I have really enjoy the Tibetan Empire articles (Slingshot 319 and 320) written by Nicholas Spratt.
However I have one concern over the implied evidence for infantry in the army. The author infers (Slingshot 320, page 8) that because Tibetan records refer to 'commander of horse, or commander of camels' it would 'imply that the title was required to differentiate the unit from one of only infantry and therefore, the Tibetan army was not entirely mounted'. I am by no means an expert on the mainland Far-East but I am not convinced from a pure logic point of view that this seems to infer infantry in the Tibetan army. It could just as easily be that the records require to differentiate between various types of mounted forces for pay, logistical or armaments reasons. I am not saying I disagree that there could be infantry in the army but I don't believe that it is sufficient to infer so from this evidence.
Now I am more than happy to be shown to be making an incorrect use of linguistic logic by someone more familiar with oriental languages than I am but I remain to be convinced on that evidence.
Please note that this relatively minor point should in no way be taken as a criticism of the articles as I am really impressed by them and have learnt a lot from them.
I agree that if there's "commanders of horse" and "commanders of camels", that in itself gives no license to assume the existence of infantry: the "of horse/camels" are needed to distinguish from commanders of the other sort of animal.
Now, it's an interesting question what a commander of camels did. Despite a certain Essex minis range, there's AFAIK no evidence of anyone using Bactrian camels as battle mounts, so it would be exceedingly brave to assume that camelry is implied. Maybe he was in charge of the baggage train - or maybe he commanded camel-mounted infantry?
Loving Nicolas' articles on the Tibetans. First rate piece of work.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 19, 2018, 08:28:32 PM
I agree that if there's "commanders of horse" and "commanders of camels", that in itself gives no license to assume the existence of infantry: the "of horse/camels" are needed to distinguish from commanders of the other sort of animal.
Yes. You are dead right. Never assume.
But "of horse" modifies commander.
It's redundant if all commanders commanded horse. Not inaccurate, but pointless.
So AN inference MAY BE (two qualifiers, absolutely not certain) that there were
Commanders of things-other-than-horse, one of which could be infantry. Although as you've pointed out, there are other possible explanations too.
My 320 has not arrived yet, (or maybe it has but I am in Laos) so I can't remember what qualifier I actually used, but it is not a deduction, so I hope I wrote something along the lines of... "possible inference".
I am glad though you've got something from the articles. I always worry that it might be a little obscure. But I am glad the Met. in NY made those photos freely available!
It also presumes that title related to role. For example, in WW2 German generals could be called General Der Infanterie, Kavallerie, Artillerie etc but regardless of title all commanded mixed arms formations.
Great article, BTW - I really enjoyed it.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Dangun on October 22, 2018, 02:24:38 PM
I am glad though you've got something from the articles. I always worry that it might be a little obscure.
I've been enjoying your Chang'an pieces a lot :) As far as I'm concerned, it's a feature that Ss deals with various obscure topics I might never have learnt about otherwise.
By no means too obscure - more please.
Not sure that the linguistic inference really matters either way, since there is other evidence for Tibetan infantry - some of which Nicholas quotes in the article. And:
QuoteScarcely had the bridge been destroyed in the evening when the Tibetans, mounted and on foot, arrived in great numbers, but it was then too late for them to attain their object. The bridge was the length of an arrowshot; it had taken a whole year to construct it.
(Sir Aurel Stein citing Gao Xianji's biography in the
T'ang shu, via Chavannes' French translation)