Mongol heavy cavalry?

Hello all i was just wondering does anyone have any details or information about mongol H.Cav?, did they ride bigger horses then the mongol light cav.how were they used in battle

Hello tom,
I just read a bio. on Genghis Khan, the author had basically the same description of the mongol army as you that all the army wore armour of soem description, the men in the front rank wearing more as with officers maybe mail as well and horse armour or more of it?

The main idea is that mongols knew the difference between Heavy and light units, The light units would have no armour watsoever to maximise mobility.

Heavy units fought with armour to maximise melee combat.

After mongols attack china they have enough armour to equip almost all there cavalry with armour but choose not to as there light units which are 2./3 of their army are maximising mobility and archery not melee combat.,

Becasuse the mongol light cavalry is described as being as unarmoured.

Becasuse the mongol light cavalry is described as being as unarmoured.

There are varying reports of Mongols not having as much armour as other contemporary cavalry but none of separate units of 'light' or 'heavy' cavalry.

mongols doesn't use heavy cavalry too much and this 'heavy' is nothing close to western standard.

This is an awkward route to go down and many Western 'heavy' cavalry had less armour than many Eastern, or Islamic, cavalry.  It was, in part at least, a mindset difference.

Originally posted by BigL Most books on mongolian history state they have heavy cavlary separeted from the light, you should rite a book if you know more

I agree that some popularist books state this  but it isn't supported by the evidence.  Historians often talk of the cavalry of a particular state as 'heavy' or 'light' but they are comparing them to cavalry of another state. For example Chatagai cavalry are normaly described as 'light' because both the Chinese and Persian records comment on their repeated shortages of both arms and armour in confrontations with Yuan troops.  A key factor in this determination is often weather the troops are still true nomads (living in tents etc) or, are they semi settled, with bases, supplies, fodder and grain for the horses etc. 

The nearest we have is in the armies of the Yuan.  Forces campaigning in Mongolia (against Quaidu who's troops were 'light') included regular Turmen of 'Mongols' and of 'cavalry' who were all well equipped and armoured (thus 'heavy') but were not very sucessful.  It was the deployment of turmens of Quangli troops (Central Asian Turkic nomads  who had been resettled in Manchuria and the Liao-Hsi steppe) who were true nomads (and thus 'light' by the historians standard) that finally forced the war into a decision.  However we don't have 'light' and 'heavy' units in the same army fighting alongside one another.

Originally posted by BigL Yet in battle descriptions there describes the use of seperate formations of heavy cavalry, 1.Liegnizt light cav lures the knights out to the mongol heavy 2.Khalka light cav lures the knights out to the heavy who charge the knights light cavalry charges the flanks at the same time becasue there faster and can flank faster

re 1 and 2 Do you have any sources for these?  The ones I'm familiar with don't say that.
Any cavalry can attack flanks.

Originally posted by Temujin what is the point? do you want to deny that there was cavalry with specific roles on the battlefield (=skirming & charging)? you want to deny that a Mongol nobleman was heavily armored while a simple tribesman was not?

Yes I should clarify.

In Steppe armies there was one type of cavalry who both charged and skirmished.  There were not separate units of 'light' or 'heavy' cavalry.

Certainly individuals had differing levels of equipment (though in a given tribe this was limited and would't go the entire span from "totaly unarmoured with just a bow" to "fully armoured, on an armoured horse with loads of weapons")  differences were geographic and chronological more than social.

Any troops with a missile weapon can 'skirmish'.

For nomad cavalry (including Mongols) this was described as 'dancing'.  The body of cavalry forms up facing the enemy and small groups or individuals then take turn to seaparate out and do individual acts of daring.  This can be to  ride up in front of the enemy  and perform mounted tricks to display prowess as a rider, or for a small group to gallop across the front of the enemy at close range loosing off a series of heavy arrows against specific targets,  or slightly larger groups would move forward in formation to  loose off large numbers of light, long range, arrows in rapid sucession (normally referred to as 'shower shooting').  When the enemy were sufficiently distracted, or not expecting it the commander would make a signal and the whole force would form up into a dense attack column and charge into  the enemy.

Performed well this was devistating to many opponents but it meant that battles between nomad forces rapidly evolved into a swirling melee of units countering each other and probing for the advantage.  In such cases the Mongols had an advantage as they were (according to Mongol, Chinese and Persian sources) much more willing to press the attack to close combat.

The key issue here though is that these tactics were common across the whole army, there weren't separate units of 'heavy' and 'light' cavalry.  This goes well beyong Mongols though, surviving Arabic and Persian military manuald don't even have a term for 'light' units (in a Napolionic sense).

Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by tadamson Any troops with a missile weapon can 'skirmish'. false.

No, not false. 

Not only did Mongols with armour "skirmish" but Mameluks did as well.  They frequently "skirmished" against the Franjs/Europeans during the crusades. 

Chris