I was reading some stuff.. you know, like you do. Then chatting with friends who own lots them, thar’ fancy reading thingies [Books people..try and keep up]. Watched the above video and got to thinking about how interesting all this is.

It struck me that the Western civilization’s view that the ‘Hero Kings & Conquerors’ which garnered the most square miles of territory might well be wrong when we look at who were the greatest empires. In my mind I knew the Eastern tribal societies raided, conquered and really cut a swathe through Europe but nothing compared to the Western heroes, nor for as long. Of course this is wrong.

In school we learned as a wee lad, and even with some later reading  that the Western idols, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon fared better, did more and were greater? The geographical gains while huge were not truly as impressive as even the Ottomans or Assyrians, in actual fact! Why the inherent bias?

Perhaps it was viewed more of the value of what they subsumed not just total square miles controlled? Above in the video are the Mongols, not too shabby!

That video led me back to the Ed Heinsman article in ATO 18.

Wherein we shall find one of Richard Bergs weakest GHoH battles. Once you get past that mess there is this superb article.

The article kicks off with a table outlining Modern Era and Ancient ‘Empires’ to wit:

Ed looks at 3 attributes,

1] Conquering and maintaining territory,

2] Battlefield prowess

3]  Col. Trevor Dupuy analysis (Numbers, Predictions and War 1979).

In category #1, the Eastern races and Empires ran longer and hotter than any Western conqueror, baring the Romans. The Mongol, had curious leadership decision making cycles that usually involved riding home to work out who was going to be boss man. Thus relinquishing gains and starting over as each new tyrant came to power. Similarly the Ottomans and Arab Empires lasted for almost ever!

In #2 the Mongols have a track record second only to Alexander in ancient times with a winning percentage of .688, over far more major battles. Interestingly the Persians came last with .20 and Romans rank high with .625. What a fascinating topic to explore right there!

The final element deals in combat power potential. This all get a bit mathematical as you compare potentialities across massively disparate technological epochs. Thus a 15,00 man Panzer Division would have the combat potential 10x 10,000 Mongol Touman (mounted) troops. The point here is man for man in the Ancient era not much matched up against these bow, lance and sword equipped bad asses. But modern weapons were a massive multiplier, and thus this adjusted rankings significantly. We can look at the modern era a bit later.

Other factors are also measurable. The social, scientific, economic and cultural impact of an empire is a measure of its success also and often harder to measure or appreciate. This is why perhaps the Romans and Greeks are recognized. They along with Persian’s had lasting timeless affects on civilization. Where the Mongols, largely live and let live in a tribute based manner. They had limited impact on science, culture or economics. Innovation was not prized that I have read.

Other Modern Empires not on this list; the British Empire, the Japanese Empire deserve assessment as well. But for arguments sake we should explore the military aspects that we can of the Mongols and at the very least understand why they evoked such fear and awe.

It might be interesting to play a few battles featuring the Mongols. Lets explore what these chaps were all about!

2nd Homs  is massive… but lets do it. Why not!

The most likely battles to try are of course a nice small one to get started then a larger more complex gig. So if we go out of chronological order [shock horror] Liegnitz would be good. Its also the high water mark of the Mongol push in that century.

There is a 3rd battle that interests me but lets see how we feel after these two battles.

The reception of this title has been softer than some other GBoH titles. I sense that past players disliked this module. I don’t yet know why. Cavalry heavy perhaps? Clunky rules? This is the last title before Berg evolved the MOI system and brought it out with Men of Iron and Infidel. Perhaps this suffers from period creep. More on that later. For now lets play thru some Mongol era battles and see what they had going for themselves.

I don’t currently know any Operational or Strategic games that service this Mongol period.

Do you?