till the rear hath done the same, making for the best ground you can, by this means you will oblige the, enemy to pursue you, if they do it at all, in the face of a constant fire.”
 
Most of Rogers’ activities during the war consisted not of battles and skirmishes but of lightning raids, pursuits, and other special operations. As General Shirley’s 1756 orders stated, Rogers was “to use my best endeavors to distress the French and their allies, by sacking, burning, and destroying their houses, barns, barracks, canoes, battoes, &c.”The “&c” included slaughtering the enemy’s herds of cattle and horses, ambushing and destroying his provision sleighs, setting fire to his fields of grain and piles of cordwood, sneaking into the ditches of his forts to make observations, and seizing prisoners for interrogation.
 
When the big armies under Johnson, Abercromby, Forbes, Wolfe, Amherst, Bouquet, and others marched into enemy territory, Rangers acted as advanced and flank guards, often engaging and repulsing the kind of partisan attacks that had destroyed Braddock’s force. One imperative in bush fighting was camouflage; for Rogers’ men, green attire was a constant throughout the war. Other Anglo-American irregulars, like Gage’s 80th Light Infantry and Putnam’s Connecticut Rangers, wore brown. Some, like Bradstreet’s armed bateau men and Dunn’s New Jersey Rangers, wore gray. A few Ranger companies in Nova Scotia wore dark blue or black.
 
Green may have been their color of choice, but Rogers’ men never enjoyed a consistent uniform pattern throughout their five-year career, as the regulars and some provincial regiments did. On campaign with Rogers in Nova Scotia in July 1757, a Derryfield farmer-turned-Ranger would have been dressed in “no particular uniform,” according to observer Captain John Knox of the 46th, who added that each Ranger wore his “cloaths short.” This probably signified a variety of coats, jackets, waistcoats, or just shirts, all deliberately trimmed to make them lighter. In the field, the Rangers often resembled Indians, exhibiting a “cut-throat, savage appearance,” as one writer at Louisbourg recorded in 1758.
 
3/27/13 5:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8149

 

 
Among the many perils facing a Ranger assigned to a winter scout in the Adirondack Mountains were temperatures sometimes reaching 40 degrees below zero, snowblindness, bleeding feet, hypothermia, frostbite, gangrene, and lost fingers, toes, and noses. Deep slush often layered the frozen lakes, and sometimes a man would fall through a hole in the ice. Rogers routinely sent back those who began limping or complaining during the first days on the trail. Things only got more onerous as they neared the enemy forts: fireless camps had to be endured, unless they found a depression on a high ridge where a deep hole could be scooped out with snowshoes to accommodate a small fire. Around this were arrayed shelters of pine boughs, each containing “mattresses” of evergreen branches overlaid with bearskins. Wrapped in their blankets like human cocoons, the Rangers would dangle their feet over the flames or coals to spend a tolerably comfortable night.
 
Guarding the Ranger camp in no-man’s land or enemy country required sentry parties numbering six men each, “two of whom must be constantly alert,” noted Rogers, “and when relieved by their fellows, it should be done without noise.” When dawn broke, the entire detachment was awakened, “that being the time when the savages chuse to fall upon their enemies.” Before setting out again, the area around the campsite was probed for enemy tracks.
 
Drawing provisions, bedding, and extra clothing on hand-sleds prevented the menfrom burning too many calories and exuding dangerously excessive sweat. Expert snowshoers, they could nimbly climb “over several large mountains” in one day, as provincial Jeduthan Baldwin did on a trek with Rogers in March 1756. Aside from additional warm wear such as flannel under jackets, woolen socks, shoepack liners, fur caps, and thick mittens, the marching winter Rangers wore their blankets wrapped, belted, and sometimes hooded around them, much as the Indians did.
 
Battling the French and Indians in snow that was often chest-deep could be lethal for a Ranger with a broken snowshoe. Ironically, the green clothing worn by Rogers’ men proved a liability when they had a white slope of snow behind them. According to Captain Pringle, during the 1758 battle on Snowshoes, Rogers’ servant was forced to lay “aside his green jacket in the field, as I did likewise my furred Cap, which became a mark to the enemy, and probably was the cause of a slight wound in my face.” Pringle, “unaccustomed to Snow-Shoes,” found himself unable to join the surviving Rangers in their retreat at battle’s end. He and two other men endured seven days of wandering the white forest before surrendering to the French.
 
Given the nature of their operations, the Rangers had to be particularly disciplined with their rations. On a winter trek in 1759, Ranger sutler James Gordon wrote, “I had a pound or two of bread, a dozen crackers, about two [pounds of] fresh pork and a quart of brandy.” Henry Pringle survived his post-battle ordeal in the forest by subsisting on “a small Bologna sausage, and a little ginger … water, & the bark & berries of trees.” Also eaten was the Indians’ favorite trail food, parched corn – corn that had been parched and then pounded into flour. It was in effect an appetite suppressant: a spoonful of it, followed by a drink of water, expanded in the stomach, making the traveler feel as though he had consumed a large meal.
 
Obtaining food from the enemy helped sustain Rangers on their return home. Slaughtered cattle herds at Ticonderoga and Crown Point provided tongues (“a very great refreshment,” noted Rogers). David Perry and several other Rangers of Captain Moses Hazen’s company raided a French house near Quebec in 1759, finding “plenty of pickled Salmon, which was quite a rarity to most of us.” In another house they dined on “hasty-pudding.” At St Francis, Rogers’ men packed corn for the long march back, but after eight days, he wrote, their “provisions grew scarce.” For some reason game was also scarce in the northern New England wilderness during the fall of 1759, and the Rangers’ survival skills underwent severe tests even as they were being pursued by a vengeful enemy. Now and then they found an owl, partridge, or muskrat to shoot, but much of the time they dined on amphibians, mushrooms, beech leaves, and tree bark. Volunteer Robert Kirk of the 77th Highland Regiment wrote that “we were obliged to scrape under the snow for acorns, and even to eat our shoes and belts, and broil our powder-horns and thought it delicious eating.”
 
Things grew so desperate that some Rangers roasted Abenaki bounty scalps for the little circles of flesh they held. One small party of Rangers and light infantry was ambushed and almost entirely destroyed by the French and Indians. When other Rangers discovered the bodies, “on them, accordingly, they fell like Cannibals, and devoured part of them raw,” stuffing the remaining flesh, including heads, into their packs. One Ranger later confessed that he and his starving comrades “hardly deserved the name of human beings.”
3/27/13 5:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cheesesteak
242 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/23/02
Posts: 5452

The Eternians!!!!

 

 

3/27/13 5:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8150

 

Other Campaign Challenges
 
“We are in a most damnable country,” wrote a lieutenant of the 55th Foot at Lake George in 1758, “fit only for wolves, and its native savages.” In such a demanding environment the Rangers were constantly being pushed to their physical and psychological limits, especially when captives of the enemy. Teenager Thomas Brown, bleeding profusely from three bullet holes after Rogers’ January 1757 battle near Ticonderoga, “concluded, if possible, to crawl into the Woods and there die of my Wounds.” Taken prisoner by Indians, who often threatened his life, he was forced to dance around a fellow Ranger who was being slowly tortured at a stake. Recovering from his wounds, Brown was later traded to a Canadian merchant, with whom he “fared no better than a Slave,” before making his escape. Captain Israel Putnam himself was once saved from a burning stake by the last-minute intervention of a Canadian officer. Ranger William Moore had the heart of a slain comrade forced into his mouth. Later, he had some 200 pine splints stuck into his body, each one about to be set afire by his captors, when a woman of the tribe announced she would adopt him. Two captured Indian Rangers were shackled with irons and shipped to France, where they were sold into “extreme hard labor.”
 
Tasks that might appear Herculean to others were strictly routine for the Rangers. In July 1756, Rogers and his men chopped open a 6-mile (10km) path across the forested mountains between Lake George and Wood Creek, then hauled five armed whaleboats over it to make a raid on French shipping on Lake Champlain. On their march to St Francis, the Rangers sloshed for nine days through a bog in which they “could scarcely get a Dry Place to sleep on.” Rogers himself is said to have escaped pursuing Indians after his March 1758 battle by sliding down a smooth mountain slope nearly 700ft (210m) long. His four-month mission to Detroit and back in 1760 covered over 1,600 miles (2,500km), one of the most remarkable expeditions in all American history.
 
At campaign’s end, of course, there were rewards to be enjoyed. In late August 1758, Rogers gave his company “a barrell of Wine treat,” and after a large bonfire was lit, the men “played round it” in celebration of recent British victories. As the Richelieu Valley was being swept of French troops in 1760, provincial captain Samuel Jenks wrote with delight, “Our Rangers … inform us the ladys are very kind in the neighbourhood, which seems we shall fare better when we git into the thick setled parts of the country.” Natural wonders previously unseen by any British soldiers, including Niagara Falls, awaited the 200 Rangers who followed Rogers that year to lay claim to Canada’s Great Lakes country for England, and to win the friendship of some of the very tribes they had so often fought.
3/27/13 5:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8151

 

 

A private in Captain John Lovewell’s New England Ranger Company, 1725. In his clothing and equipment, this private exemplifies the hybrid European/Indian composition of Lovewell’s men. Note the Indian toboggan, usually made of two planks of green spruce, birch, or elm wood that were lashed together with rawhide. Image credit: Gary Zaboly/Osprey Publishing. Caption credit: America’s Elite by Chris McNab.
3/27/13 5:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8152

 

 
A depiction of Rogers’ Rangers, as they would have been seen c.1760. The green uniforms in themselves were something of a revolution, as they constituted an early form of camouflage and were an indication of the value the Rangers placed on concealability. Image credit: National Archives. Caption credit: America's Elite by Chris McNab.
3/27/13 5:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8153

 

Rangers conduct a perimeter defense, La Barbue Creek, 1757. The Indian tactic of two men defending a tree, with one of them firing while the other reloads, had been sensibly adopted by many white frontier soldiers. One of the foreground Rangers spits a musket ball into the barrel of his musket, which speeded up the loading process (as many as six to eight bullets could be held in the mouth). Image credit: Gary Zaboly/Osprey Publishing. Caption Credit: America’s Elite by Chris McNab.
 
3/27/13 5:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8154

 

Excellent marksmanship, aside from scoutcraft and daring, is what made the best Rangers. Former hunters and trappers most of them, they understood how a single well-aimed shot might alter the course of a skirmish or battle in the forest. Robert Rogers instructed his companies to practice firing at marks so frequently that at least one British commander, Lieutenant-Colonel William Haviland, scolded him, considering it an “extravagance in Ammunition.” Image credit: Gary Zaboly/Osprey Publishing. Caption credit: America’s Elite by Chris McNab.
 
3/28/13 6:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8157

How Alexander looked

3/28/13 11:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11381

Caesar was an awesome general.  Taking out Pompey in Greece was an incredible feat. I just think he was a douche as a person. Pompey did have numbers but a lot of them were recent recruits where as Caesar was rolling with veterans. Still, almost 2-1 manpower against a good commader in Pompey and Caesar won. Its impressive.

 

William the Conqueror, I'm not a fan because,like Caesar, I think he was a cunt. Harold Godwinson had to march north, defeat Harald Hardrada and a Viking army then do a forced march to meet fat Billy at Hastings and still almost beat him. Godwinson also has an epic piece of smack talk on his side. When Hardrada asked what he'd be willing to give the Vikings so they wouldn't attack, he replied "I'll give you 7 feet of dirt since Harald is taller than most". like Vercingetorix, its interesting to think how the world would be different if Harold Godwinson hadn't caugh an arrow to the face and his army broken down when they heard he fell. Until then, they were whipping the Normans.

3/29/13 8:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8158

^ Who were regarded to be the better warriors, the Celts or the Germans? I know that the Celts were beastly when it came to skirmishes or one v one fights - but in a large scale war, they were erratic...and problematic. As you said, trying to organize them into a real fighting force was like herding cats. Arminius organized the Germanic tribes into one large fighting force and they proceeded to fuck the Romans in the Teutoburg forest.

3/29/13 9:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sawdusk
39 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/4/03
Posts: 6375
interesting info on the Rogers’ Rangers, LM... had never read about them....always fascinating to read about early special forces...

Mick,

just out of curiosity, what about caesar have you heard or read that makes him douchy, to you? I personally distance myself from any judgements about these men due to the times being what they were and not believing we can really put ourselves into their shoes as far as ethics and morality...

but caesar, from what I've read, and he has been in my sights lately, has been one of the more impressive figures... while I wouldn't claim to be able to gauge his true motives (probably power like everyone else), he truly acted like a man of the people... he made a career of fighting for the people (again, whether this was just a platform for power, who knows), and all his political laws supported this philosophy... he fought against the nobility and wanted better conditions for the lower class and soldiers...

his clemency, particularly with the gauls, was unheard of (and would continually bite him in the ass as he would be repeatedly fighting the same foes multiple times after being too lenient with terms after originally defeated them) but would eventually become what we'd call today a genocide (but then again, just about every conqueror would have to plead guilty to that as well)...

I have read extensively about his life up to the gaul campaign, which I'm on right now and have yet to come across any material which would make me "dislike" him, but again, I don't "like or dislike" these figures as much as try and gather facts about their accomplishments and ability...
3/29/13 9:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8159

^ thanks man, I know you're a fan of Caesar - I fount this youtube page where the guy reconstructs Ancient (for a lack of a better word) people's faces. I Already posted the Alexander video, Here's what Julius Caesar looked like.

3/29/13 10:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sawdusk
39 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/4/03
Posts: 6376
good stuff, LM... and below is a thread you may not have been aware of but has some outstanding images and info on reputably alexander the great relics...

thread title:
Alexander the Great shield and helmet *pics*

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/ns/mma.cfm?go=forum_framed.posts&thread=2112931&forum=2&page=1

3/29/13 11:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8160
sawdusk - good stuff, LM... and below is a thread you may not have been aware of but has some outstanding images and info on reputably alexander the great relics...

thread title:
Alexander the Great shield and helmet *pics*

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/ns/mma.cfm?go=forum_framed.posts&thread=2112931&forum=2&page=1


Thanks for the heads up....over the past couple of weeks, I've become enamored with Alexander.

3/29/13 2:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11387

"Mick,just out of curiosity, what about caesar have you heard or read that makes him douchy, to you?"

 

Well, from my experience, whenever a guy claims to be a man of the people, for the people, he has a hand in your pocket. Caesar would do all sorts of things to win the hearts of the Plebes but it wasn't because he loved them. He just knew he needed them to love him since he had made the Senate and political classes hate him.

 Caesar was from a noble family but, because of politics and such, lost his money and inheritance as a teenager. After that, you can follow the money and follow Julius. When he left for a military post in Spain, he was so in debt that he had to stay in the military since a soldier/officer could not be tried for neglecting their debts. The first thing he did when he got to Spain was attack a couple Iberian tribes. That's a nice way to make some money. You take what they have and sell the survivors as slaves. Its all profit.

When Caesar became part of the first Triumverate, he had public lands given to the poor. Which was nice, but it was something that had to be done. When Hannibal was running around the boot, lots of farmers gave their land to the state and moved to the protection of cities. That caused problems. But, it made the common folk think he gave a shit about them when reality was that it was something that had to be done eventually. His Consulship was shady as hell. He was part of the first Triumverate but he was the weakest of the three. Pompey and Crassus were both loaded compared to him. So, after his consulship, he took a post to govern Cisalpine Gaul in Northern Italy. And, as we mentioned, raiding provides 1)Loot 2) fame and 3) Slaves. Which, for a poor politician, is awesome.

Further up in Gaul, there was a battle between a Celt/Gaul force against a Celt and German army that was causing some hackles to be raised. The Gauls who lost asked Rome for help. Caesar took his legions North and raised hell. For 8 years, Caesar attacked anything that looked at him cross-eyed. Were there armies to fight? Sure. But there were towns to sack, trading posts to loot,slaves to be grabbed,etc... And remember, Caesar was beyond poor as he entered Gaul. He was in debt and owed money to all sorts, including Crassus. He went North to make money. He was going to grab what he could and sell people as slaves. Now, we can sit in modernity and say "well, we can't judge him, look at the times." but people at the time knew what he was doing and condemned him for it. Other Romans, Senators,etc... called him out for being a brutal prick. The other problem with what he was doing was he was destroying local markets by flooding them with metal, slaves and other stuff being sent South. So he was fucking the middle class of Rome as well but the lower classes would have loved him because it made stuff cheaper. 

 

  One of the major reasons he wrote his letters that became the "Gallic Wars" collection was basically to cover up why he was there and to make it seem like he was fighting for the Roman people. Some people think over a million civilians and hundreds of towns were greased by Caesar on his rampage through Gaul. And that doesn't count the civilians who would become refugees, die from starvation,etc.. In his missives sent home, he NEVER mentions what happens to the plunder and slaves he and his army acquired. Like a kid caught with chocolate all over his face and an empty cookie bag.

 

  Now, we've established Caesar got up to stuff in Gaul and we've also established the Romans hated the Celts. One of the reasons Caesar didn't want to enter Rome without troops after his Governership had ended was because some senators wanted him arrested for war crimes against the Gauls. Think about how awful the stories about what he'd done have been like for people to think he committed war crimes.

  By crossing the Rubicon with an army, he basically declared war on the Roman Republic. On his own people. Because he was a rich kid who became poor and made himself rich again by underhanded means and was afraid of being called out on his actions. 

3/29/13 3:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sawdusk
39 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/4/03
Posts: 6378
mick, great post... and thanks for typing it out... it is consistent with everything I've been reading which are from the sources of the time (though many historians I've read defended caesar of not crossing the rubicon and extending his gaul campaign because it was the boni who stood to lose the most should he come into power in rome, and they used the gallic wars as their cause for trying caesar with the hopes of having him exiled)...

if I was to defend caesar (which I'm not because I have no interest in liking or disliking him, just an interest in learning about him and his era), I would say that going to war for booty and slaves would have been the motivation behind about 50-70% of the ancient wars I've read about... up to caesar and beyond to ghengis...

in fact in rome, it was so expensive becoming consul (going through all the political career stages necessary which came at a considerable cost) that the reward was basically to be granted a governship of a province after the year as consul, where it was expected and accepted to recoup one's finances via going to war to expand the province while continuing to tax the current province (and of course kicking back to the treasury of rome)...

those who squeezed the province too much were not looked favorably upon and perhaps that's what caesar ended up doing in gaul... I have not caught up to the completion of that campaign...

one of the more interesting tidbits about his war with pompey that said a lot about his ability to inspire troops was that there was nothing in this war for them (whereas pompey paid his)... there was no slaves or booty to be had... they were going against their brothers in what they knew would be a tough battle with nothing to gain afterwards... and it's of course a lot easier to spur troops on with the promise of slaves and spoils should they win, which was the norm...

any ways... have enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, take care...
3/29/13 4:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8166

For those who are too lazy to watch the vid

3/29/13 5:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Triple_B
15 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/25/11
Posts: 607
Lord Nitemare - 

^ correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Huns were Caucasians?

 


They are believed to be related to the Mongols and other Central Asian peoples actually. It is theorized that they were originally part of the Xiongnu (pronounced Hung-no) Confederation, an ancient nomadic confederation (the first of its kind in the steppes) that sprawled from Central Asia to Manchuria, including parts of Siberia. Everything we know about them is from Chinese sources. Still alot of mystery surrounding them. They were the reason China began construction on The Great Wall.

Unfortunately other than the similar pronunciation and some similarities in artifacts there isn't alot of evidence linking them.

After that The Romans mention a people called the Hunnoi that settled near the Caspian Sea. Once again, no one is 100% sure that these are the same Huns of Attlia

What we know for sure is that The Huns migrated to a region east of the Volga River near the Caucasus in the 4th century AD. They crossed The Volga and subjugated The Alans soon after. It is theorized that they were forced to migrate towards Europa by The Rouran Khaganate.
3/29/13 5:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8168
Triple_B - 
Lord Nitemare - 

^ correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Huns were Caucasians?

 


They are believed to be related to the Mongols and other Central Asian peoples actually. It is theorized that they were originally part of the Xiongnu (pronounced Hung-no) Confederation, an ancient nomadic confederation (the first of its kind in the steppes) that sprawled from Central Asia to Manchuria, including parts of Siberia. Everything we know about them is from Chinese sources. Still alot of mystery surrounding them. They were the reason China began construction on The Great Wall.

Unfortunately other than the similar pronunciation and some similarities in artifacts there isn't alot of evidence linking them.

After that The Romans mention a people called the Hunnoi that settled near the Caspian Sea. Once again, no one is 100% sure that these are the same Huns of Attlia

What we know for sure is that The Huns migrated to a region east of the Volga River near the Caucasus in the 4th century AD. They crossed The Volga and subjugated The Alans soon after. It is theorized that they were forced to migrate towards Europa by The Rouran Khaganate.

Good post voted up

 

on another note, I have just recently been enlightened to the fact that Genghis/Temujin actually had Caucasian characteristics - those being he had red hair, green eyes, fair skin and rather tall. Can you guys provide any validity to those statements?

3/29/13 5:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Triple_B
15 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/25/11
Posts: 608
lars_schifinkter - 
Lord Nitemare - 

^ please explain, again, was he really better than a Hannibal, a Scipio, or a Caesar? 


Hannibal lost.

Ghengis was always outnumbered. His army never reached more than 200 000 men for sure, and 110 000 is a more realistic number. He destroyed the army of North China, the most advanced military in the world at the time. Against Samarkand he faced at least 400 000 soldiers and destroyed them all.

His force was the most mobile the world has ever seen. They were literally the fastest army in the world, employing the most sophisticated supply and messaging system around. Each warrior had 3-4 horses in supply. His messaging stations allowed a rider to carry a message as far as 200 km in a single day.

As mentioned, his secondary generals, whom he is directly responsible for training and appointing, were also two of the greatest tacticians of all time. Subotai led 20 000 men around the Caspian see on a reconnaissance mission and ended up bringing Kievian Rus and the Kipchhaks to their knees. On one battle, Subotai harrassed 60 000 Russian and Kipchak forces into engaging him for nine days, with only 2 000 of his men. They led them to the other 18 000 who literally destroyed them in a hail of arrows.

That's one battle, over 9 days, outnumbered 3:1. On a scouting mission.

He was the master of both battle in the open field and siege tactics. His seige of what is now Beijing is legendary.

BBC Ghengis Khan is a great doc for you to watch.

And of course there is no way to tell who was really the best general. I wouldn't want to fight against any of those men.

To be honest he was often outnumbered by much more. The Mongols were nomadic barbarians and much of what we know about them is from the sources of their sedentary conquered foes. Something that is rarely mentioned, but has been proven is the use of dummy soldiers by The Mongol forces.

Being a nomadic society that relied on horses for their well being, A Mongol soldier would often travel with an extra horse or two. These spare horses were used prior to battle to deceive their enemies. What they would do is craft very crude dummies, place them on a horse, and put a torch on the dummy. Viewed from a distance at night, a small organized army of 40,000 could appear to be a massive force 80,000 or over 100,000.

Just to make sure the trick would work The Mongols would often dispatch spies prior to the arrival of their army. These spies would pose as members of the population or travelers and spread panic by saying a blood thirsty Mongol army of 100,000 was approaching.

The Mongols would attack a demoralized force and if their opposition realized they were being beaten down by an army much smaller than their own it was already to late.

This was used to great effect during Genghis Khan's campaign against the Khwarezmid Empire in which Genghis Khan overcame a force of 400,000 with a poorly rested army totaling less than 100,000 that was split up into smaller divisions. Still think he doesn't belong in the same sentence as Hannibal or Scipio Africanus?
3/29/13 5:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Triple_B
15 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/25/11
Posts: 609
Lord Nitemare - 
Triple_B - 
Lord Nitemare - 

^ correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Huns were Caucasians?

 


They are believed to be related to the Mongols and other Central Asian peoples actually. It is theorized that they were originally part of the Xiongnu (pronounced Hung-no) Confederation, an ancient nomadic confederation (the first of its kind in the steppes) that sprawled from Central Asia to Manchuria, including parts of Siberia. Everything we know about them is from Chinese sources. Still alot of mystery surrounding them. They were the reason China began construction on The Great Wall.

Unfortunately other than the similar pronunciation and some similarities in artifacts there isn't alot of evidence linking them.

After that The Romans mention a people called the Hunnoi that settled near the Caspian Sea. Once again, no one is 100% sure that these are the same Huns of Attlia

What we know for sure is that The Huns migrated to a region east of the Volga River near the Caucasus in the 4th century AD. They crossed The Volga and subjugated The Alans soon after. It is theorized that they were forced to migrate towards Europa by The Rouran Khaganate.

Good post voted up

 

on another note, I have just recently been enlightened to the fact that Genghis/Temujin actually had Caucasian characteristics - those being he had red hair, green eyes, fair skin and rather tall. Can you guys provide any validity to those statements?


Some sources have described Hunnic peoples as having both red hair and green eyes. IIRC Attila was said to have red hair and fair skin, not sure about the eyes though. The same has also been said about The Xiongnu and other Central Asian peoples. You have to realize that Central Asia is very diverse racially and these people have been breeding with each other for along time. It is a large area. When you take into account all the conquering and breeding Mongols did I'm sure you would find plenty of people with the traits you mentioned. You would also find alot of people with the black hair and short noses associated with Mongols traditionally and everything in between.

In the modern day green eyes and red hair is most widely seen in the Uzbek people of Uzbekistan as far as Central Asia is concerned.

As for being tall, you have to realize that growing in a nomadic society on The Steppe means you are most likely bow legged from riding horses and you grew up wrestling. I sincerely doubt many of the ancient people that resided in steppes stood tall and upright in their day.
3/29/13 9:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8172

^ voted up, good post

3/29/13 9:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
345 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8173

Fuck, I already voted you up....I'll do it tomorrow 

3/29/13 10:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11393

"one of the more interesting tidbits about his war with pompey that said a lot about his ability to inspire troops was that there was nothing in this war for them (whereas pompey paid his)... there was no slaves or booty to be had... they were going against their brothers in what they knew would be a tough battle with nothing to gain afterwards... and it's of course a lot easier to spur troops on with the promise of slaves and spoils should they win, which was the norm..."

 

JCaesar was a fantastic leader. His charge at Alesia prevented a potential Roman defeat. His soldiers were super loyal to him. Caesar had a lot of admirable qualities. Its why so many people over the centuries talk about him to this day. I just think he was a douchebag. Its a personal opinion thing.

 

On a side note, here's a picture of a Polish Winged Hussar. I always thought they were cool. They'd charge with the winged armor and it must have been awesome to see.


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.