Fighting Mongol horse archers

[samoja]

I did some tests in custom battle. I was trying to win with England against a fully decked out(max chevron) full heavy horse archer Mongol stack. Time after time my efforts have come to naught, even tough mix of archers and spearmen could get mongols to suffer up to 85% casualty rate they always won in the end by killing all spearmen and then charging the archers. I finally found a strategy that worked, although it was a phirric victory, but then every fight against Mongols is, i attatched the replay here.Mongols.rar

[Silverheart]

I can´t see the replay, but yeah, a pyrrhic victory is only to be expected when fighting against such odds (though, if you´re playing as England, can´t you just spam Longbowmen with stakes and let the Mongols run themselves to death against that?).
The Mongols are a... difficult foe to fight in the open field, and you always suffer needless casualties. This is why I always just fight them defensively, by fortifying settlements and letting them beat themselves bloody against the defenses, and only fighting them in the field after most of their troops are gone and I have a heavy advantage.

Some useful tactics that I´ve heard a lot of people recommend for field battles against Mongols, though, are to spam Longbow/Composite Bowmen and/or Crossbowmen, since they will win in a skirmish against Horse Archers almost every time, and utilize Heavy Cavalry to tackle their flanks (and general, should the opportunity arise). Using infantry against Mongols in a field battle is almost pointless unless you can get them in a defensive position (like behind stakes, or atop a steep hill or cliff), since they´ll jut get run over easily otherwise.
But like I said, I usually don´t fight the Mongols in the field at all, preferring the much more conservative strategy of bleeding them out in settlements, then annihilating them with superior force once they are too weak to be a threat anymore.

[stadironin]

[QUOTE=Silverheart;14411212]I can´t see the replay, but yeah, a pyrrhic victory is only to be expected when fighting against such odds (though, if you´re playing as England, can´t you just spam Longbowmen with stakes and let the Mongols run themselves to death against that?).

I dont know how it works in the game but in real world mongol bow reached much farther than ANY other bow. Thus their tactics were to ride closer to determine opponents
reach and after that it was one sided arrowslaughter. Only after almost total annihilation they came close to finish it.
Cheers, stadironin.

[UndrState]

[QUOTE=stadironin;14772451]

I can´t see the replay, but yeah, a pyrrhic victory is only to be expected when fighting against such odds (though, if you´re playing as England, can´t you just spam Longbowmen with stakes and let the Mongols run themselves to death against that?).

I dont know how it works in the game but in real world mongol bow reached much farther than ANY other bow. Thus their tactics were to ride closer to determine opponents
reach and after that it was one sided arrowslaughter. Only after almost total annihilation they came close to finish it.
Cheers, stadironin.

Yeah, gotta call BS on that claim that the Mongol bow could shoot further than "any other bow" - I've heard a lot of extraordinary claims about the Mongol bow, not a lot of extraordinary proof. No one doubts the power of the composite bow, but effective range is another thing entirely.

Great numbers and mobility had as much to do with their successes as their archery skills.

[KmanBEAST]

Dont fight in the open fields, but if you do just fight fire with fire. Heavy cavalry and archers should make up your whole army, infantry is useless as your cavalry can shrek any of their infantry units, even if it is their spearmen. Ignoring their horse archers and shooting them with your own could also work.

As a side note getting a FEW infantry units could be useful. Your cavalry at that time in the campaign isnt as good as khans guard, so you need some infantry to pin it down and you can flank it or go after foot archers (and dont shoot their foot archers with your archers, shoot their cav). Thats the best i got for a field battle, but like i said just stick to sieges and river crossings (not even rivers sometimes, they camp with all their archers)

[stadironin]

[QUOTE=UndrState;14772536]

Yeah, gotta call BS on that claim that the Mongol bow could shoot further than "any other bow" - I've heard a lot of extraordinary claims about the Mongol bow, not a lot of extraordinary proof. No one doubts the power of the composite bow, but effective range is another thing entirely.

Great numbers and mobility had as much to do with their successes as their archery skills.

Yeah well... it has been proven so many ways. First how do you think mongols won their battles and conquered more land than anybody ever?
The conquered more than Rome and Alexander the Great together! Mongols had quite small armies. Some four TUMENS (10000 each) vs usually
2 to 10 times more. Think about chinese who had more people, even then, than basically whole Europe. Yet mongols invaded them all. As I said earlier
the mongol tactics was typical horsemens hit 'n run. They lured the enemy to shoot so they could see how far they could shoot and found out that
the whole world had weaker bows than theirs. Only countries which were both humid and hot, were the problem, cos their bows didnt work well there.
Thats why they left Indiaetc. alone. Marco Polo and many more have been telling about about those bows and their -almost superhuman users.
Secondly. There has been many modern studies and tests where bows have been compared and results have confirmed historical facts.
So about that BS. You didnt say anything scientific or historical facts agains my claims - so I guess its just IUHO or more IUO no humble there
I'm more than glad to research this topic further, so please tell me your counter truth.
PS. I'm from Finland so if above is difficult to understand or too many errors - I apologize.

[stadironin]

[QUOTE=UndrState;14772536]

Great numbers and mobility had as much to do with their successes as their archery skills.

Once more - they had basically always much smaller forces than their enemies. Mongolia has never been
densely populated. Today there is less than 3 mil. It was very much like todays SAS or SEALs. Skills and Precision
vs huge bulk.

[Silverheart]

Wow, this thread on the tactics of a game turned into a historic debate fast o_O
I hope this isn´t going to count as off-topic, but I guess I´ll throw my voice in here...
@Stadironin
The mongols did not have bows with longer range than anybody else. They used composite bows, which cannot get close to the range of an english longbow or japanese infantry bows. They still have impressive range, especially over the types of bows that were more commonly used in those days, but not greater than "ANY other bow". The greatest strength of a composite bow, rather than range, is the power and the fact that it´s easy to reload. But power does not necessarily equal range, as any archer can tell you. The same goes for short bows, and most hunting bows - they´re not designed for long range, only to land hard and kill fast at close range, which is why their arrows lose their deadliness the further away they fly.
Composite bows were only used for their range when standing on foot, as was the case with most foot archers from the Middle east and central Asia. Even the mongols dismounted if they wanted to use their bows with range and reliable accuracy - as demonstrated, for example, in the battle of Homs 1281.

Also, if you knew anything about horse archery, you would know that maximum range is irrelevant for such tactics. After all, you´re firing a bow from horseback - having a greater maximum range doesn´t help in any way under those conditions, since it becomes impossible to aim at such a distance. The favored tactic of the mongols was to close in and fire their bows at close range, then get out of dodge before the enemy could counterattack. With this tactic, they were able to both tire an enemy out and usually annoying them to the point were they would do something stupid, like trying to chase after them (in which case, they would simply get charged with lancers).
However, most of the time, pitched battles utilizing a large variety of tactics won the day. In the battle of Ain Jalut, for example, the mongols and egyptians constantly charged at each other, trying to break each others´ formations, and disrupting enemy organisations. This was the true dealbreaker of any battle the mongols fought, the part where they would (hopefully) break the enemies into a disorganized rout, as opposed to the skirmishing part, which was mostly for the sake of killing off enemies, scaring them, and goading them into doing something rash and ill-advised.

Aside from this, the mongols most definitely utilized numbers for their tactics as well. While it´s true that Mongolia was never a densely populated land, it was a highly militarized one, as opposed to China. In China, the military made up only a few percent of the population. In Mongolia, due to constant raiding, in-fighting and tribal warfare, at least every man (and a lot of the women) was at least a part-time warrior. When Hulegu was dispatched to invade the lands beyond Khwarezm, the size of his army was reported by how much of all the men of Mongolia that it contained, not by how many Tumen or units, which demonstrates how the mongols considered every man a warrior.
It´s worth mentioning, to strengthen my argument here, that a key feature of the mongols´ success in invading China was thanks to them assimilating the Qara-Khitai, the previous largest steppe tribe. This tribe, while having a larger population than the rest of Mongolia, also had a large part of its population living in northern China, where they made up the bulk of the defensive armies. When Djingis Khan invaded, these khitans abandoned the chinese to join their kin, leaving the northern chinese vastly outnumbered. Also, when Hulegu invaded the Middle east, he didn´t do so with a "skill and precision over large bulk" type of force - he stormed in with over 300 000 men, thus vastly outnumbering the armies of any kingdom in the entire region. And not long after Ain Jalut, he had no problem assembling another army almost equal in size, when his khanate (the Ilkhanids) went to war against the Golden Horde khanate to the north of them.
In other words, it wasn´t the best bows or the best troops that made the mongols so successful.
They most certainly had good weapons (just not superior in any significant way) and good warriors (though also not significantly superior), but they also had great tactics, great numbers, and a great talent at spotting and taking advantage of weaknesses in other realms. To claim anything else would be like saying that they lost the battle of Ain Jalut because the egyptians had so many mamluks in their ranks, rather than due to the fact that Hulegu had withdrawn the majority of his army from the Middle east at that point (leaving only a token force of around 10-12 000 men - which is about as many soldiers as the egyptians had in that battle). You´re not wrong, but you are ignoring the more obvious answer.

Furthermore, the mongols succeeded in most of their impressive achievements not only due to tactics, but even more so due to internal circumstances.
They conquered China because it was divided into several autonomous states, and because the northernmost of these relied too much on khitans in their armies - the internal squabbling, and lack of loyalty within their military made them an easy target for a horde of hundreds of thousands of horsemen. And even with that, it still took the mongols 61 years to conquer all of China (due to the Sung, who kept fighting until 1270, decades after Djingis himself was dead)!
The reason why they conquered Khwarezm was because that empire was large, but incredibly unstable. The Shah had only just expanded the empire to its greatest extent, but had done virtually nothing to stabilize the society of his empire, which led to poor organisation of supplies and reinforcements, as well as poor communication and subpar leadership on the lower levels. Basically, Khwarezm at the time, although it had a larger military, was basically a house of cards waiting to fall.
The main reason to why they conquered so much land, since that came up in the discussion, is mostly because they conquered the majority of Russia, a land area which you will recognize as containing a lot of vast, empty space - hardly a challenge to conquer... The russian principalities put up a fight, but they didn´t own much land back then, and the majority of the turkish tribes in central Asia couldn´t do much other than getting annihilated by the vastly overwhelming force of the mongols (once again, note how superior numbers played an important part in this subjugation).
The same thing goes for the Middle east. The Abbasid caliphate, the Cairo caliphate, the Seljuk empire, the Crusader states, the Isma´ili (/ismaelites) and even Egypt was in a state of disarray and instability. The mongols stormed in, and took advantage of that fact to subdue most of it.
They were only stopped at the battle of Ain Jalut, due to partially the large amount of high-quality troops among the egyptians (consisting of mamluks and warrior refugees from previously conquered lands), partially due to the fact that their tactics didn´t work (on account of the mamluks traditionally being trained in the exact same tactics), and mostly due to Huelgu and his main army being absent.
In other words, despite not being outnumbered, but rather pretty much equal in numbers, they still couldn´t win.

This was a bit of a mouthful, but I hope I covered everything I needed to. I´d like to point out that I am a student of history, and has just finished an essay on this very subject, so I´m not just talking out of my behind here
Also, I sound kind of condescending in this text (I apologize for that, as that wasn´t my intention), so if you´re interested in reading more on your own, most of this information comes from the books "Mongols and Mamluks", by Reuven Amitai-Preiss, and "The Mongols", by David Morgan.

[UndrState]

Thank you Silverheart . You're a pro.

An additional note or two. There is a long tradition of mystifying ( or demonizing ) the Mongols and exaggerating what they actually did and how they did it. I, too, have read the claims about the Mongolian bow being able to fire incredible (read unbelievable ) distances , but these accounts are all written by authors that were close to or otherwise had an interest in promoting the supernatural-ness of the Mongols. Credible, real life tests of replica bows by expert archers don't bear this out.

And a note about numbers - my understanding is that the Mongols were in the habit of inviting to fight or otherwise levying fighting men from settlements that they spared (those that paid tribute ) which also helped bolster their numbers.

[Silverheart]

And a note about numbers - my understanding is that the Mongols were in the habit of inviting to fight or otherwise levying fighting men from settlements that they spared (those that paid tribute ) which also helped bolster their numbers.

That is a correct assessment.
The mongols didn´t destroy everything in their way, but rather caused devastation in a tactical way, so as to spread fear and make other kingdoms too afraid to dare put up a resistance. Trying to avoid conflict unless they completely outmatched their opponents also decreased the risk of defeat - thanks to this, the mongols went virtually undefeated between the conquest of China (except for the Sung and Hsi Hsia states) in 1215 until Ain Jalut in 1260. This helped preserve the image of them as unstoppable.
Then, their vassal states were approached with demands of tribute and soldiers. At Ain Jalut, for example, such non-mongol troops made up about 2000 of the mongol army, in addition to the 10-12 000 mongolian troops. And of course, at that point they were also incorporating chinese and khwarezmian troops into their campaign armies.
These "foreign" troops were mostly used for garrison duties and border patrolling, though and played only a minor, supportive part in major campaigns, since the mongols themselves (understandably) considered their own warriors superior, and more valuable than the soldiers of their defeated vassals.

After Ain Jalut, and Sultan Baybars relentless campaigns against mongol allies and vassals in the Middle east (such as Seljuk Rum and the frankish Crusader states), their reputation was already tarnished, and such assistance became more scarce. In combination with the wars between the different mongol khanates, this contributed to hindering their efforts at getting the invasion of Syria and Egypt rolling again. They tried again in 1281, fielding an army of around 44-46 000, which was defeated at the battle of Homs by a mamluk army of around 45 000.

[stadironin]

Somebody said: "The greatest strength of a composite bow, rather than range, is the power"
There I decided to stop following this thread or maybe the whole forum.
Einstein didnt accept quantum physics but Einstein had his reasons for it.
So my reborn einsteinists....when this "power" generated by a bow, sends this missile away
it doesnt do it by greater velocity you say!?!?!? ... no it just does it more "powerfully".
Not farther, not faster but "with more power"!? ...sigh...cant reason over that LMAO.

But hey I must go on for one more reason.
Mongols conguered very small part of Russia (which wasnt Russia ...duh..) cos the northern parts didnt have
anythging to conquer. Thats why they didnt conquer Finland etc.
Why dont you people just print out the maps and facts and try to measure and read them like adults?
I'm sooo dissapointed to see thisa is just one of those trekkerfanfiktionsites. For me I wanted this to be
pleasure feeds benefit sites.

[Silverheart]

1. Your knowledge on bow mechanics is commendable, although insufficient.
I never said that the composite bow doesn´t have great range, only that A) it wasn´t used for its range, but for the power of the hits, when used from horseback, and B) that its range wasn´t important, for the same reason that hunting bows and short bows weren´t used at their maximum range. All these types of bows are indeed of such a design that they launch the Arrows at a greater velocity than ordinary bows, but with the problem being that the stiffness of the material (usually hard wood, like pine, or bone) causing the arrows to lose velocity faster. It´s just the same physics as what you´re referring to - with a stiffer bow, there is going to be less movement energy in the arrow, making it lose velocity faster than with a softer bow, which can be drawn further, thus transferring more movement energy to the arrow.
This is why a composite bow may be able to reach a target a hundred yards away, but it´s only able to pierce armor (and in general being truly deadly) from less than fifty, and preferably less.

2. If you didn´t notice, the sum totale of my argument regarding the extent of the mongol conquests is that most of the land area that they conquered was either places that were vast and mostly empty, or low in population, or empires and kingdoms that were internally unstable, and hence easy targets. If you look at one of those maps I assume you´re referring to, you would quickly notice how about a third of the mongol empire is in the geographical region known as Russia (though we can call it Tartary, if you prefer, since that is how most people at the time referred to that region), and that the rest of their territory coincides with the location of empires and kingdoms that were severly wrought with internal problems and instability at the time of their conquest. If anything, this says more about the weakness of those kingdoms than the strength of the mongols. Once again, the mongols were certainly no pushovers, and were very capable conquerors, but you can´t attribute their success to only their greatness, since the internal problems of their enemies played as much a part as anything else.

As I stated right in the middle of my post: You´re not wrong, but you are ignoring the obvious answer.
I also stated at the end exactly where I got my information from, thus backing up my claims - Amitai-Preiss even concludes his book with a chapter in which he specifically looks at the equipment and weapons used, and their exact capabilities, which is what I`m relying on.
You, who claim for me to be ignoring facts, have so far presented nothing but claims, without any sources or evidence to support those claims.
Also, if you wanted more pleasure from this game forum, how about actually discussing the game?
If you want to talk pure history, there is a subforum for that, the Vestigia Vetustatis. You can discuss the significance of the role of the composite bow and the "superhuman" nature of the mongols themselves there.

[stadironin]

1. Your knowledge on bow mechanics is commendable, although insufficient.
I never said that the composite bow doesn´t have great range, only that A) it wasn´t used for its range, but for the power of the hits, when used from horseback, and B) that its range wasn´t important, for the same reason that hunting bows and short bows weren´t used at their maximum range. All these types of bows are indeed of such a design that they launch the Arrows at a greater velocity than ordinary bows, but with the problem being that the stiffness of the material (usually hard wood, like pine, or bone) causing the arrows to lose velocity faster. It´s just the same physics as what you´re referring to - with a stiffer bow, there is going to be less movement energy in the arrow, making it lose velocity faster than with a softer bow, which can be drawn further, thus transferring more movement energy to the arrow.
This is why a composite bow may be able to reach a target a hundred yards away, but it´s only able to pierce armor (and in general being truly deadly) from less than fifty, and preferably less.

2. If you didn´t notice, the sum totale of my argument regarding the extent of the mongol conquests is that most of the land area that they conquered was either places that were vast and mostly empty, or low in population, or empires and kingdoms that were internally unstable, and hence easy targets. If you look at one of those maps I assume you´re referring to, you would quickly notice how about a third of the mongol empire is in the geographical region known as Russia (though we can call it Tartary, if you prefer, since that is how most people at the time referred to that region), and that the rest of their territory coincides with the location of empires and kingdoms that were severly wrought with internal problems and instability at the time of their conquest. If anything, this says more about the weakness of those kingdoms than the strength of the mongols. Once again, the mongols were certainly no pushovers, and were very capable conquerors, but you can´t attribute their success to only their greatness, since the internal problems of their enemies played as much a part as anything else.

As I stated right in the middle of my post: You´re not wrong, but you are ignoring the obvious answer.
I also stated at the end exactly where I got my information from, thus backing up my claims - Amitai-Preiss even concludes his book with a chapter in which he specifically looks at the equipment and weapons used, and their exact capabilities, which is what I`m relying on.
You, who claim for me to be ignoring facts, have so far presented nothing but claims, without any sources or evidence to support those claims.
Also, if you wanted more pleasure from this game forum, how about actually discussing the game?
If you want to talk pure history, there is a subforum for that, the Vestigia Vetustatis. You can discuss the significance of the role of the composite bow and the "superhuman" nature of the mongols themselves there.

[stadironin]

Please remove this last reply of yours unless:
a) You work in a circus - cos one of the best jokes I've heard.
b) You try to see if people understand math and physiscs - cos in your reasonings you just found another quantumtheory.
c) You try to make people to buy ForSureYouCannotLose - lotteries.

I am university graduaded, adult, math based assistant teacher. I love history - especially war history. I have read and studied mongols
hundred of hours.
One of us is sooo far from it. I give you one more chance- PROVE me wrong point by point and do it scientific way. Put there references
with exact sentences and I WILL study them.

[UndrState]

Please remove this last reply of yours unless:
a) You work in a circus - cos one of the best jokes I've heard.
b) You try to see if people understand math and physiscs - cos in your reasonings you just found another quantumtheory.
c) You try to make people to buy ForSureYouCannotLose - lotteries.

I am university graduaded, adult, math based assistant teacher. I love history - especially war history. I have read and studied mongols
hundred of hours.
One of us is sooo far from it. I give you one more chance- PROVE me wrong point by point and do it scientific way. Put there references
with exact sentences and I WILL study them.

You, sir, have been way short on facts yourself to be making demands. I also find it hard to believe someone who is educated and responsible for teaching others to be so prone to condescension . Arrogance is not an appealing quality . Why don't you start over by presenting evidence to support your claim that the Mongol bow could shoot "farther than ANY other bow" ? I'm sure you will find we will consider those facts with more patience than you seem to be showing us.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

Let me add one more point : Silverheart and I have been around these forums for much longer than you, and we've seen a lot of green kids making claims not too different from yours, and are bound to treat them with some healthy skepticism when they are at odds with our own, not un-educated, knowledge.

[KmanBEAST]

I like how this is arguement is going on, but in game all long range missile units all have the same range.

While i'm not a historian (just a teenager with a passion for history and this game ), it's probably important to remember those accounts of people writing about the Mongolian bow (or any other weapon that was considered new and different) probably exaggerated a bit too much. Im sure that compared to some who hasn't seen other powerful bows would surely believe that theirs was the greatest of all. I don't have any proof to this, just pointing out that people sometimes go crazy over stuff and exaggerate on it a tad bit too much.

[Maklodes]

I like how this is arguement is going on, but in game all long range missile units all have the same range.

Long-ranged crossbowmen and archers all have the same range (160). Musketeers have a bit longer range (180). Mongol horse archers, like all horse archers, don't have long range (120). Their foot archers have standard long range (160).

But power does not necessarily equal range, as any archer can tell you.

While I'm very skeptical that the Mongol bow was significantly different from that used by the Jurchens, Kypchaks, Tatars, etc, I really don't understand this. If you're using the same arrow, kinetic energy is roughly proportional to maximum range (in a vacuum, with same starting and ending elevation, the proportion would be exact; in other circumstances, the relationship between kinetic energy and range isn't exactly proportional, but range still increases monotonically with KE). There's no way you really could shoot a given arrow to be longer-ranged but less powerful. Of course, if you used a heavier arrow, that could reduce range while increasing kinetic energy, but that's the arrow, not the bow.

[KmanBEAST]

Long-ranged crossbowmen and archers all have the same range (160). Musketeers have a bit longer range (180). Mongol horse archers, like all horse archers, don't have long range (120). Their foot archers have standard long range (160).



While I'm very skeptical that the Mongol bow was significantly different from that used by the Jurchens, Kypchaks, Tatars, etc, I really don't understand this. If you're using the same arrow, kinetic energy is roughly proportional to maximum range (in a vacuum, with same starting and ending elevation, the proportion would be exact; in other circumstances, the relationship between kinetic energy and range isn't exactly proportional, but range still increases monotonically with KE). There's no way you really could shoot a given arrow to be longer-ranged but less powerful. Of course, if you used a heavier arrow, that could reduce range while increasing kinetic energy, but that's the arrow, not the bow.

Ok let me rephrase that:

All long-range crossbow and archer units in the game have long range. I usually don't use guns too much other than campaign and fun little battles with other friends, so I forgot about them. However my point is still there, no point to argue about this in the "strategies" section of the medieval II forums. I agree archers should have way longer range than crossbows (well the elite archers should, NOT the levies ).

[stadironin]

------ UndrState said: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You, sir, have been way short on facts yourself to be making demands. I also find it hard to believe someone who is educated and responsible for teaching others to be so prone to condescension . Arrogance is not an appealing quality . Why don't you start over by presenting evidence to support your claim that the Mongol bow could shoot "farther than ANY other bow" ? I'm sure you will find we will consider those facts with more patience than you seem to be showing us.

Let me add one more point : Silverheart and I have been around these forums for much longer than you, and we've seen a lot of green kids making claims not too different from yours, and are bound to treat them with some healthy skepticism when they are at odds with our own, not un-educated, knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really dont remember how this all started? You called my posting BS !!! So my ADULT, patient and distinguished scholar - grow up.
I smelled out soon that your historystudy friend and especially you seem to care more of your images than facts. Below is a good posting about those facts.

While I'm very skeptical that the Mongol bow was significantly different from that used by the Jurchens, Kypchaks, Tatars, etc, I really don't understand this. If you're using the same arrow, kinetic energy is roughly proportional to maximum range (in a vacuum, with same starting and ending elevation, the proportion would be exact; in other circumstances, the relationship between kinetic energy and range isn't exactly proportional, but range still increases monotonically with KE). There's no way you really could shoot a given arrow to be longer-ranged but less powerful. Of course, if you used a heavier arrow, that could reduce range while increasing kinetic energy, but that's the arrow, not the bow.

Thank you for your posting. As I said above those guys dont seem to have knowledge of physics but opinions are cheap.
About urchens, Kypchaks, Tatars, etc were effectively part of Mongol tribes. Basically the same culture, weapons etc. All Turco-Mongol tribes ( had the same bow type
and turkis bow developed to be the strongest of them all. Temur (i.e. Tamerlane) claimed to be Tsingis Han's (also cos of typo wrongly called Genghis in Europe) grand-something son directly. I'm not gonna continue this subject with anyone wihout reasonable knowledge about physics, linguistics and history.

[UndrState]

So you've still go nothing substantial to back your BS claim. Oh well, see you later kid .