Mongols

[PeterM]

I posted a few weeks ago that I was doing a project about the mongols and I read a book and ive seen some bad mistakes such as an english war bow's maximum draw being 75lbs (depending on the person most consider a war bow 140+) so I wanted to run some stuff by you guys.

I was reading "the devils horsemen" and it said that a mounted archer would carry 2 quivers both with at least 60 arrows each, short and long distance arrows, 3 ft armor piecing arrows that were heated until they were red hot and plunged into salt water, whistling arrows for signaling and Identifying targets, incendiary arrows, and arrows with grenades on them. 2 bows, maximum distance of 350 yards and draw weight of 100-160#s. They would string the bow by placing one end in between the stir up and their boot (I thought they weren't sure if they used stirrups?) and they would shoot using the Mongolian thumb lock, a stone ring on their thumb which was faster than the Mediterranean style which gave it that much more power. They would aim and wait until mid gallop to shoot so as not to mess up their aim.

The horses were prized for their stamina and courage. They were bread with Arab stallions. they were ridden hard and broken at a young age. the herd instinct was encourage so they could be lead by one lead horse and not be bothered by large numbers. Because they were broken at a young age they were gentle and quiet. A soldier would have a 4 horses when on campaign, riding one with 3 following behind and they would ride for days without food drinking the blood of their weakest mount and if desperate eating its flesh but they wouldn't never eat a horse that had been in battle, if a horse became lame or injured then they would put them out to pasture unless a rider died his favorite horse would be buried with him so their spirits could ride together forever.

If you see anything wrong with what he said or if you wana add anything...

[jack farrell]

Peter; i'll just give some of my opinions, I was not around then, 1200AD.

One can see several existing Mongol era quivers and they will barely hold a dozen arrows. The arrows make a tool kit of different types, I mean radically different than eachother. Short range, long range, armor piercing, bloodletting. I have seen grenades of the period and they cannot be shot from a bow.

"Tartar" means something like hell so the Mongols who invaded Europe were known as that. Their horses were Mongolian type which are about one third smaller than standard, not crossed with Arabians, as the horses of Turkmenistan look (but aren't).

Mongols also carried a sword and lance for which they are also famous.

I should think that blood was consumed when necessary and would be surprised if any weak animal was not eaten when necessary.

Mongol warriors were not paid as such but earned a share in plunder, were expected to fight if instructed.

[jack farrell]

You might find "the secret life of the Mongols" or something like that. have not read it but many who have say it is excellent. I like "the Mongol Warlords" by Nicolle, and "Historic India", by Schulburg. Both are easy reading and should be generally accurate. Lots of warrior lore. -j-

[Bede]

Peter,
Your source seems a bit confused.

• The source for the sixty arrow quiver is a misinterpretation of a European report of the Mongols where two quivers of thirty arrows each were mentioned. One quiver was full of arrows for close work and and the was for distance shooting.
  I think Jack was referring to the "SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS". There are several good translations in English. Cleaves is more formal and de Rachewiltz is more complete (two volumes).
  The Mongols had little access to Arab horses until they reached the middle east. The current Mongol ponies are descendants of at least one of the breeds in Mongolia at the time. From archaeological evidence, there is no doubt there were larger horses, though none of the size later bred in Europe.
  Jack is correct in that the European name "Tartars" is equated with Tartarus meaning Hell. However, the name was a misinterpretation of the tribal name "Tatar", which referred to a group wiped out by Chinggis Qan before he started to move west. The Mongols were saddled by this name in the same way as the Greeks nearly always referred to the Persians as Medes.
  The quivers that Jack refers to may have been hunting or court quivers. They usually have a small number arrows with various heads. Actual war quivers have not been found yet.
  Up until the studies of the Mary Rose longbows, it was generally believed that longbows were not much heavier than ninety pounds. That changed after the testing and building of replicas. Your source is out of date. The Mongols and other peoples with the right technology could build very strong bows.
  Morgan's "THE MONGOLS" is a good introduction to Mongol history. Nearly all books where they describe Mongol technologies are rapidly going out of date because of new discoveries.

[PeterM]

thanks everyone, my source of "the devils's horsemen" by james chambers was published in 1979 so it is out of date. I think I will look into buying the books you guys have mentioned and see what I can find, Out of date info is why im kind of apprehensive about using articles online about the mongols because I read acticles about different things I know much more about and the articles are usually terrible.

[Orda Khan]

Carpini's "The Mongols Whom We Call Tartars" contains the observations made during his journey to the court of Guyug, including descriptions of Mongol arms and armour.
Buell's "The Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire" contains a lot of information either ignored or overlooked by other authors.
Michal Biran's "Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia" is an in depth study of the events in Central Asia, shedding much light on fractured state of the Mongol Empire, a wealth of information.
The term Tatar seems also to have been applied, by the Mongols, to conquered tribes and was readily taken up by the 'Golden Horde', whose armies contained far more Qipchaqs than Mongols. The Mongol bow and its performance has also been blown out of all proportion, it was highly disciplined military and some astounding generals that was the true strength of Mongol armies of that time (mid 13th C ) The Mamluks took this one step further and schooled slaves (many of them Qipchaqs sold by the Mongols) into highly disciplined armies.
I am also sure that, given the extent of the Empire, horses such as the Central Asian Akhal Teke, an animal of around 15.2HH, would have been found among Mongol herds.

[TradArcher]

I can also advise "Genghis Khan.Conqueror of the World" by Leo de Hartog. You can find there lots of facts about everyday life of the Mongols and it is easy to read.

In reference to Tatars, large groups settled here in Poland as my family

Best
Janek

Quick Reference on Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

[Russ Mitchell]

I do not have a copy of the book (it went out of print while I was in the US), but the Kipcaq DID have access to Arab-lined horses. At least one was buried with a Cuman/Polovetsi prince at Csinggele.

[mongolianarcher]

[quote="Bede"]Peter,
Your source seems a bit confused.

• The source for the sixty arrow quiver is a misinterpretation of a European report of the Mongols where two quivers of thirty arrows each were mentioned. One quiver was full of arrows for close work and and the was for distance shooting.
  
  
  What do you mean by and and was for distance shooting?

[Dusan]

First at all- name- "Mongols" is fiction name, like in 18 cen. "Americans"- in America (from name Amerigo Vespucci) live this days people from Britain, France , Irish, German, Polland , ... etc. Same is Mongols - this is group of many tribes, most of him are erliers Huns. Genghis army was like snow ball . In every teritory who was conquer , he packing or"gluing" in this snow ball more and more wariors from new tribes . Its like Babylon army. But very strictly strong sistem in army keeping whole all this ball. From historical sources only 20 % (maybe less) wariors from all mongol army was from Genghis teritory. Same variation must be vith horses, bows, arows, what ever you mean...
I mean that Russian and Chinese Historicians and archeologists was best experts in this thema- there is sources.

[Bede]

The close shooting and distant shooting were defined as close combat heavy arrows and lighter arrows for shooting at people at a distance. Unfortunately they did not define the type of heads or the sizes of the shafts. Like a lot of old sources, they were writing for people who knew already what they were talking about.

Do you want me to find you the whole quote and put it here?

Regarding the Mongols, it was a tribal designation for a group of clans that appeared in the 9th-11th centuries. There are Chinese references to a similar name (but Chinese transcriptions of foreign names are not very precise) from earlier times, but whether they are related is a bit hard to determine.

The British Empire was the empire ruled by the British and the Mongol Empire was the empire ruled by the Mongols. No one would say that everyone in the British army of the period was an Englishman nor does that apply to the Mongol army of the imperial period. As far as I can tell the one made up name in this area was "Manchu" which was created by Nurhaci to identify the Jurchen tribes he was forming a new nation from.

At the time of the foundation of the empire by Chinggis Khan, There were several tribal groupings in the area of modern Mongolia: the Naimans, the Merkit, the Kerait, the Mongols and the Tatars. There were smaller groupings like the Uriangkhai and others. Some spoke Mongolian and some spoke Turkish languages (like the Kerait).

There had been a lot of ethnic and linguistic changes since the time of the Xiongnu, who had only been the ruling tribe of a confederation as well. It can be confusing if you mix up linguistic groups with ethnic groups since they can overlap.

[Stephen Selby]

One could get into a lengthy discussion; but I'll make a couple of points.

There's no evidence that the Mongols used thumbrings. Certainly not stone ones. It is also unlikely that they used bows with massive draw-weights except for training on the ground.

The imperial period Mongolian armies were made made up numerically of a majority of non-Mongols who may have shot every-which way.

The horses they rode were almost certainly not Mongolian steppe ponies, which were highly unsatisfactory for military work. They probably rode Ferghana/Mongolian cross-bred horses for size and speed.

They used closed quivers which don't seem to have the capacity to hold more than a dozen arrows. They mixed the arrow-types within the quivers.

[Dusan]

All massive war attacs in european agrycoultural tribes was from the same teritory in east asia .From the same hunters and wariors tribes tru the step highway. Skitas, Celts , Avars, Huns, Mongols- this is only biggest name of many more litle or bigger tribes. Our archeologist in Slovakia found big wall from earth stons and woods cross all Slovakia north -south directory - about 350-400 km long . Same solution , like China.

[Bede]

Stephen,
There are references in the Secret History of the Mongols to the thumb draw. I agree that there are unlikely to be locally made stone thumb rings. Leather and horn are more likely materials. All Middle Eastern and Chinese depictions of the Mongols in the imperial period show the thumb draw.

Undoubtedly there were some tribal groups that did not use the thumb ring, but most of them were to the north west of Mongolia. Evidentally, there was a conversion among some of the Turkish tribes on the Russian steppes from a finger based draw to a thumb based one around the time of the Mongol conquest. Even so, the number of stone or metal thumb rings in tombs in very small.

The closed quiver is the most likely domesticly used quiver for hunting, but there is a definite change to open quivers based on the Persian miniatures and contemporary Chinese paintings. There were clearly different types of closed quiver with different capacities and purposes. Most of the surviving ones seem to have had hunting arrows (often with broadheads and whistles). This tendency goes back to early Turkish times. There are some fourteenth century miniatures showing narrow closed quivers used by heavily armoured cavalry. Probably they were not involved in large scale archery attacks.

The Mongols regularly recruited warriors from conquered tribes and after they took settled areas like North China, they employed specialist technicians to built siege engines and other military necessities. The composition of the Mongol armies varied from place to place. In Batu's ordu (the Golden Horde in Western literature), the majority of the army was composed of Kipchak warriors with a few Mongol tumens and mongol senior officers.

The strength of the bows is difficult to determine, but the one Mongol flight record (the Yissungge stone) we have suggests powerful and efficent bows.

[Orda Khan]

There is also reference in The Secret History of the Mongols regarding thumb draw during the argument between Jochi and Chagadai. Jochi remarks that he will cut off his thumb if Chagadai was more proficient than he was with the bow.