Tien Chi! Sigh . . .

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Jasper:

In the end however, I simply don't like this Mongols weren't really into raiding like that,

Er, Jasper - the Barbarian Kings options is very much not the Mongols. The Mongols in China is Yuan Chinese, the army of Kublai Khan, which (in its early period) is one of those rolls royce armies that make generals drool in their soup. More like Tien Ch'i main theme but with better cavalry. Not like the BK theme at all.

There were "barbarians" on the border of China (eg. Hsuing-nu) as far as the Chinese thought and Chinese scholars bewailed their depredations so this isn't just a euro-centric bias. When the barbarians take and hold chinese lands they slowly became absorbed by the more developed culture - happened to the Mongols to.

The Barbarians kingdoms is exactly that - barbarian ruling over the Tien ch'i. Presumably an unstable intermediary period which will go one way or the other - order or complete chaos. I would like to be able to play with both the BK and the regular Tien Ch'i competing so we could see which way the balence goes.

Mongols inspired would be another race but I think a Steppe base Hsuing-nu inspired race would be better. We will never get the LC to work anything like as well as the Mongol LC worked so why pretend they are Mongol quality?

Cheers

Keir

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Jasper:
I don't even think that turmoil scales make sense for the "Barbarians". The lands the Mongols conquered were safer and more orderly after their conquest. Their military was more orderly than every military that preceeded them, with the _possible_ exception of the Romans. Treatment of the Mongols et al as "Wild Barbarian Hordes" IMHO is a Western European and largely fictional bias.

Actually the Barbarian Kings are not primarily inspired by mongols, but the Xiongnu that overtook the Jin dynasty in the fourth century. Much of the bureaucracy of the Han and Jin dynasties were lost. To the Chinese barbarian invasions were probably always experienced as chaotic and unorderly events.

On the other hand, mongols are well known and everyone will think 'mongols', and so do I to some extent.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
While it is true that following the rise of GK Mongol armies achieved a level of organization rarely seen before, their social life remained somewhat chaotic and riddled by clanic feuds and vendettas. It is also true that the Mongols favored religious tolerance and eased communication and trade throughout their empire, eg it was more easy to journey between Persia and China after the conquest, but saying that China or Persia themselves were safer and more orderly than before is a bit of a stretch.

Feudal strife and civil war were common to many empires considered to be "Orderly". I don't see the Mongols as being any different in this respect than any other empire in history. For example, I don't know of anything in their history quite like the strife seen in the Roman Empire. Then again, perhaps I've just read less about the Mongols...

Order scales increase income and reduce the frequency of events. This seems to me rather like what the Mongol rule did.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

[quote]Originally posted by Jasper:

Feudal strife and civil war were common to many empires considered to be "Orderly". I don't see the Mongols as being any different in this respect than any other empire in history. For example, I don't know of anything in their history quite like the strife seen in the Roman Empire.

There's a big difference in scope (politics vs social). The Roman etc. civil wars were headed by political figureheads, their supporters and their armies, certainly not the commoners who were the basis of the Roman etc. society. OTOH among the steppes nations (including the 13th+ century Mongols), vendettas were common and involved, to varying degrees, every member of a family, clan or tribe. IOW, almost every nomad in the steppes was concerned by this problem. GK and his successors edicted harsh rules to deal with this situation, but were only marginally succesful. That remained an endemic problem in the steppes until the russian conquest.

See the difference now? Strifes at the political level may be frequent in an "orderly" society, but would you call a country where every inhabitant is expected to cut the throat of his neighbor when honor is at stake, an "orderly" country?

[ November 23, 2003, 16:28: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
See the difference now? Strifes at the political level may be frequent in an "orderly" society, but would you call a country where every inhabitant is expected to cut the throat of his neighbor when honor is at stake, an "orderly" country?

Perhaps. Feudal Japan for example was at times quite orderly, but had such problems. I also suspect the honor/face issue ran deeper into Roman society than you suggest, as well as the rest of europe. I think the anecdotes about safety of trade, the overall stability of rule, etc. have more weight overall.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasper:

In the end however, I simply don't like this Mongols weren't really into raiding like that,

Er, Jasper - the Barbarian Kings options is very much not the Mongols. The Mongols in China is Yuan Chinese, the army of Kublai Khan, which (in its early period) is one of those rolls royce armies that make generals drool in their soup. More like Tien Ch'i main theme but with better cavalry. Not like the BK theme at all.

There were "barbarians" on the border of China (eg. Hsuing-nu) as far as the Chinese thought and Chinese scholars bewailed their depredations so this isn't just a euro-centric bias. When the barbarians take and hold chinese lands they slowly became absorbed by the more developed culture - happened to the Mongols to.

The Barbarians kingdoms is exactly that - barbarian ruling over the Tien ch'i. Presumably an unstable intermediary period which will go one way or the other - order or complete chaos. I would like to be able to play with both the BK and the regular Tien Ch'i competing so we could see which way the balence goes.

Mongols inspired would be another race but I think a Steppe base Hsuing-nu inspired race would be better. We will never get the LC to work anything like as well as the Mongol LC worked so why pretend they are Mongol quality?

Cheers

Keir

---

It is Hsiung-nu, but let's just use their most common name: The Huns.
I agree, this nation should be reworked a bit.
This nation should get more cavalry units [noble cavalry for example] and 'uber strong' horse archers. [uber-strong: the best available horse archer]
This is the weakest? nation as it is now.
The Huns didn't had any infantry units, they used the people of the conqured nations as slave infantry. [example: germans]

[ November 23, 2003, 17:11: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

I wonder if the Order scale is just the application of observed laws, tax collection and willingness to allowt he government to levy it's taxes in trade for public acts, laws and governmental responsibility. It has nothing to do with the culture in which it resides. The strength of the government to mold for the safety and well being of the whole and dealing with disruption and the willingness to 'buy' that with a general taxation.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Jasper:
Perhaps. Feudal Japan for example was at times quite orderly, but had such problems.

Sure. Although I believe it was more a pastime in the nobility than in the peasantry. Maybe early medieval Iceland would be a better comparison.

I also suspect the honor/face issue ran deeper into Roman society than you suggest, as well as the rest of europe.

But the vast majority of these disputes were solved by established courts, or the feudal lord. Impromptu courts were sometimes assembled in the steppes to deal with feuds that went out of control, but they were exceptional.

I think the anecdotes about safety of trade, the overall stability of rule, etc. have more weight overall.

Hehe, when one has to give weight to anecdotes... . You seem to be a well learned person, so I assume you already know the anecdotic history of young Temujin?

Anyway, in the mongol empire, the true mongol-born were a tiny fraction of the population, the bulk of it was Chinese, and the mongol laws were enforced by chinese or persian court officials, so in the end I'll have to agree with you that a "mongol" Tien Ch'i nation in Dominions shouldn't have turmoil by default.

[Keir Maxwell]

Not that it really matters but:

Mongols were incredibly strict in their crushing of the old practice of vendetta's etc. "Lets see if I kill this bugger in revenge for the slights against my name I will be killed along with most of my relatives (or while campaigning my comrades) - give it a miss this time." They were indeed the most orderly nomads you will find.

The Barbarian Kingdom is Hsuing-nu/Xiongnu not Huns Mortifier as we don't actually know who the Huns were before they showed up in the west. The Hsuing-nu connection is informed speculation which may of may or maynot be correct. Added to this the Hunnic army existed in a completely different context to the Hsuing-nu's lordship over parts of China.

If BK where Huns they would not get significant amounts of Noble cavalry as Roman observers at Attila's court claimed they had no nobles - part of their strength as warriors was that they had no lords over them. They would also burn every city to the ground and live as nomads in the steppe. Somewhat different to the more highly cultured Hsuingnu who could not resist the lure of chinese wealth and comforts. The difference may have emerged with the Huns going (being driven?) west in their more original, hardened, steppe nomad form while the Hsuingnu (presumably more successful at the time of the Huns migration west) preyed on the boundries of Chinese civilisation and developed an enriched nobility - who may have used full horse armour for their HC.

So while it is tempting to equate the BK with Mongols and Huns, as we know them better, it is an approach one should avoid. Looking at ancient societies is about dumping preconceptions as they lead to confusionism - or maybe thats Confucianism in the case of China?

Cheers

Keir

[ November 23, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
... Strategic mobility was one of the Horde's greatest strengths, yet it is all but useless in Dom II (you can only move one province into enemy territory, same as plodding hoplites). ...

I don't disagree in general with other things you've posted, and what you say is true while on the offense over a narrow avenue of attack. However, the strategic movement speed can often be important. In my current Ulm game, the limit of most of my troops to strategic speed 1 is an important disadvantage to my armies. I hired a mercenary band of 40 Tien Chi cavalry, however, and their higher strategic speed inside my own land made them invaluable as a "fire brigade" unit to meet sudden threats.

They were also extremely deadly, even against the likes of Jotunheim. The few foes who made it past the rain of arrows found themselves faced by 40 cavalry with lances, and died. If friendly fire gets changed so archers are careful not to shoot their own men, they'll be even dealier.

PvK