Mongolian Army

[Cinaruco]

Greetings Comrades, I seem to have arrived into a query. It seems that some consider the Mongol Army to be the first "modern army" (that particular phrase I found out reading Asimov's World Chronology). The organization of the Army was decimal, and it was something that was around in the times of the Persian Army. Numeric organization was also in the Roman Army (Legio I Itallica, Legio II Italica and so on), though the Intelligence and spy networks seemed to be advanced for their time.

 

It seems the advantage the Mongols had was the stirrup, and for my amateur eye I fail to see other advantage over the opposing armies, the organized types they faced in China and India during the early empire. Granted, this comes from a prolonged partying hiatus from teenage to my recent departure from those black ages and maybe I need further reading in the subject.

 

As always, any help would be welcomed.

[irregularmedic]

Greetings Comrades, I seem to have arrived into a query. It seems that some consider the Mongol Army to be the first "modern army" (that particular phrase I found out reading Asimov's World Chronology). The organization of the Army was decimal, and it was something that was around in the times of the Persian Army. Numeric organization was also in the Roman Army (Legio I Itallica, Legio II Italica and so on), though the Intelligence and spy networks seemed to be advanced for their time.

 

It seems the advantage the Mongols had was the stirrup, and for my amateur eye I fail to see other advantage over the opposing armies, the organized types they faced in China and India during the early empire. Granted, this comes from a prolonged partying hiatus from teenage to my recent departure from those black ages and maybe I need further reading in the subject.

 

As always, any help would be welcomed.

 

I'd say their biggest advantage was tactics and flexibility. Starting out with a hard core of tough, experienced horse archers helped. Learning from their enemies and absorbing tactics and at times personnel, especially Chinese siege engineers made them even more formidable. Their bows were exceptional.

[Cinaruco]

Better than the English Longbow?

[irregularmedic]

Better than the English Longbow?

 

Different. You can't fire an English Longbow from horseback. IIRC the Mongolian bow was more resistant to inclement weather too.

[Cinaruco]

Interesting. So, in short, it was their use of cavalry (which with the stirrup was a whole different game) and cavalry archers which made them superior over every tribe and kingdom they destroyed in their times.

[lastdingo]

The importance of the stirrup has come into doubt since experimental archeology has tested the 4-horn saddle afaik.

 

The "Parthian shot", a very demanding technique, was even possible without any stirrups at all.

Afaik stirrups were really necessary only for long lance mounted combat.

 

The breed of their horses was probably mroe important than all weapon advantages - sturdy horses, capable to live easily off the land while marching.

[Xavier]

wouldn't stirrups be a non issue as everybode was already using them in the time of the Mongols or am I missing something

[swerve]

Interesting. So, in short, it was their use of cavalry (which with the stirrup was a whole different game) and cavalry archers which made them superior over every tribe and kingdom they destroyed in their times.

 

No. As already said, stirrups were already in general use, & had been for centuries: the Carolingians used them, for example. This is confusing the Mongols with horse nomad armies several hundred years before, which had an advantage due to stirrups.

 

Nor were horse archers, in themselves, the cause of their superiority. Remember, the first wars the Mongols under Genghis won were against other armies of horse nomads, with the same weapons, equipment, & tactics, & none of the other horse archer nomads before them had the same degree of success. But they do show many of the same characteristics: a tribal confederacy with a charismatic leader, using the long-standing military advantages of the horse nomads, & exploiting disunity & weakness in the settled states.

 

I think their superiority was due to combining all the things in their favour more effectively than their immediate neighbours: better organisation, better discipline, & an outstanding leader who managed to unite them, & who set an example of learning from & using their defeated enemies, instead of exterminating. Once they'd conquered (& immediately incorporated) the other horse nomads, they had a base which was secure from attack, interior lines of communication, & a large army which could move very fast. Every conquest strengthened them, as they followed the Great Khans precedent of incorporating & using.

 

There's no point looking for a simple, one or two factor explanation. It was the conjunction of everything. Genghis, the right man in the right place at the right time, with everything he needed sitting around ready to be used - if only someone could see how to make the most of it. A divided China undoubtedly helped, as well.

Edited May 20, 2008 by swerve

[pikachu]

The importance of the stirrup has come into doubt since experimental archeology has tested the 4-horn saddle afaik.

 

The "Parthian shot", a very demanding technique, was even possible without any stirrups at all.

Afaik stirrups were really necessary only for long lance mounted combat.

 

The breed of their horses was probably mroe important than all weapon advantages - sturdy horses, capable to live easily off the land while marching.

 

Just want to add that actually stirrups are important for the particular style of horse archery used by the Mongols. This is because the Mongols balance on their legs as opposed to their hips the way Parthians (and their contemporaries) did. Mongol horse archers actually stand on their stirrups and ride their horses much in the same way surfers ride surfboards, balancing and keeping the upper body dynamically stable on the saddle. A better analogy would be the gun stabilization system in tanks. Because the Mongols stand and use their legs to balance, they basically can compensate for vertical motion of the horse, equivalent to having 3-D gun stabilization. Parthians balance on the hip, equivalent to 2-D stabilization, thus unable to compensate for vertical motion to the extent Mongols could. The Mongol method increases accuracy because it allows the rider more time to target and aim. Hip-balancing horse archers are stuck to using the split-second when the horse's feet are all off the ground for aiming and shooting. Mongols can aim regardless of horse posture, although they also wait for the more stable (minimal impact/vibration) "freefall" moment to actually shoot.

 

Of course, by the time the Mongols came into power, this style of horse archery was already the prevalent one in the Central Asian steppes - even the Chinese were using it. It gave the Mongols of Genghis Khan's time no advantage, but to say that stirrups did not help horse archery is not entirely correct; stirrups literally added one new dimension to it.

[Yama]

What swerve said. One of the biggest advantages Mongols had was their excellent spy & communications network. This allowed them almost always be one step ahead of their opponent & choose time and place of the battle to their liking. In modern and more fashionable terms, they were inside their opponents OODA loop.

 

Defining first "modern" army is always a losers game. Mongols were superbly adapted to contemporary social and political conditions in Eurasia and they took advantage from inherit weaknesses in those systems like no one else. These conditions have not existed for hundreds of years so in this sense they were anachronistic, not "modern" at all. In many ways, Republic & Imperial Roman armies were more "modern", despite predating Mongols by a millenium or more. But this is only from OUR viewpoint what we think as "modern".

 

One thing where they certainly were "modern" was scale of their campaigns which was truly mind-boggling. At the time when most of the European or Asiatic powers were quarreling over individual castles or towns, or in a truly large war, provinces, Mongols operated on several theatres each of which was sub-continent sized.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Yama

[Brian Kennedy]

This is a little OT but I like to ask it whenever a Mongol Thread comes up -- does anybody here know very much about Dai Viet's defeat of two 13th C. large-scale Mongol invasions (Trang Hung Dao FTW!) I'd be especially interested in weapons and tactics used -- most Vietnamese sources go with the poorly-armed-peasants-hiding-in-the-jungles spiel (that plus the celebrated Battle of Bach Dang) but I can't find much more about it...

[irregularmedic]

What swerve said. One of the biggest advantages Mongols had was their excellent spy & communications network. This allowed them almost always be one step ahead of their opponent & choose time and place of the battle to their liking. In modern and more fashionable terms, they were inside their opponents OODA loop.

 

Defining first "modern" army is always a losers game. Mongols were superbly adapted to contemporary social and political conditions in Eurasia and they took advantage from inherit weaknesses in those systems like no one else. These conditions have not existed for hundreds of years so in this sense they were anachronistic, not "modern" at all. In many ways, Republic & Imperial Roman armies were more "modern", despite predating Mongols by a millenium or more. But this is only from OUR viewpoint what we think as "modern".

 

One thing where they certainly were "modern" was scale of their campaigns which was truly mind-boggling. At the time when most of the European or Asiatic powers were quarreling over individual castles or towns, or in a truly large war, provinces, Mongols operated on several theatres each of which was sub-continent sized.

 

 

Re: "excellent spy & communications network"

 

- Not just spies, but mounted scouts in advance of and on the the flanks of the main body, sometimes in sizable numbers.

 

- Not only did the Mongols maintain something very similar to the pony express, but intel was valued and brought back rather than engaging in combat, and then the info was expedited on it's way through a series of fresh horses whether in the field or via the 'pony express' stations.

[Jonathan Chin]

Was the Mongol composite bows nearly as important as some historians would like us to believe? The Mongol bows had no significant difference in construction or materials from other stepp nomadic armies that predated them. Either the Mongol bows were that much better in quality of worksmanship, or they just used to superior efficiency.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Jonathan Chin

[pikachu]

Was the Mongol composite bows nearly as important as some historians would like us to believe? The Mongol bows had no significant difference in construction or materials from other stepp nomadic armies that predated them. Either the Mongol bows were that much better in quality of worksmanship, or they just used to superior efficiency.

 

This is another anachronism caused by confusing Mongols with Huns. In the Mongols' own time, the Turkoman composite bow used by their westerly neighbors was superior to their own in both craftsmanship (better materials and more "civilized" skill base) and drawing power (Turkomans had larger bodies and longer arms). Composite bows in general were superior to the non-composite reflex bows used by people west of the Caucasus, which became a major factor in the Huns' time, but the Mongols fought the majority of their campaigns against fellow steppe nomads and semi-nomadic peoples armed basically with the same composite bows they used. Even more settled populations in the same era (Chinese, Indians, and Persians) used the same type of bows.