Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
As for the Han Chinese, while yes, they recruited auxiliaries from everywhere, the core of the army, as I understand it, remained the ethnically Han professional infantry, which was still the core of the army when the dynasty collapsed.
This is where the popular conception of these armies drives me nuts. I have a damned doctorate in the Roman army and yet often I cannot recognize it in the descriptions of it that I get from laypeople. They describe a military force that is unfamiliar to me.
And on the broader point, it is actually pretty clear that, on the whole, the rich settled people had the edge. You can tell because they tended to control the most hospitable and resource rich regions of Eurasia (read: places with coastlines and enough water to farm)...
...whereas, with notable exceptions, the hard warriors of nomadic peoples were quite roughly shoved into marginal lands in the arid zone. Sure, we mark the big exceptions - Arabs, Turks, Mongols. But they are exceptions to the general rule.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
