Mongol heavy cavalry?

The Secret History and Golden Book are Mongol sources, as such the authors almost certainly had military experience.
The Yuan-shi is an official history compiled by scholars but the key information would haave come from the military archives.
Juvani and Rasid al-Din had both seen military service. Rasdih was a senior minister in the IlKhanid government.
Carpini was an experienced diplomat.

None of these can be considered "vague" sources.

Nor do we have "multi purpose cavalry", what we have is steppe cavalry.  The basic tactic was to use archery to disrupt, weaken and disorganise an enemy, then charge in to complete the victory.  Skills were maintained by hunting and raiding.  The term Men of bow and lance is very clear in Mongol (and in Turkish, Khitan, Tangut, Chinese and Persian equivalents) can NOT be interpreted as separate archers and lancers.

Mongol sources contemporary to Temujin are not written by "native" Mongols. Mongols only adopted a script during Temujins reign, considderign the Mongols almost constantly being on camapign, it is hardly likely that the SHoM was compiled by a Nomad, rather a settled Uighur clsoe to the Godlen family. as scuh, he must ahve eben a scribe fo soem sort, hardly an experienced warrior familiar with Steppe warfare. also, as i said above, the SHoM states that Temujin was descendant of a Wolf and a Deer.

Juvani was a cleric, Rashid a physician, obviously they spent most of their life in barracks.....

no proof at all.

you describe "multi-purpose cavalry", I describe Steppe cavalry. just because this a modern term doesn't mean it applies to what you describe because it is what you describe.

re: man of bow and lance. ok, if we cannot interprete this word then this is ULTIMATE proove that Mongols didn't had swords nor maces. i agree that archaeology is highly overrated, probably all those other weapons were placed there by evil western historians that try to make the Mongol army look superior compared to the Liao and Jin....

so what? knights did practice archery in peacetime, but then, name me a single battle in which knights used bows...and you say the bow was the primary weapon; no disagreeing, but they also mention about lances and lance charges were also practiced.

as i said, of course cataphracts also had and used bows, but not as their primary way of fighting.

 whats that got do do with what i said anyways? show me ANY evidence of what you said....

so? Mongols only rose to power after Khitans were long gone, the Jin army was no longer a Steppe army at the time of the Mongol conquest. Khitans and Jin were really quite different from other Steppe peoples anyways, that is, if we can believe those modern Communist historians from China...

no it is physically not possible for a single horse with armour + rider with armour.

"regular" troops made up  the Pi-shih army, the Shu-shan army, the Ordos, the permanent Imperial Guard, the permanent route armies, the cavalry units of the frontier fortresses, forts and watchtowers, the private guards of senior nobles, official guards of generals and senior politicians, Chiu troops of the assorted tribes and clans and the military police.

Tom,

What do you mean by route armies?

Originally posted by tadamson I take it you also believe that medieval 'knights in armour' could hardly move for the weight and had to be hoisted onto their horses!!

mounting a horse in full plate armour is one thing, changing horses during the trot or even gallop in a long lamellar armour is impossible. using a Steppe pony for skirmish and then also for the charge is possible, but only if you want to see your horse death after the battle.

no not all, to me it seems most agree on a heavy/light cavalry model for Mongols

BTW you apparently completely misunderstood everyhting i said so i cannot give you a clear response because you probably wouldn't understand me this time either. and the SS is not like what you described it as.

no no no, you are all COMPELTELY missing the point, don't get fixed on the unit thing. using your analogy prooving my point: you said riflemen and a machine-gunner was in one platoon. OK, never questioned that, BUT they didn't used same tactics. the riflemen of a platton would charge the opposite trenches but machine gunners NOT, machine gunners are support troops. and are you really still denying that there were heavily armoured troops and troops with no armour at all? and also, imagine practically how it would look like to wield a bow in loose skirmishing order and immediately change to a long unhandably lance as tadamson suggests and charge the enemy in a closed body. or as i said heavily armoured horses + riders can't both skirmish & charge, nor changing mounts. we are talking about Steppe ponies here, not eurpean mounts. you really have to considder mounts, this is soemthign primary soruces all don't include, that's why you cannot take primary sources too literal. also, he always uses Liao and Jin armeis for comparison, but they are not the same as the Mongol armies. the Jin had the Horse team which clearly seperate between heavy and light horses yet he still denies existance of heavy & light troops for Mongols. i also don't believe Mongols made use of grooms, there was never any reference to them. he si also at odds with any other Steppe army. ALL steppe warriors had bows, but that doesn't mean heavy horsemen used them like their lighter counterparts. napoleonic cavalrymen also had short muskets but they hardly made any use of them, the posession of such equippment alone is no proof for skirmish tactic for any serious student of cavalry warfare. personally, tadamsons evaluation doesn't make any sense realistically.

Alright Temujin, I am beginning to see your point of view, however, your phraseology leaves large amounts of guesswork and extrapolation.  I see your point on the analogy of riflemen and LMG gunners.  The modern rifleman was the main shock arm of the army while the LMG provided fire support for them.  If you are analogizing that the Mongols had "light" cavalry which were the "fire support" part of the formation and "heavy" cavalry as the shock portion of the army, I would tend to agree with your analogy.  However, in looking at the actual evidence it would appear that there were no such clear distinctions between the "light" and "heavy" cavalry of the Mongols.  I can see in practice the Mingham using the faster and lighter armored cavalry as the skirmishers in the front of the formation racing forward to shower the enemy with arrows while the heavier and more armored troops in the formation followed up with the intent of charging into close combat.

[quote=Temujin] imagine practically how it would look like to wield a bow in loose skirmishing order and immediately change to a long unhandably lance as tadamson suggests and charge the enemy in a closed body. or as i said heavily armoured horses + riders can't both skirmish & charge, nor changing mounts. [quote=Temujin]

I do not understand this quote nor agree with what it appears to say.  First, I have witnessed riders on galloping horses fire bows and rifles in a loose skirmishing order, then they changed weapons and closed up formation for a "formed" charge into a fictitious enemy unit.  These were fairly good riders and no where near as skilled or experienced as the Mongols and their subjugated steppe tribe members.  If you would like to see some of these events, you would have to either go to Mongolia where they still practice these skills or come to the western USA and see some of the re-enactors performing at the Little Big Horn or other Indian versus US Cavalry actions.

I find it plausible and most likely that Mongols did indeed fire their bows and then change weapons to the lance or spear and charge into the enemy.  I also believe that it would be a simple task for the Mongols to change mounts during a battle several times.

[quote=Temujin] we are talking about Steppe ponies here, not eurpean mounts. you really have to considder mounts, this is soemthign primary soruces all don't include, that's why you cannot take primary sources too literal. [quote=Temujin]

Have you ever been up close with a "Steppe pony?"  They are NOT small in terms of their statute, perhaps shorter than typical European mounts as they average 10-13 hands tall at the whithers.  However, they are much stockier in the legs, back, and neck.  They are lower to the ground and can turn quick circles run fairly fast - no where near what a modern quarter horse or thoroughbred can run - but quick.  They are very maneuverable, hardy, and relatively disease resistant as compared with their European counterparts.  In considering the mounts - it would be much easier to change horses during a battle if you had "steppe" ponies than the high-strung stallions so popular with European forces - especially Knights.

[quote=Temujin] and the SS is not like what you described it as [quote=Temujin]

As for this quip - the SS is as misunderstood by the bulk of amateur historians as the Mongols are misunderstood by you.  Perhaps you should actually go forth and read the primary source materials and some of the better researchers works on the Mongols.  Perhaps then it might be worthwhile debating the topic with you.

[quote=Imperator Invictus]
Temujin, you mentioned that heavy and light cavalry fought differently and thus should be different units. However, in WWII, rifles and submachineguns were used for different tactical purposes and yet men carrying both equiptment fought in the same units. I think a similar case is possible with the Mongols. [quote=Imperator Invictus]

Imperator - you have the general idea - the Mongols did intermix armor types within the same units and weapons too.  They all did perform the task of engaging the enemy as one unit.  It is hard to analogize to modern warfare though, but your analogy is the best one I've seen posted on this forum yet.

with all the captured armour from conquered nations they could armour all there men and horses but it doesnt seem to be the case why then