On my Kindle: The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols. I'm only a couple of chapters in; good read... maybe because I agree with him so far? Am Yisrael Chai! Moshe ben David
It’s a great series (especially if you a King fan) really gets going through book 3 into 4. At least you won’t have to wait years between them like I had to Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Comanche tribes were the fiercest warriors and finest horsemen on the planet, vanquished all other plains tribes, pushed the Apaches to the west, and rendered the Spanish and mestizos irrelevant. American settlers using their single shot re-loaders from back east were no match. Then Sam Colt introduced the 5 shot revolver (a weapon the military initially declined to adopt). A rag-tag group of frontiersmen, led by John Coffee Hays, adopted the Colt, Comanche tactics, and rode plains ponies to form the first Texas rangers and the first challenge to the dominance of the Comanche in 3 centuries.
Can't help but wonder if there was a hypothetical way to have a 'shoot out between the Comanche and the Mongols, who would win? My money is on the Mongols... gotta give props to people who built one of the biggest empires there's been... Am Yisrael Chai! Moshe ben David
I suppose it would come down to home field advantage. On the western US plains my money is on the Comanche. They were expert marksmen and could shoot arrows accurately and quickly while riding in positions on their ponies never seen by other cultures. They were so tuned into their riding and battle techniques that they could not shoot accurately while standing still. Didn't hurt that their smaller ponies were adapted to the plains as they could run for vast distances without watering. No European army at the time could match them in fluidity of movement. The U.S. army, such as it was, was routinely routed in their encounters until attrition of the Comanche bands finally led to their demise. It still took the better part of a century before the Comanche were subdued by the American western advance from its first encounters.
Everything I've read about the Mongols indicates that they also were expert at archery whilst on horseback... this appears to have been their most effective 'weapon' and led to their extraordinary success at building an empire that spanned Europe and Asia. Don't know how they were at standing still and shooting; although archery is still something of a national sport in Mongolia. I'm not suggesting that the Comanche were in any way inferior. Which is why I think that a battle between the two would be epic, no doubt decided not by each culture's general traits but rather coming down to specific individuals. For example the 'generals' (for lack of a better title). Really hard to dismiss Genghis Khan...! Am Yisrael Chai! Moshe ben David
All valid points. The Mongols had superior weapons and armor and were the superior fighting force and would more than likely overwhelm the Comanche in a set piece battle. The Comanche were more of a guerilla force, excelling on riding great distances, carrying out hit and run raids, and melting away into the plains. Both were loyal to their leaders and were disciplined warriors that gave them the upper hand against almost every enemy they encountered. The Mongols where skilled at hit and run raids but the Comanche rarely fought any other way. Maybe the plains mustangs would give the edge to the Comanche in that respect. Fascinating thought experiment.
They'd both have to run & hide from the Texas Rangers (not the baseball team). There's a reason why they only sent 1 Texas Ranger to a riot...1 riot, 1 Ranger....
The early Rangers were more of a loose collection of drifters and ne'er-do-wells seeking adventure on the frontier. Led by the brilliant Jack Hayes, the new Colt repeater, and Indian guides who were mortal enemies of the Comanche they set off into the sea of land. They were tough SOB's and under Hayes tutelage and training they adopted the tactics of their enemy, riding mustangs for miles in any weather, cold camping exclusively, setting ambushes, they essentially became better armed Comanches. Luckily a few early successes gave them confidence that they could actually hold their own against the Comanche. They were able to stand down large contingents of Mexicans based on their appearance and reputation alone. The Comanches were somewhat stunned by this prospect. Unfortunately those early rangers disbanded and their tactics forgotten and the Comanche ruled the plains for years afterwards mainly due to the American civil war.
Comanches vs. Mongols? Dunno, good points given. In a single battle it could've gone either way. In, say Texas advantage Comanches methinks. In Europe advantage Mongols. Ultimately as in all out war my money would go to Mongols, they were empire builders. Lähetetty minun SM-T515 laitteesta Tapatalkilla
Oddly, I'm going backwards in my reading, haven't found anything to stoke my interest lately, so I'm rereading the Ghost/Kildar series. Read them years back. Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
