Analysis of weapons and combat methods of Russian and Mongolian warriors. About the weapons of the Mongols during the time of Genghis Khan

Speaking about the weapons of Mongol warriors of the 13th century. and especially about their appearance, it should be borne in mind that in a hundred years the Mongols from a wild barbarian horde turned into the army of a civilized state. Marco Polo notes that the “Chinese” Mongols “are no longer what they used to be.”

The yurt, a characteristic dwelling of steppe nomads, consists of a wooden lattice frame covered with black felt. This picture shows a Kyrgyz yurt. (Illustration by Heather Dockeray)

Mongol light horseman, Rus', circa 1223

An episode of a long chase that the Mongols could undertake, for example, after the battle on the Kalka River: a Mongol horseman spotted a hiding Russian warrior in the coastal thickets. A Mongol wears a robe captured during the Khorezm campaign; a warm sheepskin coat is worn under the robe. A hat with fur-trimmed earmuffs, the Mongolian’s appearance was recreated from the Saransk Album (Istanbul). A coil of rope, an ax, and a wineskin with sour milk are attached to the saddle. The armor of the Russian warrior is depicted in accordance with the samples presented in the Kremlin Armory.

(The Battle of Kalka took place on May 31, 1223. The weather shown in the illustration corresponds to the authors’ ideas about the “harsh Russian winter”!)

Giovanni de Plano-Carpini, who traveled as papal ambassador to Mongolia in 1245–1247, left a more “sober” description: “Externally, the Tatars are very different from ordinary people, since their eyes are set wide apart and their cheeks are wide. Their cheekbones protrude noticeably further than their jaws; their nose is flat and small, their eyes are narrow, and their eyelids are located just under the eyebrows. As a rule, although there are exceptions, they are narrow in the waist; almost all are of average height. Few of them have a beard, although many have a noticeable mustache on their upper lip, which no one plucks. Their feet are small."

The unusual appearance of the Mongols for a European was aggravated by the traditional hairstyles of the steppe people. Monk Wilhelm Rubruk wrote that the Mongols shaved the hair on their heads in a square. This custom was also confirmed by Carpini, who compared the hairstyle of the Mongols with a monastic tonsure. From the front corners of the square, says Wilhelm, the Mongols shaved stripes to the temples, and they were shaved as well as the back of the head; as a result, a torn ring was formed, framing the head. The forelock was not cut in front, and it went down to the eyebrows. The long hair remaining on the head was braided into two braids, the ends of which were tied together behind the ears. Carpini describes the Mongolian hairstyle in a similar way. He also notes that Mongolians keep their hair long at the back. The description of the Mongols' ponytail-like hairstyle left by Vincent de Beauvais also coincides with these sources. They all date back to around 1245.

Mongols in winter clothing with a pack camel, 1211–1260.

The rich Mongol in the foreground is armed with a long spear and wears two sheepskin coats, one on top of the other, with the inner sheepskin coat worn with the fur inward and the outer one with the fur outward. Sheepskin coats and fur coats were made from fox, wolf and even bear fur. The flaps of the conical cap are lowered to protect against the cold. Poor Mongols, like the camel driver, wore sheepskin coats made of dog or horse skins. The Bactrian camel is a very useful animal, capable of carrying luggage weighing up to 120 kg. The camel's humps are covered with felt in six or seven layers, on top of which a pack saddle is attached.

Battle of Liegnitz. Pay attention to how the artist depicted Mongolian hats.

The basic elements of the Mongolian costume of the described period changed little. In general, clothing was very practical, especially fur and quilted winter clothes: they retained heat well. The usual headdress was the Mongolian hat, which was often depicted in drawings by contemporaries. The hat had a conical shape, was made of fabric and had a wide flap at the bottom of the cap, which could be lowered in cold weather. Sometimes the lapel was made of two parts. Often the hat was decorated with fox, wolf or lynx fluffy or cropped fur. In some illustrations the cap of the cap is crowned with a button or something similar to it; fur caps and hats with fur earmuffs are also mentioned. Maybe earphones mean the flaps of a cap, or maybe there were hats of a special cut. One of the later authors talks about two red ribbons hanging from the top of the cap, about 45 cm long; however, no one else mentions such ribbons. However, it is quite possible to accept (for the 13th century) another observation by the same author, who claimed that in hot weather the Mongols tied a piece of cloth around their heads, leaving the free ends hanging behind.

Mongol heavy cavalry, Liegnitz, 1241

Leather plate armor, coated with varnish to protect against moisture, is depicted according to the description of the Carpini Plan and Robinson's book "Oriental Armour". The helmet is recreated according to a Tibetan design, which fully corresponds to the descriptions of the Mongolian helmet: it is made of eight parts, fastened with leather straps, the helmet knob is also attached with leather. Horse armor is depicted according to Carpini's description. Similar armor is known from stylized, but completely reliable Arabic images made about half a century later. The tip of the spear is equipped with a hook and bears a plume of yak tail. European knights wear the surcoat of the Teutonic Order.

The clothing was generally uniform in cut; its basis was a swing robe. The left hem of the robe was wrapped over the right and secured with a button or tie located below the armhole of the right sleeve. It is possible that the right floor was also somehow secured under the left, but, naturally, this cannot be seen in the drawings. In some drawings, Mongolian robes are shown with wide elbow-length sleeves, and the sleeves of the lower clothing are visible under them. Summer robes of this cut were made from cotton fabric, but as the empire expanded, especially in Persia and China, silk and brocade clothes began to appear. But even wearing such elegant clothes did not at all give grace to the Mongols themselves, as evidenced by Persian manuscripts. All travelers mention the slovenliness and dirt of the Mongols; many describe their custom of wiping their hands on their robe or pants while eating. Many people also emphasize the heavy smell characteristic of nomads.

The Mongols tucked their wide trousers into narrow boots, which were made without heels, but with thick felt soles. The tops had lacing.

In winter, the Mongols wore felt boots and one or two fur sheepskin coats. Wilhelm Rubruk claims that they wore the inner sheepskin coat with the fur inward, and the outer sheepskin coat with the fur outward, thus protecting themselves from wind and snow. The Mongols received fur from their western and northern neighbors and tributaries; The outer fur coat of a wealthy Mongol could be made from fox, wolf or monkey fur. The poor wore sheepskin coats made of dog skins or sheepskin. Mongols could also wear fur or leather pants, with rich people lining them with silk. The poor wore cotton pants with wool that almost matted into felt. After the conquest of China, silk became more widespread.

Mongol general and drummer, circa 1240

The Mongol commander gives the order to his tumen to launch an attack on the Russian army. The military leader sits on a purebred Persian horse, the horse's headdress is of the Mongolian type, but decorated with a Persian hair brush. Saddle pad with rounded corners in Chinese style. The highly polished plate armor is depicted according to the descriptions of Carpini and Robinson. The prefabricated helmet was reconstructed from the same sources; The mace is depicted in Arabic miniatures. The naqqara drummer is depicted from an old illustration given in Colonel Yule's book "Marco Polo"; the long tassels with which the drums are decorated are visible. The drummer's chain mail is depicted according to the description of Father Wilhelm Rubruk. We can only assume that the drummer wore chain mail as a sign of his high position; It was he who conveyed the commander’s commands to the entire army.

Such clothing helped the Mongols wage war against harsh winters; but even more warriors were saved by their incredible endurance. Marco Polo tells us that, if necessary, the Mongols could go ten days without hot food. In such cases, they could, if necessary, reinforce their strength with the blood of their horses, opening a vein in their neck and directing a stream of blood into their mouths. A Mongol's usual "emergency reserve" during the campaign consisted of about 4 kilograms of evaporated milk, two liters of kumis (a low-alcohol drink made from mare's milk) and several pieces of dried meat, which were stuffed under the saddle. Every morning, the Mongol diluted half a pound of dry milk in 1-2 fat tails and hung the fat tails from the saddle; By the middle of the day, from the constant shaking at a gallop, this mixture turned into some kind of kefir.

The Mongols' habit of drinking mare's milk allowed them to significantly increase the mobility of their cavalry units. The Mongols had an excellent appetite, and the usually accurate Carpini reports that the Mongols could eat dogs, wolves, foxes, horses, rats, mice, lichens and even the afterbirth of mares. Cases of cannibalism are noted by various authors, including Carpini, who tells how during one of the sieges the Mongols ran out of food, and they killed one out of every ten in order to provide food for the rest. If this is true, it becomes clear why the Mongols were so willing to take foreigners into their service. But one cannot be sure of the presence of cannibalism among the Mongols: many chroniclers, no doubt, could simply express their disgust at the invaders in this way.

Other characteristics of the Mongols, however, are rather respectable. For example, they all had excellent eyesight. Reliable sources claim that any Mongol warrior could, in the open steppe, four miles away, see a man peeking out from behind a bush or stone, and in clear air, distinguish a man from an animal at a distance of 18 miles! In addition, the Mongols had excellent visual memory, they had an excellent understanding of the climate, the characteristics of vegetation, and easily found sources of water. Only a nomadic shepherd could learn all this. The mother began to teach the child to ride at the age of three: he was tied with ropes to the back of the horse. At the age of four or five, the boy already received his first bow and arrows, and from that time on he spent most of his life on horseback, with a bow in his hands, fighting or hunting. On campaigns, when speed of movement became a decisive factor, a Mongol could sleep in the saddle, and since each warrior had four horses for a change, the Mongols could move without interruption for a whole day.

Mongol camp, around 1220

A typical Mongolian horse archer wearing a simple long robe. Please note that the robe wraps from left to right. The warrior's property is suspended from the saddle. The quiver, as well as the method of “transporting” prisoners, is described in the chronicles of that time. The boy in the foreground is dressed the same as the adults. He plays with a baby roe deer - illik. The women in the background are setting up a yurt, covering it with faded felt.

Mongolian horses were not inferior in endurance to their owners. They were, and still are, short, stocky animals, 13–14 hands high. Their thick coat protects them well from the cold, and they are able to make long treks. There is a known case when a Mongol on a single horse covered 600 miles (about 950 kilometers!) in nine days, and with the system of mounted support provided by Genghis Khan, an entire army in September 1221 covered 130 miles - about 200 km - in two days without stopping. In 1241, Subedei's army completed a 180-mile march in three days, moving through deep snow.

Mongolian horses could pluck grass as they walked, feed on roots and fallen leaves; according to Matthew of Paris, these “mighty horses” could even feed on wood. The horses served their riders faithfully and were trained to stop instantly so that the warrior could aim his bow more accurately. The durable saddle weighed about 4 kilograms, had high bows and was lubricated with sheep fat so that it would not get wet when it rained. The stirrups were also massive and the stirrup straps were very short.

The main weapon of the Mongol was a composite bow. For the Mongolian bow, the pulling force was 70 kilograms (noticeably more than that of a simple English bow), and the effective firing range reached 200–300 meters. Carpini reports that Mongol warriors had two bows (probably one long and one short) and two or three quivers, each containing approximately 30 arrows. Carpini talks about two types of arrows: light ones with a small sharp tip for long-range shooting and heavy ones with a large broad tip for close targets. The arrowheads, he says, were tempered in the following way: they were heated red-hot and then thrown into salt water; as a result, the tip became so hard that it could pierce armor. The blunt end of the arrow was feathered with eagle feathers.

Mongol camp, 1210–1260

The horse hunter (on the right) tied a scarf around his head instead of a hat (such headdresses are described by Hoyaert in “History of the Mongols”). Falconry was and continues to be a popular pastime in Mongolia. The Mongol sitting next to him is depicted without a headdress, so that his intricate hairstyle is visible (it is described in detail in the text). A large cauldron and a screen (protecting from the wind) are described in the History of Wen Chi, a 12th-century source kept in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Pay attention to the folding door of the yurt and the way of wearing trousers tucked into the tops of boots.

In addition to bows, other weapons were also used, depending on whether the warrior belonged to light or heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry used long pikes with hooks to pull the enemy out of the saddle and could use shields. In some drawings, the Mongols are depicted with small round shields, but more reliable sources claim that shields were used only on foot. Large leather or wicker shields were used by guards, and large shields similar to turtle shells were used when storming fortress walls. Heavily armed cavalry could also use a mace. The swords had a curved shape, repeating the shape of the sabers of the Muslim Turks. Lightly armed cavalry used a sword, a bow and sometimes javelins.

All Mongols on the campaign had with them a light hatchet, a tool for sharpening arrowheads (it was fastened to a quiver), a horsehair lasso, a coil of rope, an awl, a needle and thread, an iron or made from another material pot and two wineskins, which were mentioned higher. Every ten warriors was given a tent. Each warrior kept a bag of provisions with him, and Carpini mentions a large leather skin in which clothes and property were hidden from moisture when crossing rivers. Carpini describes how this wineskin was used. It was filled with things and a saddle was tied to it, after which the waterskin itself was tied to the horse's tail; the rider had to swim next to the horse, controlling it with the help of the reins.

Mongol heavy cavalry commander, China, 1210–1276.

The source for reconstructing the appearance and weapons of the Mongol warriors presented here, preparing for an attack on a Chinese city, was mainly the records of Rashid ad-din. The warrior in the foreground is dressed as shown by the illustrators of Rashid ad-din. The sleeveless robe allows the mantles of the plate armor worn underneath to be seen. Persian type helmet; a wide "flap" at the base of the helmet is often shown in the above-mentioned drawings, but its purpose is not precisely known. Some believe that this is an analogue of the lapels of the traditional Mongolian hat, others go as far as to explain it in completely unlikely ways. The cheetah's tail on the quiver is also shown in some illustrations of the time; perhaps they used it to wipe off the collected arrows.

The mounted Mongol is dressed in a completely different style than his standing commander. In drawings for Rashid ad-din, artists constantly emphasize that the Mongols did not wear armor under a robe or sheepskin coat. The military commander watches the firing of a catapult, the description of which is given in the text. Our reconstruction is based on the most reliable sources possible; most likely, these weapons were powered by prisoners, although this could partly limit the action of the catapult itself. Dr Joseph Needham (Times Library Supplement, 11 January 1980) believes that the trebuchets with counterweights familiar to Europeans are an Arab-improved Chinese catapult.

Large yurts were not dismantled, but were transported on carts following the moving army. The installation of yurts is shown in the background.

It is difficult to describe in detail the armor of the Mongols, since they were completely unusual for eyewitnesses who left descriptions, and the drawings may date back to a later period. Three types of armor are mentioned: leather, metal scales and chain mail. Leather armor was made by fastening parts together so that they overlapped each other - thus achieving sufficient strength with the necessary flexibility; The skin for the inner layer of dospskha was boiled so that it became soft. To give the armor water-repellent properties, they were coated with varnish extracted from resin. Some authors say that such armor protected only the chest, others believe that it also covered the back. Carpini described iron armor, and left a detailed description of the technology for their manufacture. They consisted of numerous thin plates the width of a finger and the length of a palm with eight holes. Several plates were connected with a leather cord, forming a shell. In fact, Carpini describes lamellar armor, widespread in the East. Carpini noted that the records were polished so thoroughly that one could look in them as if in a mirror.

1 and 2. Warriors of the Korean auxiliary units, around 1280.

The illustrations are based on drawings from the Japanese “Scroll of the Mongol Invasion.” Here are depicted soldiers of the auxiliary detachment of the Mongol army during the unsuccessful invasion of Japan. Koreans wear quilted protective weapons; Mongolian weapons - bows, spears and swords. Note the rectangular shield woven from reeds with a bamboo frame.

3. Japanese samurai, circa 1280

The samurai is also depicted from a drawing from the Mongol Invasion Scroll; This shows typical Japanese weapons of the period. Please note that the samurai's right shoulder is not protected by armor to make it easier to use the bow, and a spare bowstring rolled into a skein is attached to the belt on the left.

Reconstructions of Tibetan lamellar armor, very similar to that worn by the Mongols. (Tower Arsenal, London)

Full armor was made from such plates. Some drawings made at the end of the period described have survived, namely miniatures from Rashid ad-din's World History (written about 1306) and from the Japanese Scroll of the Mongol Invasion (about 1292). Although both sources may contain certain inaccuracies due to the specific view of the Mongols of their authors, they agree well in detail and make it possible to recreate the appearance of a typical Mongol warrior, at least of the last period - the era of Kublai Khan. The armor was long, below the knees, but in some paintings clothing is visible from under the armor. In front, the shell remained solid only up to the waist, and below it had a slit so that the floors would not interfere with sitting in the saddle. The sleeves were short, almost reaching the elbow, like Japanese armor. In Rashid ad-din's illustrations, many Mongols wear decorative silk surcoats over their armor. In the Japanese scroll, the armor and surcoat are almost the same, the main difference between the Mongols in the Japanese scroll is their fierce appearance. Rashid al-Din gives very stylized and clean miniatures!

Rashid ad-din depicts metal helmets with the top curved slightly back. In the Japanese scroll the helmets are shown with a ball at the top, surmounted by a plume, and with a wide backplate reaching to the shoulders and chin; on Persian miniatures the backplates are much smaller.

It can be assumed that the Mongols acquired armor no later than the European campaign; There is too little evidence for an earlier period. Without a doubt, the Mongols wore armor before, but most likely these were simpler versions.

In winter, fur coats were worn over the armor. Light cavalry may have had no armor at all, and as for horse armor, there is about as much evidence in favor of its existence as against it. This, again, may simply indicate the differences between heavy and light cavalry. Carpini describes plate leather horse armor made of five parts: “... One part is on one side of the horse, and another on the other, and they are connected to each other from the tail to the head and attached to the saddle, and in front of the saddle - on the sides and also on the neck; another part covers the upper part of the croup, connecting to the two side ones, and there is a hole in it through which the tail is passed; The chest is covered by the fourth piece. All of the above parts hang down and reach the knees or pasterns. An iron plate is placed on the forehead, connected to the side plates on either side of the neck.”

Ordinary people wore a shirt with narrow sleeves, a long, swinging caftan with a belt and wide sleeves below the elbow, and canvas pants. Sometimes they wore silk or homespun robes.
Noble people dressed in long, swinging caftans with long sleeves and a collar, which were fastened to the waist with large round buttons.

Woman suit

Women, like men, wore long shirts and wide pants. The shirt was decorated with embroidery or applique and tied at the waist with a belt. Mongolian women wore silk robes with sleeves and capes.

On the woman: outerwear with long sleeves and a bib decorated with leather appliqué.

On the man: a caftan with an ermine and leather appliqué, a hat with earmuffs and a back cover.

Clothes of Mongol-Tatar warriors

The costume of the Mongol-Tatar warrior consisted of a lined and quilted caftan, a shell reaching to the knees and decorated with metal plaques. The upper arms were protected by shoulder pads attached to the armor, and the hands were protected by iron gloves. Under the armor, the warriors wore a leather jacket with narrow sleeves, on which metal hoops were attached from the elbow to the hand. The boots were covered with metal plates and equipped with a knee plate with a sharp spike. The head was protected by a round helmet with a nosepiece, and the back of the head and cheeks were protected by a chainmail mesh. The helmet was decorated with two tufts of hair. The main weapons of the Mongol-Tatar warriors were curved sabers, bows, spears and daggers. They had a sword and a quiver of arrows attached to their belts.

Hairstyles and hats

Men either shaved their hair completely or left individual strands that hung freely or were braided.
Commoners wore hats in the form of a felt yarmulke, which had straps that framed the face. The nobility wore tall fur hats, pointed or round with a flat top.
Women's headbands had a solid front part decorated with embroidery and beads. In addition, they had cylindrical summer and winter hats, with scarves or shawls thrown over them, and for holidays - elegant caps.

"I will cast you down from the firmament,
I'll throw you up like a lion,
I will not leave anyone alive in your kingdom,
I will burn your cities, lands and lands."

(Fazlullah Rashid ad-Din. Jami-at-Tawarikh. Baku: “Nagyl Evi”, 2011. P.45)

The recent publication on Military Review of the material “Why did they create a fake about the “Mongol” invasion of Rus'” caused a lot of controversy, there is no other way to say it. And some people liked it, others didn’t. Which is natural. But in this case we will not talk about the content side of this material, but about... the “formal” side, that is, the accepted rules for writing this kind of material. In publications on a historical topic, especially if the author’s material claims to be something new, it is customary to start with the historiography of the issue. At least briefly, because “we all stand on the shoulders of giants,” or rather those who came before us. Second, any a priori statements are usually proven by reference to credible sources. As well as the statements of adherents of the material that the Mongols did not leave a trace in the military. And since the VO website focuses specifically on it, it makes sense to talk about it in more detail, based not on mythical revelations, but on the data of modern historical science.

Fight between Mongolian cavalry units. Illustration from the manuscript "Jami" at-tawarikh", 14th century. (State Library, Berlin)

We should start with the fact that there is hardly any other people about whom so much has been written, but in essence very little is known. Indeed, although the texts of Plano Carpini, Guillaume de Rubrucai and Marco Polo were repeatedly cited (in particular, the first translation of Carpini’s work into Russian was published back in 1911), from their retelling of written sources we, in general, did not gain any more.

But we have something to compare their descriptions with, since in the East, Rashid ad-Din Fazlullah ibn Abul-Khair Ali Hamadani (Rashid ad-Dowleh; Rashid al-Tabib - “doctor Rashid”) wrote his “history of the Mongols” (c. 1247 - July 18, 1318) - famous Persian statesman, doctor and encyclopedist; former minister in the Hulaguid state (1298 - 1317). He is the author of a historical work written in Persian called “Jami at-tawarikh” or “Collection of Chronicles,” which is a valuable historical source on the history of the Mongol Empire and Iran during the Hulaguid era.

Another important source on this topic is the historical work “Ta'rikh-i Jahangushay” (“The History of the World Conqueror”) by Ala ad-din Ata Malik ibn Muhammad Juvaini (1226 - March 6, 1283), another Persian statesman and historian of the same Hulaguid era. His work includes three main parts:
First: the history of the Mongols, as well as descriptions of their conquests before the events that followed the death of Khan Guyuk, including the story of the descendants of the khans Jochi and Chagatai;
Second: the history of the Khorezmshah dynasty, and here is the history of the Mongol governors of Khorasan until 1258;
Third: it continues the history of the Mongols until their victory over the Assassins; and tells about this sect itself.

There are archaeological sources, but they are not very rich. But today there are already quite enough of them to make conclusive conclusions, and texts about the Mongols, as it turns out, exist not only in European languages, but also in Chinese. The Chinese sources referred to in this case are dynastic histories, state statistics and state chronicles. And so they describe in detail and by year, with the thoroughness characteristic of the Chinese, wars, campaigns, and the amount of tribute paid to the Mongols in the form of rice, beans and cattle, and even tactical methods of warfare. Chinese travelers who went to the Mongol rulers also left their notes about the Mongols and Northern China in the first half of the 13th century. “Meng-da bei-lu” (“Complete description of the Mongol-Tatars”) is practically the oldest source written in Chinese on the history of Mongolia. This “Description” contains the story of the South Song ambassador Zhao Hong, who visited Yanjing in 1221 with the commander-in-chief of the Mongol troops in Northern China, Muhali. “Meng-da bei-lu” was translated into Russian by V.P. Vasiliev back in 1859, and for that time this work was of great scientific interest. However, today it is already outdated and a new, better translation is needed.

There is also such a valuable historical source as “Chang-chun zhen-ren si-yu ji” (“Note on the Journey to the West of the Righteous Chang-chun”), dedicated to the travels of a Taoist monk in Central Asia during the western campaign of Genghis Khan (1219-1225). gg.). A complete translation of this work was carried out by P.I. Kafarov in 1866 and this is the only complete translation of this work today, which has not lost its significance today. There is “Hei-da shi-lyue” (“Brief information about the Black Tatars”) - an even more important source (and the richest!) of information about the Mongols compared to “Meng-da bei-lu” and “Chang-chun zhen- ren si-yu ji.” It represents the notes of two Chinese travelers - Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting, who visited Mongolia at the court of Ogedei as part of the South Sung diplomatic missions, and brought together. However, we have only half of these notes in Russian.

Finally, there is a Mongolian source itself, and a monument of the Mongolian national culture of the 13th century. “Mongol-un niucha tobchan” (“The Secret History of the Mongols”), the discovery of which is directly related to Chinese historiography. It tells about the ancestors of Genghis Khan and how he fought for power in Mongolia. It was originally written using the Uyghur alphabet, which the Mongols borrowed at the beginning of the 13th century, but it has come down to us in a transcription made in Chinese characters and (luckily for us!) with an exact interlinear translation of all Mongolian words and a brief commentary on each of the paragraphs , written in Chinese.

In addition to these materials, there is a significant amount of information contained in Chinese documents from the era of Mongol rule in China. For example, “Tong-zhi tiao-ge” and “Yuan dian-chang”, which record decrees, administrative and judicial decisions on a variety of issues, starting with instructions on how to properly slaughter a sheep according to the custom of the Mongols, and ending with the decrees of those who ruled in China Mongol emperors, and descriptions of the social status of various classes of the then Chinese society. It is clear that, as primary sources, these documents are of great value for historians studying the time of Mongol rule in China. In short, there is a vast layer of sources in the field of sinology that are directly related to the history of medieval Mongolia. But it is clear that all this must be studied, like, in fact, any branch of the history of the past. “A cavalry attack on history” of the “came, saw, won” type with references only to Gumilyov and Fomenko and Co. (as we often see in accompanying comments) is completely inappropriate in this case.

However, it should be emphasized that when starting to study this topic, it is much easier to deal with secondary sources, including those that are based not only on the study of primary written sources of European and Chinese authors, but also on the results of archaeological excavations carried out at one time by Soviet and Russian scientists. Well, for general development in the field of the history of one’s homeland, we can recommend the 18 volumes of the “Archaeology of the USSR” series published in the public domain by the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, published over the period from 1981 to 2003. And, of course, for us the main source of information is PSRL - Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. Let us note that today there is no real evidence of their falsification either in the era of Mikhail Romanov, Peter I, or Catherine II. All this is nothing more than fabrications of amateurs from “folk history”, not worth a damn. The most interesting thing is that everyone has heard about the chronicle stories (the latter, by the way, not just one, but many!), but for some reason few people have read them. But in vain!

As for the weapon science topic itself, the research of a number of domestic historians, recognized both in Russia and abroad, occupies an important place here. There are entire schools created by famous historians in individual universities in our country and which have prepared a number of interesting and significant publications on this topic.

English-language historians publishing in the Osprey publishing house also paid their attention to the topic of military affairs among the Mongols, and in particular, such a well-known specialist as Stephen Turnbull. Familiarity with English-language literature in this case is doubly beneficial: it gives you the opportunity to get acquainted with the material and improve your English, not to mention the fact that the illustrative side of Osprey publications is distinguished by a high level of reliability.

Having become acquainted, even if only briefly, with the historiographical basis of the topic of Mongolian military art, we can consider it as a whole, leaving references to each specific fact for purely scientific works in this area.
However, the story about Mongolian weapons should begin not with weapons, but... with horse harness. It was the Mongols who guessed to replace the bit with cheekpieces with a bit with large outer rings - snaffles. They were at the ends of the bits, and the headband straps were attached to them and the reins were tied. Thus, bits and bridles acquired a modern look and remain so today.

They also improved the saddles. Now saddle bows began to be made in such a way as to obtain a wider base. And this, in turn, made it possible to reduce the pressure of the rider on the back of the animal and increase the maneuverability of the Mongol cavalry.

As for throwing weapons, that is, bows and arrows, then, as noted by all sources, the Mongols mastered them masterfully. However, the design of their bows itself was close to ideal. They used bows with a frontal horn plate and “paddle-shaped” ends. According to archaeologists, the spread of these bows in the Middle Ages was associated specifically with the Mongols, which is why they are often even called “Mongolian”. The front plate made it possible to increase the resistance of the central part of the bow to breaking, but in general it did not reduce its flexibility. The bow stick (reaching 150-160 cm) was assembled from several types of wood, and from the inside it was reinforced with plates from the horns of artiodactyls - goat, aurochs, bull. Tendons from the back of a deer, elk or bull were glued to the wooden base of the bow on its outer side, which increased its flexibility. For the Buryat craftsmen, whose bows are most similar to the ancient Mongol ones, this process took up to a week, since the thickness of the tendon layer had to reach one and a half centimeters, and each layer was glued only after the previous one had completely dried. The finished onion was covered with birch bark, pulled into a ring and dried... for at least a year. And just one such bow required at least two years, so at the same time, probably, many bows were produced at once for storage.

Despite this, bows often broke. Therefore, the Mongol warriors took with them, as Plano Carpini reports, two or three bows. They probably also had spare bowstrings, needed in different climatic conditions. For example, it is known that a bowstring made from twisted sheep intestines serves well in the summer, but does not tolerate autumn slush. So for successful shooting at any time of year and weather, a different bowstring was needed.

They pulled the bow in a way that was, however, known long before the Mongols appeared on the historical scene. It was called the “ring method: “When going to string a bow, take it ... in the left hand, place the string behind the agate ring on the thumb of the right hand, the front joint of which is bent forward, keep it in this position with the help of the middle joint of the index finger pressed to him, and pull the bowstring until the left hand is extended and the right hand comes to the ear; Having outlined their target, they remove the index finger from the thumb, at the same moment the bowstring slides off the agate ring and throws the arrow with considerable force” (Uk. Soch. A.I. Solovyov - P.160).

Almost all written sources that have reached us note the skill with which the Mongol warriors used the bow. “It is very dangerous to start a battle with them, since even in small skirmishes with them there are as many killed and wounded as others in large battles. This is a consequence of their dexterity in archery, since their arrows pierce almost all types of defenses and armor,” wrote the Armenian prince Guyton in 1307. The reason for such successful shooting was associated with the high destructive qualities of the tips of the Mongolian arrows, which were large in size and distinguished by great sharpness. Plano Carpini wrote about them this way: “The iron arrowheads are very sharp and cut on both sides like a double-edged sword,” and those that were used “... for shooting birds, animals and unarmed people are three fingers wide.”

The tips were flat in cross-section, petiolate. There are asymmetrical rhombic tips, but there are also those in which the striking part had a straight, obtuse-angled or even semicircular shape. These are the so-called cuts. Two-horned ones are less common; they were used for shooting at horses and enemies not protected by armor.

Interestingly, many large-format tips had a zigzag or “lightning” cross-section, that is, one half of the tip protruded slightly above the other, that is, in cross-section it resembled a zigzag lightning bolt. It was suggested that such tips could rotate in flight. But no one has actually verified whether this is so.

It is believed that it was customary to shoot arrows with such massive cuts “overhead”. This made it possible to hit warriors without armor standing in the back rows of dense formations, as well as seriously wound horses. As for warriors in armor, massive three-, tetrahedral or completely round, awl-shaped, armor-piercing tips were usually used against them.

Small-sized rhombic arrowheads, which were once popular among the Turks, were also found and can be seen among archaeological finds. But three-bladed and four-bladed tips with wide blades and holes punched in them practically ceased to be found in Mongolian times, although before that they were very popular. In addition to the tips were bone “whistles” in the shape of a double cone. a couple of holes were made in them and in flight they emitted a piercing whistle.

Plano Carpini reported that each Mongol archer carried “three large quivers full of arrows.” The material for the quivers was birch bark and they held approximately 30 arrows each. Arrows in quivers were covered with a special cover - tokhtuy - to protect them from bad weather. Arrows could be placed in quivers with their tips up and down, and even in different directions. It was customary to decorate quivers with horn and bone overlays with geometric patterns and images of various animals and plants applied to them.

In addition to such quivers, arrows could also be stored in flat leather cases, their shape similar to bows with one straight side and the other figured. They are well known from Chinese, Persian and Japanese miniatures, as well as from the exhibition in the Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin, and among ethnographic material from the regions of Transbaikalia, Southern and Eastern Siberia, the Far East and the Western Siberian forest-steppe. Arrows in such quivers were always placed with the feathers facing up, so that they protruded outwards by more than half their length. They were worn on the right side so that they did not interfere with riding.

Bibliography
1. Plano Carpini J. Del. History of the Mongals // G. Del Plano Carpini. History of the Mongals / G. de Rubruk. Travel to Eastern countries / Book of Marco Polo. - M.: Mysl, 1997.
2. Rashid ad-Din. Collection of chronicles / Trans. from Persian by L. A. Khetagurova, edition and notes by prof. A. A. Semenova. - M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. - T. 1, 2,3; Fazlullah Rashid al-Din. Jami-at-Tawarikh. - Baku: “Nagyl Evi”, 2011.
3. Ata-Melik Juvaini. Genghis Khan. History of the World Conqueror = Genghis Khan: the history of the world conqueror / Translation from the text of Mirza Muhammad Qazwini into English by J. E. Boyle, with a preface and bibliography by D. O. Morgan. Translation of the text from English into Russian by E. E. Kharitonova. - M.: “Publishing House MAGISTR-PRESS”, 2004.
4. Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - first half of the 16th centuries) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. - Novosibirsk: Science, 1987. - P. 163-208; Gorelik M.V. Armies of the Mongol-Tatars of the X-XIV centuries: Military art, weapons, equipment. - M.: Eastern Horizon, 2002; Gorelik M.V. Steppe battle (from the history of military affairs of the Tatar-Mongols) // Military affairs of the ancient and medieval population of Northern and Central Asia. - Novosibirsk: IIFF SB AN USSR, 1990. - P. 155-160.
5. Khudyakov Yu. S. Armament of medieval nomads of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. - Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1986; Khudyakov Yu. S. Armament of the nomads of Southern Siberia and Central Asia in the era of the developed Middle Ages. - Novosibirsk: IAET, 1997.
6. Sokolov A.I. “Weapons and armor. Siberian weapons: from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages." - Novosibirsk: “INFOLIO-press”, 2003.
7. Stephen Turnbull. Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests 1190–1400 (ESSENTIAL HISTORIES 57), Osprey, 2003; Stephen Turnbull. Mongol Warrior 1200–1350 (WARRIOR 84), Osprey, 2003; Stephen Turnbull. The Mongol Invasions of Japan 1274 and 1281(CAMPAIGN 217), Osprey, 2010; Stephen Turnbull. The Great Wall of China 221 BC–AD 1644 (FORTRESS 57), Osprey, 2007.
8. It is clear that the Mongol army was never multinational, but was a motley mixture of Mongol-speaking, and later Turkic-speaking nomadic tribes. Therefore, the very concept of “Mongolian” in this case carries more collective rather than ethnic content.

To be continued…

The nomadic empire emerged as a result of a confluence of many circumstances. However, the main one could be the invention of the bow, the effectiveness of which is comparable to firearms.
After the unification of the nomadic tribes in 1206, Temujin was proclaimed Genghis Khan. By 1215, the Mongols had conquered most of the Chinese Jin Empire. In 1221 Urgench was taken, Khorezm ceased to exist. In 1234, the rest of the Jin Empire passed into history. From 1237 to 1241, most of the Russian principalities were destroyed. In 1241, nomads invaded Eastern Europe, and in 1243 they conquered Anatolia. Baghdad fell in 1258, and the famous stronghold of the Assassins - the fortress of Alamut - was surrendered in 1256.

All Mongol commanders could not be as talented as Genghis Khan, and their armies were not the most numerous. However, the rapid expansion of the nomads' possessions did not stop for several decades after the death of Genghis Khan, regardless of who led their armies. How then did the Mongols manage to change the course of history?

New battle tactics

Contemporaries often left memories of the great victories of the Mongol warriors. Historical sources note the unusual manner of fighting of the nomads: horsemen quickly moved across the battlefield, changing the direction of movement, often their tactic was to retreat. At the same time, the warriors, who rode perfectly on horseback, did not stop shooting at the enemy for a minute, even during the retreat. The pursuing enemy lost strength and concentration. The Mongols, seeing that the advantage was already on their side, immediately changed the direction of movement and launched a counterattack.

Other scenarios prepared by the Mongols were: splitting the enemy forces into parts and organizing an ambush. The enemy, exhausted and carried away by the pursuit of the main forces of the nomads, received a side blow from a detachment hiding in an ambush.

The fighting efficiency of the Mongol horsemen during the retreat was higher than that of most warriors of the time when they fought face to face. Chroniclers paid special attention to the ability of the Mongols to conduct archery. Cases of targeted shooting at hundreds of meters were described. Not only people, but also horses became victims of deadly arrows. The power of this type of weapon made it possible to immediately kill animals, which influenced the battle with enemy cavalry: due to its size, it was much easier to hit a horse, and once the horse was killed, the rider was also incapacitated. The Horde hundreds brilliantly used their trump cards: mobility, the ability to keep their distance and possession of small arms.

The invention that changed the course of history

Many historians (here it is worth highlighting the famous Russian specialist, Doctor of Historical Sciences Sergei Nefedov) point out that the invention of a new bow design played a decisive role in the victories of the nomads. Warriors of the Eurasian steppe have been using a bow with a composite (multi-component) structure for quite a long time. The craftsmen tightened the wooden arch on the sides in the center of the bow with bone plates. The revolutionary invention of the Mongols was that they got rid of one plate and placed the second one frontally: previously, the linings strengthened the structure, but now the bow has become much more elastic. Sedentary peoples did not take advantage of this advantage, since the tensile strength of the wood they most often took to make bows was several times lower than that of parts made from animal bones.

In addition to increasing power, the innovation made it possible to greatly reduce the size of the weapon and use it with maximum benefit when riding. Having a sufficient number of arrows, riders could conduct intense shooting on the move, which in effect was comparable to the use of automatic firearms. Moreover, the force of an arrow fired from a new type of weapon was so great that it was not inferior to the power of the first guns.

Coincidence

The peculiarities of the Mongolian bow were also the complexity of production and operation, which also prevented its use by other peoples. Making Mongolian compound bows can be compared to forging samurai swords. Layers of wood and bone plates, like layers of metal in Japanese swords, were connected to each other using a special technology. The production of weapons required significant effort. Moreover, this was not feasible everywhere. In a humid climate, for example, it was impossible to achieve the required structural strength: it was impossible to dry the glued parts.

The special way of life of the nomads also gave them an advantage in mastering a new type of weapon. In order to pull the bowstring as tightly and often as possible (riders could do this hundreds of times during hours of battle), it is necessary to have special training. Nomads learned to shoot and ride horses from childhood. As a result of many years of hard training, the reflex skill of shooting on horseback was developed. Neither the Europeans nor the Arabs could use the new weapons at the same level.

Another factor that influenced the success of the use of the Mongolian bow by a certain community of tribes, historians consider the inaccessibility of heavy weapons to most nomads. Metal armor and swords are found only in a few burials of the Horde: most likely, they were available only to rich warriors. As a result, special battle tactics were predetermined. The army, mostly consisting of lightly armed archers, could constantly avoid a head-on collision with the enemy, exhaust and shoot him, and often on the battlefield it did not even come to the use of swords and spears.

The new battle tactics that appeared along with the Mongolian bow made it possible for the nomads to make a qualitative leap in the art of war and create an empire on a scale unprecedented before that time.

4 938

The huge Mongol Empire created by the great Genghis Khan was many times larger than the empires of Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great. And it fell not under the blows of external enemies, but only as a result of internal decay...
Having united the disparate Mongol tribes in the 13th century, Genghis Khan managed to create an army that had no equal in Europe, Rus', or the Central Asian countries. No ground force of that time could compare with the mobility of his troops. And its main principle has always been attack, even if the main strategic objective was defense.

The Pope's envoy to the Mongol court, Plano Carpini, wrote that the victories of the Mongols depended largely not so much on their physical strength or numbers, but on superior tactics. Carpini even recommended that European military leaders follow the example of the Mongols. “Our armies should be managed on the model of the Tatars (Mongols - author's note) on the basis of the same harsh military laws... The army should in no way be conducted in one mass, but in separate detachments. Scouts should be sent out in all directions. And our generals must keep their troops day and night in combat readiness, since the Tatars are always vigilant, like devils.” So where did the invincibility of the Mongol army lie, where did its commanders and rank and file originate from those techniques of mastering the martial art?

Strategy

Before starting any military operations, the Mongol rulers at the kurultai (military council - author's note) developed and discussed in the most detailed manner the plan for the upcoming campaign, and also determined the place and time for the collection of troops. Spies were required to obtain “tongues” or find traitors in the enemy’s camp, thereby providing military leaders with detailed information about the enemy.

During Genghis Khan's lifetime, he was the supreme commander. He usually carried out an invasion of the captured country with the help of several armies and in different directions. He demanded a plan of action from the commanders, sometimes making amendments to it. After which the performer was given complete freedom in solving the task. Genghis Khan was personally present only during the first operations, and after making sure that everything was going according to plan, he provided the young leaders with all the glory of military triumphs.

Approaching fortified cities, the Mongols collected all kinds of supplies in the surrounding area, and, if necessary, set up a temporary base near the city. The main forces usually continued the offensive, and the reserve corps began preparing and conducting the siege.

When a meeting with an enemy army was inevitable, the Mongols either tried to attack the enemy suddenly, or, when they could not count on surprise, they directed their forces around one of the enemy flanks. This maneuver was called “tulugma”. However, the Mongol commanders never acted according to a template, trying to extract maximum benefit from specific conditions. Often the Mongols rushed into feigned flight, covering their tracks with consummate skill, literally disappearing from the eyes of the enemy. But only until he let his guard down. Then the Mongols mounted fresh spare horses and, as if appearing from underground in front of the stunned enemy, made a swift raid. It was in this way that the Russian princes were defeated on the Kalka River in 1223.
It happened that in a feigned flight, the Mongol army was scattered so that it enveloped the enemy from different sides. But if the enemy was ready to fight back, they could release him from the encirclement and then finish him off on the march. In 1220, one of the armies of Khorezmshah Muhammad, which the Mongols deliberately released from Bukhara and then defeated, was destroyed in a similar way.

Most often, the Mongols attacked under the cover of light cavalry in several parallel columns stretched along a wide front. The enemy column that encountered the main forces either held its position or retreated, while the rest continued to move forward, advancing on the flanks and rear of the enemy. Then the columns approached each other, the result of which, as a rule, was the complete encirclement and destruction of the enemy.

The amazing mobility of the Mongol army, allowing it to seize the initiative, gave the Mongol commanders, and not their opponents, the right to choose both the place and time of the decisive battle.

To streamline the movement of combat units as much as possible and quickly convey to them orders for further maneuvers, the Mongols used signal flags in black and white. And with the onset of darkness, signals were given by burning arrows. Another tactical development of the Mongols was the use of a smoke screen. Small detachments set the steppe or dwellings on fire, which concealed the movements of the main troops and gave the Mongols the much-needed advantage of surprise.

One of the main strategic rules of the Mongols was the pursuit of a defeated enemy until complete destruction. This was new in the military practice of medieval times. The knights of that time, for example, considered it humiliating for themselves to chase an enemy, and such ideas persisted for many centuries, until the era of Louis XVI. But the Mongols needed to make sure not so much that the enemy was defeated, but that he would no longer be able to gather new forces, regroup and attack again. Therefore, it was simply destroyed.

The Mongols kept track of enemy losses in a rather unique way. After each battle, special detachments cut off the right ear of each corpse lying on the battlefield, and then collected it in bags and accurately counted the number of killed enemies.
As you know, the Mongols preferred to fight in winter. A favorite way to test whether the ice on the river could withstand the weight of their horses was to lure the local population there. At the end of 1241 in Hungary, in full view of starving refugees, the Mongols left their cattle unattended on the eastern bank of the Danube. And when they were able to cross the river and take away the cattle, the Mongols realized that the offensive could begin.

Warriors

Every Mongol from early childhood prepared to become a warrior. Boys learned to ride a horse almost earlier than to walk, and a little later they mastered the bow, spear and sword to the subtleties. The commander of each unit was chosen based on his initiative and courage shown in battle. In the detachment subordinate to him, he enjoyed exceptional power - his orders were carried out immediately and unquestioningly. No medieval army knew such cruel discipline.
Mongol warriors did not know the slightest excess - neither in food nor in housing. Having acquired unprecedented endurance and stamina over the years of preparation for military nomadic life, they practically did not need medical care, although since the time of the Chinese campaign (XIII-XIV centuries), the Mongol army always had a whole staff of Chinese surgeons. Before the start of the battle, each warrior put on a shirt made of durable wet silk. As a rule, the arrows pierced this tissue, and it was drawn into the wound along with the tip, significantly complicating its penetration, which allowed surgeons to easily remove the arrows along with the tissue from the body.

Consisting almost entirely of cavalry, the Mongol army was based on the decimal system. The largest unit was the tumen, which included 10 thousand warriors. The tumen included 10 regiments, each with 1,000 people. The regiments consisted of 10 squadrons, each of which represented 10 detachments of 10 people. Three tumens made up an army or army corps.


An immutable law was in force in the army: if in battle one of the ten fled from the enemy, the entire ten were executed; if a dozen escaped in a hundred, the entire hundred were executed; if a hundred escaped, the entire thousand were executed.

The light cavalry fighters, who made up more than half of the entire army, had no armor except for a helmet, and were armed with an Asian bow, spear, curved saber, light long pike and lasso. The power of curved Mongolian bows was in many ways inferior to large English ones, but each Mongolian horseman carried at least two quivers of arrows. The archers had no armor, with the exception of a helmet, and it was not necessary for them. The tasks of the light cavalry included: reconnaissance, camouflage, supporting the heavy cavalry with shooting and, finally, pursuing the fleeing enemy. In other words, they had to hit the enemy from a distance.
Units of heavy and medium cavalry were used for close combat. They were called nukers. Although initially nukers were trained in all types of combat: they could attack scattered, using bows, or in close formation, using spears or swords...
The main striking force of the Mongol army was heavy cavalry, its number was no more than 40 percent. Heavy cavalry had at their disposal a whole set of armor made of leather or chain mail, usually taken from defeated enemies. The horses of the heavy cavalrymen were also protected by leather armor. These warriors were armed for long-range combat - with bows and arrows, for close combat - with spears or swords, broadswords or sabers, battle axes or maces.

The attack of the heavily armed cavalry was decisive and could change the entire course of the battle. Each Mongol horseman had from one to several spare horses. The herds were always located directly behind the formation and the horse could be quickly changed on the march or even during the battle. On these short, hardy horses, the Mongol cavalry could travel up to 80 kilometers, and with convoys, battering and throwing weapons - up to 10 kilometers per day.

Siege
Even during the life of Genghis Khan, in the wars with the Jin Empire, the Mongols largely borrowed from the Chinese some elements of strategy and tactics, as well as military equipment. Although at the beginning of their conquests Genghis Khan's army often found itself powerless against the strong walls of Chinese cities, over the course of several years the Mongols developed a fundamental system of siege that was almost impossible to resist. Its main component was a large but mobile detachment, equipped with throwing machines and other equipment, which was transported on special covered wagons. For the siege caravan, the Mongols recruited the best Chinese engineers and created on their basis a powerful engineering corps, which turned out to be extremely effective.

As a result, not a single fortress was any longer an insurmountable obstacle to the advance of the Mongol army. While the rest of the army moved on, the siege detachment surrounded the most important fortresses and began the assault.
The Mongols also adopted from the Chinese the ability to surround a fortress with a palisade during a siege, isolating it from the outside world and thereby depriving the besieged of the opportunity to make forays. The Mongols then launched an assault using various siege weapons and stone-throwing machines. To create panic in the enemy ranks, the Mongols rained down thousands of burning arrows on the besieged cities. They were fired by light cavalry directly from under the fortress walls or from a catapult from afar.

During a siege, the Mongols often resorted to cruel, but very effective methods for them: they drove a large number of defenseless captives in front of them, forcing the besieged to kill their own compatriots in order to get to the attackers.
If the defenders offered fierce resistance, then after the decisive assault the entire city, its garrison and residents were subjected to destruction and total plunder.
“If they always turned out to be invincible, this was due to the boldness of their strategic plans and the clarity of their tactical actions. In the person of Genghis Khan and his commanders, the art of war reached one of its highest peaks,” as the French military leader Rank wrote about the Mongols. And apparently he was right.

Intelligence service

Reconnaissance activities were used by the Mongols everywhere. Long before the start of campaigns, scouts studied the terrain, weapons, organization, tactics and mood of the enemy army to the smallest detail. All this intelligence gave the Mongols an undeniable advantage over the enemy, who sometimes knew much less about himself than he should have. The Mongol intelligence network spread literally all over the world. Spies usually acted under the guise of merchants and merchants.
The Mongols were especially successful in what is now commonly called psychological warfare. Stories about cruelty, barbarity and torture of the rebellious were deliberately spread by them, and again long before the fighting, in order to suppress any desire of the enemy to resist. And even though there was a lot of truth in such propaganda, the Mongols were very willing to use the services of those who agreed to cooperate with them, especially if some of their skills could be used to benefit the cause.

The Mongols did not refuse any deception if it could allow them to gain an advantage, reduce their casualties or increase the enemy's losses.