Mongols

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:09 am

I agree the Mongols used a thumb draw. It was thumbrings that I said they didn't use (to my knowledge).

S

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:39 pm

The lack of metal or bone thumb rings in archaeological context in Mongolia proper has always been a problem. However, the survival rate and the accurate identification of thumb rings have always been low in archaeology.

Middle Eastern paintings of Mongol troops attacking Baghdad clearly show thumb rings. Most of the equipment is accurately observed (closed quivers, lamellar armour etc.). While it could be argued that they acquired thumb rings in Iraq or that the artists were representing Mongol troops through a local mental filter (i.e. they had seen local Turkish archers using thumb rings or that it was part of the artistic canon), the simplest explanation is that the Mongols were seen using thumb rings. The painting was painted within in a century of the events being represent and before the first thumb ring to be found in a Mongol grave in Russia. Mongol equipment was still relatively consistent with the early period. In fact, despite the the excavate thumb rings in the Middle East before the Mongol invasion, representations of them are rare though they are described in archery literature. It is during the Ilkhanid period that they start to appear in paintings.

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:54 am

Stephen Selby wrote: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.

So they only had 12 arrows? Also, what did they use instead of thumb rings???

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:22 pm

It's not really necessary to use a thumbring. It certainly helps in terms of increasing the smoothness of release; but on horseback, it's just one more thing to get in the way of rapid nocking and shooting. If you're afraid of pain when you draw a heavier bow, then you just add some soft leather serving below the nocking point on the string.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:24 pm

Stephen,
I really think that increasing the thickness of the string at the nocking point is a modern and inefficient method of using the thumb release. Leather thumb rings are attested to in the literature and are still used in Mongolia today. Padding the string is a good practice technique and attested to in Turkish literature.

I gave one to a Mongolian archer in Korea last year and he commented on the ease of shooting with them compared to a horn ring that didn't fit too well.

In answer to the other question about the numer of arrows. Most surviving closed quivers seem to be hunting quivers, judging by the types of arrow heads found in them. However, there is enough artistic, literary and archaeological information to suggest larger ones were quite common. Perhaps users of closed quivers preferred to hunt in the afterlife rather than fight.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:36 pm

Beatiful mongol horse full war armoured- Russian "Kulikovo pole " museum-maybe reconstruction

mongol warior

archeological original from Uzbek muzeum

Gleb · Post by **Gleb** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:28 pm

Dusan, these compositions are modern replicas

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:35 pm

This is visible , but looks good

and historical right-

Gleb · Post by **Gleb** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:46 pm

Beg your pardon. Speaking about these armor spicemen in a right way we should use words as "a version of reconstruction"!

Yes, It looks very good. But I'm not sure that all the details are "historical right" in full meaning.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:36 am

The helmet's isn't right. Should be 8 steel leaves and 'garlic head shaped'. I have an original one here, authenticated by Prof. Yang Hong.

S

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:52 am

The lamellar armour is an imaginary pattern reconstructed on the basis of some Osprey books' interpretations. Admittedly, these are very good reconstructions, but there is a lot of imagination used in their details.

Sometimes it is imagined that the Tibetan lamellar armours are made in the Mongolian style, but the Tibetan ones are so sophisticated that they appear similar to many other types because they incorporate many scale types into the one piece of armour.

In addition, from archaeology and art it is clear that there were many sorts of lamellar armour in use at the same time and there was a progression of styles of construction over a period of about 150 years in Mongol ruled areas. Prof. Yang Hong's book on Chinese weapons has a list from the Song Dynasty of many types of armour with special uses and the number of scales varied considerably.

Stephen,
Would you like to show us a picture of your helmet?

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 am

Stephen , like we talked about mongols arme some time ago , this arme was from many diferent tribes, horses, weapons ...and lamellar armour. Why not ? I thing the russians scientist have moore than other archeological experiences and facts from this tipe reconstruction. From other side ,who can say what is the "right " helmet for all mongolian army (?) or right sistem ? If anybody have this complicated and not a cheep armour he must be a nobility man.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:29 am

Stephen , like we talked about mongols army some time ago , this army was from many different tribes, horses, weapons ...and lamellar armour. Why not ?

You have a good point. I agree that armour like this might have been used by some army in east Europe or Asia during the 11th Century.

But then what shall we discuss here? Whether the photograph shows Turkish mercenary armour? Or whether it's Togbut or Xixia armour?

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:40 am

I dont know . Here we dicsus about Xixia or Togbut ? I thing we discus about Temudjin army or Golden Horde army.this armour is -like said in Kulikovo P.Muz. -reconstruction of russians findings from Golden Horde era. But sorry,

i am not expert.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:35 am

Dusan,
I don't believe this reconstruction is based on Russian research. I recognise the style of construction from Western publications. Gorelik is the Russian expert on armour of this period. He has published in Russian and English.