not much differnt with europe then , the main differnce being, the assoted -blank- tecs' of central america had superior weapons, I have little doubt, that similer to what happend in real life, the native americans would have very soon formed tribal confederations to force out the barbarian horde
Native Americans vs The Mongol Horde, Round 2
- Thread starter Xen
- Start date
- Status
it depends.
if u give the horse to spread in teh americans so the natives have time to use it.
and how organised are the american natives
still if the mongolians had somehow landed or arrived in north america, the native americans are no match, there is no union between them, and the mongols wouldnt had given them the time, plus the mongols had much more superior tactics, weapons and training.
if u give the horse to spread in teh americans so the natives have time to use it.
and how organised are the american natives
still if the mongolians had somehow landed or arrived in north america, the native americans are no match, there is no union between them, and the mongols wouldnt had given them the time, plus the mongols had much more superior tactics, weapons and training.
they didnt need it, even GUNS only narrowlly beat the new mexican-Arizona tribes when the spanish went there FULL FORCE, no the crap stuff they took over the Aztecs with, this leads me to belive that if a force with guns got the snot kicked out of them in a rebellion, and eventually got kicked out of the area completlly there is NOTHING stopping those same force from utterlly wiping out every single Mongol who gets in there way 
Originally posted by Xen
they didnt need it, even GUNS only narrowlly beat the new mexican-Arizona tribes when the spanish went there FULL FORCE, no the crap stuff they took over the Aztecs with, this leads me to belive that if a force with guns got the snot kicked out of them in a rebellion, and eventually got kicked out of the area completlly there is NOTHING stopping those same force from utterlly wiping out every single Mongol who gets in there way
ummmh....... guns? u realise there is a huge advantage of a bow and arrow and a primitive single fire gun? the mongols were great archers, mounted archers that is, the europeans were good explorers but not good conquerors it took them time, the mongols way of life is moving around, conquer, leave repeat the steps, tell me how are the native americans going to win? the mere fact taht they dont have horses is a deinite advantage.
aaminion00
Stoned
The mongols would've kicked the indians semi-nude bow and arrow yielding asses any day.
If they didn't kill them the first time, they'd spread a bunch of diseases and kill them by the 4th.
When your whole tribe is not as big as your enemies horde, it's not a good sign.
If they didn't kill them the first time, they'd spread a bunch of diseases and kill them by the 4th.
When your whole tribe is not as big as your enemies horde, it's not a good sign.
Djingis Khan
Chieftain
Nah, do you really have an idea of how advanced steel really is? Obsidian may be razor sharp, but it's fragile and couldn't penetrate the spanish steel cuirasses. And btw I don't think the natives would have got the chanse to get close to the mongols, since they would be oblitirated by the hails of arrows. And when the mongol heavy cavalry would charge with lance, the obsidian swords would be useless
/DK M
Djingis Khan
Chieftain
Originally posted by Xen
they didnt need it, even GUNS only narrowlly beat the new mexican-Arizona tribes when the spanish went there FULL FORCE, no the crap stuff they took over the Aztecs with, this leads me to belive that if a force with guns got the snot kicked out of them in a rebellion, and eventually got kicked out of the area completlly there is NOTHING stopping those same force from utterlly wiping out every single Mongol who gets in there way
The spanish never used full force in the americas, their armies just consisted of a thousand men at it's most. Imagine the mongol army consisting of 30 000 mongol horsemen and perhaps twice the number of recruited natives.
I see that you're really interested and skilled in the history of the americas, but obviously you have NO knowledge at all concerning the mongols
/DK M
A) I think obsidian is harder then you all give it credit for, if the soanish, with the mighty Toledo steel arms, and armour were nervous, if not afraid of the stuff, and Spanish steel, in paticular that from Toledo is considerd the thrid best steel in the world at the time
B)Its not is was JUST swoards and such, there were pikes, and axes, and a variety of armaments
C)I think you all expecting a big field battle btween mongols and American Indians, this would NOT have happend, one of the reasons my native american brethren were as succesful as they were is becasue of ambush tactics,
D)I dont think the mongols would have many natives on there side considerding all the diseeases that 30,000 mongols, and friends would be carrying
E)why dose every one assume that tribes would be indipendent? sure, the mesoamericans were, but NOT the north american tribes- they banded together, and often had a very good amount od succes considering the were "stone age bow armed primitives" not just against the early europeans, with there primitive guns, but righjt up into the 1900s' with the same wepons, though with the addition of the horse.
which brings me to-
F) in an army of 30,000, in a new land, with unknow dangers, the thought that horses would all be kept accounted for is silly- it has happend all the time in armeis all over the world, animals escape, which could bring the horse into contact with the mighty Native American Braves
B)Its not is was JUST swoards and such, there were pikes, and axes, and a variety of armaments
C)I think you all expecting a big field battle btween mongols and American Indians, this would NOT have happend, one of the reasons my native american brethren were as succesful as they were is becasue of ambush tactics,
D)I dont think the mongols would have many natives on there side considerding all the diseeases that 30,000 mongols, and friends would be carrying
E)why dose every one assume that tribes would be indipendent? sure, the mesoamericans were, but NOT the north american tribes- they banded together, and often had a very good amount od succes considering the were "stone age bow armed primitives" not just against the early europeans, with there primitive guns, but righjt up into the 1900s' with the same wepons, though with the addition of the horse.
which brings me to-
F) in an army of 30,000, in a new land, with unknow dangers, the thought that horses would all be kept accounted for is silly- it has happend all the time in armeis all over the world, animals escape, which could bring the horse into contact with the mighty Native American Braves
When it comes to ambushes, or just tactics generally, I think the Mongols were masters at it, like all steppe horsemen or horse-archers. Fr the time of the 'Parthian shot'.
The natives won't have much choice - either they served with the invaders, or be killed. Generally, the Mongols didn't treat their allied auxilliaries too badly - so they'd probably get their allies. Plus, the Mongols could raise Chinese, Korean or other nationalities to serve as the infantry.
Which would make it worse - imagine any people who'd just learned horse-riding going at it head-to-head with the people who were born into the saddle...
Plus, the Mongols would have access to gunpowder explosives - probably would be a terrifying psychological weopan against the natives.
They used these extensively during the conquest of S China (read my article...).
They used these extensively during the conquest of S China (read my article...).
what was it the mongols used in a battle in poland or hungary--during a battle at a bridge crossing the mongols shot something into the christian lines that smoked causing the knights and their horse to get sick and in the confusion the mongols charged and broke their lines?
They probably added some chemicals into that explosive - otherwise I know not.
Maybe a gunpowder explosive that didn't exactly set off?
Maybe a gunpowder explosive that didn't exactly set off?
but such things might sway battle sin favor of the barbarians- but, but considering how well the natives did against the european powers, I think that the indians may have one- sorry i cant go in depth, I'm on a school computwer, and my friend is *itching at me to get off so he can "do his work"
andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
The Mongols would dominate easily.
The native Americans didn't even have metal weapons! Let alone horses......or immunity to many Eurasian diseases.
The native Americans didn't even have metal weapons! Let alone horses......or immunity to many Eurasian diseases.
Djingis Khan
Chieftain
Originally posted by Xen
but such things might sway battle sin favor of the barbarians- but, but considering how well the natives did against the european powers, I think that the indians may have one- sorry i cant go in depth, I'm on a school computwer, and my friend is *itching at me to get off so he can "do his work"
The natives did well against the europeans??? Yeah right pal, what do you say about the conqusts of Cortez and Pizzaro? And those were only a couple of hundred european, just imagine thousands upon thousands of warrrior horsemen...
/DK M
yes they did, just take a look at what happend in Arizona/New Mexico to the Spanish- they got slauterd, and you forgetting the fact that Cortez got hundreds of thousands of Native levies from rebellious tribes conqoured by the Aztecs, thats the real reason why he had won. But then considering the Aztecs were not dominant in the day of Mongol, and that even if they were, they would be coming from the wrong direction, and more then likelly had no one with blond hair in there command staff, its unlikelly that they would have gotten Mesoamerican levies like cortez
- Status
