The bow is the main weapon of the Tatar-Mongolian hordes.

13.10.2019

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

Every Russian, even if not loving, but respecting 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 weapons the warriors who conquered half the world were armed with.

Many sources have kept information about Proto-Mongols - wuhuan And xianbi, about the military strength of these peoples. Powerful mounted spearmen and light cavalry archers xianbi obtained for their leaders power over all of Central Asia and part of China for several centuries. And only in the 10th century history includes 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 in a few decades they seized lands from the Amur region to the Tangut desert. And by 940, the northern provinces of China were also occupied.

Bye throwing China was conquered by their northwestern neighbors - the Mongol-speaking Tatars (and this definition included Mongols, Kereites 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. As for 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. Mongolian spear zhida equipped with different tips. There were wide flat (leaf-shaped), faceted narrow and knife-shaped. Many sources of that era described a variant of the Mongol spear with a 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 to the tip on a hinge, 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 horrific wounds.

Not as common as spears, and mainly among the khan's bodyguards, there are pole weapons of the repose of mortals of very complex shapes. 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 "pokes", 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. Mongolian warriors took up swords with no less pleasure. These, most often, were swords of Chinese or Muslim origin. The western patrimonies of Chinggisidism - Iran, Eastern Europe, the Middle East also influenced the appearance of the Mongolian sword. So the Golden Horde sword, the most characteristic blade of this misfortune - the Mongols, was formed "with the help" of the Arab-Spanish blade with a diamond-shaped crosshair with the ends lowered to the blade and flattened.

But more native to the Mongol-Tatars is the broadsword. This blade had a single blade and a straight, sometimes slightly curved, handle of sufficient length with a slight angle to the blade. In general, such broadswords are anciently traditional for all the inhabitants of the east and the 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.

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 blade options - one was with a slight bend of a narrow blade tapering to the toe; the second - with a shorter and wider blade, and even somewhat expanding in the last third, with a kind of yelman.

And, if, until the middle of the XIV century, in the east of the Genghisid empire, no changes occurred 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 more curved and wider with the passage of time. A distinctive feature, for example, of the so-called "Cherkasy" 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 the decor of long blades.

Thanks to their acquaintance with Muslim and Eastern European weapons, all kinds of battle axes and coinage spread among the Mongol warriors.

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

The latter evidence deserves closer attention. The fact is that many contemporaries call the bow the main weapon of the Mongols. So, Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting testify: “Their customs are archery ...”; and further: “If we turn 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 captured Englishman mentioned above also speaks of this: “... they tirelessly and bravely fight with spears, clubs, axes and swords, but preference for bows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) and accurately, with great skill, they shoot from them ... ". Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich P Hohenstaufen also writes about this in a letter addressed to the English King Henry III: “... bows are the most familiar weapon for them(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... "(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), and Premonstratensian monk Hetum Patmich: "Tatars are excellent riders and are proficient with weapons, especially bows and arrows"(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 Khan Kublai: “... in more than that they use a bow(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), because they are dexterous shooters.

Light Mounted Archer– classic appearance Mongolian warrior. Equipment will be considered here. The bathrobe will wrap on right side, tight trousers, leather boots with thick soles. Fur-trimmed hat. A saber and a saadak hang on the belt. The quiver is hung on a belt over the shoulder and thrown over 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 string, the bow had to be bent against its natural curvature. 2. Mongolian arrowheads. 3. Mongolian robe. The method of wrapping it on the right side is shown. 4 and 5. Two styles of Mongolian hairstyles. 6. Mongolian boots made of thick leather. 7. Quiver.

At this point it is worth dwelling 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 quite a lot of attention to shooting 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 pommel of the saddle, so that there is something to hold on to with their hands, and they let the crowd rush at full speed. At 4-5 years old they are given to hold a small bow and short arrows, with which they grow up. ... All of them are swiftly worn on horses, while they stand on their toes in stirrups, and do not sit, so their main strength is in their calves, and there is none in their hips at all. They are as fast as a running whirlwind and mighty as a crushing mountain. Since in the saddle they turn to the left and turn over to the right with such ease as if the wings of a windmill, they can, turning to the left, shoot to the right, and not only there - they also aim back, ”report Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine says practically the same thing: “Men do nothing at all, with the exception of arrows ... they hunt and practice shooting, for all of them, young and old, are good arrows, and their children, when they are two or three years old, immediately begin to ride and manage horses and ride them, and they are given a bow according to their age, and they learn to shoot arrows ... ". And here is what Benedict Polek reports (in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia): “Men make only arrows and practice archery. They also force three or four year old boys to exercise in the same way. Vincent of Beauvais says the same thing in his encyclopedia: “They amuse themselves with wrestling and archery, which they consider to be the best entertainment, as well as military exercises.” Zhao Hong also indirectly confirms this: “Tatars are born and grow up in the saddle. By themselves they learn to fight."

Young Mongolian warrior
The Mongolian warrior was inseparable from his horse. The horse harness is decorated, the tail is braided. A method of archery from a saddle is shown. Two warriors are practicing archery, trying to hit a wooden block.
Box 1. Mongolian saddle. It had a solid construction, was made of wood and was soaked in sheep fat to protect it from rain. The saddle had a high front and back pommel, providing the archer with a secure fit and the ability to turn the body in all directions.
Box 2. paisa (label). Khan in Karakoram had an efficient courier service. Thanks to couriers, the khan quickly learned about all the news and immediately transmitted orders to all parts of his vast empire. The gents, who served as the khan's 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 our time.

Most likely, this practice was one of the first reforms of Genghis Khan. We find indirect confirmation of this from Marco Polo: “It happened that in 1187 the Tatars chose a king for themselves, and he was called Genghis Khan in their language ... Genghis Khan saw that he had a lot of people, armed him with bows and their other weapons and went to fight foreign countries". Rashid ad-Din confirms this assumption in his story about Genghis Khan: “He also said ... the emirs of the army should properly teach their sons throwing arrows, horseback riding and martial arts and exercise them in these matters.” Indirect confirmation of this can be seen in the words of Genghis Khan himself, which Li Zhi Chang quotes when describing his conversation with Chang Chun: "... we are Mughals, from an early age we are used to shooting on horseback and cannot suddenly leave this habit."

In any case, during the period of the Great Conquest, the Mongols in the eyes of 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 of Galicia, directly says: Moreover, among Armenian authors, the definition of "arrows" is often given as a synonym for the term "Mongol". So Vardan Areveltsi (1198-1271) in the work "Collection of History", speaking of 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" . Syuni Bishop Stefanos Orbelian (d. 1304) in his work “History of the Sisakan Region” also calls the Mongols “the people of shooters”, and Mongolia – “the country of shooters”. The prominent statesman of Cilician Armenia Smbat Sparapet (1208-1267) also calls the Mongols "the people of shooters" in his work "Chronicle", who personally visited the Mongolian capital Karokorum twice. And speaking of the military formations of the Mongols, he calls them "troops of shooters." And one of the most famous Armenian historians, a contemporary of the capture of Transcaucasia by the Mongols, Kirakos Gandzaketsi (1200-1271), in the "History of Armenia" calls the Mongols - "tribe of shooters". In turn, another prominent Armenian historian Grigor Aknertsi, better known as the monk Magakia, directly titled his work “History of the people of the Shooters”. The Armenian tradition of calling the Mongols "the people of shooters" or simply "shooters" is also given by the Fleming Willem from Rebrek.

Mongols in the Middle East, 1220.
G1: Mongolian heavily armed horse archer.
The peculiarity of the equipment of this warrior is a powerful leather scaly carapace 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 reins of the horse are connected by a thin rope to the wrist. This rope does not allow you to completely lose nro-water during archery.
G2: Mongolian light warrior.
Mongolian scout and skirmisher. Unlike the heavily armed warrior who prepared for the campaign, this one was in the war straight from the field. The Mongolian short horse is a relative of the Przewalski's horse.
G3: Persian foot archer.
The deceased Persian foot archer had a helmet characteristic of his time, a heavy linen overshirt and a silk undershirt. The bow is clearly Persian tin.

Many of the contemporaries characterize the Mongols not just as shooters, but as excellent shooters. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine: "... all of them, young and old, are good shooters ...". Juvaini: "... if they wish, they can shoot down the stars with arrows...". Matthew Paris: "...are amazing archers...". Stefanos Orbelyan: "... skillful (here we mean the people. - Yu.K.) in throwing arrows ...". André of Longjumeau: "They don't use ballistae, but they are excellent archers." Friedrich II Hohenstaufen: "These tartars, incomparable archers ...". Hetum Patmich: “The war with them is very dangerous, because in one such, even a small war, more people die than in any clash with any other people. And this happens for the most part due to the fact that they shoot strongly 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 deftly ...". The same is noted by Smbat Sparapet in a letter to the Cypriot king Henry II de Lusignan: "They are excellent arrows ...".

Moreover, a number of contemporaries directly distinguish the Mongols as archers against the background of other peoples. Thus, a Georgian anonymous author, a contemporary of Tsar George IV Lasha (1213-1222), reports: “At the same time, they gained courage and were chosen archers(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), flawlessly shooting from their tight bows with heavy arrows, the impact of which could not withstand any armor. They were especially dexterous on horseback, because they grew up on horseback, they did not know armor, except for a bow and arrows. And here is how the impressions of Russian warriors from the first clashes with the Mongols are recorded in the Chronicler of Daniel of Galicia: The Hungarian Dominican monk Julian, who visited the South Russian steppes twice, in 1235 and 1237, specifically noted in a message to the papal legate Salvio de Salvi: “They say that they shoot further than other nations can. At the first clash in the war, their arrows, as they say, do not fly, but, as it were, pour like a downpour. With swords and spears, they are rumored to fight less skillfully.

Mongolian light horseman, Russia.
The episode of the long chase, which the Mongols could undertake after the battle, was spotted by the Mongol horseman in the coastal thickets of the hiding Russian warrior. The Mongol wears a robe captured during the Khorezm campaign; a warm sheepskin coat is put on under the robe. Hat with fur-trimmed earmuffs. The appearance of the Mongol was recreated according to the "Saray Album" (Istanbul). Attached to the saddle is a coil of rope, an axe, and a wineskin with sour milk. The armor of the Russian warrior 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 Stefan Vatsky, in a letter to Parisian Bishop William III of Auvergne, also notes: “They are more skilled archers than Hungarian and Coman, and their bows are more powerful.” Friedrich II of 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, then they utterly defeated the Cumans." Here is how Getum Patmich, one of the statesmen of Cilician Armenia, described the Mongols: "And they have already become so accustomed to the art of shooting that they have 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 their shooting 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 like this: running away from the enemy, they are not ashamed, running away, turn around and shoot. They taught their horses, like dogs, to turn in all directions. When they are driven, they fight gloriously on the run, and just as strongly, as if they were standing 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, from the fact that his horses have been shot down, and the people have been pretty much killed. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine says the same thing: “... whenever they see enemies, they go at them, and each one throws three or four arrows at his opponents ...”; and further: "... they do not willingly enter the battle, but wound and kill people and horses with arrows ...". Benedikt Polek echoes him: “When they have to meet with the enemy, many of them are armed 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 accurately. And when they can reach the enemy with arrows without hindrance, they say that it resembles rain rather than flying arrows. And this happens because of 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, speaking about the battle of Isfahan on August 25, 1228, in which the Mongols defeated the last Khorezmshah Jalal ad-Din Mankburni, describes the heroic resistance of the latter’s troops in this way: “But the khans and emirs, commanders of the left wing, stood firmly, until his death, remaining true to his oath. Only three of them survived: Kuch Tegin Pakhlavan, Hajib al-Khass Khanberdi and Emir Ahur Odek. Ahash-Malik fought until fell, studded with arrows, like a hedgehog with needles(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), and died for the faith. In turn, Juvaini, describing the battle of the Mongols with the Jin, which took place near the river. Huang He in 1231, testifies: "... the Mongols knocked them down with a hail of arrows, and they stretched out on damp earth ...". 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 Lucy: “... on the twelfth day after the onset of March, there was a battle with the Tatars at the pass, and when nearly all his people were severely wounded with arrows and swords, he left with a few of them ... ". We see the same thing when he describes the battle of Kaloch Archbishop Ugrin Kzak with the Mongols approaching the city of Pest: “... he wanted to fight the Tatars. Note, shading their backs, began to gradually retreat. The archbishop, seeing this, began to pursue them at full speed. Having reached the swampy 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 pressed the ground with the weight of their weapons, he was no longer able to cross the swamp or return. Tatars, quickly returning, surrounded the swamp and, sending arrows with rain, they were all killed there(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) ". The same picture is observed in the battle of Liegnitz, which took place on April 9, 1241 between the Mongols and the united Polish army. Her detailed description came to us in the work of Jan Dlugosh: “The crusaders and foreign knights broke the first ranks of the Tatars with 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 from all sides so that other - Polish - detachments could not come to their aid without putting themselves in a dangerous position. Detachment that faltered and eventually lay down under a hail of arrows, like tender ears under hail, for many among them were people without shields and shells. And when the son of Diepold, the Moravian margrave, Boleslav and others fell there knights from the front, the rest, which were also thinned out by Tatar arrows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), retreated to the Polish detachments. The situation is repeated in the battle of the river. Shio, 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 a cavalry detachment forward ... Having lined up and successfully positioned themselves, they opposed them in full armor and in strict order . But the detachments of the Tatars, without waiting for hand-to-hand combat and, as they usually do, pelting enemies with arrows, hastily rushed to run "; and further: “... the Tatar horde, as if in a round dance, surrounded the entire camp of the Hungarians. Some, pulling their bows, began to shoot arrows from all sides, others hurried to set fire to the camp in a circle. ... Enemies, scattered everywhere, did not stop throwing spears and arrows. ... They did not defend themselves with weapons from a shower of arrows and spears, but, substituting their backs, completely collapsed under these blows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), as usual, acorns fall from a shaken oak. And these are the descriptions of the same battle by Master Rogerius: “ Tatars... surrounding him, began to shoot at the Hungarians arrows that hit like hail. ... The arrows fell so often that they darkened the sky for the combatants and flew through the air like a swarm of beetles and locusts.. ... And if the Hungarians interspersed from different places went into battle, then Tatars. meeting them, arrows forced them to flee from battle formations(highlighted by us. - 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 Ghazan and the Mamluks in the area of Jabal al-Salihiya, near the city of Damascus, on February 12, 1300, reports: “On the day when the Sultan’s army was preparing for battle, his soldiers prepared felt scarecrows, hung sparkling things on them so that they shone in the sun, and stuffed stuffed animals on 10 thousand camels, and they all lined up in a row, while the soldiers themselves hid behind the camels ... since the Mongols, that is, the Tatars, except for arrows, had nothing else(highlighted by us. - Y.K.), the Muslims were waiting for them to shoot their arrows at felt stuffed animals that were put on 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 was darkened from them, and people were in the shade from the density of arrows. With these arrows, the army of the Sultan was defeated and put to flight. And here is the description of Hetum Patmich of the battle that took place between the same opponents near the city of Homs, Syria, in 1301: “... the Tatars, united, shot arrows and killed many enemy horses, while those Saracens who approached from the rear, the advance detachment, stumbled. Therefore, of the many Saracens, only a few left alive. Many Saracens were mortally wounded by arrows, from which they died."(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.). Here it is worth making a digression. The fact is that the last two battles, although they took place at the beginning of the 14th century, but, in our opinion, they still reflect the Mongol tactics, since the military reforms of Ilkhan Ghazan, which, apparently, were carried out at the very end of his reign, should have markedly changed the military affairs of the Khulagid.

A noteworthy fact is that during their companies, the Mongols took care not only of the replenishment of arrows - the most consumable material, but also of the replenishment of bows, bowstrings for them and quivers. Thus, in the biography of the Khitan Xiao Baizhu in Yuan-shi, an episode from his grandfather's track record is given: kind". Benedict Pole speaks of the same thing in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia: “They also carry with them to in large numbers 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 battle the Mongols relied precisely on remote shooting combat. And it was the remote shooting battle of the Mongols that caused concern among their opponents. This is directly indicated in the “Secret Tale” by the words of the Naimans: “They say that there are some insignificant Mongols in the northern side, and that they allegedly frightened the ancient glorious great Van Khan with their sidak ...”; and further: “Whatever these Mongols are, we will go and bring here their sidak. ... Let's take away from these, what are they, Mongols, their saidaks! . Direct confirmation of this can be seen in the testimonies of contemporaries. Thus, the Armenian historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi writes: "... the sound of their quivers terrified everyone." The Croatian priest Foma Splitsky echoes him: “... the deadly Tatar arrows shot straight at the target struck for sure. And there was no such armor, shield or helmet that would not have been pierced by a blow from the Tatar hand. This is also mentioned in an anonymous essay about the Tatar invasion of Poland, Moravia and Hungary, compiled shortly after the events described, which is partially preserved in the Paris Codex: “Fear and trembling, Moravia, seized you, a violent enemy surrounds you and oppresses you from everywhere . With a bow and a sword, he destroyed your strong ones, he does not spare either sex or age ... ". And here is what Giovanni of Pian del Carpine recommended: “Everyone who wants to fight them should have the following weapons: good and strong bows, ballistae, which they are very afraid of, a sufficient number of arrows, a good iron club or a long-handled ax ..., also swords and spears with a hook, to be able to pull them off the saddle, as they fall very easily from it, knives and double armor, since their arrows do not easily pierce them, a helmet and other weapons to protect the body and horse from weapons and arrows » . And these are the recommendations of Benedict the Pole in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia: “... ambushes should be set up on the flank on selected horses. And the ballistarii, located in front of the army and spaced in at least three [rows], must throw arrows before they can reach the battle order of the tartars, [that is] in the best way and in time so that their own battle ranks either run or are brought into confusion. If the enemies turn to flight, the ballistarii with archers, as well as those who are in ambush, pursue them, while the army gradually moves behind them. If there are no other ballistarii [for pursuit], then riders on armored horses move forward. Shielded by 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 compiled in May - June 1241, in the city of Esslingen, in the curia of the German king Conrad IV, to counter the Tatars: “1. Let the sovereigns themselves they are not looking for Tatars in the field, ... 2. Let the ballistarii be with them. .. 5. Also, let anyone who has an income of three marks take with him a shield called “setsishilt” (here we mean large, as a rule, easel, “pavez” shields. - Yu.K.) ” .

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

Summing up, the following conclusions should be emphasized:

1. A rather harsh habitat, lack of sources for obtaining metals and trade blockade by 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 ban on the sale of weapons by the neighbors to the Mongols forced the latter to cover the shortage in weapons by all available means, as a result of their use of leather armor, bone arrowheads, etc. The Mongols' iron armor appears only during the capture of large states - the Jin Empire and Khorezm. But due to the primary destruction of the production bases of the captured states, the wear and tear of 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 contemporaries, the main weapons of the Mongols were the bow and saber, which could be supplemented with an ax, club, palm 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 inflicting a simple thrust. At the same time, there is no exact evidence in the sources that they used a ram spear strike. The refusal of the Mongols to use shields during field battles, as well as the medium-sized breeds of Mongolian horses, indirectly indicate that the Mongols did not use massive ram spear attacks.

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

6. Contemporaries of the Mongols claimed that it was the bow that 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 majority of contemporaries pointed out that the Mongols stood out from the background of other peoples precisely by skillful shooting. This is confirmed by the course of those battles, of 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 did not have heavily armed cavalry, as well as the prerequisites for its appearance, which refutes the conclusions obtained by M.V. Gorelik. In the future, continuing to study 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-Mongolian warriors in the campaign against the Volga Bulgaria and Russia in 1236-1241. // 100 years of Hun archeology: Nomadism - past, present in the global context and historical perspective: Hun phenomenon. T. D. Ch. 1. - Ulan-Ude, 1996.
Artemiev A.R. Problems of identifying the Mongol-Tatar weapons complex among the ancient Russian materials of the 19th century. // Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: to the 80th anniversary of Valentin Vasilyevich Sedov. - M., 2004.
Artemyeva N.G. Items of protective weapons from the Krasnoyarovsk settlement // Russia and the Asia-Pacific Region. No. 4. - Vladivostok, 1999.
Artemyeva N.G. new type Jurchen shell // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 1. - Vladivostok, 2002.
Artemyeva N.G., Prokopets S.D. Protective weapons of the Jurchen warrior // Russian archeology.. - 2012.-№1.
Ata-Melik Juvaini. Genghis Khan. History of the Conqueror of the World.-M., 2004.
Bakhruishn S.V. Scientific works. T.Sh: Selected works on the history of Siberia in the 16th-16th centuries. - M., 1955.
Belorybkin G.N. Zolotarevskoe settlement. - SPb., 2001.
Vincent of Beauvais. Historical mirror // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Witt 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. - St. Petersburg, 2005.
Guillaume de Rubruk. Journey to the Eastern Countries // Travels to the Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Gordeev N.V. Russian defensive armor // State Armory of the Moscow Kremlin. - M., 1954.
Gorbunov V.V. Spears of warriors of the Srostka culture // Equipment of Eurasian nomads. - Barnaul, 2005.
Gorelik M.V. Medieval Mongolian armor // Third International Congress of Mongolian Studies. -Ulaanbaatar, 1978.
Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - 1st half of the 16th 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 the Mongolian and European weapons business // Steppes of Europe in the Middle Ages. T. 3: Polovtsian-Golden Horde time. - Donetsk, 2003.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian Costume and Weapons in the 12th-14th 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 Issue. 1. - Kazan, 2009.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian plate cavalry and its fate in the historical perspective // Warfare of the Golden Horde: problems and prospects 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. The Far Eastern complex of armor plates from the Zolotarevsky settlement // Bulletin of military-historical research: International collection of scientific papers. Issue. 3. - Penza, 2011.
Giovanni des Plano Carpini. History of the Mongols // Travels to Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Ye Lun-li. History of the Khitan state (Qidan Guo Zhi). - Monuments of writing of the East. T. XXXV.-M., 1979.
Jean de Joinville. The book of pious sayings and good deeds of our holy King Louis. -SPb., 2012.
Juse P.K. Materials on the history of Azerbaijan from Tarikh-al-Kamil (complete collection of history) Ibn-al-Asir.-Baku, 1940.
Ivanin M. I. About the military art and the conquests of the Mongol-Tatars and the Central Asian peoples under Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. - St. Petersburg, 1875.
Ilminsky NI. Extracts from Ibn el-Atir about the first invasion of the Tatars on the Caucasian and Black Sea countries, from 1220 to 1224 // Scientific notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences: on the first and third branches. T. II. Issue. 4. - St. Petersburg, 1854.
"History of the Tatars" by brother Ts. de Bridia I / Yurchenko A.G. Christendom and the "Great Mongol Empire" (Materials of the Franciscan mission of 1245). - St. Petersburg, 2002.
Kirakos Gandzaketsi. History of Armenia.-M., 1976.
Book of Marco Polo II Travels to Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Kozin S.A. The Secret History: The Mongolian Chronicle of 1240 under the title Mongrol-un niruCa tobCiyan. Yuan chao bi shi: Mongolian everyday selection. - M.; L., 1941.
Kuleshov Yu.A. Production and import of weapons as a way to form the Golden Horde weapons complex // Golden Horde Civilization. Issue Z. - Kazan, 2010.
Kuleshov Yu.A., Gusynin V.A. Finds of helmets of the "Jin type" 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. The Institute of Batteries 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 study and methods of using military means // Questions of the history and archeology of medieval nomads and the Golden Horde: Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the memory of V.P. Kostyukov. - Astrakhan, 2011.
Kychanov E.I. History of the Tangut state. - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Kychanov E.I. Tangut (Xi Xia) sources about the Tatars // Mongolica - VIII: dedicated to the 190th anniversary of the Asian Museum - the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the RAI (SPbF IN RAS). - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Lenkov V.D. Metallurgy and metalworking among the Jurchens in the 12th century (based on research materials from the Shaiginsky settlement). - Novosibirsk, 1974.
Lee Zhi Chan. Journey to the Bay of Monk Chang Chun, described by his disciple Zhen Chang Zi named Li Zhi Chan // Works of members of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Beijing. T. IV. - St. Petersburg, 1866.
Lin Kyun-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. "Jin-shi". 1 quan // Collection of scientific works of Przhevaltsev. - Harbin, 1942.
Matthew of Paris. The Great Chronicle // Russian Spill: Arabesques of History. The world of Lev Gumilyov. -M., 1997.
Matuzova V.I. English medieval sources of the IX-XIII centuries - M., 1979.
Munkuev N. Ts. Men-da bei-lu (“Complete description of the Mongol-Tatars”), - M., 1975.
Nefedov S.A. The Mongolian 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 at public auction of the remaining estate after the murder of Mikhail Tatishchev accused of treason by the people in 116 // Provisional of the Imperial Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Book. 8. - M., 1850.
Patkanov K.P. History of the Mongols monk Magakia, XIII century. - St. Petersburg, 1871.
Patkanov K.P. History of the Mongols according to Armenian sources. Issue. 1. - St. Petersburg, 1873.
Penskoy V.V. The Great Gun Revolution. - M., 2010.
Ponaryadov V.V. Medieval techniques for 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 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 Krasnoyarovsk settlement // Archeology, ethnology, paleoecology of Northern Eurasia and adjacent territories. Materials of the XLVII Regional (III 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 attaching armored plates in the armor of a Jurchen warrior // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 1. - Vladivostok, 2009.
Prokopets S.D. Production and turnover of protective weapons among the Jurchens of Primorye // Bulletin of NGU. Series: History, Philology. T. 9. Issue. 3. - Novosibirsk, 2010.
Rayid-ad-Din. Collection of annals. T. 1. Book. 1M.; D., 1952.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 1. Book. 2. - M.; L., 1952.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 2. - M.; L., 1960.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 3. - M.; L., 1946.
Ricoldo de Monte Croce. Journey through the Holy Land // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Surovtsov M.N. On the dominion of the Khitans in Central Asia: a historical and political review of the activities of the Khitans from the initial news of the appearance of the people and the founding of the Liao dynasty by them - until the fall of this latter in the West // History of the Iron Empire. - Novosibirsk, 2007.
Usama ibn Munkiz. Book of Edification. - M., 1958.
Thomas of Split History of the Archbishops of Salona and Split. - M., 1997.
Hogolboon Lhagasuren. Medieval burials of the Mongols (XII-XIV centuries) / Dissertation ... cand. ist. Sciences. - M., 1994 // Archive of the IA RAS, No. R-2/2557.
Khrapachevsky R.P. 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 Russia. - M., 2011.
Khudyakov Yu.S. Tips of spears and "palm trees" from medieval sites of the Baikal, 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.
Shavkunov V.E. Armament of the Jurchens in the 12th-13th centuries. - Vladivostok, 1993.
Shavkunov V.E. On the issue of the protective armor of the Jurchens of Primorye // Asia-Pacific Region: Archeology. Ethnography. History. - 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 Franciscan mission of 1245). - St. Petersburg, 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.

Chetvertakov Nikolai

This work was presented at a regional research conference dedicated to the 775th anniversary of the Battle of Sit. The paper analyzes the weapons and tactics of warfare by Russian and Mongolian soldiers, as well as the unusual reasons for the defeat of the Russian rati, the material is accompanied by a presentation that can be used in history lessons in grade 7, when studying the topic: "The fight against foreign invaders"

Download:

Preview:

Related report:

Russian and Mongolian

Warriors

(analysis of weapons and combat methods)

Prepared by: Chetvertakov Nikolay

5th grade student

MOU "Litvinovskaya OOSh

Sonkovsky district

Tver region"

Head: Mikhalchenko N.M.

History teacher

MOU "Litvinovskaya OOSh

Sonkovsky district

Tver region"

S.Petrovskoe

year 2013

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………3

Russian warrior, protection of a warrior……………………………………………….. .............................4

Mongolian warrior, battle strategy……………………………………………5-6

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………7

References…………………………………………………………………8

Introduction:

In 1238, two completely different armies converged on the City River: the Mongol and the Russian. The Russian army lost. In my work, I tried to find out why this happened?

They helped me in studying the issue: the children's encyclopedia "History of Russia" - Avanta, the encyclopedia "I know the world", articles from the Internet.

Having studied the material, I came to the conclusion that the Russian army was defeated not because the Mongol troops were a "wild horde" that swept away the "brave Slavs" in numbers. The Mongolian cavalry and infantry had their own attack strategy, strict discipline, and the trained Russian army had to face an unprecedented enemy.

I will begin my report with a story about the weapons of Russian soldiers.

Russian warrior

Wars in Russia have been fought since the 8th century. Russian warriors were well-armed, had a clear, well-thought-out tactics of warfare. In the first quarter of the 13th century, for the princely retinue, knights and boyars, "military affairs" were the only occupation in life.

The Russian army had a clear structure.

The lowest troops are warriors (“army” - war, fight). They were recruited from commoners by voluntary conscription.

The warrior was usually armed with a battle ax, a wide knife, and sometimes a sword. The sword was small, about a meter long, double-edged, with a rounded end. It was very convenient during a fight with a mounted warrior and on foot.

Against the cavalry, the warriors used a short throwing spear. The blade was cast from a soft metal and, if hit, could bend, preventing extraction from the wound.

Battle axes of various shapes were also used, it was used as a throwing weapon, like a dart.

Warrior defense

Although Russian soldiers did not wear heavy armor, chain mail and armor provided high level security.

The chain mail was woven from 1-2 layers of metal rings and was worn over the head, like an ordinary shirt. Under it was a thick quilted vest made of leather and felt. This combination perfectly protected from the Mongolian bows and retained mobility.

The head was protected by either a leather or metal helmet with a soft lining inside.

For protection, a drop-shaped or round shield was used. Covering themselves with such a shield, the warriors put forward the tips of their spears and lined up in a living barrier against the enemy cavalry. After the first blow, the heavy shield and spear were thrown away and the subsequent rows of the enemy attacked with the help of the sword.

A small round shield was a reliable defense in hand-to-hand combat. It was made from boards, sheathed with leather and metal plates - "plaques".

Mongolian warrior

The armament of the light cavalry was very simple: a bow, a quiver of arrows and a saber. Neither the warriors nor the horses had armor, but this, oddly enough, did not at all make them too vulnerable. The reason for this was the uniqueness of the Mongolian combat bow - probably the most powerful military weapon of a warrior before the invention of gunpowder.

The Mongolian bow was relatively small in size, but exceptionally powerful and long-range. Its relatively small size was dictated by the peculiarities of its application. It was simply impossible to shoot from a horse with a longbow.

In addition, many Tatar-Mongolian warriors masterfully wielded a spear.

The Mongols practically did not use chain mail or helmets. Most often, riders wore a wadded or felt vest, and over it a leather caftan with small metal plates sewn on.

The head was covered with a fur or leather hat.
The shield was very light. It was woven from willow twigs and sheathed with thin leather.

The nomadic lifestyle did not provide an opportunity for the development of metallurgy and, accordingly, forging high-quality sabers and armor

Combat strategy.

Nomadic Mongols, this determined the direction of development of weapons.

The infantry made up a small part of the army. The Mongol was small in stature, and the constant stay in the saddle twisted his legs so much that he could not withstand long walks.

Therefore, the nomads delivered the main blows to the opponents with the help of cavalry. The battle was always started by horse archers. They attacked the enemy in several open parallel waves, continuously firing their bows; at the same time, the horsemen of the first ranks, who were out of order or had used up their supply of arrows, were instantly replaced by soldiers from the back ranks. The density of shooting was incredible: according to sources (albeit probably exaggerated), the Mongol arrows in battle "covered the sun." If the enemy could not withstand this massive shelling and turned the rear, then the light cavalry, armed in addition to bows and sabers, itself completed the rout. If the enemy counterattacked, then the Mongols did not accept close combat. A favorite tactic was to retreat in order to lure the enemy into an unexpected ambush. This blow was delivered by heavy cavalry and almost always led to success.

Output:

From all of the above, we can conclude that the weapons of the armies were approximately the same, which means that the cause of the defeat was not weapons, but tactics and speed of movement.

In the campaign, the Mongol army could move for months and even years without transporting food and fodder supplies.

The Mongolian horse was completely grazing. Even from under the snow, he could get his own food.

The endurance and unpretentiousness of the Mongol warrior was amazing. In the campaign, he was content with what he managed to get by hunting or robbery, if necessary, he could eat for weeks on his stone-hard khurut stored in saddlebags. When there was absolutely nothing to eat, the Mongol warrior could feed on ... the blood of his own horses. From a Mongolian horse, without much damage to its health, it was possible to take up to half a liter of blood.

Since there were always a lot of spare horses - in general, three horses per person were the usual norm on a campaign - this method could well ensure survival. Finally, dead or injured horses could also be used as food. Even under favorable conditions in a large army, the loss of horses, based on a simple theory of probability, amounted to several dozen daily. And this already made it possible, albeit meagerly, to feed the army.

Conclusion.

Such features made the Mongolian army the most enduring, the most mobile, the most independent of external conditions of all the armies that have ever existed in the history of mankind. And this was superimposed on a strict order and strict discipline, well-organized management, combat and tactical training. And we can say that such an army was really capable of conquering the whole world: its combat capabilities completely allowed it. Never - neither before nor after the Mongol campaigns - neither the most brilliant commanders nor the greatest powers had such a chance. The Mongolian army had such potential, and this makes it the greatest military phenomenon of all time.

Bibliography:

"I know the world" - children's encyclopedia, history / Comp. N.V. Chudakova, A.V. Gromov, M. "AST Publishing House", 1992.
History of Russia "From the ancient Slavs to Peter the Great" - Avanta, 2003.

The warrior was usually armed with a battle ax, a wide knife, and a sword. Against the cavalry, the warriors used a short throwing spear

The protection of the warrior The chain mail was woven from 1-2 layers of metal rings and was worn over the head, like an ordinary shirt.

The head was protected by either a leather or metal helmet with a soft lining inside.

For protection, a drop-shaped or round shield was used. Having covered themselves with such a shield, the soldiers lined up in a living barrier against the cavalry.

Targe- reliable protection in hand-to-hand combat. It was made from boards, sheathed with leather and metal plates.

Mongolian warrior Armament of light cavalry: bow, quiver, arrows, saber.

The Mongolian bow is small in size, but exceptionally powerful and long-range. The small size was dictated by the peculiarities of its use: it is impossible to shoot from a long bow from a horse

Chain mail and helmets were rarely used. Most often, riders wore a wadded or felt vest, and over it a leather caftan with small metal plates sewn on. The head was covered with a fur or leather hat.

Combat strategy

Mongols-nomads, this determined the direction of development of weapons. The battle was started by horse archers. They attacked in several open waves, continuously firing their bows at the enemy. The density of shooting is incredible - the arrows "covered the sun."

If the enemy could not withstand the shelling, then the light cavalry, with the help of sabers, completed the rout

If the enemy counterattacked, the Mongols retreated in order to lure the enemy into an unexpected ambush.

Heavy Cavalry The blow was delivered by heavy cavalry and almost always led to success.

The mobility of the Mongolian army The army could move for months without food and fodder; The horse was grazing; Warriors are hardy and unpretentious, they could go without food for a long time, eating khurut and the blood of their horse;

Mongolian horse

Khurut - Mongolian cheese

Strict discipline, well-organized management, combat and tactical training - such an army was really capable of conquering the whole world! Never - neither before nor after the Mongol campaigns - neither the most brilliant generals nor the greatest powers had such a chance anymore - this makes it the greatest military phenomenon of all time.

The presentation was made by Nikolai Chetvertakov Pupil of the 5th grade of the municipal educational institution "Litvinovskaya school of the Sonkovsky district of the Tver region"

Ordinary people wore a shirt with narrow sleeves, an elongated open caftan with a belt and wide sleeves below the elbow, and canvas pants. They sometimes wore silk or homespun robes.
Noble people dressed in long open caftans with long sleeves and a collar, which were fastened to the waist with large round buttons.

Women costume

Women, like men, wore long shirts and wide trousers. The shirt was decorated with embroidery or appliqué and tied at the waist with a belt. The Mongolians wore silk robes with sleeves and capes.

On the woman: outerwear with long sleeves and a bib decorated with leather appliqué.

On the man: a caftan with ermine and leather appliqué, a hat with earmuffs and a nape.

Clothing of the Mongol-Tatar warriors

The costume of the Mongol-Tatar warrior consisted of a lined and quilted caftan, a shell reaching to the knees and decorated with metal plaques. The upper part of the arms was protected by shoulder pads attached to the shell, and the hands were protected by iron gloves. Under the shell, the soldiers put on a leather jacket with narrow sleeves, on which metal hoops were attached from the elbow to the hand. The boots were covered with metal plates and provided with a knee plate with a sharp spike. The head was protected by a round helmet with a nasal, and the back of the head and cheeks were protected by a chain mail mesh. The helmet was decorated with two tufts of hair. The main weapons of the Mongol-Tatar warriors were curved sabers, bows, spears and daggers. A sword and a quiver with arrows were attached to their belts.

Hairstyles and headwear

Men either shaved off their hair completely, or left separate strands that hung loosely or were braided.
Commoners wore hats in the form of a felt yarmulke, on which there were straps framing the face. The nobility wore high fur hats, pointed or round with a flat top.
Women's headbands had a solid front part, decorated with embroidery and beads. In addition, they had summer and winter hats of a cylindrical shape, on top of which they put scarves or shawls, and for holidays - elegant caps.

Fatal 1223. At the very end of the spring of 1223, 500 km from the southern borders of Russia, Russian-Polovtsian and Mongol troops met in a deadly battle. The tragic events for Russia had their own prehistory, and therefore it is worth dwelling on the "acts of the Mongols", to understand the historical inevitability of the path that led the regiments of Genghis Khan, Russians and Polovtsians to Kalka that very spring.

How is it known about the Tatar-Mongols and their conquests. About themselves, the history of their people in the XIII century. the Mongols told a little in the epic work "The Secret Legend", which included historical songs, "genealogical tales", "oral messages", sayings, proverbs. In addition, Genghis Khan adopted the "Great Yasa", a code of laws that allows you to understand the principles of the structure of the state, the troops, contains moral and judicial prescriptions. Those whom they conquered also wrote about the Mongols: Chinese and Muslim chroniclers, later Russians and Europeans. At the end of the XIII century. in China, conquered by the Mongols, the Italian Marco Polo lived for almost 20 years, then he painted in detail in his "Book" about what he saw and heard. But, as usual for the history of the Middle Ages, information from the XIII century. contradictory, insufficient, sometimes obscure or unreliable.
Genghis Khan

Mongols: what is behind the name

At the end of the XII century. Mongol-speaking and Turkic tribes lived on the territory of northeastern Mongolia and Transbaikalia. The name "Mongols" has received a double interpretation in the historical literature. According to one version, ancient tribe Meng-gu lived in the upper reaches of the Amur, but one of the Tatar clans in Eastern Transbaikalia had the same name (Genghis Khan also belonged to this clan). According to another hypothesis, Meng-gu is a very ancient tribe, rarely mentioned in the sources, but the ancients never confused them with the Dada (Tatars) tribe.

The Tatars were stubbornly at enmity with the Mongols. The name of the successful and warlike Tatars gradually became collective for a whole group of tribes that lived in southern Siberia. The long and fierce confrontation between the Tatars and the Mongols ended by the middle of the 12th century. the victory of the latter. The Tatars were included among the peoples conquered by the Mongols, and for Europeans the names "Mongols" and "Tatars" became synonymous.

Traditional occupations of the Tatars and their "kuren". The main occupations of the Mongols were hunting and cattle breeding. The tribes of the Mongols-herdsmen, who later played such a significant role in world history, lived south of Lake Baikal and up to the Altai Mountains. The main value of the steppe nomads was herds of thousands of horses.
The very way of life and habitat brought up in the Mongols endurance, stamina, the ability to easily endure long hikes. Mongols were taught to ride and use weapons in early childhood. Already teenagers were excellent riders and hunters. It is not surprising that, having matured, they also became magnificent warriors. Harsh natural conditions and frequent attacks by unfriendly neighbors or enemies formed the characteristic features of "living in felt wagons": courage, contempt for death, the ability to organize for defense or attack.
In the period before the unification and conquests, the Mongols were at the last stage of the tribal system. They wandered as "kurens", i.e. clan or tribal associations, numbering from several hundred to several thousand people. With the gradual disintegration of the tribal system, separate families, "ails", stood out from the "kurens".

Rise of the military nobility and squad. The main role in the social organization of the Mongolian tribes was played by popular assemblies and the council of tribal elders (kurultai), but gradually power was concentrated in the hands of the noyons (military leaders) and their warriors (nukers). Lucky and prolific noyons (over time turned into khans) with their faithful nukers towered over the bulk of the Mongols - ordinary cattle breeders (Oirats).

Genghis Khan and his "people-army". The unification of disparate and warring tribes was difficult, and Temuchin had to finally overcome the resistance of the obstinate khans with "iron and blood". A descendant of a noble, according to Mongolian concepts, family, Temujin experienced a lot in his youth: the loss of his father, poisoned by the Tatars, humiliation and persecution, captivity with a wooden block around his neck, but he endured everything and stood at the head of a great empire.

In 1206, the kurultai proclaimed Temuchin Genghis Khan.

The conquests of the Mongols that amazed the world were based on the principles of iron discipline and military orders, introduced by him. The Mongol tribes were soldered by their leader into a horde, a single "people-army". The entire social organization of the steppes was built on the basis of the "Great Yasa" introduced by Genghis Khan - the code of laws mentioned above. The squad of nukers was transformed into a personal guard (kishkiten) of the khan, numbering 10 thousand people; the rest of the army was divided into tens of thousands ("darkness" or "tumens"), thousands, hundreds and tens of fighters. At the head of each division was an experienced and skillful military leader. Unlike many European medieval armies, Genghis Khan's army professed the principle of appointing military leaders in accordance with personal merits. For the flight from the battlefield of one warrior out of a dozen, the entire ten were executed, for the flight of a dozen, a hundred were executed, and since dozens consisted, as a rule, of close relatives, it is clear that a moment of cowardice could turn into the death of a father, brother and happened extremely rarely. death penalty even the slightest non-compliance with the orders of military leaders was punished. The laws established by Genghis Khan also applied to civil life.

Armament of the Mongol-Tatar warriors

The principle of "war feeds itself." When recruiting for an army, every ten wagons were obliged to put up from one to three soldiers and provide them with food. None of the soldiers of Genghis Khan received a salary, but each of them had the right to part of the booty in the conquered lands and cities.

Naturally, the cavalry was the main arm of the nomadic steppe people. There were no convoys with her. Warriors took with them two leather skins with milk for drinking and an earthenware pot for boiling meat. This made it possible to travel very long distances in a short time. All needs were provided at the expense of the conquered territories.
The weaponry of the Mongols was simple but effective: a powerful, lacquered bow and several quivers of arrows, a spear, a curved saber, and leather armor with metal lining.

The battle formations of the Mongols consisted of three main parts: the right wing, the left wing and the center. During the battle, the army of Genghis Khan easily and very skillfully maneuvered, used ambushes, distracting maneuvers, false retreats with sudden counterattacks. It is characteristic that the Mongol military leaders almost never led troops, but directed the course of the battle, either from a commanding height or through their messengers. This is how command personnel were preserved. During the conquest of Russia by the hordes of Batu, the Mongol-Tatars lost only one Chingizid - Khan Kulkan, while the Russians lost every third of the Ruriks.
Before the start of the battle, scrupulous reconnaissance was carried out. Long before the start of the campaign, the Mongols' envoys, disguised as ordinary merchants, found out the number and location of the enemy garrison, food supplies, and possible ways to approach or retreat from the fortress. All routes of military campaigns were calculated by the Mongol commanders in advance and very carefully. For the convenience of communication, special roads were built with stations (pits), where there were always replaceable horses. All urgent orders and instructions were transmitted by such a "horse relay race" at a speed of up to 600 km per day. Two days before any march forward, backward, on both sides of the proposed path, detachments of 200 people were sent out.
Each new battle brought a new military experience. Especially the conquest of China gave a lot.