Military history. Weapons of great powers

13.10.2019

Approaching the end of the series of articles on the weapons of the East, it is impossible not to mention such a layer of History as Mongol-Tatars.

Any Russian, even if he does not love, but respects history, knows about the Mongol-Tatar "yoke", about the Kulikovo field. But how did this people achieve such power, what is the background? And in the specifics of our site, we are interested in what kind of weapon the soldiers who conquered half the world were armed with.

Many sources have saved information about proto-Mongols - wow and xianbi, about the military strength of these peoples. Powerful mounted spearmen and light cavalry archers xianbi gained their leaders power over all of Central Asia and part of China for several centuries. And only in the X century did History enter throwing... At that time, these nomads inhabited the southern and western regions of Manchuria. In the first decades of the 10th century, Khan Ambagyan gathered the tribes of the people Khitan into a single state and for several decades they seized the lands from the Amur region to the Tangut desert. And by 940, the northern provinces of China were also occupied.

Till throwing China was conquered by their northwestern neighbors - the Mongol-speaking Tatars (and this definition included Mongols, kereitis and oirats) began to migrate from the Amur region to Mongolia. Incessant wars and, as a fact, close constant contacts with both the Chinese and Jurchens influenced the culture of the Mongols. In terms of weapons, the Mongols adopted some types of blades and spears.

We will not dwell on the bow and equipment of this weapon. So ... After a shower of arrows, the weapon of the second act - spears - was used. A spear is also a spear in Asia. Mongol spear jida equipped with various tips. There were wide flat (leaf-shaped), narrow faceted and knife-like. Many sources of that era described a variant of the Mongol spear with an under the tip, which made it easier to pull the enemy off the saddle. It was a simplified Mongolian version of the Jurchen spear, in which a blade was mounted on a hinge to the tip, pressed back. With a return jerk, this blade was fixed transversely to the shaft and not only pulled the enemy out of the saddle, but also inflicted terrible wounds.

Not as often as spears and, mainly, among the khan's bodyguards, there are pole weapons for the repose of mortals of very complex forms. The simplest of these are fighting pitchforks, forks and tridents. But there were real cacti made of blades and thorns.

After all these spears and other "sticks", the weapons of the third part of the Marlezon Ballet - swords, sabers and broadswords - went into action. And although sabers are associated with the Mongols, this is not entirely true. Mongol warriors took up swords with no less pleasure. These, most often, were swords of Chinese or Muslim origin. The western fiefdoms of the Chingizid region - Iran, Eastern Europe, the Middle East - also influenced the appearance of the Mongol sword. So the Golden Horde sword, the most characteristic blade of this misfortune - the Mongols, was formed "with the help" of an Arab-Spanish blade with a diamond-shaped crosshair with flattened ends down to the blade.

But the broadsword is more native to the Mongol-Tatars. This blade had one blade and a straight, sometimes slightly curved, with a slight angle to the blade with a handle of sufficient length. In general, such broadswords are anciently traditional for all inhabitants of the east and center of Asia. The Mongol-Tatars had broadswords with a long, rather narrow blade. The handle was equipped with a guard in the form of an elongated rhombus and a pommel in the shape of a flattened glass.

And yet the most common blade was the saber. Her curved blade was the best for killing enemy forces. By the time of the greatest power of the Mongol empire, their national saber existed with two types of blades - one was with a slight bend of a narrow blade tapering to the toe; the second - with a shorter and wider blade, and even slightly widening in the last third, with a kind of yelman.

And, if, until the middle of the XIV century in the east of the Chingizid empire, no changes took place in sabers, then in the sunset regions - the Southern Urals, the Volga region, Semirechye and Iran, their own type of saber was formed. It was distinguished by a very long blade, becoming curved and wider with the passage of time. A distinctive feature, for example, of the so-called "Cherkassk" sabers was a toe, converging into a faceted bayonet end.

Combat knives and axes were very popular weapons. In growth, such a knife reached 40 cm. Usually, the finish of the knife was similar to that of long blades.

Thanks to the acquaintance with Muslim and Eastern European weapons, all kinds of battle axes and engravings are spreading among the Mongol warriors.

The result of the campaigns of the Chingizid legions was not only in the mixing of cultures and the blood of different peoples, an important fact was the progress in weapons. The whole world, when "getting acquainted" with the Mongols, learned from them the art of war and was himself a good teacher of the Horde.

Mongolian heavily armed equestrian warrior

The presence of heavily armed mounted warriors in the Mongolian army destroys the stereotypical notion that the Mongolian army consisted only of lightly armed horse archers.

On the rider's head is a metal helmet of a dulg with a ponytail, a visor and an arrow that protected the nose:

By the way, the helmets on the heads of the Mongol warriors are depicted by all sources. This suggests that the helmet was the second most important component of their defense weapons.

Such a helmet was called Duulga and, like all Central Asian samples, it was riveted from several metal plates connected by rivets.

The helmet had a sphero-conical shape with a height of 18-22 cm, a welt and a low pommel, topped with a small sharp spire or a plume tube.

Specifically Mongolian features were horizontal or vertical curly visors and cruciform visors.

The warrior's neck was covered by a wide strip of iron plates attached to the headband or a chain mail cover for the entire face.

The warrior's armor consists of metal plates connected by means of leather straps:

Mongolian hard shell huyag, according to research, had two variants of the structure:

... lamellar - the plates had an elongated rectangular shape, the upper edge of which was rounded;

... laminar - transverse plates:

The laminar carapace was heavier and more uncomfortable, but it was faster and easier to manufacture.

Sometimes the shells were combined type- lamellar with laminar plates:

Lamellar shells were of two types:

... a kind of "corset" on the straps, with cuts on the sides and less often in the front or on the back, rectangular shoulder pads to the elbows and the same legguards to the middle of the lower leg or to the knees. Weighed 4-5 kg.;

A caftan with slits from the throat to the hem in front and from the rump to the hem in the back, with rectangular and, more rarely, leaf-shaped shoulders up to the elbow and below. Weighed up to 16 kg.

The cut of protective caftans made of leather was similar, which was strengthened by boiling and glued together in several layers. The Mongols varnished the strips of leather from above.

An additional detail of the Tatar-Mongolian shell was also wooden overhead shields, the main functional purpose which covered parts of the warrior's body unprotected by the armor: legs - from ankles to knees, arms - from wrist to elbow, as well as chest and shoulders.

Often, Mongol warriors also wore so-called soft armor made of multilayer fabric or thick felt, reinforced with small metal discs, as well as chain mail, which were captured in large quantities from the conquered peoples.

On a war horse, horse armor - a mask (mask) and a koyar (shell).

“Koyar” is not a Mongolian word: here we see the Russian translation of the Turkic word Egar “saddle”, “horse covering”.

The lamellar iron and laminar leather horse shells of the Mongols consisted of:

... bib;

... two sidewalls;

... bribe;

... collar of two parts, hanging on the sides of the neck.

The latter evidence deserves a closer look. The fact is that many contemporaries call the bow the main weapon of the Mongols. Thus, Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting testify: "Their customs is archery ..."; and further: “If we go to the most important of their types of weapons, then bow and arrow will come first(highlighted by us. -Yu.K.), and the saber - on the next one after them. The captive Englishman mentioned above also speaks about this: “... they tirelessly and bravely fight with spears, clubs, axes and swords, but bows are preferred(Emphasis added. - Yu.K.) and accurately, with great skill they shoot from them ... ". The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Frederick II Hohenstaufen writes about this in a letter addressed to the English king Henry III: “... bows are their most familiar weapon(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), along with arrows and other throwing weapons ... ". The Dominican monk Vincent of Beauvais notes the same: “... most of all they rely on bows and arrows... "(our emphasis. - Yu.K.), and monk-premonstrant Hetum Patmich:" Tatars are excellent riders and are good at weapons, especially bow and arrow"(It is highlighted by us - Yu.K.). And here is the testimony of the Venetian Marco Polo, who, as you know, lived among the Mongols for a long time, serving Kublai Khan: “... more than that, they use bows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), because dexterous arrows. "

Light horse archer- The classic look of the Mongol warrior. Equipment will be considered here. The dressing gown is wrapped on the right side, thick trousers, leather boots with thick soles. Fur-trimmed hat. A saber and a saadak hang from the belt. The quiver is suspended on a belt over the shoulder and thrown behind the back on the right side. The warrior is armed with a short Mongolian bow.
1. Mongolian bow in a loose state. When pulling the bowstring, the bow had to be bent against its natural curvature. 2. Mongolian arrowheads. 3. Mongolian robe. Shown is a way to plow it on the right side. 4 and 5. Two styles of Mongolian hairstyles. 6. Mongolian boots made of thick leather. 7. Quiver.

It is worth dwelling on this point in more detail. The fact is that if we turn to the testimony of a number of contemporaries, we can see that the Mongols paid a lot of attention to rifle training. “As for their black Tatars shooting from a horse, they are tied to the back of a horse even in infancy. ... At 3 years old, they are tied with a rope to the bow of the saddle, so that they have something to hold on to with their hands, and they are allowed to rush in a crowd at full speed. At 4-5 years old, they are allowed to hold a small bow and short arrows, with which they grow. ... All of them are rapidly rushing on horses, while they stand on their toes in stirrups, and do not sit, so their main strength is in the calves, but there is none at all in the thighs. They are as fast as a walking tornado and as powerful as a crushing mountain. Since in the saddle they turn to the left and flip to the right with such ease as if the wings of a windmill, they can turn to the left and shoot to the right, and not only there - they also aim backwards, ”Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting report. Practically the same is said by Giovanni from Pian del Carpine: “Men do nothing at all, except arrows, ... they hunt and practice shooting, for they are all good arrows, and their children, when they are two or three years old, immediately begin to ride and drive and ride horses, and they are given a bow according to their age, and they learn to shoot arrows ... ". And here is what Benedict Pole says (in the retelling of Franciscan C. de Bridia): “Men make only arrows and practice archery. They also force three- or four-year-olds to do it the same way. ” Vincent of Beauvais says the same in his encyclopedia: "They amuse themselves with wrestling and archery, which are considered their best entertainment, as well as military exercises." Zhao Hong indirectly confirms this: “Tatars are born and grow up in the saddle. They learn to fight by themselves. "

Young Mongol Warrior
The Mongol warrior was inseparable from his horse. The harness is decorated, the tail is braided. The method of archery from the saddle is shown. Two warriors practice archery, trying to hit a wooden block.
Box 1. Mongolian saddle... It was solidly constructed, made of wood, and soaked in sheep's fat to keep out the rain. The saddle had high front and rear bows, providing the archer with a secure fit and the ability to turn the body in all directions.
Box 2. Paisa (label). The Khan in Karakorum had an efficient courier service. Thanks to couriers, the khan quickly learned about all the news and immediately transmitted orders to all ends of his vast empire. The men, who served the khan with eyes and ears, wore a label made of iron or silver, which showed the status of the person to whom the report was delivered. One such label has survived to this day.

Most likely, this practice was one of the first reforms of Genghis Khan. We find indirect confirmation of this in Marco Polo: “It happened that in 1187 the Tatars chose a tsar for themselves, and he was called in their language Genghis Khan ... Genghis Khan saw that he had a lot of people, armed him with bows and other weapons and went to fight foreign countries ". This assumption is confirmed by Rashid ad-Din in his story about Genghis Khan: "He also said ... the emirs of the troops should properly teach their sons throwing arrows, horseback riding and single combat and train them in these matters." An indirect confirmation of this can be seen in the words of Genghis Khan himself, which Li Chih Chan quotes when describing his conversation with Chang-chun: "... we are Mughals, from an early age we used to shoot on horseback and cannot suddenly abandon this habit."

In any case, during the period of the Great Conquest, the Mongols in the eyes of their contemporaries were firmly associated precisely as archers. So the great Galician boyar Yuri Domogaroch, a participant in the battle on the Kapka River, whose words are recorded in the "Chronicler of Daniel Galitsky", directly says: "srѣltsi is the essence." Moreover, among Armenian authors, the definition of “arrows” is often cited as a synonym for the term “Mongol”. So Vardan Areveltsi (1198-1271) in his work "Collection of History", speaking about the Mongols, calls them "the people of shooters", and in another work, "Geography", he calls the city of Samarkand, captured by the Mongols, the "capital of the people of shooters" ... Bishop of Syuni Stefanos Orbelian (d. 1304) in his work “History of the Sisakan Region” also calls the Mongols “the nation of shooters” and Mongolia “the land of shooters”. The prominent statesman of Cilician Armenia Smbat Sparapet (1208-1267), who personally twice visited the Mongolian capital, Karokorum, also calls the Mongols a "nation of shooters" in his work "Chronicle". And speaking of the military formations of the Mongols, he calls them "troops of the shooters." And one of the most famous Armenian historians, contemporary of the capture of Transcaucasia by the Mongols, Kirakos Gandzaketsi (1200-1271), in the “History of Armenia” calls the Mongols “a tribe of shooters”. In turn, another prominent Armenian historian Grigor Aknertsi, better known as the monk Magakia, directly titled his work “The History of the Shooters People”. The Armenian tradition of calling the Mongols "the people of shooters" or simply "shooters" is also cited by the Flemish Willem from Rebrek.

Mongols in the Middle East, 1220.
G1: Mongolian heavily armed horse archer.
The particularity of this warrior's equipment is a powerful leather scaly shell and a pointed helmet with a silk lining. A surcoat is thrown over the shell, which prevents the metal from heating up in the sun. Mongolian bow with the largest shoulder angle. The horse's reins are connected with a thin rope to the wrist. This rope does not allow you to permanently lose power during archery.
G2: Mongol lightly armed warrior.
Mongolian scout and skirmisher. Unlike the heavily armed warrior who prepared for the campaign, this one ended up in the war right from the field. The Mongolian undersized horse is a relative of the Przewalski horse.
G3: Persian foot archer.
The deceased Persian foot archer had a helmet characteristic of his time, a heavy linen outer shirt and a silk undershirt. The onion is clearly Persian ooze.

Many of the contemporaries characterize the Mongols not just as shooters, but precisely as excellent shooters. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine: "... all of them, young and old, are good arrows ...". Juvaini: "... if they wish, they can shoot down the stars with blows of arrows ...". Matthew Paris: "... are amazing archers ...". Stefanos Orbelian: "... skillful (here we mean the people. - Yu.K.) in throwing arrows ...". André from Longjumeau: "They don't use ballistae, but they are excellent archers." Frederick II Hohenstaufen: "These tartars, incomparable archers ...". Hetum Patmich: “The war with them is very dangerous, because for one such, even a small war, more people die than for any clash with any other people. And this is mostly due to the fact that they shoot hard and accurately ”; and further: "It is very dangerous to pursue them, because, turning around, they begin to shoot arrows and thus injure and kill people and horses." Marco Polo: "They know how to shoot cleverly ...". The same is noted by Smbat Sparapet in a letter to the Cypriot king Henry II de Lusignan: "They are wonderful arrows ...".

Moreover, a number of contemporaries directly distinguish the Mongols as archers, against the background of other peoples. Thus, a Georgian anonym, a contemporary of Tsar George IV Lasha (1213-1222), reports: “At the same time, they gained courage and were the chosen archers(emphasis added. - Yu.K.), flawlessly shooting from their tight bows with heavy arrows, the blow of which no armor could withstand. They were especially dexterous on horses, for they grew up on horses, did not know armor, except for a bow and arrows. " And here is how the impressions of the Russian warriors from the first clashes with the Mongols are recorded in the "Chronicler of Daniel Galitsky": "... srѣltsi is the essence ... of the Polovtsian ...". The Hungarian Dominican monk Julian, who twice, in 1235 and 1237, visited the South Russian steppes, in a letter to the papal legate Salvio de Salvi, especially noted: “They say that they shoot farther than other peoples can. At the first collision in a war, their arrows, as they say, do not fly, but as if pouring down like a downpour. With swords and spears, according to rumors, they fight less skillfully. "

Mongolian light horseman, Russia.
An episode of a long chase, which the Mongols could undertake after the battle, the Mongolian horseman spotted a hiding Russian warrior in the coastal thickets. The Mongol wears a robe captured during the Khorezm campaign; a warm sheepskin coat is worn under the robe. Hat with fur-trimmed earmuffs. The appearance of the Mongolian was recreated according to the "Saraysk Album" (Istanbul). A coil of rope, an ax, a wineskin with sour milk are strapped to the saddle. The armor of the Russian soldier is depicted in accordance with the samples presented in the Kremlin Armory. The weather shown in the illustration corresponds to the authors' ideas about the "harsh Russian winter"!

In turn, Bishop Stephen Vatsky, in a letter to the Parisian Bishop Guillaume III of Auvergne, also notes: "They are more skilled archers than the Hungarian and Comanian, and their bows are more powerful." Frederick II Hohenstaufen writes about the same to the English king Henry III: "... bows ... which they constantly use, which is why their hands are stronger than those of other people, they utterly defeated the Cumans." This is how one of the statesmen of Cilician Armenia, Getum Patmich, described the Mongols: "And they have already got so used to the art of shooting that they surpassed the rest of the world's population in it."

As you can see, if we turn to the tactics of the Mongols, it becomes obvious that rifle combat prevails over everything else. Direct indications of this can be seen in Marco Polo: “In battles with the enemy, they gain the upper hand in this way: while fleeing from the enemy, they are not ashamed, while fleeing, they turn and shoot. They taught their horses, like dogs, to move in all directions. When they are driven away, they fight gloriously on the run, and as hard as they would stand face to face with the enemy; runs and turns back, shoots accurately, beats both enemy horses and people; and the enemy thinks that they are scattered and defeated, and he himself loses, because his horses have been shot, and the people have been pretty much killed. " Giovanni from Pian del Carpine says the same: "... every time they see enemies, they go at them, and each one throws three or four arrows at his opponents ..."; and further: "... they do not willingly engage in battle, but wound and kill people and horses with arrows ...". Benedict Pole echoes him: “When they have to face the enemies, many of them arm themselves with a large number of quivers and arrows, and before the enemy's arrows reach them, they release their own, even if it is premature and they cannot shoot arrows aimed. And when they can reach the enemy with arrows without hindrance, they say that it looks more like rain than flying arrows. And this is due to the extreme density of flying arrows. "

This also follows from the course of the battles, a number of which have come down to us in more or less detailed descriptions. For example, Muhammad an-Nasawi, talking about the battle of Isfahan on August 25, 1228, in which the Mongols defeated the last Khorezmshah Jalal ad-Din Mankburn, describes the heroic resistance of the latter's troops: “But the khans and emirs, the commanders of the left wing, stood firmly, until death, remaining true to their oath. Only three of them survived: Kuch Tegin Pakhlavan, Hajib al-Hass Khanberdi and Emir Ahur Odek. Akhash-Malik fought until fell, studded with arrows, like a hedgehog with needles(emphasis added. - Yu.K.), and died for the faith. " In turn, Juvaini, describing the battle of the Mongols with the Jin, which took place at the r. The Yellow River in 1231 testifies: "... the Mongols knocked them down with a hail of arrows, and they sprawled out on the damp ground ...". A similar situation can be traced during the capture of the passes through the Carpathians by the Mongols, which was described by Master Rogerius, who was in Hungary in 1241 as an envoy of Cardinal John of Lucia: “... on the twelfth day after the onset of March, there was a battle with the Tatars on the pass, and when nearly all his men were brutally wounded by arrows and swords, he left with a few of them ... ". We see the same when he describes the battle of the Kaloch Archbishop Ugrin Kzak with the Mongols approaching the city of Pest: “... he wanted to fight the Tatars. Notte, turning around their backs, began to retreat a little. The Archbishop, seeing this, began to pursue them at full speed. Having reached the marshy area, they quickly passed it. The archbishop, without turning, for he was very close to them, hurriedly entered the swamp, and since he and his people were pressing on the ground with the weight of weapons, he was unable to cross the swamp or return. Tatars returning quickly, surrounded the swamp and, sending arrows in the rain, all of them were killed there(it is highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) ". The same picture is observed in the battle of Lignitz, which took place on April 9, 1241 between the Mongols and the united Polish army. Her detailed description has come down to us in the work of Jan Dlugosh: “The crusaders and foreign knights smashed the first ranks of the Tatars with their spears and moved forward. But when it came to hand-to-hand combat - with swords, the Tatar archers surrounded the detachments of crusaders and foreign knights on all sides so that other - Polish - troops could not come to their aid without putting themselves in a dangerous position. The squad staggered and finally lay down under a hail of arrows like tender ears of wheat under the hail, for there were many among them people without shields and shells. And when the son of Dipold, the Moravian Margrave, Boleslav and others fell there knights from the front row, the rest, which were also thinned out by the Tatar arrows(emphasis added. - Yu.K.), retreated to the Polish detachments. " The situation is repeated in the battle of the river. Shajo, which took place on April 11, 1241 between the Mongols and the united Hungarian-Croatian army, and a detailed description of which was left to us by Thomas of Split: “They sent forward a cavalry detachment ... ... But the detachments of the Tatars, without waiting for hand-to-hand combat and, as they usually do, throwing arrows at enemies, hastily rushed to run "; and further: “... the Tatar horde, as if in a round dance, surrounded the entire camp of the Hungarians. Some, drawing their bows, began to shoot arrows from all sides, others hastened to set fire to the camp in a circle. ... Enemies, scattered everywhere, never stopped throwing spears and arrows... ... They did not defend themselves with weapons from a shower of arrows and spears, but, substituting their backs, completely fell under these blows(highlighted by us. - Yu. K), as usual acorns fall from the shaken oak. And these are descriptions of the same battle by Magister Rogerius: “ Tatars... surrounding him, began to shoot arrows at the Hungarians. ... The arrows fell so often that they obscured the sky for the fighting and flew through the air like a flock of beetles and locusts.... ... And if the Hungarians interspersed from different places went into battle, then Tatars... speaking to them, arrows made them flee from battle formations(Emphasis added. - Yu.K.) ... ". In turn, Rashid ad-Din, describing the battle of the Mongols with the Mamluks, which took place in 1260 in the area of Ain-i Jalut, testifies that the vanguard of the Mamluks fled without even entering into a firefight with the Mongols: “The Mongol army attacked, firing from bows, and Kuduz dodged and fled. " Armenian author of the XIV century. Nerses Palienz, describing the battle that took place between the troops of Ilkhan Gazan and the Mamluks in the Jebel al-Salihiyye area, near Damascus, on February 12, 1300, reports: “On the day when the Sultan's army was preparing for battle, his soldiers prepared felt stuffed animals, they hung sparkling things on them to make them shine in the sun, and they put the stuffed animals on 10 thousand camels, and all of them were lined up, the soldiers themselves hid behind the camels ... since the Mongols, that is, the Tatars, besides arrows, had nothing else(emphasis added - Yu.K.), the Muslims were waiting for them to shoot their arrows at the felt stuffed animals, which were planted on the camels ”; and further: “It happened at three o'clock in the afternoon, and until nine o'clock in the evening arrows flew in the air, and the sun darkened from them, and the people were in the shadow of the density of arrows. With these arrows the Sultan's army was defeated and put to flight. " And here is Hetum Patmich's description of the battle that took place between the same opponents near the city of Homs, Syria, in 1301: from the rear, the vanguard, stumbled. Therefore, of the multitude of Saracens, only a few left alive. Many Saracens were mortally wounded by arrows, from which they died."(It is highlighted by us. - Yu.K.). It is worth making a digression here. The fact is that the last two battles, although they took place at the beginning of the XIV century, but, in our opinion, they still reflect the Mongol tactics, since the military reforms of Ilkhan Gazan, which, apparently, were carried out at the very end of his reign, should have significantly changed the military affairs of the Hulagids.

A noteworthy fact is that during their campaigns, the Mongols took care not only of replenishing arrows - the very consumable, but also about the replenishment of bows, bowstrings and quivers. For example, in the biography of Khitan Xiao Baichzhu in Yuan-shi, an episode from his grandfather's track record is given: “During the Tai-tzu campaign to the west, Chounu sent thin and thick bamboo, bows, crossbows and bowstrings, 10,000 pieces each species ". Benedict Pole says the same in the retelling of Franciscan C. de Bridia: “They also take with them to a large number weapons, bows, quivers and arrows. " This indicates that the shelling was very intense, and even the guns themselves could not withstand it.

From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that in the battle the Mongols relied precisely on remote shooting combat. And it was the remote shooting combat of the Mongols that aroused fears among their opponents. This is directly indicated in the "Secret Legend" in the words of the Naimans: "They say that in the northern side there are some insignificant Mongolians, and that they allegedly frightened the ancient glorious great Wang Khan with their sideaks ..."; and further: “Whatever these Mongols are, we will go and bring their sideaks here. ... Let's take away from these Mongols, how are they there, their sideaks! " ... Direct evidence of this can be seen in the testimonies of contemporaries. Thus, the Armenian historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi writes: "... the sound of their quivers terrified everyone." He was echoed by the Croatian priest Thomas Splitsky: “... deadly Tatar arrows fired directly at the target struck for sure. And there was no such shell, shield or helmet, which would not have been pierced by a blow of the Tatar hand. " This is also said in an anonymous essay about the invasion of the Tatars in Poland, Moravia and Hungary, compiled shortly after the events described, which was partially preserved in the Paris Code: “Fear and awe, Moravia, have seized you, a violent enemy surrounds you and oppresses you from everywhere ... With bow and sword, he ruined your strong, he does not regret either gender or age ... ". And here is what Giovanni from Pian del Carpine recommended: “Everyone who wants to fight them should have the following weapons: good and strong bows, ballistas, which they are very afraid of, a sufficient number of arrows, a club made of good iron or an ax with a long handle ..., also swords and spears with a hook to be able to pull them off the saddle, since they fall off the saddle very easily, knives and double armor, since their arrows do not easily pierce them, helmet and other weapons to protect the body and horse from weapons and arrows ". And these are the recommendations of Benedict Pole in the retelling of Franciscan C. de Bridia: “... you should set up ambushes on the flank on selected horses. And the ballistarians, located in front of the army and spaced at least three [rows], must shoot arrows before they can reach the tartare battle formation, [that is] in the best way and in a timely manner, so that their own battle ranks either run or confused. If the enemies turn to flight, ballistarians with archers, as well as those who are in ambush, pursue them, while the army gradually moves after them. If there are no other ballistarians [for the pursuit], then the riders on the horses chained in armor move forward. Shielding themselves with very powerful shields closed in front of the horses, they suddenly confuse the Tartar archers. " And here are the recommendations included in the "Military instructions" ("Praecepta bellica"), which were drawn up in May - June 1241, in Esslingen, in the curia of the German king Conrad IV, to oppose the Tatars: "1. Let the sovereigns themselves do not look for Tatars in the field, ... 2. Let the ballistarians be with them. .. 5 .Also, let everyone with an income of three marks take with him a shield, which is called "setsishilt" (here we mean large, as a rule, easel, "pavez" shields. - Yu.K.) ".

Thus, from the above, it can be seen that no heavily armed Mongol cavalry, if they had one, made any impression on their opponents and allies. In the eyes of their contemporaries, the Mongols were only archers, but incomparable archers. This feature was the key to the success of the Great Conquest.

Summing up, the following conclusions should be emphasized:

1. The rather harsh environment, the lack of sources for obtaining metals and the trade blockade from the neighbors did not contribute to the development of the Mongols in cultural and economic terms, as a result of which they looked backward compared to other peoples of the region.

2. The lack of iron and the neighbors' ban on the sale of weapons to the Mongols forced the latter to cover the shortage of weapons by all available means, as a result of their use of leather armor, bone arrowheads, etc. Iron armor among the Mongols appears only during the seizure of large states - the Jin and Khorezm empires. But due to the primary destruction of the production bases of the captured states, the wear of the metal armor was not covered. According to contemporaries, only commanders and the highest aristocracy were armed with iron armor, which is confirmed archaeologically.

3. According to the testimony of contemporaries, the main weapon of the Mongols was a bow and a saber, which could be supplemented with an ax, a club, a palm tree and combined spears. At the same time, spears are not mentioned first in the list of weapons.

4. The sources clearly indicate that the Mongols used the spear exclusively for a simple thrusting blow. At the same time, the sources do not provide accurate evidence of their use of a ramming spear strike. The refusal of the Mongols to use shields during field battles, as well as the small breeds of Mongolian horses, indirectly indicate that the Mongols did not use massively ramming spear strikes.

5. In the course of the seizure of the Far Eastern states, it is possible that large horses and horse armor fell to the Mongols for the first time, there is no clear evidence of this. Only after the capture of Khorezm did the contemporaries notice the appearance of a large horse population among the Mongols. The beginning of the campaign to Khorezm coincides with the appearance on the pages of the chronicles of references to well-armed or even heavily armed Mongol detachments. But these units were temporary and were formed only in certain cases. The temporary concentration of warriors with armor by the Mongols to solve special tasks is also confirmed by the practice of their battles.

6. Contemporaries of the Mongols claimed that the bow was their main weapon. This is confirmed by the constant training of the Mongols in shooting, noted on the pages of the chronicles. The overwhelming mass of contemporaries pointed out that the Mongols stood out from the background of other peoples precisely by their skillful small arms. This is confirmed by the course of those battles about which detailed descriptions have come down to us, as well as by the supply of consumables during the campaigns.

Thus, our analysis of written sources demonstrates that the Mongols lacked heavily armed cavalry, as well as the prerequisites for its appearance, which refutes the conclusions drawn by M.V. Gorelik. In the future, continuing the study of this issue, we plan to highlight the features of the Mongolian archery and their shooting tactics.

Anninsky S.A. News of the Hungarian missionaries of the XIII-XIV centuries about the Tatars and Eastern Europe // Historical archive. T. III. - M .; L, 1940.
Artemiev A.R. Armament of the Tatar-Mongol warriors in the campaign against the Volga Bulgaria and Russia in 1236-1241. // 100 Years of Hunnic Archeology: Nomadism - Past, Present in a Global Context and Historical Perspective: Hunnic Phenomenon. T. D. Ch. 1. - Ulan-Ude, 1996.
Artemiev A.R. Problems of distinguishing the Mongol-Tatar weapons complex among the ancient Russian materials of the XIII century. // Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: to the 80th anniversary of Valentin Vasilyevich Sedov. - M., 2004.
Artemieva N.G. Items of protective weapons from the Krasnoyarovsky settlement // Russia and the Asia-Pacific region. No. 4. -Vladivostok, 1999.
Artemieva N.G. A new type of Jurchen shell // Bulletin of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. # 1. - Vladivostok, 2002.
Artemyeva N.G., Prokopets S.D. Protective weapons of the Jurchen warrior // Russian archeology .. - 2012.-№1.
Ata-Melik Juvaini. Genghis Khan. The History of the Conqueror of the World.- M., 2004.
Bahruishn S.V. Scientific works. T.Sh .: Selected works on the history of Siberia of the 16th-16th centuries. - M., 1955.
Belorybkin G.N. Zolotarevskoe settlement. - SPb., 2001.
Vincent from Beauvais. Historical mirror // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Vitt V.O., Zheligovsky O.A., Krasnikov A.S., Shpayer N.M. Horse breeding and horse use. - M., 1964.
Guyton. Flower garden of the history of the lands of the East // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Galastyan A.G. Armenian sources about the Mongols. - M., 1962.
Gapitsko-Volyn Chronicle. - SPb., 2005.
Guillaume de Rubruck. Travel to Eastern Countries // Travel to Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Gordeev N.V. Russian defensive armor // State Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. - M., 1954.
V.V. Gorbunov Spears of the warriors of the Srostkino culture // Equipment of the nomads of Eurasia. - Barnaul, 2005.
Gorelik M.V. Medieval Mongolian armor // Third International Congress of Mongolian Studies. -Ulaanbaatar, 1978.
Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - 1 half of the XVI centuries) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. - Novosibirsk, 1987.
Gorelik M.V. Steppe battle (From the history of military affairs of the Tatar-Mongols) // Military affairs of the ancient and medieval population of North and Central Asia. - Novosibirsk, 1990.
Gorelik M.V. Helmets and Falchions: Two Aspects of the Mutual Influence of Mongolian and European Weaponry // Steppes of Europe in the Middle Ages. T. 3: Polovtsian-Golden Horde time. - Donetsk, 2003.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian costume and weapons in the XII1-XIV centuries: traditions of imperial culture // Golden Horde heritage. Materials of the International Scientific Conference "Political and Socio-Economic History of the Golden Horde (XIII-XV centuries)". March 17, 2009 no. 1. - Kazan, 2009.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian plate cavalry and its fate in a historical perspective // Military affairs of the Golden Horde: problems and perspectives of study. Materials of the round table held within the framework of the International Golden Horde Forum. Kazan, March 29-30, 2011 - Kazan, 2011.
Gusynin V.A.Far Eastern complex of armor plates from the Zolotarevskoye settlement // Bulletin of military-historical research: International collection of scientific papers. Issue 3. - Penza, 2011.
Giovanni des Plano Carpini. History of the Mongals // Travel to the Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Ye Long-li. History of the Kidan State (Qidan Guo Zhi). - Monuments of writing of the East. T. XXXV.-M., 1979.
Jean de Joinville. Book of pious sayings and good deeds of our holy king Louis. -SPb., 2012.
Zhuze P.K. Materials on the history of Azerbaijan from Tarikh-al-Kamil (complete set of history) Ibn-al-Athir.-Baku, 1940.
Ivanin M.I.On military art and conquests of the Mongol-Tatars and Central Asian peoples under Chinggis-khan and Tamerlane. - SPb., 1875.
Ilminskiy NI. Extracts from Ibn el-Atir about the first invasion of the Tatars to the Caucasian and Black Sea countries, from 1220 to 1224 // Scientific notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences: on the first and third sections. T. II. Issue 4. - SPb., 1854.
"History of the Tatars" by brother C. de Bridia I / Yurchenko A.G. Christendom and the "Great Mongol Empire" (Materials of the 1245 Franciscan Mission). - SPb., 2002.
Kirakos Gandzaketsi. History of Armenia.-M., 1976.
Book of Marco Polo II Travels to the Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Kozin S.A. Secret legend: Mongolian chronicle of 1240 called Mongrol-un niruCa tobCiyan. Yuan chao bi shi: Mongolian everyday collection. - M .; L., 1941.
Kuleshov Yu.A. Production and import of weapons as ways of forming the Golden Horde armament complex // Golden Horde civilization. Issue Z. - Kazan, 2010.
Kuleshov Yu.A., Gusynin V.A. Finds of "Jin-type" helmets from the territory of Eastern Europe // Military affairs in the Asia-Pacific region from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century. Issue 2. - Vladivostok, 2012.
Kushkumbaev A.K. Institute of hunting and military affairs of the nomads of Central Asia. - Kokshetau, 2009.
Kushkumbaev A.K. Bow and arrows as part of the Golden Horde weapons: issues of studying and methods of using military means // Questions of history and archeology of medieval nomads and the Golden Horde: Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the memory of V.P. Kostyukov. - Astrakhan, 2011.
E. I. Kychanov History of the Tangut state. - SPb., 2008.
E. I. Kychanov Tangut (Xi Xia) sources about the Tatars // Mongolica - VIII: dedicated to the 190th anniversary of the Asian Museum - Institute of Oriental Manuscripts RAI (SPbF IV RAS). - SPb., 2008.
Lenkov V.D. Metallurgy and metalworking among the Jurchens in the XII century (based on research materials from the Shaiginsky settlement). - Novosibirsk, 1974.
Lee Ji Chang. The journey to the Hall of the monk Chang Chun, described by his student Zhen Chang Tzu named Li Zhi Chang // Proceedings of the members of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Beijing. T. IV. - SPb., 1866.
Lin Kyung-i, Munkuev N.Ts. "Brief information about the black Tatars" by Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting // Problems of Oriental Studies. No. 5. - M., 1960.
Malyavkin A. G. "Tszin-shi". 1 quan // Collection of scientific works of the Przewals. - Harbin, 1942.
Matvey Parissky. Great Chronicle // Russkiy Razliv: Arabesque history. The world of Lev Gumilyov. -M., 1997.
Matuzova V.I. English medieval sources of the IX-XIII centuries - M., 1979.
Munkuev N. Ts. Meng-da bey-lu (" Full description Mongol-Tatars "), - M., 1975.
S.A. Nefedov The Mongol bow and the Mongol conquest // The role of the nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the development of world military art: Scientific readings in memory of N.E. Masanova - Collection of materials of the international scientific conference in Almaty, April 22-23, 2010 - Almaty, 2010.
Inventory and sale from public auction of the remaining estate after the murder by the people of Mikhail Tatishchev, accused of treason in 116 // Vremennik of the Imperial Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Book. 8. - M., 1850.
Patkanov K.P. History of the Mongol monk Magakia, XIII century. - SPb., 1871.
Patkanov K.P. History of Mongolians according to Armenian sources. Issue 1. - SPb., 1873.
Penskoy V.V. Great gunshot revolution. - M., 2010.
V.V. Ponaryadov Medieval techniques of using a spear in equestrian combat according to Muslim military treatises of the 13th-15th centuries. // Military Archeology: Collection of materials of the Problem Council "Military Archeology" at the State Historical Museum. No. 3. - in the press.
Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Persians. War with the vandals. Secret history. - M., 1993.
Prokopets S.D. A new type of design for the Jurchen helmet // Eighth Far Eastern Conference of Young Historians. Collection of materials. - Vladivostok, 2004.
Prokopets S.D. New finds of protective weapons from the Krasnoyarovsky settlement // Archeology, ethnology, paleoecology of Northern Eurasia and adjacent territories. Materials of the XLVII regional (III-rd all-Russian with international participation) archaeological and ethnographic conference of students and young scientists of Siberia and the Far East (Novosibirsk, April 3-7, 2007). - Novosibirsk, 2007.
Prokopets S.D. Reconstruction of the method of fastening armor plates in the armor of a Jurchen warrior // Bulletin of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 1. - Vladivostok, 2009.
Prokopets S.D. Production and circulation of protective weapons among the Jurchens of Primorye // Vestnik NSU. Series: History, Philology. T. 9. Issue. 3. - Novosibirsk, 2010.
Raiiid-ad-Din. Collection of chronicles. T. 1. Book. 1M.; D., 1952.
Rashid ad-Din. Collection of chronicles. T. 1. Book. 2. - M .; L., 1952.
Rashid ad-Din. Collection of chronicles. T. 2. - M .; L., 1960.
Rashid ad-Din. Collection of chronicles. T. 3. - M .; L., 1946.
Ricoldo de Monte Croce. Travel to the Holy Land // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Surovtsov M.N. On the Khitan domination in Central Asia: a historical and political review of the Khitan's activities from the initial news of the appearance of the people and the founding of the Liao dynasty by them - to the fall of this last in the West // History of the Iron Empire. - Novosibirsk, 2007.
Osama ibn Munkyz. Book of Edification. - M., 1958.
Thomas of Split History of the Archbishops of Salona and Split. - M., 1997.
Hogolbon Lhagasuren. Medieval burials of the Mongols (XII-XIV centuries) / Dissertation ... cand. ist. sciences. - M., 1994 // Archive of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, no. R-2/2557.
Khrapachevsky R.P. The Golden Horde in the sources. T. III. Chinese and Mongolian sources. - M., 2009.
Khrapachevsky R.P. The armies of the Mongols during the conquest of Ancient Rus. - M., 2011.
Yu.S. Khudyakov Tip of spears and "palm trees" from the medieval monuments of the Baikal region, Transbaikalia and Mongolia // Archaeological monuments of the Middle Ages in Buryatia and Mongolia. - Novosibirsk, 1992.
Tsalkin V.I. Pets of the Golden Horde // Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Department of Biology. T. LXXII (1). - M., 1967.
Tsulaya G.V. Georgian book legend about Genghis Khan // Soviet ethnography. - No. 5. - M., 1973.
V.E. Shavkunov Armament of the Jurchens of the XII-XIII centuries - Vladivostok, 1993.
V.E. Shavkunov On the issue of protective armor of the Jurchens of Primorye // Asia-Pacific region: Archeology. Ethnography. Story. - Vladivostok, 2008.
Shavkunov V.E., Mezentsev A.L. Jurchen helmet // Local history bulletin. Issue I, -Vladivostok, 1993.
Shihab ad-Din Muhammad an-Nasawi. Biography of Sultan Jalal ad-Din Mankburna. - Baku, 1979.
Yurchenko A.G. Christendom and the "Great Mongol Empire" (Materials of the 1245 Franciscan Mission). - SPb., 2002.
Bedrosian R. Het'um the Historian "s:" History of the Tartars "-http: //rbedrosian.com/hetumtoc.html
Erdenebat Ulambayar Altmongolisches Grabbrauchtum: Archaologisch-historische Untersuchungen zu den mongolischen Grabfunden des 11.bis 17. Jahrhunderts in der Mongolei: Katalog der Grabfunde. - Bonn. 2009. Dissertation PhD. // Der Philosophischen Fakultat der Rheinischen Friedrich - Wilhelms - Universitat zu Bonn.
Mecherzynski K. Jana Dlugosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejdw polskich ksiqg dwanaicie. T. II. Ks.V-VIll. - Krak6w, 1868.
Semkowicz A. Krytyczny rozbi6r Dziej6w Polskich Jana Dlugosza (do roku 1384). - Krakow, 1887.
Strakosch-Grassmann G. Der Einfall der Mongolen in Mitteleuropa in den Jahren 1241 und 1242.-Innsbruck, 1893.

Approaching the end of the series of articles on the weapons of the East, it is impossible not to mention such a layer of History as Mongol-Tatars.

Combat knives and axes were very popular weapons. In growth, such a knife reached 40 cm. Usually, the finish of the knife was similar to that of long blades.

Thanks to the acquaintance with Muslim and Eastern European weapons, all kinds of battle axes and engravings are spreading among the Mongol warriors.

Speaking about the armament of the Mongol warriors of the XIII century. and especially about their appearance, it should be borne in mind that over a hundred years the Mongols from a wild barbarian horde turned into an army of a civilized state. Marco Polo notes that the "Chinese" Mongols "are not what they were before."

The yurt, a typical dwelling of the steppe nomads, consists of a wooden lattice frame covered with black felt. This picture shows a Kyrgyz yurt. (Drawing by Heather Dockery)

Mongolian light horseman, Russia, 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. The Mongol wears a robe captured during the Khorezm campaign; a warm sheepskin coat is worn under the robe. A hat with earpieces trimmed with fur; the Mongolian appearance was recreated from the "Saransk Album" (Istanbul). A coil of rope, an ax, a wineskin with sour milk are strapped to the saddle. The armor of the Russian soldier 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: “Outwardly, the Tatars are very different from ordinary people as their eyes are set wide and their cheekbones are wide. Their cheekbones protrude noticeably beyond the jaws; their nose is flat and small, their eyes are narrow, and the eyelids are under the very eyebrows. As a rule, although there are exceptions, they are narrow at the waist; almost all are of medium height. Few of them have a beard, although many have a noticeable mustache on the 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 shave the hair on their heads with a square. This custom was also confirmed by Karpini, who compared the Mongolian hairstyle with monastic tonsure. From the front corners of the square, says Wilhelm, the Mongols shaved stripes towards the temples, and they shaved them 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. Remaining on the head long hair weaved into two braids, the ends of which were tied together behind the ears. Karpini describes the Mongolian hairstyle in a similar way. He also notes that the Mongols let their long hair go from the back. Vincent de Bove's description of the ponytail-like hairstyle of the Mongols also matches these sources. They all date back to around 1245.

Mongols in winter clothes with a pack camel, 1211–1260

Wealthy Mongol on foreground armed with a long spear and wears two sheepskin coats, one on top of the other, with the inner sheepskin coat worn with fur inside, the outer one outside. Sheepskin coats and fur coats were sewn from fox, wolf and even bear fur. Conical cap flaps are lowered to keep out the cold. Poor Mongols, like a camel driver, wore sheepskin coats made from dog or horse skins. The Bactrian bactrian camel is a very useful animal, capable of carrying loads weighing up to 120 kg. The humps of the camel are lined with felt in six to seven layers, on top of which a pack saddle is fixed.

Battle of Liegnitz. Notice how the artist depicted the Mongolian hats.

The main elements of the Mongolian costume of the period described did not change much. In general, the clothes were very practical, especially for fur and quilted winter clothes: they kept warm well. The usual headdress was a Mongolian hat, which was often depicted by contemporaries in drawings. The cap had a conical shape, was sewn from fabric and had a wide lapel at the bottom of the cap that 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 sheared 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 the headphones mean the lapels of the cap, or maybe there were hats of a special cut. One of the later authors speaks of two red ribbons about 45 cm long hanging from the top of the cap, more, however, no one mentions such ribbons. However, it is quite possible to accept (for the XIII century) another observation of the same author, who argued that in hot weather the Mongols tied a piece of cloth around their heads, leaving the free ends hanging from the back.

Mongolian heavily armed horseman, Lignitz, 1241

Leather plate armor coated with varnish to protect it from moisture is depicted from the description of Carpini's Plan and Robinson's book "Oriental Armor". The helmet is recreated according to the Tibetan design, which is quite consistent with the descriptions of the Mongolian helmet: it is made of eight parts fastened with leather straps, the shishak of the helmet is also attached with leather. Horse armor is depicted as described by Carpini. Such armor is known from stylized, but quite reliable Arabian images, made about half a century later. The spearhead is equipped with a hook and carries a yak tail plume. European knights wear the surcoat of the Teutonic Order.

Clothing was generally uniform in cut; it was based on a swing robe. The left floor of the robe was wrapped over the right and fixed with a button or a tie located below the armhole of the right sleeve. It is possible that the right floor under the left was also somehow fixed, but, naturally, this cannot be seen in the drawings. In some drawings, Mongolian robes are shown with wide sleeves up to the elbow, and underneath the sleeves of the lower garment are visible. Robes of this cut were made of cotton for the summer, 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 add grace to the Mongols themselves, as evidenced by the Persian manuscripts. All travelers mention the sloppiness and filth of the Mongols; many describe their custom to wipe their hands on a robe or pants while eating. Many also emphasize the heavy smell characteristic of nomads.

Mongols tucked wide trousers into narrow tops of boots, which were sewn without heels, but on a thick felt sole. The bootlegs had lacing.

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

Mongol warlord and drummer, circa 1240

The Mongolian commander gives the order to his tumen to launch an attack on the Russian army. The commander sits on a thoroughbred Persian horse, the horse dress is of the Mongol type, but decorated with a Persian hair brush. Rounded corners in Chinese style. The highly polished plate armor is depicted as described by Carpini and Robinson. A prefabricated helmet reconstructed according to the same sources; the mace is depicted from the Arabian miniatures. The nakkara drummer is based on an old illustration from Colonel Yul's Marco Polo; you can see the long brushes that decorate the drums. The drummer's 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 transferred the command of the commander to the entire army.

Such clothing helped the Mongols to fight the harsh winters; but even more warriors were rescued by incredible endurance. Marco Polo informs us that, if necessary, the Mongols could do without hot food for ten days. In such cases, they could, if necessary, reinforce their strength with the blood of their horses by opening a vein in their neck and directing a trickle of blood into their mouth. The usual Mongolian "emergency supply" 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 jerky, which were stuffed under the saddle. Every morning the Mongol bred half a pound of milk powder in 1 or 2 fat tail skirts and hung the fat tail skirts from the saddle; by the middle of the day, from constant shaking at a gallop, this mixture turned into a kind of kefir.

The Mongolian habit of mare's milk allowed them to significantly increase the mobility of their mounted troops. The Mongols' appetite was excellent, and the usually accurate Karpini 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 of every ten to provide the rest with food. If this is true, it becomes clear why the Mongols so willingly hired foreigners. But one cannot be sure of the presence of cannibalism among the Mongols: many chroniclers, no doubt, could in this way simply express their disgust for the invaders.

Other characteristics of the Mongols, however, are more respectful. For example, they all had excellent eyesight. Reliable sources claim that any Mongol warrior could, in the open steppe, see a person peeping out from behind a bush or stone in four miles, and in clean air, distinguish a person from an animal at a distance of 18 miles! In addition, the Mongols had an excellent visual memory, they were excellently versed in the climate, the peculiarities of vegetation, and easily searched for water sources. 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 a horse. At the age of four or five, the boy already received his first bow and arrow, and from that time he spent most of his life on horseback, with a bow in his hands, fighting or hunting. On campaigns, when the speed of movement became a decisive factor, the Mongol could sleep in the saddle, and since each warrior had four horses to change, the Mongols could move without interruption for a whole day.

Mongol camp, around 1220

A typical Mongolian horse archer in a simple long robe. Please note that the robe is wrapped 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 like the adults. He plays with an illicon roe deer. Women in the background set up a yurt, covering it with a faded felt mat.

Mongolian horses were not inferior in endurance to their masters. These were, and still are, short, stocky animals with a height of 13-14 palms. Their dense coat protects well from the cold, they are able to make long transitions. 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 horse bases provided by Genghis Khan, the whole army in September 1221 covered 130 miles in two days without stopping - about 200 km. In 1241, the Subedei army made a 180-mile march in three days, moving through deep snow.

Mongolian horses could nibble grass on the move, feed on roots and dead leaves, according to the testimony of 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 more accurately from the bow. The sturdy saddle weighed about 4 kilograms, had high bows and was greased with sheep's fat so that it would not get wet during the rain. The stirrups were also massive, and the stirrups were very short.

The main weapon of the Mongol was a composite (composite) bow. For 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. Karpini reports that the Mongol warriors had two bows (probably one long and one short) and two or three quivers, each containing about 30 arrows. Carpini speaks of two types of arrows: light ones with a small sharp point for long-range shooting and heavy ones with a large wide point for close targets. Arrowheads, he says, were tempered in the following way: they were 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.

Mongolian camp, 1210-1260

The equestrian hunter (on the right) tied his head with a scarf instead of a hat (such headdresses are described by Khoyert in the History of the Mongols). Falconry has been and remains a popular pastime in Mongolia. The Mongol sitting next to him is depicted without a headdress so that his intricate hairstyle can be seen (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 at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Pay attention to the folding door of the yurt and the way of wearing the trousers tucked into the tops of the boots.

In addition to bows, other weapons were used, depending on whether the warrior belonged to light or heavy cavalry. The 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 the shields were used only on foot. Large leather or wicker shields were used by guards, and large shields, similar to the shell of turtles, were used when storming the fortress walls. Heavily armed horsemen could also operate with a mace. The swords had a curved shape, repeating the shape of the sabers of the Muslim Turks. Lightly armed horsemen used sword, bow, and sometimes javelins.

All Mongols in the campaign had a light hatchet, a tool for sharpening arrowheads (it was fastened to a quiver), a horsehair lasso, a skein of rope, an awl, a needle and thread, an iron or made of other material bowler hat and two waterskins, which were mentioned above. Every ten warriors were assigned a tent. Each warrior kept a bag of food with him, and Carpini mentions a large leather wineskin 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 wineskin itself was tied to a horse's tail; the rider had to swim next to the horse, controlling it with the help of the reins.

Warlord of the Mongolian heavy cavalry, China, 1210-1276

The source for the reconstruction of the appearance and weapons of the Mongol warriors presented here, who are preparing for an attack on a Chinese city, were 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 you to see the mantle of plate being worn underneath. Persian type helmet; the wide "lapel" at the base of the helmet is often shown in the figures mentioned, but its purpose is not precisely known. Some believe that this is an analogue of the lapels of the traditional Mongolian hat, others come to very unlikely explanations. The cheetah's tail on a quiver is also shown in some illustrations from the time; perhaps they were wiping the picked up arrows.

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

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

It is difficult to describe in detail the armor of the Mongols, since it was completely unusual for the eyewitnesses who left the descriptions, and the drawings may refer 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 would be on top of each other, thus achieving sufficient strength with the necessary flexibility; the skin for the inner layer of the dospsha was boiled down to make it soft. To make the armor water-repellent, it was coated with a varnish extracted from resin. Some authors say that such armor protected only the chest, others believe that they 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 as wide as a finger and as long as a palm with eight holes. Several plates were connected with a leather cord, forming a shell. In fact, Carpini describes plate (lamellar) armor, widespread in the East. Carpini noted that the plates were so carefully polished that one could look in them like in a mirror.

1 and 2. Warriors of the Korean Auxiliary Detachments, circa 1280

The illustrations are based on drawings from the Japanese "Scroll of the Mongol Invasion". It depicts the soldiers of the auxiliary detachment of the Mongol army during the period of the unsuccessful invasion of Japan. Koreans wear quilted protective armor; Mongolian weapons - bows, spears and swords. Note the rectangular cane braided shield with a bamboo frame.

3. Japanese samurai, circa 1280

The samurai is also depicted from a drawing from the "Scroll of the Mongol Invasion"; Shown here are typical Japanese weaponry from 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 plate (lamellar) armor, very similar to those worn by the Mongols. (Tower Arsenal, London)

Full armor was made of such plates. Some of the 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 by their authors, they agree well in details 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 to the waist, and below it had a cut so that the floors did not interfere with sitting in the saddle. The sleeves were short, almost reaching to 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 surcoas are almost the same, the main difference between the Mongols on the Japanese scroll is their fierce appearance. Rashid ad-din gives very stylized and clean miniatures!

Rashid ad-din depicts metal helmets with the top bent slightly back. In the Japanese scroll, helmets are shown with a ball at the top, topped with a plume, and with a wide head, reaching the shoulders and chin; on the Persian miniatures there are much fewer backheads.

It can be assumed that the armor of the Mongols appeared no later than the European campaign; there is little evidence for an earlier period. No doubt the Mongols wore armor before, but most likely they were simpler options.

In winter, fur sheepskin coats were worn over the armor. Light cavalry might not have armor at all, and as for horse armor, there is about as much evidence in favor of their existence as against them. This, again, may simply indicate the differences between heavy and light cavalry. Carpini describes lamellar leather horse armor made of five parts: “... One piece is on one side of the horse, and the other is on the other, and they are interconnected from tail to head and attached to the saddle, and in front of the saddle - on the sides and also on the neck; another detail covers the upper part of the croup, connecting with two side ones, and there is a hole in it through which the tail is passed; the chest is covered by the fourth detail. All of these parts hang down and reach the knees or headstock. An iron plate is placed on the forehead, connected to the side plates on both sides of the neck. "