One directional pandemics

[zoony]

The Comanches were truly badass, but I would suggest that the Mongol Keshik were the most formidible light cavalry in the history of mankind, by a large order of magnitude. Mongol armies regularly defeated opposing forces many times their size.

I thought about the Mongols but I don't think they matched the Comanches. The problem with the Comanches was that there were only about 45000 of them and they couldnt grow from there being a nomadic culture with no food production or real cities etc. Their miscarriage rate alone was exponentially abnormal from their women constantly being on horseback

The Mongols never went against firearms I don't think

The Mongols were much more numerous and much better organized. The Comanches never had the organization or manpower to go on offense. Which is a good thing because they would have taken over North America

The Comanche practice of riding a horse upside down and slinging arrows repeatedly from underneath the horses neck doesn't have any equal. It wasn't until mobile repeating firepower that westerners stood a chance

[Elessar78]

Super nerdy, but when I play Age of Empires, I always use a mounted horse cavalry (Mongolian mounted archers and the like). Absolutely devastating. They can hit you on the run, wipe out a village/city, and be gone before reinforcements can come. 

[Predicto]

I thought about the Mongols but I don't think they matched the Comanches. The problem with the Comanches was that there were only about 45000 of them and they couldnt grow from there being a nomadic culture with no food production or real cities etc. Their miscarriage rate alone was exponentially abnormal from their women constantly being on horseback

The Mongols never went against firearms I don't think

The Mongols were much more numerous and much better organized. The Comanches never had the organization or manpower to go on offense. Which is a good thing because they would have taken over North America

The Comanche practice of riding a horse upside down and slinging arrows repeatedly from underneath the horses neck doesn't have any equal. It wasn't until mobile repeating firepower that westerners stood a chance

 

The Mongols were not numerous at all.  They conquered almost the entire civilized world with less than 100,000 soldiers.   

[Wrong Direction]

Population density was the result of the domestication of animals. Without domesticated animals, we hunted and gathered until the food chain was destroyed and we had to move on. Then, one day, a friendly woman named Helga met a nice wolf, started breeding it with other nice wolves, and the modern domesticated dog came to being. Next thing you know, dogs are herding all kinds of livestock and we started breeding and containing it simply for food.

 

So the eastern world domesticated all kinds of animals. This allowed population to grow in small areas (civilization), and created opportunities for trade across Asia, Europe and Africa.

 

Then the great animal humping crusade of 5,300 BC happened, and humans got all kinds of diseases.

 

None of this happened in the Americas to the degree it happened over yonder. Indeed, some of that didn't even happen over yonder. You can probably guess which parts.

 

The end.

[Chew]

The Comanches were truly badass, but I would suggest that the Mongol Keshik were the most formidible light cavalry in the history of mankind, by a large order of magnitude.  Mongol armies regularly defeated opposing forces many times their size.

 

not to get too far off topic, but I saw a movie called "Mongol" a few years ago, and it blew me away.  Some really complex battle formations and strategies from Genghis Khan.  Those dudes could fight.

 

 

[Going Commando]

I think the Mississippi valley civilization got wiped out by epidemics before the Spanish even arrived. Their diseases traveled ahead of them. Sometimes they'd show up in ghost villages and cities where everyone was dead and gone.

90% of the Native population of the Americas was killed. And it was done in about 200 years. That's staggering. Consider that the expansion of the Clovis hunters from the Bering straight to the bottom tip of South America happened in about 1000 years--and was incredibly rapid by the standards of prehistoric human expansion. Then their various descendants spend about 12 thousand years creating civilizations. And then in two or three hundred years they are almost entirely wiped from the face of the Earth.

It was one of the most rapid and dramatic population replacements in history. It's the only one that's got a lot of extant written sources.

[Darth Tater]

aliens-meme.jpeg

He makes me believe in space aliens and it's not because of what he says.

It starts with food production. Eurasia was ahead there because of many ecological factors not available in the Americas.

Once you have food production, you get population densities. Once you get population densities, pandemics can start. Pandemics cannot exist in rural areas or among hunter/gatherer societies

The Americas didnt start getting significant population densities until, well, a thousand years ago or so.

Food production is an interesting, interesting thing. It is the root of civilization advancement, not just with pandemics, but with things like division of labor (that leads to scientists and skilled labor,etc. because men and women aren't out foraging all day)

What is interesting about food production is that paleontologists agree that civilizations typically have to make pretty significant steps backwards in order to adopt food production. It's origins, or why certain tribes thousands and thousands of years ago decided to start producing food is somewhat of a mystery.

Its called the desire for beer.

[LD0506]

Enjoying the Mongol vs Comanche discussion, but the Mongols had advantages the Comanche never did. The conquered adjacent peoples and co-opted their technology, built an extensive base of supply and support to sustain their far reaching endeavors, whereas the Comache eliminated or pushed back opposing tribes and gained what, more hunting grounds? Radically different situations, both had incredible cavalry but difficult to compare.

[mistertim]

Enjoying the Mongol vs Comanche discussion, but the Mongols had advantages the Comanche never did. The conquered adjacent peoples and co-opted their technology, built an extensive base of supply and support to sustain their far reaching endeavors, whereas the Comache eliminated or pushed back opposing tribes and gained what, more hunting grounds? Radically different situations, both had incredible cavalry but difficult to compare.

Actually some of this is a bit the opposite of my understanding. From what I've read one of the reasons the Mongols were so insanely effective was because of their speed and efficiency which was, at least partially, a consequence of NOT needing the huge, slow moving supply chains that most large armies had. The Mongols lived in a pretty unforgiving environment so they were experts at finding whatever they could to provide food and shelter; they were hyper-efficient. As a result they didn't need to use huge supply chains which would slow them down; they were able to find supplies and food, etc wherever they went. They also built things like siege engines once they arrived at their destination...they didn't bring them along, which would slow them down as well.

[Kilmer17]

Man, threads like these reminds my why I love this place.

[Elessar78]

How did the Romans expand their empire in contrast to the, say, Mongols? They expanded, subjugated the defeated but how would they keep the "locals" down? It takes an occupation force to do that. But then you need more forces to go and conquer more lands. Where was this endless supply of soldiers coming from?

[mistertim]

How did the Romans expand their empire in contrast to the, say, Mongols? They expanded, subjugated the defeated but how would they keep the "locals" down? It takes an occupation force to do that. But then you need more forces to go and conquer more lands. Where was this endless supply of soldiers coming from?

In many cases the Romans basically turned their conquered lands into wholly owned subsidiaries. They would invade, set up some command structure that tied them to the rest of the empire but would let them continue their traditions and run themselves the same way as before at the local level as long as they didn't cause trouble. It was more assimilation and less "kill everyone". 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

i thought this was a thread about the boy band. 

 

 

things could get Harry with One Directional pandemics.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

How did the Romans expand their empire in contrast to the, say, Mongols? They expanded, subjugated the defeated but how would they keep the "locals" down? It takes an occupation force to do that. But then you need more forces to go and conquer more lands. Where was this endless supply of soldiers coming from?

 

The Roman Empire was in some ways brilliantly organized and in some ways a pyramid scheme. What the Empire offered most of its conquered territories was pretty simple: political stability and security. What usually happened was slaughter and slavery followed by the total transformation of the local culture into Roman cultured followed by citizenship to the locals. Generally speaking, after a generation or two, the provinces were fully Roman and would then join in the conquest of whatever territory was next.

 

As the Empire grew bigger and bigger, this eventually became a problem. By the end of the Western Empire, a soldiers along Hadrian's wall could not earn enough to support themselves so they became part-time farmers - there were farms on both sides of the wall that the soldiers took care of. If you are a farmer, you marry a local. If you marry a local, you adopt her language. And at that point, what connection do you have for an Emperor thousands of miles away who doesn't pay you and no longer speaks your language.

 

But anyway - the main thing that kept the Empire in place for hundreds of years was this idea of Roman citizenship. This was a nearly mystical concept at the time. If you were a citizen, you could vote....you could own property....you could sue in court....you were not subject to the death penalty or other "cruel" punishments. Basically, you were now special, different from the Barbarians across the next river or whatever.

 

Once that citizenship concept started to mean less, the Western Empire was in trouble.

In many cases the Romans basically turned their conquered lands into wholly owned subsidiaries. They would invade, set up some command structure that tied them to the rest of the empire but would let them continue their traditions and run themselves the same way as before at the local level as long as they didn't cause trouble. It was more assimilation and less "kill everyone". 

 

Sorta. That happened more in distant provinces and vassal states.

 

A lot of the time, they just fully consumed your culture. Gaul was fully Romanized very quickly.

[Predicto]

[mcsluggo]

Actually some of this is a bit the opposite of my understanding. From what I've read one of the reasons the Mongols were so insanely effective was because of their speed and efficiency which was, at least partially, a consequence of NOT needing the huge, slow moving supply chains that most large armies had. The Mongols lived in a pretty unforgiving environment so they were experts at finding whatever they could to provide food and shelter; they were hyper-efficient. As a result they didn't need to use huge supply chains which would slow them down; they were able to find supplies and food, etc wherever they went. They also built things like siege engines once they arrived at their destination...they didn't bring them along, which would slow them down as well.

 

if my vague memory of something i read somewhere in the fogguy distant past is correct..... the mongols also had the superior skills (like the comanche), combined with the superior technology (the comanche had inferior technology, but the mongol stirrups and saddling was superior to all others) and enabled them to translate their greater skills into an even more formidable force.   I think their composite bows also kicked ass for the time...and the combination of the kick ass bows and kickass stirups gave them a weapon that was unseen and unaccounted for by all their enemies in the field.

[Predicto]

if my vague memory of something i read somewhere in the fogguy distant past is correct..... the mongols also had the superior skills (like the comanche), combined with the superior technology (the comanche had inferior technology, but the mongol stirrups and saddling was superior to all others) and enabled them to translate their greater skills into an even more formidable force.   I think their composite bows also kicked ass for the time...and the combination of the kick ass bows and kickass stirups gave them a weapon that was unseen and unaccounted for by all their enemies in the field.

 

All true.  They also had superior battle tactics, with extensive scouting before battle, feigned retreats to draw out and divide up opposing armies, and effective psychological warfare tactics.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I can't view youtube at work. I'm assuming Predicto posted something from Monty Python because he is, well, predictable.

[Wrong Direction]

Wasn't the other half of Rome's success (not the bloody, subjugating part) the fact that they brought technology to conquered lands, much of which improved life? The most obvious was clean water, commerce and their brand of politics, but the Romans were famous for borrowing great concepts from other cultures and promulgating throughout their empire, right?

[Elessar78]

Did the Romans wipe out any civilizations with disease?

[China]

The Comanches were truly badass, but I would suggest that the Mongol Keshik were the most formidible light cavalry in the history of mankind, by a large order of magnitude.  Mongol armies regularly defeated opposing forces many times their size.

 

 

I thought about the Mongols but I don't think they matched the Comanches.

 

[Elessar78]

would benefit greatly from Crouching tiger effects

[Predicto]

I can't view youtube at work. I'm assuming Predicto posted something from Monty Python because he is, well, predictable.

 

You filthy liar.

 

You watched it and you liked it!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You filthy liar.

 

You watched it and you liked it!

 

Was I right?

 

I was right, wasn't I?

[Predicto]

Was I right?

 

I was right, wasn't I?

 

Of course you were right.

 

And you were right because you were thinking of posting it yourself, but I beat you to it.