7 ms·
“Devil’s horsemen”: Why Mongol horse archers were history’s most feared
- bitsinthesky 3y agoI entered the article ready to be critical, but I saw they quoted Dan Carlin's hardcore history on the first page. Satisfied. I can go to bed, nobody is wrong on the internet today.
- pharmakom 3y agoIs Dan Carlin considered a good source? Genuine question.
- piva00 3y agoI think this answer on /r/askhistorians is still a good, and succinct take on Dan Carlin as a source [0]. I heard from other historians the same, he is a good entertainer but not a definitive source to be absolutely trusted, it's pop-history well done. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoughts_on_dan_carlin/cd4qedu/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoug...
- beloch 3y agoI'd say he's pretty decent, provided you keep his slant in mind. He's a radio journalist and not a historian, although he does have a history degree. He hasn't written books on the Mongols, but they're one of his favourite topics and he's probably better read than most on them. He definitely has a taste for the darker side, and the Mongols provided plenty of fodder for that. If you're listening to Dan Carlin, you're probably getting the "most metal" version of what's well-accepted in a decently comprehensive review of available literature, sometimes with a few of the more salacious bits from less accepted sources thrown in for fun with his warning. Meanwhile, reading a just-released book from an actual historian may, instead, furnish you with views that are innovative and not yet broadly accepted, or just plain wrong. You really need to read a few different historians on any given topic to start to get a real handle on it. Everyone has their own strengths, weaknesses, angles and agendas. You can do far worse than starting with Carlin. He's great at making topics interesting enough to read more on. I am not a historian though, and I'd defer to one in assessing Carlin.
- jawilson2 3y agoI agree completely with this. I almost view/use him as a historical Wikipedia. He has gotten me interested in so many historical topics I previously wasn't interested in, e.g. the first World War. After many of his series, I track down his sources (usually on his website) and read those books. I love finding the tidbits from his shows in the broader context of the original books.
- oaththrowaway 3y agoI'd be curious to see how Comanches would have fared against the Mongols. At least the mounted troops.
- nl 3y agoThe Mongol bow is generally considered to have a draw weight of around 75kg (166lbs)[1], while the American bow was around 30kg (70 lbs)[2], which was much more comparable to most other horse-mounted archers. The English longbow was estimated to have a draw weight of between 45kg and 82kg (100lbs to 180lbs)[1] but of course was much bigger and couldn't really be used on horseback. [1] https://interestingengineering.com/lists/the-most-powerful-bows-in-history https://interestingengineering.com/lists/the-most-powerful-b... [2] https://centerofthewest.org/2017/07/21/plains-indian-weapons-part-bow-arrows/ https://centerofthewest.org/2017/07/21/plains-indian-weapons...
- adrian_b 3y agoIt should be noted that the composite bow is not a new invention, even if the knowledge about how to make them appears to have been lost in many places. In the Homeric poems, Iliad and Odyssey, composite bows are described, e.g. used by the very skilled archer Odysseus. Moreover, even older descriptions (from the second half of the second millennium BC) of composite bows can be found in the myths preserved on the tablets from Ugarit.
- hosh 3y agoI am not sure where you are getting the 166 lb figure from. It is true that an Asiatic composite bow over a certain draw weight (depending on design) can impart greater energy on the arrow than a self-bow (long bow) of the same draw weight. The force-draw curves are different, and some of these bows have very long draws in comparison.
- nl 3y agoI gave a reference for where the 166 pounds came from. Search for 166 on that page.
- nl 3y agoFor those who'd like a pretty good (if fictionalised) taste of what the Mongol empire was like I can highly recommend Conn Iggulden's Conqueror series starting with Wolf of the Plains[1]. Like all good historical fiction (ref Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey–Maturin series and Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series) it is well researched, and recreates the state of mind of historical characters. In some ways I find this more important than the sequence of events, because insights into that perspective is really hard to get from mere dates and locations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_of_the_Plains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_of_the_Plains
- FreshStart 3y agoAlso Russia is a direct cultural inheritor. As in the mongols became the Russian aristocracy, like they became Chinese aristocracy.
- woodpanel 3y agoWhat?! The whole founding of Russia starts with locals turning to the vikings in order to protect themselves against the murderous mongols. Hence the Emblem of Ukraine sporting a viking ship…
- dlahoda 3y agomoscovia starts from mongols. that was novgorod, belarus, lithuania, kiyv who fight mongols and moscovites vassals. moscovia is not original or originals off russia you think of.
- mcv 3y agoThe Mongols were well after the vikings. The Kievan Rus came from Viking nobility ruling Slavic population, which lasted for a few centuries and then disintegrated when the Mongols invaded. Muscovy became the center of Russian vassalage under the Mongols, and after the Mongol empire disintegrated, Muscovy started conquering/uniting the various Russian states under their rule.
- jltsiren 3y ago
- teleforce 3y agoThis probrably controversial but recent research suggested that Genghis Khan (original name Temujin, in Kazakh meaning 'blacksmith') is from the Kazakh clan Kiyat (in Kazakh meaning 'cuts') [1]. It's well known that ancient Kazakh nomads literally lived and died by their horses [2],[3]. [1] Genghis Khan a Kazakh? https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/04/06/Genghis-Khan-a-Kazakh/20021081276214/ https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2004/04/06/Genghis-Khan-a-K... [2] A horse in a burial-Memorial ceremony of ancient nomads in Kazakh Altay region: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286946217_A_horse_in_a_burial-Memorial_ceremony_of_ancient_nomads_in_Kazakh_Altay_region https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286946217_A_horse_i... [3]Horses and Humans: Ancient Bond: https://astanatimes.com/2023/04/horses-and-humans-ancient-bond/ https://astanatimes.com/2023/04/horses-and-humans-ancient-bo...
- darkclouds 3y ago> It's well known that ancient Kazakh nomads literally lived and died by their horses Most of the hunter gatherer populations on this planet adapted to their environment and used what was around them to succeed. Mongolia doesnt really have a lot of vegetation, like trees and bushes, so using horses and strong bows to cover the distance quickly and have a weapon with some range was probably born out of necessity. Likewise breeding good animals is part of our dna, it also explains arranged marriages in some respects, but viking burial sites have also found Norwegian Elkhound remains buried with them.[1] Even the ancient Egyptians used to have their pets buried with them which included things like gazelles and baboons![2] The lifestyle back then also meant kids would have learnt a trade from a very young age so expertise would and should be alot higher than today when thinking about the more wide ranging subject matter that is taught today, this perhaps explains why High Functioning Autistics are the experts in their domain of knowledge because they push things to the limit and know everything inside and out, making them ideal employees for some jobs. [1] https://ahcfargo.com/client-resources/breed-info/norwegian-elkhound/#:~:text=The%20Norwegian%20Elkhound%20is%20an,sled%20dogs%3A%20truly%20versatile%20dogs https://ahcfargo.com/client-resources/breed-info/norwegian-e.... [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-egyptian-animals-mummies-archaeology#:~:text=Lizard%2C%20fish%2C%20and%20even%20beetle,baboons%2C%20monkeys%2C%20and%20gazelles https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-egyp....
- hollowpython 3y agoWell, everyone knows Mongol cavalry archers fire 25% faster...
- hef19898 3y agoAnd Scythians get one additional unit for each mounted archer or light cavalery unit.
- MezzoDelCammin 3y agoNah, I think I'll just stick with my free Trading Posts and roads to all new cities...
- hef19898 3y agoRomans...
- eimrine 3y agoI think the real reason is that you can not defeat a cavalry archer in a pre-powder age with anything else except of another cavalry archer. Another example of wunderwaffe of some ancient age is Alexander's sarissa which is also undefetable by anything except of even longer spear.
- throw0101c 3y ago> I think the real reason is that you can not defeat a cavalry archer in a pre-powder age with anything else except of another cavalry archer. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a bow is a good guy with a bow…
- hef19898 3y agoAnd a bigger bow. Bringing friends, a lot friends. Hiding behind thick walls!
- hef19898 3y ago
- hnbad 3y agoWithout reading the article I would have assumed they just had good bows and that horse archers could kill you from a distance while also being ultra-mobile compared to regular archers (and I'm not at all basing opinion on futile attempts to chase down horse archers on foot in the Mount & Blade series of videogames). Upon reading the article that seems to be all there is to it. A bit underwhelming to be honest.
- hef19898 3y agoIt was more: Incredible logistics, by virtue of being steppe nomads, command & control, government, in short organization in general. Mated with a hard to beat weapon, and army built around that. The bow was just one aspect.
- Neil44 3y agoThere are over 500 words in Mongolian to describe the traits of horses. I was galoping on a horse in Mongolia being led by a mongolian boy, and his horse put it's hoof in a small animal hole and went down. The way the boy slid forwards over it's head did a little roll and sprang to his feet looked like something Tom Cruise had practiced for weeks to do for a movie shot, and he never looked remotely bothered by any of it. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_culture_in_Mongolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_culture_in_Mongolia
- samstave 3y agoThat sounds like an awesome adventure - what brought to you being in Mongolia riding a horse around with a child guide mongol hoarde? (For clarity, the only english word we have for multiple (>0) mongols, is "hoarde")
- Neil44 3y agoA friend was doing VSO and got posted to an orphanage in Ulaanbaatar, hence the adventure. I took the trans siberian there and stayed for 3 weeks. Good times. https://www.vsointernational.org/ https://www.vsointernational.org/
- riialist 3y agoWhat's interesting and per my present knowledge not yet explained is the fact that the modern Mongolian horse and Finnic horse are genetically and phenotypically the most related modern horse breeds. As they say in the text, it is not the speed but endurance and resilience of the horses which makes the difference. Just try riding one of them. They barely notice you, until they decide to run. And after that it's like a train. See e.g. https://gsejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12711-019-0480-8 https://gsejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12711...
- tudorw 3y agoThe Winged Hussars have got to be a close second, https://www.military.com/off-duty/2020/06/09/5-reasons-winged-hussars-are-among-greatest-fighters-of-all-time.html https://www.military.com/off-duty/2020/06/09/5-reasons-winge...
- brazzy 3y agoThe article seems to miss the key fact that made the Mongols (and before them the Huns) able to conquer half the world: their entire army was cavalry, and the horses could survive simply by grazing. This gave their army incredibly speed and range - the horses could carry food for the riders, and didn't have to carry food for themselves. No need to forage, which was a hugely limiting factor for other armies. The Mongols could literally run circles around other armies, avoid battles when the circumstances were unfavorable, and strike weak points deep in enemy territory. Even if other armies had horses and bows of the same quality, they could not easily replicate this because their structure, in many cases even the social structure of the societies that fielded them, was based on cavalry being heavily armoured elite shock troops rather than archers. Conversely, the Mongols fared poorly in areas where there was insufficient grazing for their horses, and could be defeated by appropriate tactics when they did not have the option to choose their battles as easily.
- rcxdude 3y agoThe other side was significant as well: other armies could not effectively operate where the Mongols did, as they could not support themselves off of land where pretty all that grew was grass. So the Mongols were extremely well adapted to the areas where they succeeded, while others were at a severe disadvantage compared to their home turf.
- brazzy 3y agoSee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Fields Basically the entire southeastern half of modern day Ukraine, which is among the best cultivatable land in the world, was uninhabitable because it was naturally steppe and living there put you at constant risk of raids from horse nomads (Crimean Tartars). And because it was uninhabited, regular armies could not cross it (due to lack of forage), so the Tartars could not be atta Ked on a large scale.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago>their entire army was cavalry, This isn't really true. They also had a fairly advanced siege corps, utilizing cannons and bombs to take down fortifications. This played a huge role in their ability to conquer. The domination of horse archers was nothing new but traditionally you could hide behind walls and starve them out. Feeding ten thousand besieging troops is hard enough without thirty thousand horses. With the Mongols able to destroy walls, armies needed to fight the pitched battles that horse archers excel at.
- hosh 3y agoI have been practicing traditional Asiatic archery. There is a bunch of stuff in that article that is misleading. First, the composite bow design used by the Mongolians was widely use as far as the region of the Ottoman-Turks … but also the Manchus, Chinese, Koreans. Second, the recurve and reflex shapes of the bow is not what gives the bow its power. It is siyahs at the tip, which do not bend, and acts as a lever on the bendable parts. There is a tradeoff. The larger the siyah, the more mass the bow has to overcome to fire these arrows, so the draw weight need to be significant enough to warrant the use of a siyah. Turkish and Chinese composite bows start outperforming longbows of the same draw weight at around 40-50 pounds, while the Manchu horn bows start outperforming longbows at 70-80 pounds. According to those who test it out, the performance gap is exponential. Third, the most powerful of the Asiatic bows are probably the Manchu bows. They double-down on making long, aggressive (forward angle) siyahs, and even innovating string bridges to increase brace height and help prevent the bows from unstringing themselves. They were not designed to shoot arrows fast. Like most Asiatic composites, these were designed to shoot very heavy, long arrows with great penetration power. Manchus also love their horses, archery, and the hunt. A hundred years after the Manchus conquered China and founded the Qing dynasty, their archery traditions were in decline. The Qing emperors recruited Mongolians to be trained in the Manchu ways of archery to keep their traditions alive. There is a lot more to it as well — such as the thumb draw and use of thumb rings; the variations of khatra, etc; how modern Mongolian archers competing in the Mongolian Games are switching away from thumb draw. Lastly, a note on the Chinese. With early access to metallurgy and ideas on standardized parts, the Chinese “superweapon” was the crossbow. At no point in the Chinese history were there armor that could protect someone from a crossbow, and its effectiveness was likely a factor in the slow adoption of firearms.
- jimmydef 3y agoSlow adoption of firearms by the Chinese was less to do with the crossbow than the fact that the Manchus occupied China during a period when firearms was coming of age. The Manchus famously despised gunpowder weapons in favor of the bow and arrow which they held in extremely high regard. After all it was the bow that in part helped them defeat the disintegrating Ming empire which invested heavily in gunpowder weapons like cannons. In their early years of Western expansion, the firearms units was always staffed by the Han Chinese and were of low status.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago"Jochi Khasar, the Khan’s brother, was known far and wide for his ability to hit his targets from more than nine hundred alda, a traditional Mongolian unit of measurement equal to the distance between the tips of the middle fingers of two outstretched arms." Hrrm 900 Alda is somewhere in the ballpark between approximately 1440 meters and 1620 meters. That seems a bit far. https://chat.openai.com/share/983ebd1b-58a7-43b1-8c06-cf6a258edff3 https://chat.openai.com/share/983ebd1b-58a7-43b1-8c06-cf6a25... (code interpreter)
- motohagiography 3y agoWhat a pleasure to read. While we focus on the bow technology, the culture that enabled the level of horsemanship they required also may have some intrinsic features, as riding a horse is the equivalent to strapping in to an Iron Man suit. It's a 1000lb body with four independent legs, and with super human strength, speed, vision, smell, and hearing, and a hypersensitive relation to its environment that you learn to literally direct with your mind. The being senses your intentions and accepts them as its own, and you interpret its enhanced senses as your own in turn. That symbiosis is some real inter-being mind-meld stuff. Before heavier techology, the use of animals in warfare must have been completely overwhelming. Culturally, just relating with such a rich nonverbal physical presence would have been a different experience of their environment. If a group of Mongol horsemen rode up on some agrarian villagers, the gravity of what they were encountering must have been clear - animals in nature deferred to them. When I'm asked why I still ride in a world like todays, I often respond that it develops an essential human quality of connecting with other beings. Also, if things ever went apocalyptically bad, we also know that there are no kings without horsemen. It's an enjoyable hedge.
- justanotherjoe 3y agoThe mongols lived in arid steppe where its hard to grow things and indeed they relied on meat, dairy, and organ meat to live. They were carnivores. Might be reductive but i think its interesting.