Why were the Mongols so succesful in war?

[arnewise12]

Why were the Mongols succesful in war against its neighbour and other factions, I mean since 1000 bc there have been using the same tactics as mongols, all the way from cimmarians , scythinas to parthians and seljuks and other steppe nations.

[snafu]

A lot of it was just being in the right place at the right time. Most of their civilized neighbors were large, but dis-unified. China especially. If Temujin had come to power during a dynasty that took a more "hands-on" approach to Mongolia (like the Tang or even the Liao) he probably never would've gotten half as far as he did. He benefited from the Chin empire's hands-off approach to the nomads, where they just bribed certain tribes to police the others. The Liao built forts and colonies deep in Mongolia. They made their presence known. But the Chin wanted no part of that, and I think that played a large part in Temujin's rise to power.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Yes, the only real reason why the Mongols were successful was because their enemies were very dis-united, while Činggis Qan's union was strongly-held.

[keaganjoelbrewer]

Also, the armies they fought were usually not accustomed to fighting against the tactics the Mongols used.

And Mongol soldiers were all extremely well-trained compared to the Muslims. It was a warrior culture; learning to shoot arrows, ride horses and wield swords was a major part of the upbringing of every Mongol child.

[Subu'atai]

Other steppe people used the same tactics as Mongols sure, however Chingghis Khaan himself was a revolutionary strategist by implementing meritocracy into the armed forces rather then previous tribal military structures. Mongol forces were pretty much "Legions on-horseback" despite the lack of resources or numbers.

Mongols were drilled, highly-trained and disciplined, and another important reason for Mongol success are the quality of the generals as well as the discipline due to the meritocratic structure compared with other feudal or tribal armies.

[abdulhay]

Also, the armies they fought were usually not accustomed to fighting against the tactics the Mongols used.

And Mongol soldiers were all extremely well-trained compared to the Muslims. It was a warrior culture; learning to shoot arrows, ride horses and wield swords was a major part of the upbringing of every Mongol child.

what are u talking about, the Xiong nu raided china several times since Modu Chanyu time. So chinese were used to steppe warfare


How can mongols be more well trained than the turkic muslim states they faced, turks are also a warrior nation like mongols so there is no difference,

Other steppe people used the same tactics as Mongols sure, however Chingghis Khaan himself was a revolutionary strategist by implementing meritocracy into the armed forces rather then previous tribal military structures. Mongol forces were pretty much "Legions on-horseback" despite the lack of resources or numbers.

Mongols were drilled, highly-trained and disciplined, and another important reason for Mongol success are the quality of the generals as well as the discipline due to the meritocratic structure compared with other feudal or tribal armies.

The system u mention was also used by gökturks but not with same great succes,

[kenmirzz]

what are u talking about, the Xiong nu raided china several times since Modu Chanyu time. So chinese were used to steppe warfare


How can mongols be more well trained than the turkic muslim states they faced, turks are also a warrior nation like mongols so there is no difference,

Mr Abdulhay, I think he was referring to the Turkic cities such as Khawarizmi, Samarkhand, etc, that were raided by Chinggis Khaan's mighty army at that time. These Turkic Muslims states were not nomadic by nature and the sedentary culture had permeated their way of life as a result of Persian influence.

Of course the nomadic Turkic tribes that united under the banner of Chinggis Khaan were similar with the Mongols in terms of warrior spirits and bravery.

[sarmat]

This is an interesting question.

But my opinion is that the Mongols were indeed much tougher than their enemies during that time. Sometimes it can't just measured in numbers and way of life. Yes, Mongols where much tougher than their Turkic neighbors although the latter also maintained the similar way of life. But it where Mongols who were chasing Kipchaks all the way to Europe not vice versa.

How can it be explained ? It's actually a common historical phenomenon. Caesar writes about it in his "Gaullic wars" where he compares Celts with Germanic tribes. He writes that in the ancient time Celts were more fearsome and warlike than Germans they attacked and waged the war on them. But in time, Celts where influenced by neighboring more "civilized" neighbors that prefered comfort to warlike spirit and barbarism. So, in time Celts became weak, but Germans kept their original "barbaric" simple way of life. And in time they became so much stronger than Celts that there was no even a point in comparing military prowess of these two peoples.

Mongols compare to their other Western nomadic neighbors were more tough. They left under much harsher conditions where not that much accustomed to the contacts with "civilized" settled neighbors and also were much more disciplined, unitied and fearsome than the Turkic tribes of that time. That's why they were victorious. Russian historian Gumilev, called this barbaric, aggressive energy "passionary force." Mongols had a much larger passionary force in themselves than most of the enemies they encountered. Their psychological superiority was ovewhelming and contemporary historians often described the supernatural fear that Mongols triggered in the armies and people facing them.

And it's not only can be applied to Mongols who where able to defeat much larger and stronger (statistically) armies. Why for example could barbaric Kara-Khitan defeat the might army of Seljuks of Sultan Sanjar? Why a tiny (relatively) Manchu force could conquer China, etc.? All because of this "passionary force," call it toughness, barbarism, aggressiveness etc. but it exists.

[abdulhay]

And it's not only can be applied to Mongols who where able to defeat much larger and stronger (statistically) armies. Why for example could barbaric Kara-Khitan defeat the might army of Seljuks of Sultan Sanjar? Why a tiny (relatively) Manchu force could conquer China, etc.? All because of this "passionary force," call it toughness, barbarism, aggressiveness etc. but it exists.

I dont agree, the reason why sultan sanjan was defeat was because his non military upbringing unlike tughrul beg and sultan alp arslan, also he lacked the military expericence the previous sultans of seljuks possesed,

Another reason is that not a compatent leader like tughrul beg and alp arslan

But my opinion is that the Mongols were indeed much tougher than their enemies during that time. Sometimes it can't just measured in numbers and way of life. Yes, Mongols where much tougher than their Turkic neighbors although the latter also maintained the similar way of life. But it where Mongols who were chasing Kipchaks all the way to Europe not vice versa.

How can it be explained ? It's actually a common historical phenomenon. Caesar writes about it in his "Gaullic wars" where he compares Celts with Germanic tribes. He writes that in the ancient time Celts were more fearsome and warlike than Germans they attacked and waged the war on them. But in time, Celts where influenced by neighboring more "civilized" neighbors that prefered comfort to warlike spirit and barbarism. So, in time Celts became weak, but Germans kept their original "barbaric" simple way of life. And in time they became so much stronger than Celts that there was no even a point in comparing military prowess of these two peoples.

Mongols compare to their other Western nomadic neighbors were more tough. They left under much harsher conditions where not that much accustomed to the contacts with "civilized" settled neighbors and also were much more disciplined, unitied and fearsome than the Turkic tribes of that time. That's why they were victorious. Russian historian Gumilev, called this barbaric, aggressive energy "passionary force." Mongols had a much larger passionary force in themselves than most of the enemies they encountered. Their psychological superiority was ovewhelming and contemporary historians often described the supernatural fear that Mongols triggered in the armies and people facing them.

Maybe thats a small reason but not the main, for example in battle its not about being tough , its about being smart and cunning, who has the best tactics and strategy not how tough u are,


if it were tough and mucsle power that determined a battle outcome than mongols woulndt have won any at all

it was becasue they had better tactics and the right momentum like said before that the enemies they faced was either split or in civil war like in central asia and middle east were different factions of post-seljukid kingdoms fought each other

[sarmat]

My point was exactly that muscle and power can't decide the fate of the battle. Mongols faced the enemy much surpassing their own forces many times. Especially, in China, yet they won.

And it can't be that every enemy they faced was just split and they always had the right momentum.

Being tough is the reason for winning, may be not always but to a considerable extent, and as I said already, Caesar wrote about that.

And what about the tactics. All the Mongold tactics was a typical Nomadic tactics, nothing very special in that regard. Many of their enemies were very familiar with this tactics, yet they lost.

[kenmirzz]

if it were tough and mucsle power that determined a battle outcome than mongols woulndt have won any at all

Mr Abdulhay, the Mongols were not weak for your information. They formed one of the largest Empire in history, thus, weakness can never be part of such achievement.

Some people just want to downplay the Mongol's part in this area by dismissing them as pure ruthless barbarian which was a false approach. They defeated 3 Chinese empires to the south, one Russian empire to the Northwest, and also the Islamic Empires to the West of them. In most of the battles, their numbers were much lesser as compared to the opposite forces that confronted them.

it was becasue they had better tactics and the right momentum like said before that the enemies they faced was either split or in civil war like in central asia and middle east were different factions of post-seljukid kingdoms fought each other

Some communists in China applied the above excuses to underestimate the Mongol's might and strength because until now they are bewildered why such insignificant tribes that roamed the Steppe of Mongolia can derive such magnitude of prowess. Well, I don't know for sure. But I am sure that there is no divine intervention whatsoever.

[abdulhay]

Some communists in China applied the above excuses to underestimate the Mongol's might and strength because until now they are bewildered why such insignificant tribes that roamed the Steppe of Mongolia can derive such magnitude of prowess. Well, I don't know for sure. But I am sure that there is no divine intervention whatsoever.

I am not underestimateing the mongols , djingis Khan was a excellent commmander but there has not been such victories in history as the mongols did , also mongols existed before the mongol ulus therefore they should have conquered the same area before but why didnt they?

Also I dont agree with those communist u were refing to on historical view because they interprated those after thier own propaganda.

Mr Abdulhay, the Mongols were not weak for your information. They formed one of the largest Empire in history, thus, weakness can never be part of such achievement.

Some people just want to downplay the Mongol's part in this area by dismissing them as pure ruthless barbarian which was a false approach. They defeated 3 Chinese empires to the south, one Russian empire to the Northwest, and also the Islamic Empires to the West of them. In most of the battles, their numbers were much lesser as compared to the opposite forces that confronted them.

I didnt say mongols were weak , its just that they along with other steppe nations didnt last their empire longer than 100-200 years in time for example allmost all turkic empires from karakhanids , seljuks, safavids , afsharids, qajars, gökturk, except the ottomans since they used devirshme system of slaveboys instead of only freemen.

The reason is becasue every turkic and mongolic or steppe people tend to be independent by nature and dont want to be under central authorities, thats the reason why there have been so many turkic empires in early middle ages and late middle ages, except than they got settle like the ottomans and some uzbek kingdoms.

I read that the reason second Gökturk empire was destroyed or vanished from maps is becasue the subjected people rebelled due to the higher taxes that a empror made to tackle of the threats from china and arabs,

I think u got my point.

The mughals used similar tactics to ottomans by being settled and having a sedetanry life style in contrast to their forefathers, and also they used to have many different factions and people to govern their regions so that no one gained in power.

[kenmirzz]

I am not underestimateing the mongols , djingis Khan was a excellent commmander but there has not been such victories in history as the mongols did , also mongols existed before the mongol ulus therefore they should have conquered the same area before but why didnt they?

Also I dont agree with those communist u were refing to on historical view because they interprated those after thier own propaganda.

You can apply the same analogy to other empire as well. They started from an insignificant clan and rise to power and authority, read the history of Qin Empire. This somehow "barbaric" kingdom as labeled by other neighboring small empires surrounding it managed to conquer the whole Central Plain and unite the Huaxia people into a big nation.

You can consider Chinggis Khaan being born and raised and make fortunate decision in his life, adding his quality of leadership that pushed him up the ladder of authority. He was there at the right moment, at the right time and at the right minute.

The reason is becasue every turkic and mongolic or steppe people tend to be independent by nature and dont want to be under central authorities, thats the reason why there have been so many turkic empires in early middle ages and late middle ages, except than they got settle like the ottomans and some uzbek kingdoms.

Perhaps your assessment is right and true.

[Subu'atai]

Jan 14, 2010 19:34:00 GMT 3 sarmat said:

All because of this "passionary force," call it toughness, barbarism, aggressiveness etc. but it exists.

Dunno if this is relevant, but I agree with 'passionary force'.

Reminds me bratan, of what a friend said to me recently actually. I told him that I don't believe in Karma. Since I believe that I do not deserve what I have now, a strong financial base, a loving wife and 6 month old baby girl. I told him "Karma dictates that I should be dead, but I'm not, therefore Karma doesn't exist". He just told me...

"You're just a bad a-- m----- f---- that's why"

Passionary force? That itself can be defined as simply as willpower.

[sarmat]

I can give a few examples of "passionary force" or "psychological toughness," etc. from Mongol campaign demonstrated by Mongols enemies. For example, we all know how different was approach to the fighting Mongols between Jelal-ad-Din and Kwarezm Shakh. Kwarezm Shakh in the end escaped to the island in the Caspian Sea because he was so terrified, where he died in vain without scoring any victories of Mongols. Jelal-ad-Din, however, was an extremely tough and stubborn warrior, Chenghiz khan once said about him that "the generation of such brave Muslims will cut down my descendtants." Jelal-ad-Din never gave up until his death and was able to defeat Mongols several times.

During the campaign in Russia, Mongols were taking large fortiefied Russian cities (like Vladimir or Kiev) in several days without showing much exhaustion. Only one very small town, called Kozelsk with small wooden walls that didn't have any chances to oppose the Mongols from the start was fighting 7 weeks (!) until all the inhabitants of the town were dead. Mongols suffered very high casualties and were extremely angry and surprised with that stubborn resistance, so they called Kozelsk "evil town."

In the end of the Mongol campaign against Western Kipchaks (Polovitsians) all the Kipchaks subdued to the Mongol rule and pledged allegeance to Batu-khan. There was only one Kipchak batyr, called Boshpan that never gave up. For several years, he and few his followers were terrifying Mongol encampent in Kipchak steppe. Several times they even attacked the camp of Batu himself. In the end, however, they were defeated and Boshpan was killed after refusing to knee before the khan. He said "I'm not a camel to knee before you" and was immidiately killed.

Unfortunately, most of the Mongols enemies displayed "camel attitude" in from of the Mongols who could be compared with wolfes. Most of the Mongol opponents were not fighting to the end and were not ready to go to the extreme sacrifice. By contrary there are even reports when large cities with the population over a million complied with all the Mongols demands and without any fighting allowed Mongols to take all the women and children and kill all the males. There are also those reports about the horror and superiority that Mongols created in many chronicles.

Those are some examples of the "passionary force" Mongols had plenty of it, and, unfortunately, only a few of their enemies also had it.