Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Orderic Vitalis
Immortal Guard
Joined: 03-Aug-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
|
Quote Reply
Topic: New articles on Mongols from De Re Militari site Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 21:52 |
I want to let the forum know that at De Re Militari (www.deremilitari.org) we have added two new articles that deal with the Mongols. Both are republished from the Toronto Studies in Central and Inner Asia series.
"Spurred on by the Fear of Death": Refugees and Displaced Populations during the Mongol Invasion of Hungary, by James Ross Sweeney - from Nomadic Diplomacy, Destruction and Religion from the Pacific to the Adriatic
The Nomads' Armament: Home Made Weapons, by John Masson Smith Jr. - from Religion, Customary Law, and Nomadic Technology
We have also received permission to republish portions of two 16th century chroniclers that deal with Central Asia: Khwandamir and Mizra Haydar Dughlat. It should be available sometime this month.
|
Visit our site www.medievalists.net for articles, videos and more about the Middle Ages
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 22:26 |
Thanks for the links Orderic Vitalis. I already started reading the Nomad armament one. The web page in general has quite a few articles on Steppe empires.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 22:44 |
The Nomads' Armament: Home Made Weapons, interesting article
Fast Horses and Mongol bow were most used and main weapon . Its design is reflection of limitation of resource- with many curves, re-flexed. re-curved, using indifferent quality of woods. So Mongol bow is perfect reflection of talent of Archer-makers who overcome those difficulties of lack of material and technology.
According to article Mongols did not have good armament upto other's standard"- clumsy cumbersome armory, even lack of sword....
And club was most availablel weapon. Easy to make
My conclusion is that NOMAD PEOPLE, themselves were MAIN ASSET / WEAPON of Chinggis Warfare. War is fought by PEOPLE.
Edited by Zorigo - 03-Aug-2006 at 22:57
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 06:38 |
I have read Sweeney's article before. I think it's a completely new viewpoint.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 09:42 |
Let the debates begin!
The author states that John of Plano Caprini mentions the wealthy class as having the ability to fund metal armory. Not the average soldier. Though the merit system was in place, how did the wealthy escape this hierarchy?
William of Rubruck says he met Mongols who procured their chain mail from the Alans.
Later the article recognizes the inguenity of the Mongols and that Cengiz Khan invented an iron cart.
Though C.A. empires have had metalurgy and the ability to make swords and chain mail for many centuries, why does the author say that it was seldom seen in the early years of the Mongols?
Is it possible that the numerous tribes and soldiers were not fitted with the 'best' equipment. That 'lesser' archers didn't recieve them? Is it due to a lack of goods as in a case of limited supply and excessive demand?
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 15:31 |
They all have to possess the following arms at least: two or three bows, or at least one good one, three large quivers full of arrows, an axe and ropes for hauling engines of war. As for the wealthy, they have swords...and...a horse with armor; their legs are covered and they have helmets and curiasses...Some of them have lances. (Plano Carpini, 1966, 33) |
i need to read the rest though when i find the time.
Edited by Temujin - 04-Aug-2006 at 15:32
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 20:01 |
I liked the first article because it focuses on a different side of the
Mongol campaign in Europe, rather than become stuck in the military
"debate" that tends to get tiring on online forums. However, one thing
that would be interesting is an actual quantitative analysis on the
refugee. The writer makes notes of a lot of anecdotal descriptions, but
numerical estimates would also be interesting.
Speaking of
refugees, one thing that is interesting about the Mongol conquests is
that it caused no permanent relocation of political power that was
common on the steppes before the Mongol empire (e.g. the movement of
the huns, hepthalites, Kitans, Avars, who were pushed out of their
homeland). Perhaps the Mongols moved so fast that most tribes did not
have a chance to flee, and that the Cumans, being near the border may
have been one of the only tribes that fled with their political system
intact, but unlike the Avars or others, they had nowhere to reestablish
their kingdom.
For the second article, I had these thoughts:
1)
It seems like throughout history, some nomadic groups preferred to
fight with heavier armor than others. For example, the Sarmatians,
Jurchen, Kirghiz, Bactrians, and Manchu seem to favor heavy cavalry
somewhat more than groups like the Mongols, scythians, etc. (though I
may be incorrect) The author implies a limitation in manufacturing
ability for nomads (which was not fully explained in the article), so
why did some groups seem to have heavier weapons than others?
2)
Why did the Mongols not utilize sedentary manufacturing for their
equipment? The author cites sources from Carpini and Polo, whose times
were after the Mongols had captured Khwarezm and Northern China, both
of which were lands known to manufacturing heavy cavalry equipment.
Edited by Imperator Invictus - 04-Aug-2006 at 20:02
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 16:09 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
1) It seems like throughout history, some nomadic groups preferred to fight with heavier armor than others. For example, the Sarmatians, Jurchen, Kirghiz, Bactrians, and Manchu seem to favor heavy cavalry somewhat more than groups like the Mongols, scythians, etc. (though I may be incorrect) The author implies a limitation in manufacturing ability for nomads (which was not fully explained in the article), so why did some groups seem to have heavier weapons than others?
|
i think this is just different perception & point of view. Herodotus for example said that the Sauromatae only suceeded against the Scythians because they had more powerfull bows while Richard Brzezinski in his books notes that teh Sarmatians were much less wealthy than Scyhtians and actually had far less fully armoured horsemen than commonly thought. eventually, all Steppe tribes used composite armies of Horse archers and cataphracts, the ratio and perhaps doctrine may have differed though.
|
|
subedai
Immortal Guard
Joined: 30-Sep-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 17:00 |
Concerning the second article on weapons.
With the Mongols preference for scouring the battlefiled and not leaving anything behind coupled with captured equipment from town and city arsenals, I think that there may have been more armoured warriors than possibly we give them credit for. By this I don't mean fully armoured, maybe just a mail coat or some shoulder protection.
|
|