Talk:Mongol military tactics and organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Related task forces...


	Chinese military history task force

What is the copyright violation? I did not quote the cited article -- it is common knowledge that the army structuring of the Mongol forces were in mandibles of 10; to quote this is not copyright violation! 68.50.125.89 (This was put on the temp page, so I put it here; Algebraist 15:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC))

Hi Algebraist -- I dispute this was a copyright violation -- I know how serious they are, and no one with any decency steals another's scholarship. But when you study the two articles, there is obviously no copyright violation! I worked very hard on my article, and while it agrees in principle with some of the conclusions of the cited copyrighted article, it is not a violation! Most of the similarity centers on the structure of the forces -- and there are not many ways to say that they structured in mandibles of ten, et al! Anyway, I wanted to protest the removal of my legitimate article for a violation that was not one... John

Hi Al! I have created an account, and returned. I hope to convince you there was NO copyright violation in this article. The article you cited as violated was written originally by me -- check the ip address! I worked hard on a summary of Mongol military organization and basic tactics, and the article was genuine, not stolen or plagerized, and I would be grateful if you restored it... Johnny1951 @ j1994r89@hotmail.com

The 'violated' article has the explicit copyright notise: This article was derived fully or in part from the article Mongol invasion of Europe on Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. I don't see how copying this article could be a copyvio. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 17:57, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

1 NO copyright violation
2 blacksmith
3 bows used
4 inaccurate

[edit] NO copyright violation

This article is obviously not a copyright violation, as →Iñgōlemo← points out. It may need some sourcing, and I will begin that in the next few days. I intend to remove the tag, unless someone has problems with the article, other than the sourcing issues, once I rectify that problem.old windy bear 23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blacksmith

blacksmith is nothing to be ashamed of in Mongol society. Iron was considered a sacred substance among the Turks and Mongols. It was associated with heaven. That's why the word iron appears in many names. It was a good luck word.

[1] Turko-Mongol peoples generally revered the blacksmith and two of their greatest heroes Temujin (Genghis Khan) and Timur both had names derived from the word for "blacksmith." The Ghuz Turks in particular where considered practically a blacksmithing people en masse at one time. Wandalstouring 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bows used

On in general. The Mongols used composite reflex bows on horseback and longbows. Wandalstouring 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! You are absolutely right on all points. They did have two bows, and a variety of different arrows to go with them. Also, yes, a blacksmith was nothing to be ashamed of = but the point was that he was not a noblemen or Khan either, yet his son rose to command sons of Khans, and future Khans - he commanded Mongke Khan in the european campaign, and had 4 princes of the blood, including the future Great Khan, and the future Khan of the Kipchak Horde! It was not meant to deinerate blacksmiths, simply to point out that the Mongols promoted pretty much strictly on merit. And Subutai sure merited promotion! On the bows, do you want me to incorporate that into the article, or would you like to? Thanks, old windy bear 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inaccurate

Why don't you learn how to write effectively. You've constructed an essay on what is essentially your opinion with very little to back it up, which is further confounded by using modern terms to describe Mongol forces. I suggest you go back to school and learn the sort of objective techniques which are sorely lacking on this site, or at least try and hide them, and while your at take a course on English. Nobody really cares about your opinion on the Mongol army compared to later European ones either, because it's bollocks, and I bet anybody who reads it knows that your trying to imply that a Mongol army would have been some match for the for the armies of Napoleon or Frederick the Great. unsigned from 81.76.78.46

So what's stopping you from showing us poor amatures how it's done? I love it when anonymous "Pub scholars", who use such complex terms as "bollocks", come here and complain about how bad the writing is, instead of actually improving things themselves. Which part of free and open, don't you understand? If you hate the article, then help us make it better. Otherwise I politely request you go intercourse yourself. Oh and Welcome to Wikipedia.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about this website, nor do I care much about the Mongols. All I want to say is that is that your style writing is disgraceful, and it clearly doesn't fit in with the ethos of this website, and I can say that no matter how much I detest this site. In fact the only reason I'm writing this is so you can see just how idiotic you are, but then again, if your stupid enough to belief everything you read on a website that allows everybody to change the content, you deserve to live in ignorance. What I do care about is the fact that you presumed, along with most other people, that the Mongols could have overrun Europe based on one defeat. Of course what you fail to look at is the fact that Europe was a continent of extreme variation. I'll leave it up to you to figure out the rest of my argument, that way you'll be able to think about it instead instead of just reading and dismissing it.

Apparently we've stumbled on some new form of persuasion here where instead of presenting an argument you omit one and insist that it's the job of those who disagree to build it for you. Curious. siafu 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)