What made the Mongols so good?

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Europe was disorganized at the time and the Crusades had deprived the Arabs of many trading cities and wars are very expensive to wage no matter what.

Opportunity was probably not the only part of the conquest but I think it did a lot for the explosive growth of the Mongol empire.

I'm not certain what you mean by disorganized. Western Europe was having troubles, but Eastern Europe was in great shape with a series of strong kings and developing nation states. The Hungary and Poland of the time were not powers to disdain.

The loss of trading cities was probably mitigated by the fact that the trading cities were primarilly important because of their ability to trade through them to the west, which the Italians and Byzantines controlled regardless. If anything the crusades encouraged trade, certainly the crusaders made convenient negotiators and brokers.

There is an alternative history theory where the Crusaders realize what's happening quickly enough to make an alliance with the Mongols which would have served both powers nicely as it did in the Crimea, but the Crusaders were in the process of a failing bid at revival at the time and I'm not even certain that intelligence of the Crimean contacts and alliances various Italian states had with the Mongols had even made its way down to the Crusaders before they got pushed out.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Something I haven't seen mentioned so far in here was also that Mr Khan rarely, if ever, attacked without at the very least attempting to gather as much information as possible about the target, either by using spies or prisoners. That seems pretty obvious, but it wasn't necessarly a given at the time, at least not for invading forces.

Invading forces still have trouble getting and applying Mongol levels of intelligence, or at least so it would appear.

 

[Tonguez]

No, certainly not dumb luck. It was force of numbers; they had gotten so much economic and military power from the places they easily conquered that they could just plow through the less optimal land by outnumbering defenders 20-to-1.

But, that's just what I've gathered from what I've read and seen. I'm sure part of it was using the more varied types of troops that resulted from conscripting soldiers from conquered areas; I doubt that all of the mongolian army at any given time, especially later, consisted of horse archers.

your right that the Mongol army was largely non-Mongol (most of those reaching Europe were actually Turks) however their numbers were never 'overwhelming' and definately not 20-to-1. The largest single invasion force was probably no more than 40000 and more often smaller - it was mobility that give them the edge

Also the fact that the remnants of the Empire lasted for so long (and possibly continued in the form of the Moghul and Ottoman Empires shows the huge impact left by the Mongols. It may not be a legacy carved in stone as with Rome and other Empires but the Mongols stablized the Silk Road and facilitated the exchange between East and West. and consistent with their animist beliefs they engered a 'spirit' of unity which saw the rise of anumber of modern peoples and nations which before them didn't exists (including China, Russia and the Ottoman Empire)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

They were the ultimate paradox. They were very precise, yet they didn't give a crap.

The purpose of a mongol is to flip out and kill people.

 

[barsoomcore]

Genghis Khan And The Making Of The Modern World is a pretty readable book on the subject. Does a lot to refute the notion that the Mongols had no impact on the world. True, they didn't create a form of architecture but then, they were frickin' nomads so whaddya want? Sheesh.

One suggestion in the book is that the Mongol's diet actually helped them out quite a bit. Because they were protein eaters, they were able to go longer without food (and were generally healthier and stronger) than the agricultural peasants they fought (whose diet of starch and carbohydrates made them more vulnerable to famine and disease). He also suggests that as herdsmen, the Mongols were naturally better at stirring up and directing fearful hordes of fleeing people, and indeed, the Mongols themselves say that they used exactly the same techniques (and terminology) for directing the terrified mobs of refugees that they used in managing their herds. The result being that the powers resisting the Mongol invasions found themselves overwhelmed with huge numbers of fleeing refugees that swamped their ability to act or control the situation.

And finally, he suggests that the Mongols recognized that mountainous, forested Europe would not grant them the sorts of advantages they liked, and that generally Europe lacked the sorts of enticements that would have made the effort worth the trouble.

Basically, they got to Europe, looked it over, and said, "Nah. Call us when you get your act together."

 

[Wolf72]

The two stories don't mesh well. The Mongol leader wasn't killed by the actions of a defender.

Tyra Miraborg, right?

close enough for some Inner sphere surat's analogy

...

back on topic, iirc one of the Mongol's methods of biological warfare was to catapult plague riden bodies over the walls ... yuck!!!

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

One suggestion in the book is that the Mongol's diet actually helped them out quite a bit.

It's a sign of how much study of history has warped me that I think 'mmmm, conqueroring pastoralist hordes,' rather than 'yay, hippies!' when I eat yogurt.

And finally, he suggests that the Mongols recognized that mountainous, forested Europe would not grant them the sorts of advantages they liked, and that generally Europe lacked the sorts of enticements that would have made the effort worth the trouble.

Basically, they got to Europe, looked it over, and said, "Nah. Call us when you get your act together."

As I understand it from the reading I've done the far western Mongol political policy was a very interesting political and strategic decision.

Being a nomad just opens up a whole new set of political realities and economic choices. very very cool.

 

[Storyteller01]

Heh. Although if I recall right, the Japanese samurai didn't do all that badly. Well, at least by a "Mongols whipped everyone, so it's just a matter of how bad you got stomped on" standard. (And the Knights, as previously mentioned, were obviously brutal in the event they cornered anyone)

The Samurai were horse archers too, after all. The difference being that they tended to fight as individual combatants, and were reportedly baffled by the mass-firing and other group tatics of the mongols. In any event, they reputedly held the mongols back a few days before the freak typhoon came and smashed the mongol fleet, though they were pretty certain that their defeat was inevitible before then.

Wish I could remember the book, but it was stated that the Japanese Feudal culture developed (arguably) the world's best fighting men; said time period also created some of their poorest tactical leaders/thinkers.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'd still take a Mongol over a Samurai.

Interestingly enough so did the Russians, there are some scary stories from the Siberian front in WWII.

 

[sword-dancer]

though they were "steppe barbarians", they had technology others did not...read the last paragraph here...

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

Which technology should that`ve been?

And btw the charge of cav didn`t need Stirrups(See Prof Junkelmanns Reiter Roms) they need saddles made for combat.



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 Turks, exactly the Seljuqs, campaigned in this area before Tschenghis, they were the reason the bycantean empereor called for help which the pope answered with the call for the first crusade.

The Mongols were stopped by the Egyptians (Ayubbids, I believe)

No the Turks exactly the mamelukes.

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.

No that were the Osmans