Re: [FT] (LONG) The Balance of Power -- Fighters and a Defense

Just one tiny comment.	If I remember correctly, most
of the eastern armor of this period was actually made
of multiple layers of lamenated paper.	

--- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> 
> > The assorted steppe nomads north of China never
> had
> > heavy cavalry.  All light cavalry with missle
> weapons.
> >  And trying to match missle-armed infantry with
> > missle-armed cavalry is a loosing game.
> 
> Actually fast mobile cavalry with missile weapons is
> *very* effective,
> They're hard to hit and when skilled like the
> mongols more effective
> then a slow foot army. That's why china fell. The
> skill of hte mongol
> bowmen/calvary decimated the chinese armies.
>  
> > I wasn't aware the Chinese ever had them, in the
> true
> > sense of the word.	By the 9th century knights
> were
> > just starting to come into their own in Europe.
> 
> They did. Full metal covered, lance wielding
> knights. Well not "knights"
> but heavy calvary. They didn't last very long
> though. Most a footnote in
> chinese history then a a big part of it. crossbow
> did away with them.
>  
> > Once you get effective gunpowder weapons you've
> > completely changed the rules for cavalry.
> 
> Or decent rank and file bowmen with longbows. The
> english longbow made
> it up to 100lbs and more. That can go through armour
> like hot knife
> through butter.
> 
> Mostly I'm putting in the east view on this being a
> bitter opponent of
> the eurocentric model for everything. :)
> 
> Jaime

=====
Thank You,

Shawn M Mininger

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.