Talk:Military of the Mongol Empire/Archive 2

What is the copyright violation? I did not quote the cited article -- it is common knowledge that the army structuring of the Mongol forces were in mandibles of 10; to quote this is not copyright violation! 68.50.125.89 (This was put on the temp page, so I put it here; Algebraist 15:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC))

Hi Algebraist -- I dispute this was a copyright violation -- I know how serious they are, and no one with any decency steals another's scholarship. But when you study the two articles, there is obviously no copyright violation! I worked very hard on my article, and while it agrees in principle with some of the conclusions of the cited copyrighted article, it is not a violation! Most of the similarity centers on the structure of the forces -- and there are not many ways to say that they structured in mandibles of ten, et al! Anyway, I wanted to protest the removal of my legitimate article for a violation that was not one... John

Hi Al! I have created an account, and returned. I hope to convince you there was NO copyright violation in this article. The article you cited as violated was written originally by me -- check the ip address! I worked hard on a summary of Mongol military organization and basic tactics, and the article was genuine, not stolen or plagerized, and I would be grateful if you restored it... Johnny1951 @ j1994r89@hotmail.com


 * The 'violated' article has the explicit copyright notise: This article was derived fully or in part from the article Mongol invasion of Europe on Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. I don't see how copying this article could be a copyvio.   &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;   talk 17:57, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

NO copyright violation
This article is obviously not a copyright violation, as &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;  points out. It may need some sourcing, and I will begin that in the next few days. I intend to remove the tag, unless someone has problems with the article, other than the sourcing issues, once I rectify that problem.old windy bear 23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

blacksmith
blacksmith is nothing to be ashamed of in Mongol society. Iron was considered a sacred substance among the Turks and Mongols. It was associated with heaven. That's why the word iron appears in many names. It was a good luck word.

 Turko-Mongol peoples generally revered the blacksmith and two of their greatest heroes Temujin (Genghis Khan) and Timur both had names derived from the word for "blacksmith." The Ghuz Turks in particular where considered practically a blacksmithing people en masse at one time. Wandalstouring 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

bows used
On |archery in general. The Mongols used composite reflex bows on horseback and |Buryat longbows. Wandalstouring 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! You are absolutely right on all points. They did have two bows, and a variety of different arrows to go with them. Also, yes, a blacksmith was nothing to be ashamed of = but the point was that he was not a noblemen or Khan either, yet his son rose to command sons of Khans, and future Khans - he commanded Mongke Khan in the european campaign, and had 4 princes of the blood, including the future Great Khan, and the future Khan of the Kipchak Horde! It was not meant to deinerate blacksmiths, simply to point out that the Mongols promoted pretty much strictly on merit. And Subutai sure merited promotion! On the bows, do you want me to incorporate that into the article, or would you like to? Thanks, old windy bear 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

inaccurate
Why don't you learn how to write effectively. You've constructed an essay on what is essentially your opinion with very little to back it up, which is further confounded by using modern terms to describe Mongol forces. I suggest you go back to school and learn the sort of objective techniques which are sorely lacking on this site, or at least try and hide them, and while your at take a course on English. Nobody really cares about your opinion on the Mongol army compared to later European ones either, because it's bollocks, and I bet anybody who reads it knows that your trying to imply that a Mongol army would have been some match for the for the armies of Napoleon or Frederick the Great. unsigned from 81.76.78.46


 * So what's stopping you from showing us poor amatures how it's done? I love it when anonymous "Pub scholars", who use such complex terms as "bollocks", come here and complain about how bad the writing is, instead of actually improving things themselves. Which part of free and open, don't you understand? If you hate the article, then help us make it better. Otherwise I politely request you go intercourse yourself. Oh and Welcome to Wikipedia.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care about this website, nor do I care much about the Mongols. All I want to say is that is that your style writing is disgraceful, and it clearly doesn't fit in with the ethos of this website, and I can say that no matter how much I detest this site.  In fact the only reason I'm writing this is so you can see just how idiotic you are, but then again, if your stupid enough to believe everything you read on a website that allows everybody to change the content, you deserve to live in ignorance.  What I do care about is the fact that you presumed, along with most other people, that the Mongols could have overrun Europe based on one defeat.  Of course what you fail to look at is the fact that Europe was a continent of extreme variation.  I'll leave it up to you to figure out the rest of my argument, that way you'll be able to think about it instead instead of just reading and dismissing it.


 * Apparently we've stumbled on some new form of persuasion here where instead of presenting an argument you omit one and insist that it's the job of those who disagree to build it for you. Curious. siafu 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're an idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.78.46 (talk • contribs).


 * Bravo. siafu 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to write an arguement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.85.132 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I am not the unsigned poster earier, but have serious issues with the form and some of the content of this article. Most of the article is very informative, but in minor details it errs annoyingly, and sometimes lacked the objecctive tone required for an encylepedia entry. For example:

"A general such as Subutai, unable to ride a horse in the later part of his career, due to age and obesity, would have been ridiculed out of most any European army of the time. No one would have respected him, let alone obeyed his orders. But the Mongols recognized and respected the still powerful military mind buried within the old fat man, who after all, had been one of the Genghis Khan's most able subbordinates, and so they cheerfully hauled him around in a cart."

This is untrue. While obsesity is mocked almost everywhere in the world, extradorinary ability goes a long way in inspiring respect. William the Conqueror was very fat in his old age and that did not stop him from being the most feared man England. Philip Augustus of France was effeminate, monkish, and physically frail, yet counts as the mightiest kings of Europe at the time.

The prose of the article can see some improvement. For example, "can't" should not be used in formal writing. Some of the passages can see some polishing. Take this one:

"Finally, the Mongols regarded the European fixation with "honor" and glory in battle as absurd. They were concerned with one thing, and one thing only: winning and conquest."

It sounds like a bad history channel voice over.

Another example would be, "In the few cases where armor actually withstood their arrows, the Mongols simply killed the Knight's horses, leaving a heavily armored man afoot, unable to go any distance." "Simply" is an awkard usage. If I have to rewrite this sentance, it would be, "Whereas, when the enemy's armor can withstand their arrors, the Mongols would kill their oppoennts' lighly armored hourses and unhorse him, leaving the heavily armored man easy prey."

The last issue I take to the writers and editors of this article is the incessant comparison of European militaries of the high middle ages to the Mongols. This is unneeded. Mongol's primary enemies were the Chinese Song dynatsy, other nomad khanates in Eurasia, Russians and some Islamic forces. Their contact with the Teutonic knights were short and inconsequential to Mongol history as a whole.

Chin, Cheng-chuan


 * So what exactly keeps you from actually improving the article? I'm sure you have the relevant sources at hand, to back up what you write with reliable references. --Latebird 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The references to European military are primarily because the majority of English speaking readers are better versed in western history, frankly, than Asian, and thus are able to better understand the comparisons. It is not meant as some sort of slur, and certainly you can feel free to add comparisons to the Chinease Song military, the Japanese, et al.  Frankly, the Khanate's primary enemy was probably the Song dynasty in terms of effort expended, so more in that area would be welcome.  But the current comparisons are accurate - you don't deny that, you merely object to their being the primary comparisons made.  You need to take it in context.  This is the english speaking version, so the comparisons are those of western military history.  old windy bear 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Heavy Casualties?
I came across this quote after reading this article:

"At Legnica, the few Teutonic, Templar and Hospitaller knights were able to make a stand dismounted, and inflicted unusually heavy casualties on the Mongols"

It is my personal opinion that the context of "unusually heavy casualties" be clarified. Perhaps, it'd be better to state 'in the case where Knights were able to make a stand, they inflicted heavy casualties against the Mongols in hand-to-hand combat', since there is nothing 'unusual' about it, nor are there any supporting evidence of this claim. The Mongols were fully aware of what their weaknesses were when lacking heavy cavalry support.

The aforementioned quote might imply that it was in Europe where Mongols suffered the most casualties, but that is simply not true. The Mongols had met & fought better armies elsewhere than what their European hosts could offer at the time.

- Tak

merge?
Should this be merged with Military advances of Genghis Khan? It could be either a useful subheading (or two) or a HUGE article as this baby has a lot of expanding potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrsharma (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * support merge - those two articles are entirely redundant. They cover the same topic, just organized a little differently. I don't think that size will be a problem. I'm sure there are quite a few unsourced myths included that we could remove without loss. --Latebird 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to collect the topics covered in a structured manner:


 * Organization
 * Decimal system
 * Breaking Tribal Connections


 * Troops and Weapons
 * Cavalry, see also: Mongolian horse
 * Archery, see also: Mongolian bow
 * Training


 * Strategies
 * Intelligence and Planning
 * Mobility
 * Psychological warfare


 * Battlefield tactics
 * Distance combat
 * Incomplete surrounding
 * Feigned retreat
 * Divide and conquer
 * Hunting down fugitives
 * Marching seperately, attacking together


 * Siege warfare
 * Catapults and machines
 * Kharash (civilians as first row)


 * Logistics
 * Supply, see also: Cuisine of Mongolia
 * Communications (Mongol Shuudan)

Not relevant to the subject:
 * Notable military generals
 * Defeat of the Mongols
 * Areas that Avoided Mongol Conquest

That should help to merge the articles piece by piece. Missing parts can be added where necessary. --Latebird 08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Horse quantity discrepancy
Halfway through the article it says "Each Mongol soldier maintained between 2 and 4 horses." Then at the end it says "To ensure they would always have fresh horses, each trooper had around five spare mounts". Although not vastly inconsistent, they are clearly not the same number. Vicarious (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, it isn't really necessary to make the same statement twice, so we could remove one instance. Second, we won't get any accurate figures, so it may be good enough to just say "several horses". --Latebird (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was able to find a source and updated the info, it still says it twice, but I'm feeling too lazy to fix that. Vicarious (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment about Mongol Leaders
"A general such as Subutai, unable to ride a horse in the later part of his career, due to age and obesity, would have been ridiculed out of most any European army of the time.[citation needed] No one would have respected him, let alone obeyed his orders."

This is pure unreferenced speculation on the writers part. What about Ivar Boneless, for example? This should really be removed unless a reference can be found (which I actually doubt).

-- Wikigeek at gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.106.234 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Training and Discipline
The first sentence of this paragraph is "Most European armies consisted of a few professional men at arms, and knights, and large levies of peasants or militia. Only the Knights and the few professional fighting men trained regularly, and their training emphasized individual combat, such as jousting, rather than group combat tactics." This is both irrelevant and untrue. Maybe someone can rewrite it? Krastain (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it is entirely wrong, but it's at least an oversimplification. A statement like this is relevant as a comparison, but a more specific (and sourced) comparison would of course be better. I don't think I have any suitable material at hand, so someone else will have to try a rewrite. --Latebird (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

71.237.70.49
Your change to the strategy section dated October 3rd isn't strategy, it's tactics where it already appears in the "summary" section. Edit that section instead if you must include those bits. Don't be redundant and use language appropriate for an encyclopedia (ie. stupid is a little too informal). Also try to provide proper citations for your new and old edits as well. I'll be watching. Ace blazer (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to note that a lot of the stuff added onto this page sounds like something out of a textbook. Please don't copy textbooks word for word and take the time to write a good Wikipedia article - as noted above - with proper citations and language. Another tip (hopefully you know how to access the article history page), I've noticed that you make a lot of edits when editing an article. Press the "show preview" button instead to take a look at your changes and then press the "save page" button for the final edit. Ace blazer (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude I didn't copy out of the textbook. trust me on that. there is no textbook involved. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Press the "show preview" button when making your edits please, it makes looking at the edits easier. Ace blazer (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith on my part. I pointed out that your edit was already mentioned.  I would revert your edit again but I'll let you defend the inclusion first.  Take a look at the summary section under the "Battlefield Tactics" header and talk about it.
 * There's no point in mentioning information twice in the same article. Would it be strategy or tactics? If you keep your recent add-on, I'd recommend removing the summary section.  This may seem small but this applies to the article overall as there are redundant sections and a severe lack of citations.


 * WP:BURDEN. Don't be surprised if I start deleting stuff. Ace blazer (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Keshik
Sorry, but keshik is the name of a special guard corps formed by Genhios-khan. By the way, the first defeat came not in 1260 in the battle of Ain-Jalut, but in 1238 under walls of Vladimir in Russia. Алексей03 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all Mongol troops carried scimitars. Swords also were wery popular among them.17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Алексей03 (talk)

citation needed
this citation can be provided by the book "Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world", if someone has it--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No infantry?
I know we have the idea of powerfull rider-warriors, but the existance of infantry in mongolian army seems to have been proved, at the very least in levied 'related peoples' and such, if not native. I means, there can't be horses for everyone, and infantry can be better than cavalry for some stuff perhaps, like sieges...

I know the historicity of things like the movie Mongol, the KOEI Genghis Khan games (and others), some comics like a cult classic BD (whom I sadly forgot the name),etc can be debated, but the fact they ALL present foot soldiers may bring a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.100.110 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Decimal system
Any reason the Decimal system section was removed? Cythraul (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it. I reverted the removal. 74.176.213.104 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First modern military system
"In many ways, it can be regarded as the first "modern" military system." Yeah, by whom? 69.158.139.14 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this sentence does seem a little vague, perhaps change it?  Uhlan  talk  03:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. I removed the sentence as it is not supported by any source in the article body. --Muhandes (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Improving this article
I think this article could be improved from this Армия Монгольской империи.--Кардам (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC) that is not right so some need to fix it. it not i the books no more it is in the old people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.226.236.156 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

First Mongol Military Defeat
The Battle of Parwan occurred two years before the Battle of Samara Bend. Should that not be listed as the Mongols first military defeat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.180.230 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody is sure exactly what happened at Samara Bend - the entire historical record consists of a couple of sentences written by an Arab over a thousand miles away from the event. 104.169.28.113 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongol military tactics and organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010334/http://www.westholmepublishing.com/mongolartofwar.html to http://www.westholmepublishing.com/mongolartofwar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)