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



## believer (May 26, 2003)

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??


----------



## Kingston (May 26, 2003)

Iv heard of mongolian wrestling of some kind. But thats as far as my knowledge of that goes.

the mongols beat the chinese (and everyone else for that matter) using there 'superior' horseback archery skills and tactics(of course there's much more to it), not to mention they where almost bread to kill *****. lol, mongolia was not originaly located south of china......what history books are you reading lol? How old are you?


----------



## believer (May 26, 2003)

hey thanks, just wanted to know.

whoops, i didnt mean to type that, lemme edit that right now, I get my history off of the internet, so yeah, i do remember a lot of bullsh1t thats not true. Didn't I say, "i think that.......".

age= teen, lol


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (May 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by believer _
> *its wierd, i try looking up mongolian martial arts.......but I cant find anything...Was there a martial art for the ancient mongols?? *


Matt Furey has a video on Mongolian wrestling.
www.mattfurey.com :asian: 

Trying to avoid life's potholes,
Randy Strausbaugh


----------



## Blindside (May 26, 2003)

Well, the mongols defeated dang near everybody they went up against.  They did it with superior tactics, superior mobility, superior organization, and superior logistics.  To be fair to all of the conquered nations, horse nomads have given "civilized" countries fits throughout history.   

If I recall they were defeated in Japan (twice), mostly due to bad weather and the necessity of having to cross a little obstacle called the Sea of Japan.  They lost agaisnt the Mamlukes in Syria, They lost decisively against the Byzantines, though the mongol empire was well into decline at that point.

Incidentally, Poland still celebrates April 9 as the day they turned back the Mongols, but they actually decisively lost the battle.  That whole attack was a diversion to free up Subotai's southern armies.

Ok, I got sidetracked, what was the question?

Lamont


----------



## believer (May 26, 2003)

> If I recall they were defeated in Japan (twice), mostly due to bad weather and the necessity of having to cross a little obstacle called the Sea of Japan. They lost agaisnt the Mamlukes in Syria, They lost decisively against the Byzantines, though the mongol empire was well into decline at that point.



They also invaded germany too didnt they, but didnt keep it for very long?? (this is a question, so if im wrong dont kill me, lol)


----------



## chufeng (May 26, 2003)

It was the fear of a Mongol attack that prompted the building of the Great Wall (The only human made structure visible from space (without special spy satellite technology)).

Tactics, archery, swordsmanship...I doubt that wrestling had much to do with it...The mongol sword is what spurred an interest in revising the old Chinese Dao...the result is what we now call a broadsword.

A trivial point...the Mongols were not defeated by the Japanese, they never made it to Japan in any great number because of a typhoon...when they rebuilt their Navy and tried again, the same thing happened...after that, they gave up on trying...the Japanese called the tremendous storms Kamikaze...Divine Wind...and that is the reason the suicide pilots were given the name Kamikaze during WWII...the Japanese hoped that the suicide dive-bombers would turn back the enemy as the typhoons did during the attempted Mongol invasions.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## yilisifu (May 29, 2003)

In single combat, the Mongols were tough but not much more so than the next guy.

But...

Their battle tactics is what brought them victory after victory.  You couldn't fight just one Mongol at a time...


----------



## chufeng (May 29, 2003)

Sort of like taking on the Hatfields or McCoys...


----------



## Jill666 (May 30, 2003)

Now you know I couldn't resist.


----------



## Blindside (May 30, 2003)

> They also invaded germany too didnt they, but didnt keep it for very long?? (this is a question, so if im wrong dont kill me, lol)



I seem to recall they reached "the central German states" but I'm not sure exactly what that means given modern geographic boundaries.  I presume that this was at the same time as the Hungary campaign and they abandoned both regions when they pulled out.  I'm going to have to go back and reread some of my historical material to answer this more fully.

Lamont


----------



## Elfan (May 30, 2003)

> _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 mongols trained their soldiers in "martial" (pertaining to war) skills.  Just like any army would.


----------



## yilisifu (May 30, 2003)

I understand that they were particularly skilled with the bow (even though the Mongol bow is quite short) and very good at wielding their broadswords from horseback.


----------



## chufeng (May 30, 2003)

> even though the Mongol bow is quite short



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 read an article on it in the Smithsonian magazine a couple of years back...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## chufeng (May 30, 2003)

> Or Yili practitioners...
> 
> Now you know I couldn't resist.



No offense taken...
...but a family do have to stick t'gether

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## yilisifu (May 31, 2003)

Yup.  An' we'uns all be kinfolk.....


----------



## KennethKu (May 31, 2003)

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.

Military warfare is not martial art.


----------



## MartialArtist (Jun 1, 2003)

Mongols:

Speed, Agility, Accuracy, Precision, Adeptness, and Clever Tactics

That is the reason why they won.  The Mongols (cavalry) were known for their hit and fade tactics.  Fire a shower of arrows, run, fire again.  They will circle, fire, move.  Run, lead them to a valley, where other Mongols would lie in wait and cut them off.  Plus, China was "weak" in the sense that they weren't prepared for the Mongols and underestimated them.  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.


----------



## zen_hydra (Jun 2, 2003)

The problem lies in the way one defines martial arts, or wushu.  Unarmed combat arts certainly can be considered martial arts, along with fencing, spear, and stick fighting.  The feudal Japanese considered swimming, horsemanship, running, and the like to be separate martial arts as well.  Anything war related that one practiced to the point of form beyond function, can be considered a martial art.  So certainly the Golden Horde's war-like ways could be considered their highest art.  They're entire culture revolved around conquest.  Just as a great rifleman or artillerist could be considered a martial artist.  At least that is my opinion on the matter.


----------



## KennethKu (Jun 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MartialArtist _
> *Mongols:
> 
> Speed, Agility, Accuracy, Precision, Adeptness, and Clever Tactics
> ...



There was more. Genghis Khan made extensive use of intelligence network and communication network. Before attacking, the Mongols sent out many spies to gather all kind of intelligence and to spread rumours. These spies infiltrated as travelling merchants. 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?  To rule the conquered land, Genghis Khan created his Pony Express network of messengers.  Any rebellion was quickly noticed and the troublesome rebels quickly put to the sword.  Genghis Khan was never shy to adapt new siege technology from the conquered. There wasn't this "Not Invented Here" self-defeating mind-block.

In short, the secret of the Mongols was their use of intelligence network, and their efficient Command and Control network. Genghis Khan was a military genius way ahead of his time.


----------



## Zepp (Jun 2, 2003)

> _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 (Jun 2, 2003)

> 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 (Jun 2, 2003)

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.
> 
> ...



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

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Jun 2, 2003)

> _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 (Jun 2, 2003)

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


----------



## RyuShiKan (Jun 2, 2003)

> _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 (Jun 2, 2003)

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 (Jun 2, 2003)

> _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 (Jun 3, 2003)

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


----------



## Kingston (Jun 3, 2003)

> _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 (Jun 3, 2003)

> who are you talking about here?



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

Lamont


----------



## chufeng (Jun 3, 2003)

> 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 (Jun 3, 2003)

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 (Jun 3, 2003)

> _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 (Jun 3, 2003)

> _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 (Jun 3, 2003)

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 (Jun 4, 2003)

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.


----------

