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.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

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.

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.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
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.

Ah. Good point, and I'm not really sure why Mongols sprung to mind first. Probably because as Keir suggests I was drooling over them. :-)

An army with an incentive to pillage would definitely add variety, so it sounds good to me!

[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.