What made the Mongols so good?

[sword-dancer]

Greetings!

The Greeks, the Persians, and others of the time alternately traded with them, employed them as ferocious mercenaries, and fought wars against them--usually losing to the ferocity, tactics, and skill of the Scythians.

IIRC the medians put an end to them in their mountains before they crushed the assyrian empire.

The Huns were responsible for driving the Goths and Visigoths into the Roman Empire, as well as other tribes.

Not that the germanic/gothic nations weren`t pushing into the empire before

The Avars were another rampaging nomadic tribe--in the hundreds of thousands--that hammered Europe for much of the early Middle Ages

IIRC Pfofessor Dahn right, Charlemagne, one of his sons or generals, crushed them and that forever.

The Mongols crushed all those that opposed them through a series of skills and techniques.

It should be mentioned, that AFAIk Persia and China were military handicaped at this time.
The mongols under Thenghis Khan against the first Tang(who sent the turks packing) or the Perians in their high days would be interesting.

which while many in Europe were as well, horsemanship remained something for aristocrats.

No, not really, the european forces were partly horsed(the knightly lance where part heavy riders(Knight, squire, man at arms, part foot, Archer(Archers, light foot))also the medival war hosts broke in the first crusade the turkish forces with their discipline, ruthlessness and dedication.

The Muslim king of Samarkand--a huge city of some 500,000 people or more at the time, received some Mongol ambassadors.

You didn`t mean here the Shah of persian/Chorezm.

When the Mongols came knocking, people had learned to open up the doors quickly, or fight the Mongols honourably, without any deceit

No, the mongols butchered the conquered without thought of they fought honorable or not.

On balance, terrain, weather, European skill, nor Muslim fanaticism could or would have stopped the Mongols had the Mongols been able to maintain united, strong leadership. The Mongols proved--time and time again--that they could absolutely annihilate the best that Europe or the Muslims could field, and they could make it look impressively easy, and absolutely embarrassing for all of their defeated foes.

The riders of germany had broken the magyars in one battle, after the bishop of augsburg crushed their morale by their attack on his city.
Tthe duke who commanded at liegnitz must be a fool, but AFAIK the mongols hadn`t even the ressources at hand to take the fortresses and castles of hungary.
But, the mongols would´ve fast great difficulty at best to feed their ponies in europe, this could be a reason, but the successor incident is a myth AFAIK.
I think the mongolian wave had exhausted himself.

 

[S'mon]

The only thing, is I don't know how to translate the mongols' special bow in game terms.

The 3e composite longbow - which by the RAW can be fired from horseback - is fine for a Mongol battle bow. You can add different types of arrows - increased range for reduced damage, reduced range for increased damage, etc.

Edit: Of course bows in D&D are ridiculously expensive, it should cost the Mongols in your campaign far less than 100gp/bow. Market price 20gp + 20gp/STR mod would be plenty IMO.

 

[sword-dancer]

the only Problem is, thart this bow is far better than the normal longbow.
But the longbow was better in Range and penetration than the composit horse bow.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

Why were the Mongols so effective? Was it numbers? Tactics? What?

The horse culture was probably the single most important aspect.
Another important aspect was their technology...though they were "steppe barbarians", they had technology others did not...read the last paragraph here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

In addition to effective use of stirrup and tack, the composite bow was important. Making one is actually a very difficult process, consisting of several materials (Bone, horn, wood, and the like) glued together. The effective result is a small powerful bow (that can be used from a horse).

So mass formations of mounted archers were a hassle, as I am sure you can imagine.
Really they were the best fast/mobile missile troops the world had ever seen to that point.

This didn't make them particularly good at anything else, and they had to incorporate non-nomads (i.e. Chinese turncoats) into their armies to deal with any fortifications.



Each Mongol warrior would typically have more than one horse, and if they were starving, they would drink blood from the viens of their horses. Kumiss is a fermented/alcoholic "beverage" made from mare's milk...fermented horse milk. And they lived off of livestock they herded. Naturally, this kind of life made them accustomed to traveling far.

The Mongol's culture was basically defined by the horse. As a people of nomadic pastoralists, this shouldn't be particularly surprising.



Ultimately, while they were effective in a military sense, the Mongols didn't really leave much of a lasting impression on the world. They didn't contribute anything in the way of philosophy or reason or science, in agriculture or architecture, in writing or art, in government or law, or anything at all really.

The greatest impression was probably with the Russians, who were themselves a barbaric people, and assimilated some of their ways while ruled by the Golden Horde, before they threw off their yoke.

It took almost a century for the Mongols under Qublai to conquer the Sung (Chinese empire) and that rule lasted about a century before they were overthrown by the Ming. Those Mongols are now trying to avoid being annexed by the PRC, and they still herd animals and live in Yurts. Its actually pretty pathetic.



The greatest impact the Mongols had was probably upon the middle east, as Turkic peoples were driven en masse into Iraq and Anatolia. The Mongols were stopped by the Egyptians (Ayubbids, I believe) The Seljuk Turks hammered the Byzantines and would eventually come to rule Greece and the Balkans (and what we call Turkey), and threaten Europe for centuries. Timur il-lenk/leng/liang (Tamerlane) claimed succession from the Mongols/Turks, but his "empire" collapsed shortly after his death.

Many Muslims blame the degeneracy of their culture upon the Mongols and Timur. The "Glory days" of Islamic empire basically predate these invasions. The Turks were an Islamic power for centuries after, but all they had was military power...not the culture, poetry, architecture, science, and so forth of their Egyptian, Persian, and Arab forebears. For example, the greatest Turkish mosque was actually a Greek Church, the Hagia Sophia, with some minarets put on top and called a mosque. It is now a museum.



Ultimately, the Mongols had an impressive military and little else.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'd say their five greatest assests were:

The culture already mentioned which served as a good source of troops and technology.

The geography. The steppes had been a good staging ground for invaders before, but the Mongols were the only people to really take full advantage of their potential. Steppes are steppes, it's true, but their Eurasian steppes make much better highways than the New World steppes, unless you count the initial Mammoth hunter migrations into the new world. The steppes at that time were even better since the Mongols could move between a range of cultures with all sorts of interesting new technologies and lessons to pick up.

The generals. A lot of conquerors had good generals, but by the time they got into full swing the Mongols had a whole corps of nigh on revolutionary thinkers at their disposal. I wouldn't hesitate that the general state of military science only caught up to them around the time of WWII and we're still learning from them.

The politicians. The things that most seperated the Mongols from other conquerors and nomads were an amazing set of laws and political leaders. Other people have mentioned how they used everyone according to their ability. But their laws also made them very good at occupation and their cultural tolerance made them masters of combined arms warfare. Their generals were masters but their politicians and cultural leaders were master students. Yeah even unto a Van Wilder sense. In some sense this very enlightened view on the part of the Mongols was what made them so bad for the world. They brain drained most of the cultures they came into contact with and the counter-conquering forces such as the Mamelukes were not very tolerant of the intellectuals they found courting Mogol favor.

That last is really the key to how effectively they used the others. The Huns, for instance, were not nearly as good at absorbing other cultures, which meant they had to push their way through the steppes instead of flowing over them and that they couldn't absorb other tribes as well to make larger and more diverse forces.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

I'd say their five greatest assests were:

The generals. A lot of conquerors had good generals, but by the time they got into full swing the Mongols had a whole corps of nigh on revolutionary thinkers at their disposal. I wouldn't hesitate that the general state of military science only caught up to them around the time of WWII and we're still learning from them.

Hmm.
I really have to completely disagree with this.

The simple advent of the gunpowder empires would render the tactics of the Mongols obsolete. Especially the ability of the Seljuk Turk armies to move while firing (one rank fires, the rank behind reloads, the rank behind moves forward to take firing position, etc.)

Then of course there is 19th Century Prusso-German military, which the United States military was modelled on.

I am sure Mongolian warfare is taught in war colleges today, but there is something to be learned from every battle throughout history, and recounts of Mongol battles don't strike me as particularly noteworthy.

I'd also be interested in what this "whole corps of nigh on revolutionary thinkers" actually thought of. To my knowledge, the Mongols contributed basically nothing. They passed over whole cultures and left little in their wake except animosity and resentment.

That last is really the key to how effectively they used the others. The Huns, for instance, were not nearly as good at absorbing other cultures, which meant they had to push their way through the steppes instead of flowing over them and that they couldn't absorb other tribes as well to make larger and more diverse forces.

This was definitely their other great advantage, aside from the nomadic culture. The pattern of tolerant absorbtion of elements of other cultures (such as the conversion of western members to Islam) came about through the tribute paid by China over the centuries preceding the rise of Mongols to power.

 

[Tonguez]

Hmm.
I'd also be interested in what this "whole corps of nigh on revolutionary thinkers" actually thought of. To my knowledge, the Mongols contributed basically nothing. They passed over whole cultures and left little in their wake except animosity and resentment.

Your the second one to say the Mongols left nothing and that isn't true. It is known that the Great Khan left a series of Laws (the Yassa) and a communications network (the original pony express) that ensured peace and protected trade across the empire. A favourite analogy used at the time was that "a young girl could walk across the empire carrying a bag of gold and never need to fear "

The mongols encouraged trade and allowed the introduction of trade goods like pasta (into both Asia and the West), the Kite and porcelain china. More importantly their tolerance of other cultures and religions allowed the cross polination of ideas over a good portion of the earths surface. They (via the Golden Horde) were also responsible for unifying Russia and the Moghuls who entered India claim descent from them also


What also needs to be remembered is that the Mongols we know from the Horde are not the original Mongols of the Steppes. Genghis made it explicit that his mission was to unify all peoples "who live in tents" - which he did offering all the various tribes the rightto become Mongols (or die) - it was thus he who created a unified people which we now recognise as the Mongols

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

Your the second one to say the Mongols left nothing and that isn't true. It is known that the Great Khan left a series of Laws (the Yassa) and a communications network (the original pony express) that ensured peace and protected trade across the empire. A favourite analogy used at the time was that "a young girl could walk across the empire carrying a bag of gold and never need to fear "

Well, I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion here. What you say the Mongols left behind is, when I read it, equal to nothing.

Certainly, during their century or so of power they were impressive, but not moreso than any other imperial power. And other imperial powers did create actual contributions in many other areas.

The mongols encouraged trade and allowed the introduction of trade goods like pasta (into both Asia and the West), the Kite and porcelain china. More importantly their tolerance of other cultures and religions allowed the cross polination of ideas over a good portion of the earths surface. They (via the Golden Horde) were also responsible for unifying Russia and the Moghuls who entered India claim descent from them also


What also needs to be remembered is that the Mongols we know from the Horde are not the original Mongols of the Steppes. Genghis made it explicit that his mission was to unify all peoples "who live in tents" - which he did offering all the various tribes the rightto become Mongols (or die) - it was thus he who created a unified people which we now recognise as the Mongols

Well, at least you didn't break out the fool's line "Marco Polo brought pasta to Italy".
As for all peoples "who live in tents"...I suppose this is why the Turks are called Mongols?


Look, you are attributing a variety of propeties and qualities to the Mongols: "encouraged trade and allowed the introduction of trade goods", "cross polination of ideas over a good portion", etc. I am not contending that this is untrue, I am saying this is unremarkable, and not worthy of note, in and of itself.

Pretty much ALL true imperial powers did this as well, but they did other things too.

Rome's sculpture was an unimpressive knock-off of the Greeks, but they created styles of architecture, and innovations in living (heated floors, etc). Roman roads are not famous because they are long, or because they facilitated trade or some other such thing, but because of the technology of those roads. One and a half millenia later, many of those roads still exist, those stones laid by hand, by the original builder. The roads we drive on with our cars are built using the same principles pioneered by Roman road builders.

Gunpowder, cannon, mortar, and the modern day firearm can all be traced back to China (which made poor use of it).

There are many cultures throughout the world that made enduring contributions in faith and philosphy, science, engineering, architecture, agriculture, and so on that have real effects on people's lives.

The Mongols aren't one of them.



And having referenced gunpowder empires, I would have thought my awareness of the Moghuls of India would be implicit, but I guess not. The tactic of using a powerful name for ones purposes was hardly unique to the Mongols. One only need look to "Romania" to see another.

Personally, I think your extremely broad definition (a definition many people included under that definition would themselves reject) is a cheap end-around the real issue:

Mongols were really good at shooting bows while riding horses, and at appropriating other cultural elements, and not much else.

 

[TGryph]

Technology plus

the only Problem is, thart this bow is far better than the normal longbow.
But the longbow was better in Range and penetration than the composit horse bow.

I remember reading about another edge in ranged combat the Mongols held over their opponents. From what I remember, each Mongol wore a shirt of raw silk under his armor. If the armor was penetrated, the rifling action of the arrow would push the silk shirt into the wound. The silk was so strong it was rarely punctured. This made removing the arrow much easier, thereby increasing the Mongol's survival.

tGryph

 

[silentspace]

Another thing that ought to be pointed out is the advantage of terrain...

You see, the Mongols were better than anyone at fighting in large, wide-open places, because they had mobility and range. This is one of the main reasons their conquests stopped at Europe; they lost their advantage in the more hilly, forested terrain, and then their light armor and small horses became a liability instead of an advantage.

Now, this makes even more sense when you take a look at the area that they conquered...essentially, the Mongolian Empire consisted of the largest contiguous stretch of steppes and plains in the world. Wherever the steppes and plains ended, their borders ended soon after (and/or were forced forward at a slow rate and high cost, offset by lands that were easier to conquer).

Right! They were good at conquering flat, wide-open spaces. Conquering China, India, and the rest of Asia was just dumb luck.