The History Thread!

Ahh your right. The mortar rounds (bombs) are still older then the U.S. though. The ship mounted mortars were commonly used to shell positions on land or bombard naval forts. I think it was the French actually who first used them.

Today is the anniversary of the end of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Thank goodness for that silver ammunition, eh?

"Fix bayonets! CHAAAAARGE!"

I'll wait for next year to commemorate it with an avvie change. Then it will be the 150th anniversary.

EDIT: how was that a redlink? Ah, well. One serving of redirect magic, coming up.

edited 3rd Jul '12 1:39:04 PM by SabresEdge

Today is also when the US finally gave us independence, in 1946, to coincide with their own. It didn't last long though so we reverted to June 12 as our official "Independence Day".

Philippines?

I'm just wondering, let's suppose that Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan was in the same time period and the former hears that the latter is coming toward his kingdom's direction in advance.

Would good old Alex be able to handle Kenny?

How're their military capabilities?

This is Genghis Khan we're talking about.

Like everyone else did. By dying. :p

edited 9th Jul '12 10:26:29 PM by Zersk

I don't know, Alex might stand a chance. How, though, I am not sure.

Armies aren't everything. When and where they are fighting, whose commanding - those things can make a big difference.

Well this is Genghis Khan. The only thing that can stop him are water and hearts.

Though maybe if Alexander fought him from a boat by throwing hearts at him...

I wouldn't put that past Alexander.

Oh, Alexander! -Laugh track, greek theatre curtains close-

Technologically, the Mongols are pretty far ahead, primarily with their adoption of horse archery and the stirrup, which gave them a stable shooting/fighting platform. There's a lot of factors to consider, really, since maybe 80% of a battle's results are determined beforehand via things like logistics, morale, training, force composition, correlation of forces, et cetera.

A big part of both generals' success came in choosing their battles. Alexander's army was primarily infantry, with smaller combined-arms detachments of cavalry and specialist detachments as needed. Genghis Khan's army was primarily cavalry, with smaller combined-arms detachments and specialist detachments as needed (see a pattern?). The first is an excellent all-arms army; the second, a more mobile force that excels on flat ground but must rely on siege engines and tactical creativity versus dug-in troops.

So in many ways the question is difficult to answer. It's like asking who is better: ski troops or jungle fighters. Genghis Khan is ahead technologically, but not decisively so. Presumably neither general would be willing to engage the other's army on unfavorable terrain (flat ground for the Macedonians, rough terrain for the Mongols). The Mongolian army may be able to exploit their greater mobility strategically and tactically to force a decision on better terrain, but against that are its much higher logistical requirements. A Macedonian phalanx, properly dug in and supported by their own cavalry and skirmishers, would be nearly impossible for horse archers to dislodge; on the other hand, infantry formations, not matter how tough and disciplined, could not hope to pin down and force battle upon a mobile light cavalry force.

edited 10th Jul '12 1:50:11 PM by SabresEdge

So for fun I have been trying to play the Six Degrees of Separation game and find a direct chain between myself and Jesus (obviously the easy way is to go me->any of the many deceased Christians I know->Jesus, but I'm limiting it to meetings that occurred prior to either person's death).

So far I have 17 steps to get from me to the Great Schism in the 1300s, but at that point my chain of Popes and Holy Roman Emperors gets confused and I am having a hard time breaking through to the year 1200. On the other end I can get from Jesus to the Crisis of the 3rd Century in 12 steps (which I feel isn't that good, considering I got twice as far with the same number of links on the modern end) but there I again get stuck.

Any suggestions? I have 1000 years of the Dark Ages to get through.

You are following the line of popes, right? That sounds like you've already picked the surest route, plus minus some cardinals or emperors. If I understand you well, you have a problem proving Pope/Emperor 1 met Pope/Emperor 2, eh?

I might hear tomorrow the news that I'll be doing some research into the history of my local regiments at the local military history museum's archive.

Yeah, my main historical node happens to be Hitler (via Wernher von Braun thanks to having friends and family in the space program), so from him it's pretty easy to hit the Holy Roman Emperors via the Prussian nobility. The problem is that I've dead-ended at Pope Urban VI and the Western Schism. During that time there were a bunch of different popes in different regions and it is hard to prove that any one met the others, especially since many of them were fairly unknown prior to being chosen pope.

I'm thinking that the Parthian Empire might provide a way around the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Actually if I can manage to tie in with the Arabs, I might be able to get through to some of the crusader kings and bypass the papal mess on the other end altogether.

edited 17th Jul '12 6:18:30 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

@Saber- Would Alexander The Great's "mousetrap" tactic work against Genghis? Tbh, I can't imagine Alexander beating Genghis the way he beat the Persians. Alexander The Great's main battle tactic was the Hammer and Anvil.

The Anvil was his phalanxes. The hammer was his cavalry. He would force the enemy infantry into the phalanxes while his horsemen hit them from the side.

As mentioned before, Genghis was very mobile. I just can't see Alexander the Great using the Hammer and Anvil against him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

For the purposes of satisfying my curiosity, aroused by a horrible Lupin III episode, I beseech thee; tell me, who would win in a battle between the forces of the Golden Horde and Yoshitsune and his men?

edited 20th Jul '12 12:36:40 AM by FurikoMaru

Normally I'd say the Golden Horde, but then the Japanese have hurricanes on their side. :/

All right, assume they're on the same landmass for fairness' sake. And the prettyboy of the Minamoto doesn't have to fight fair; IIRC he was skilled at sabotage and ambushes and stuff.

edited 20th Jul '12 12:40:40 AM by FurikoMaru

Ooh, I dunno. o-o Military history isn't exactly my focus-point, usually. >.> My gut tells me the Mongols, though. Because Mongols. :p

I must learn more about this Minamoto person, though! o-o He sounds cool! :D

edited 20th Jul '12 12:42:35 AM by Zersk

Well the Mongols introduced a new way of fighting to the Japanese. Both of their attempted invasions occured during storm season and they lost quite a few forces to the oceans. They still managed to do notable damage before being defeated.

A fully prepared mongol force with the bulk of them intact instead of becoming fish food may have changed things.

Japan would later invade Korea twice and be defeated by the Chinese and Korean forces.

A full power mongol army against the Japanese may have indeed won out.