The question might've already been asked before but, during the collapse of the Mongol Empire were the horses of the (now defeated/losing) horde(s) eaten after battle? I could see how in more prosperous times, horses would not be eaten because they are (as far as i know) considered noble creatures. But since most of the former Mongol Empire was probably pillaged by the Mongols, this probably included some farms thus probably leading to some food problems, did the soldiers discard this 'horses are noble and not food' idea in favor of a full tummy?
The eating of horses (When fighting with Mongols)
- Thread starter Vaegir Luchnik
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I'd say it's inferior to beef and pork. Passable as dried meat, though.Kharille said:
Mongols and other nomadic steppe people ate horses all the time, it was one of their main food sources. It isn't that unusual. And while they respected their horses I don't think they necessarily put them on a pedestal like that: they were respected for their utility, in life or in death. Take the story of the horse head fiddle, for example.
That was in an exeptionally desperate situation. And there are tales of cavalrymen in Napoleon's Grande Armée who would rather die than kill their horse or leave it behind even when crippled.Kharille said:
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Their relation with horses was similar to most hunter-gatherers and nomads who relied on a specific type of animal (deer for native Americans, sheep for the levant, and a few others I've forgotten). They would venerate the species, but treat individual horses like utter crap to get the most utility out of them. Part of the diet was horse blood while the horse was still alive, which wasn't just used during war and wasn't unique to the Mongols.
I think somebody in the Mongol court did the tauntaun thing to his horse once, but I'm not sure.
Thanks for the reply but, this is probably because i'm not a native speaker, I was trying to refer to the foes of the Mongols (The Eastern Europeans, the people of the Middle east and Persia etc.).Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
I'm aware that the (formerly nomadic) Turks were already working as mercenaries around the Levant area so i suppose based on what you say they probably took to eating horses after battle. But i'm more interested in what the Eastern Europeans and people from the Middle East and Persia thought about the eating of horse meat
Hm.. Unfortunate about Napoleon. I thought he'd have the big picture in mind. Maybe he didn't know how bad the Russian winter got, but at least he should've figured out the logistics before he lost so much of his grand armee.
To be effective they should just eat whatever is available. I'm sure under siege conditions they could come up with some interesting recipes.
That film, I think its called 'Alive' about the south American football team seems sensible. Takes getting used to but it worked out for them.
To be effective they should just eat whatever is available. I'm sure under siege conditions they could come up with some interesting recipes.
That film, I think its called 'Alive' about the south American football team seems sensible. Takes getting used to but it worked out for them.
Who said their army sucked balls? Theirs was the best army of Napoleon's opponents.
It's just a trend I've observed, not aimed at anyone in this discussion. At some point I've even seen 'murica bro talking how even pansy Frenchies whooped Russkies butts and only winter saved their asses. Granted, it's mainly appearing in places where anyone with actual knowledge is being yelled at until he or she leaves, but still.
WW2 cliches quite often get imposed on the Napoleonic Wars. Russia = "tons of useless infantry and big cannons" is a fairly common one I've seen.
**** Enemy at the Gates and Call of Duty for promoting those cold war propaganda clichés. I really hate it when people actually believe **** like that. 
Vicccard
Master Knight
I'm no expert of the Russian Campaign but '1812' by Zamoyski does seem to suggest that the Russian army, especially its organisation, sucked balls and was unable to successfully defend Russia, just retreating and retreating without a clear strategy. Plus, especially Kutuzov was a terrible commander, with just a whole lot of luck and a great gift for boasting his achievements.
Then again, the Russian campaign isn't exactly Napoleon's finest hour too. It sorta reminds me of the Waterloo campaign where Wellington practically lost the campaign by sending his army the wrong way but was saved by the French making even more mistakes.
Then again, the Russian campaign isn't exactly Napoleon's finest hour too. It sorta reminds me of the Waterloo campaign where Wellington practically lost the campaign by sending his army the wrong way but was saved by the French making even more mistakes.
Well I read both that book and Dominic Lieven's Russia against Napoleon, and I think those together give a better picture of the campaign. It seems the leadership and organisation was rather poor, but the soldiers and their equipment, especially the artillery, were very good. Also Kutuzov may be a poor commander compared to the French marshalls, but he managed to keep the Russian army mostly intact after Borodino and throughout the winter of 1812.
I am very curious to hear Bluehawk's opinion on the matter too.
I am very curious to hear Bluehawk's opinion on the matter too.
