Toughest Barbarians?

If matched with equal numbers, and using their traditional weapons and tactics, who would prevail if legendary "barbarians" could face off against each other?

The Huns? The Mongols? Vikings? Comanches? Zulus?

Some other group?

I'm tempted to go with the Mongols, based on their overall track record...

BURGUNDIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TFS is probably correct. Everyone else would probably get mowed down with arrows.This explains partially why I chose the Mongols; there were other Nomadic steppe peoples who used similar weapons and tactics, but the Mongols took them to an even higher level, because they typically fought in denser formations. A formation with more men in it=a formation with more firepower.And the Mongols were all about firepower.The only major defeats the the Mongols ever suffered occured in Vietnam (a guerrilla-type conflict where the Mongolian advantage in weapons was largely nullified) and Japan (in this case, it should be noted that the Mongols themselves made up only a minority of the forces involved; most of the "Mongol" troops were in fact Koreans and Chinese. And again, the amphibious nature of the conflict didn't exactly highlight Mongol horse-archery).Everyone else had their a$$es handed to them.Some may bring up the defeat at Ain Jalut by the Mamluks--this is certainly noteworthy, but I have my suspicions that Hulegu and Co. could have still taken care of the Mamluks, had they really wished to have done so...

psh, my Spaniards work the Mongols in Medieval: Total War all the time, you must be mistaken TFS.


I'm really not sure how I feel about that comment, even as a joke... ;)

Peace,

TFS

Were the Scythians similar ,in a tactical sense, to the Mongols?Definitely--they were both nomadic steppe warriors, who fought predominantly as horse-archers.

I'd have to say my extended family after an all night drinking session.

I once saw Uncle Ernie eat a beer glass... not even Ghengis would do that.

LOL, nice!

TFS,

Some may bring up the defeat at Ain Jalut by the Mamluks--this is certainly noteworthy, but I have my suspicions that Hulegu and Co. could have still taken care of the Mamluks, had they really wished to have done so...

"Had they really wished to have done so?" Do you think the Mongols  wanted to lose? :)

If you can bring up Japan as a defeat then you should certainly consider Ain Jalut a defeat. From what I read, the Mamluks had a powerful bow, that they were able to shoot at a full gallop. The Mamluks also had Arabian horses and another breed called "Cyrenaica" which were very fast and strong. Both these breeds were much faster then the Mongols' short, steppe ponies. In essence, I believe the Mamluks used their faster horses to ride into the enemy and forced a hand to hand (horse to horse) fight with the Mongols.

YL,"Had they really wished to have done so?" Do you think the Mongols wanted to lose? :)LOL, of course not. What I meant was that, It would have been far more likely for the Mongols to continue operations in the Middle East (they had sacked Baghdad, after all), than over in Vietnam or Japan. Vietnam was a mess for the Mongols (as it has been for many other armies since then). Japan required amphibious operations (obviously), which was not the Mongolian forte. But fighting the Mamluks involved normal cavalry maneuvers, something that the Mongols were very good at indeed.If you can bring up Japan as a defeat then you should certainly consider Ain Jalut a defeat. From what I read, the Mamluks had a powerful bow, that they were able to shoot at a full gallop. The Mamluks also had Arabian horses and another breed called "Cyrenaica" which were very fast and strong. Both these breeds were much faster then the Mongols' short, steppe ponies.One would think that any larger horses (ie., horses with longer legs) would be faster, and yet the Mongols were typically able to outmaneuver their enemies. In essence, I believe the Mamluks used their faster horses to ride into the enemy and forced a hand to hand (horse to horse) fight with the Mongols.Ain Jalut was a little more complicated than that, though I'll have to dig up my references before posting further on this particular subject.Peace,David

the Parthians wrecked them some Romans real bad. Killed Publius then brought his head back to his father on a pike. Badass.

How tough were the Saxons that were invading Briton around 550-600ad? Were the Saxons barbarians?

"How tough were the Saxons that were invading Briton around 550-600ad? Were the Saxons barbarians?"

Tough. They were definitely barbarians, considering that they were a tribal people and un-Christianized. They were a powerful group of Germanic people in what is now northern Germany and the eastern Netherlands. They long avoided Christianity and were eventually conquered by Charlemagne, circa 800 AD.

Assuming equal numbers, how would a Mongol vs. Comanche battle have looked? The Comanches were supposed to have been amazing on horseback as well.

Any significant differences between the bows and arrows on either side?

PfP,Assuming equal numbers, how would a Mongol vs. Comanche battle have looked? The Comanches were supposed to have been amazing on horseback as well.I personally imagine it would have looked like a turkey shoot in favor of the Mongols.Various AmerIndian tribes took to the horse readily, but their history with that animal was comparatively short, whereas the Mongols came from a long line of steppe horse-warriors, dating back many centuries. Any significant differences between the bows and arrows on either side?I would venture to guess that the Mongol bows were more powerful. Another factor would have been the ballistic, raw silk shirts that the Mongols wore, which doubtlessly saved many lives...Peace,David

LOL!

If you think about it, that type of training is condusive to warfare. It is probably an old tradition that teaches the archer to shoot under pressure and distraction, which is what I would believe the conditions on the battlefield to be.

I think we're talking different time periods at that point

getting back to the original question i believe the huns could have given the mongols a run for there money. not saying they would have won but their tactics were so similar it would have made for a very intresting battle.Interesting until the Mongol heavy tumens closed in--and then you would see what happens when one side lacks stirrups (in this case, the Huns).