[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I'm going to post it here too, which do you think would have won with both having around 100,000 troop at their prime. They both beten larger armies that have far superior numbers, I would go with Nurhaci because his enemies seem to be tougher and the odds he fought is also greater. Plus, his army is more developed in tech and organization than those of the Mongols of the 13th century.

[Sephodwyrm]

I think Nurhachi would win. In a field battle, Nurhachi's superior organization would win, and plus he also have Mongols on his side. But generally, this type of comparison is kinda unfair...can you put down few more restrictions?

[Yun]

Nurhachi's army had firearms and cannons - although he also trained his cavalry in horse archery and to charge at arquebus-armed Ming troops, taking advantage of the slow reload time of the arquebus. So if you had them fighting an early Mongol army which had no firearms, they would probably enjoy the advantage.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

The Manchu army prior to its entry into China did not use firemars to a large extend, they only got theirs from captured Ming cannons in the late 1610s so it wouldn't have made a great difference. I'm talking about the time when firearm is still limited to Nurhaci.

"But generally, this type of comparison is kinda unfair...can you put down few more restrictions? "

Like what

[Tyler]

Well I think I'll choose the Manchu's army.

[Yun]

I was searching for info on the net, and found this excellent article by Cao Cao on China-defense.com: http://www.china-def...644/1644-1.html

Fortunately, one doesn't have to be a registered member of that forum to read the articles (although Cao Cao's seems to be the only one on pre-modern military history).

Especially relevant is this passage:

Quote

Counting on exact numbers, the eight banners yield 60,000 Manchu regulars. Possibly, there's a similar number of reservists, men too young or too old to fight. However, for campaigns out of their homeland, the Manchus rarely commit a large percentage of their main forces. When Nurhaci was fighting for his newborn state's survival in 1619, and when Huang Taiji fought the crucial Battle of Songshan, on each occasion the Manchu had at most 60,000 troops. Because of the numerical weakness of the Manchu state, therefore the Manchus relied heavily on Han and Mongol troops. Shang Kexi, Kong Youde, Geng Jimao, and other Liaodong militants probably offer the Manchus around 20,000 Han troops. Some of them are cavalry and infantry armed with matchlocks, but the most important gift to the Manchus were Han artillerymen. From the subjugated Mongols, the Manchus probably can call on 20,000 to 30,000 horsemen. So in 1644, the Manchurian kingdom can probably call on a total force of nearly 180,000 soldiers, and using the 1/3 rule (only 1/3 of the forces are readily available, the other 2/3 in training or off-duty), Dorgon probably led a force of 60,000 Manchu, Han, and Mongol combined arms force.

It must be remember that even though the Manchus were tough horse-mounted soldiers, they differ from the Mongol hordes, who are truly nomadic people. Unlike the Mongols, who relied on a herd-raising economy, the Manchus, like their Nuzhen ancestors, were much more sedentary. True, the Manchus are herd-raisers, but they are also part-time fishers, subsistence farmers, and miners. Even before Nurhaci's time, Manchus live in semi-fortified villages and hamlets, where they can trade farm goods, ginseng, and precious metals with themselves and outsiders. Perhaps, this is a reason why many would argue that the Mongols were hardier horsemen than the Manchus. It was no exaggeration that while the Manchus relied on the Han Chinese for manpower and firepower, they also relied on the Mongols for hard-hitting mobility.

[General_Zhaoyun]

I would say Genghis Khan would win , given his military genius..in strategy and tactics..

[Zuo Zongtang]

warhead, on Jul 20 2004, 04:11 PM, said:

I'm going to post it here too, which do you think would have won with both having around 100,000 troop at their prime. They both beten larger armies that have far superior numbers, I would go with Nurhaci because his enemies seem to be tougher and the odds he fought is also greater. Plus, his army is more developed in tech and organization than those of the Mongols of the 13th century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering the two to be 3-4 centuries apart, of course they will be technological advances. If Nurhaci and Genghis both had the same tech levels and such, then it would be worth discussing. But since this is different techs at different time periods, there is no point in this discussion. Its like comparing a tank to a musketman of the American Revolutionary Army. Who will win? The tank of course.

[hansioux]

Zuo Zongtang, on Jan 21 2005, 01:26 PM, said:

Considering the two to be 3-4 centuries apart, of course they will be technological advances. If Nurhaci and Genghis both had the same tech levels and such, then it would be worth discussing. But since this is different techs at different time periods, there is no point in this discussion. Its like comparing a tank to a musketman of the American Revolutionary Army. Who will win? The tank of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In China, I think the differences in tech for these two nomads are minimum. Especially if you put them where they belonged, in the northern planes. Where there would be no place to siege. What good are fire arms now?

I have never read that Nurhachi building a fence, and line up musketmen to fire and charging calveries.

I'd pick the Mongols. Because Mongols faced much tougher enemies than the "Ming dynasty".

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"It was no exaggeration that while the Manchus relied on the Han Chinese for manpower and firepower, they also relied on the Mongols for hard-hitting mobility."

you are describing the time of Huang Tai Ji, not Nurhaci, in which there isn't separate banners for Han or Mongols. Clearly, cannon was not a big weapon during his time especially not during his first encounters with the Ming.


"I would say Genghis Khan would win , given his military genius..in strategy and tactics.. "

And what is the basis that his "strategy and tactic" are better than Nurhachi's?

"I'd pick the Mongols. Because Mongols faced much tougher enemies than the "Ming dynasty". "

Like who? The even weaker Jin?

[TMPikachu]

I'd off the bat go with Genghis Khan, but I don't know much about Nurhaci.
Could you say how Nurhaci's enemies were tougher and his odds harder?

[HaSY]

Nurhaci's enemies at that time is other Jurchen tribes,Mongols,Korea and Ming Dynasty...........

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"I'd off the bat go with Genghis Khan, but I don't know much about Nurhaci.
Could you say how Nurhaci's enemies were tougher and his odds harder? "

His enemy outnumberd him by over 3 to 1 and they are armed with firearms which the Jin army did not have when facing the Mongols. He was able to achieve this threw mobility and attacking each division of the Ming force before they join.
Nurhachi once defeated a tribal army that was 800 in size with only 4 men. He was only defeated by Ming because of Yuan Chong Huan's cannon which was not around during Jin. The Ming empire was much more powerful than the Jin at this time and even have Mongol allies which Nurhachi defeated in skirmishes.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Second Manchuria never had as much horsepower and men potential as Mongolia, yet they still overwhelmed the Ming which had all of China opposed to the Jin which only had half of it. Most of Nurhachi's campaigns only have a few thousand troops, later to a few ten thousand mostly around 50,000. Yet the Mongols usually invaded with over 100,000 in every occasion. And there are some humiliating defeats in which the enemy defeated them with vastlly inferior numbers.

[Gubook Janggoon]

Just a tangent...but how do you actually pronounce the name "Nurhaci"?

Is it "Noor Ha Si", or "Norr Ha Chi?" or ect?