Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Limits of Mongol Power Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 18:54 |
This is the famous Russian picture called "The conquest of Siberia by Ermak" It depicts the battle for the capital of the Siberian Khanate, Isker (also known as "Sibir") in 1582
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 19:14 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
What's susprising in that . Nomadic peope has been living in Siberia for milleniums. There was a strong state of Enisei Kyrgyzs in the 9th century that destoroyed the Nomadic Uighur Kaganate (the heart of Enisei Kyrgyz state was Siberian Taiga). Northern Mongols are essentially Siberian people. Altai which is actually the craddle of all Turkic nomadic people is partly in Siberia as well.
Mongols also were familiar with the fighting in the forests and the empire of Chinghizkhan included "wild forest tribes" Uriankhai (in Mongolian) which were effectively subdued by Chinghizkhan. Subudai and Jelme according to some sources (greatest Mongolian generals) are believed to be Uriankhais. There is even a theory that modern Khalkha Mongols are just Siberian forest people which switched to the nomadic life style just only relatively recently (though this one is not very credible).
There are a lot of sources on Siberian Khanate in Russian I just doubt if there will any use of them if I post them here.
|
Correct, but say me exactly when a nomadic empire expanded deep into the taiga forest
Edited by Ikki - 23-Mar-2008 at 19:27
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 19:32 |
The hearthland of Enisei Kyrgyz state was Siberian Taiga.
But I wouldn't say that Nomadic empires really expanded deep in Taiga. They simply accepted the submission of Taiga tribes and regularly collected the tribute, they didn't really move into and settle in Taiga.
Russian did the same when they conquered Siberia, simple submission and tribute was enough. No one seriously tried to go deep into the forest and chase local tribes there.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 19:46 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
The hearthland of Enisei Kyrgyz state was Siberian Taiga.
But I wouldn't say that Nomadic empires really expanded deep in Taiga. They simply accepted the submission of Taiga tribes and regularly collected the tribute, they didn't really move into and settle in Taiga.
Russian did the same when they conquered Siberia, simple submission and tribute was enough. No one seriously tried to go deep into the forest and chase local tribes there. |
Um certainly, many nomadic empires had this relation with forest peoples, do you know some concrete study about this relation? Or i'm asking the wrong question, can be artificial the division in pure steparian-pure forestal?
Edited by Ikki - 23-Mar-2008 at 19:51
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 21:39 |
To some extend this difference is blended, for example Yakuts. Southern Yakuts essentially didn't differ very much from nomadic Mongols, while norhtern Yakuts lifestyle more resembled the life style of Taiga people.
Yenisei Kyrgyzs were originally "forest people" as well, however, they were able to organize a strong AKA nomadic style military and crush Uighur state. So, sometimes this division is not really visible.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 13:39 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
To some extend this difference is blended, for example Yakuts. Southern Yakuts essentially didn't differ very much from nomadic Mongols, while norhtern Yakuts lifestyle more resembled the life style of Taiga people.
Yenisei Kyrgyzs were originally "forest people" as well, however, they were able to organize a strong AKA nomadic style military and crush Uighur state. So, sometimes this division is not really visible. |
Thanks very much for the info Sarmat i didn't know those dettails of Yakuts and Kyrgyzs, very interesting
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 19:14 |
Ikki, i'd like to disagree on areas which are good for cavalry warfare. Steppe ponies are somewhat different from the horses used for example in Syria. "urban" horses are ussually fed with fodder, while Steppe ponies don't eat fodder but need to be grazed, therefore Azerbaijan was the last major outpost for Steppe armies, their "range" is limited by such areas. the only other similar areas in the region are inc entral Anatolia (already occupied by the vassal Seljuqs and further east in Iran, so waht remains is Azerbaijan from where to contuct all operations directed at Africa. due to this, a steppe occupation of Egypt is nearly impossible, but yet it is no explanation for tactcial defeats. other than that, "urban" horses ahve horseshoes, Mongol ponies do not. in one book i read that the stonedesert in Syria did harm the Mongol ponies hooves, so in case this is true, the Mongol cavalry is at a serious disadvantage in Syria. therefore i rather would not call Syria perfectly suited for cavalry warfare, if we talk about cavalry on Steppe mounts. about India, i'm not perfectly familiar witht he issues of terrain etc there, but cavalry was quite prominent in all or most of India, maybe not east india but most definately north, west and central india, just look at the Mahratta cavalry and i think the sultanate mysore also had some excellent cavalry.
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 14:49 |
That's a good point, Temujin. I wonder if it would be possible to found all the passes and valleys in the Alps wich could had been used from the antient magyars (with horses without horseshoes) during their campaigns into Italy, Germany and France until 955.
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 16:14 |
Hello Temujin
If I am not mistaken, the deserts and steppes of central asia are also stony but this did not deter mongols from conquering so is the Anatolian plateau, and if you haven't read my port about the mameluke Ilkhan wars, you will note that mongols always campaigned in Syria from late Automn, when the heavy rains start, till early Spring when the weather starts to heat up, around early April. All this time water is in full supply and the earth is green. Mamelukes also had most of their horses raised in the plaines and they only fed them during the summer time. Also if I am not mistaken the Ilkhans adopted the horse shoe later on but that did not led them to victory.
Al-Jassas
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 20:36 |
the reason why Mongol campaigns were from autumn to spring was different though. ponies would graze the pastures to get fat in summer, then they could endure the toughness and shortages of winter better, they did that in all campaigns. from what i know Iran and central asia did not have stone desert but sand desert. also in such a way rivers could be used as highways, thats also the reason why Magyar invaders often raided via the Danube valley. so there is no snow in the middle east which i think is an disadvantage for Mongol warfare.
|
|
toyomotor
Baron
BANNED TROLL
Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 11:55 |
Originally posted by Paul
The Mongols halted at the German forests reluctant to enter. The would only go into Northern India, they wouldn't venture into SE Asia at all.
A lot of historians wonder why and debate why this was. Indians too tough for Mongols, Europe only a raid not invasion, SE Asia not worth conquest and so on. There are numerous theories.
One thing that comes to mind to me is that all these theatres had a common factor, a rainy climate. Composite bows don't work in the rain. Was it a technological limitation that halted them?
|
I offer this for your consideration.
The Mongols, in their westward expansion, travelled in groups of one hundred thousand or more. Being essentially Light Cavalry, they had their own horses to feed and water, as well as two or more spares. Their families accompanied them, bringing probably more horses, along with goats and cattle. All of this required vast grazing lands-forests were simply not suitable. Nor were forests suitable to their mode of warfare. As for their bows, they were treated as very valuable items, and were unstrung and wrapped in hide when they were not needed. The basic answer to your question is the military mans eternal bugbear, logistics.
|
|