Both Smith and Amitai-Preiss agree on one major component of the battle at Ayn Jalut: its location. Each author uses primary sources and an understanding of the terrain to place the battle at the north-west extension of Mt. Gilboa. Smith discusses his placement with very little reference to the sources while Amitai-Preiss places his interpretation in a broader discussion about the reliability of Sarim al Din Ozbeg as a source while drawing from information about the land to support his assumptions.
While both authors also analyze the primary sources for the battle in order to determine the size of the Mongol and Mamluk armies they do end up with different results. Smith’s analysis brings him to the conclusion that the Mongols held the advantage over the Mamluks. His conclusion is based on the Mongol tumen and additional forces in comparison to the number of men in the Mamluk army cited by D’ohsson. Amitai-Preiss concludes that the armies were similar in size, with a Mamluk advantage, based
…show more content…
Smith focuses on the training that would have been received by both the Mamluks and the Mongols, as well as the types of men who fought in their armies. For example, the Mamluks chose slave recruits for their physical capabilities and proceeded to provide military training in archery. Smith describes the Mongols as excellent amateurs when compared to the Mamluk archers.
Another focus in Smith’s analysis is about the logistical difficulties the Mongols faced during their campaigns outside of the steppes. Their logistic difficulties were primarily caused by the number of horses in their army. By calculating the amount of water and grazing land needed for the horses, as well as supplies for the men, Smith is able to demonstrate that maintaining a large Mongol force in this region is difficult. For Smith, the Mamluk success at Ayn Jalut was caused by both the Mamluk’s training and the Mongol’s inability to overcome with horse power
the Accuracy of the Chronicle of Al-Jabarti." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. No. 2 (1970): 283-294. http://www.jstor.org/stable/613005 (accessed November 30, 2013).
To start, the mongols were able to used brutal and strategic military tactics that helped them conquer more than 4,800,000 miles of land. The Mongols leader “Genghis Khan” was a very smart and strategic leader. He organized his army into groups of ten, hundred, and one thousand. If such groups runs away or flees, the entire group was put to death. Genghis Khans army was able to succeed in conquering land due to horses. His army
The Mongols, or as the Western Europeans called them, the Tartars, were a nomadic, militant people that dominated the battlefield during the pre-industrial time period (“Tartars” 7). Over the span of the 13th century, from the Central Asian steppes in the east to the Arabian lands to the west, the Tartars subdued the unfortunate inhabitants and expanded their empire vastly. To the fear and dismay of the Western Europeans, the Tartars desired to triumph over all of Eurasia; therefore, the Western Europeans were to be conquered next. News of the imminent Tartarian attack rapidly spread through West Europe like a wildfire, and the powerful Holy Roman Church contended to prepare a strategy against the onslaught. In the year 1245, Pope Innocent IV, the head of the Church at the time, sent a group of Friars led by Giovanni da Pian del Carpini to gather some knowledge about the Tartars. It was a dreaded mission, one that would probably end in a terrible death, since the Tartars were a cruel people towards outsiders. Nevertheless, Carpini valiantly ventured into the unknown darkness, and returned to his homeland with valuable information about the Tartars. Through the insight he gained during his travels, he wrote his account of the Tartars in a report called the “Historia Mongalorum” (“Tartars” 19), which is known today as “The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars”.
The Mongol and the Mali Empires differ in their rise with the use of certain methods towards conquering. Geographic locations play an enormous role in the rise of both these magnificent empires. In the Mali empire, Islam was prevalent unlike the Mongol Empire where everyone was allowed to practice their own religion. Another difference would be the methods by which they arose. Although warfare existed within the Mali empire, Mali arose by peaceful methods. However, the Mongol empire attacked states which were already established. If people ...
...ents. They were highly mobile people, capable of picking up and leaving with their belongings. They prized their livestock on the steppes, as seen by their food customs involving mostly of animal products, and their priorities in the horses (the drink is offered to the nature spirits in the four directions and the horse before being consumed by the man) and the bravery of warriors. On horseback, using technologies such as their saddles and stirrups, they could ride for days bandaged to the saddle, living off their dried meat and drinking horse blood. These traits of their lifestyle made them the ultimate warriors, combined with their highly terrorizing war tactics. These methods, however, were no match later when sedentary societies got the technologies of gunpowder and nomads were no longer threats.
editors, Spark notes. Spark notes on alas babylon. 31 october 2013. 6 november 2013 .
When the word “Mongol” is said I automatically think negative thoughts about uncultured, barbaric people who are horribly cruel and violent. That is only because I have only heard the word used to describe such a person. I have never really registered any initial information I have been taught about the subject pass the point of needing and having to know it. I felt quite incompetent on the subject and once I was given an assignment on the book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern Age, I was very perplexed for two reasons. One I have to read an outside book for a class that already requires a substantial amount of time reading the text, and secondly I have to write a research paper in History. I got over it and read the book, which surprisingly enough interested me a great deal and allow me to see the Moguls for more than just a barbaric group of Neanderthals, but rather a group of purpose driven warriors with a common goal of unity and progression. Jack Weatherford’s work has given me insight on and swayed my opinion of the Mongols.
Gabriel, Richard A. "What we learned ... from the battle of Salamis." Military History Oct.-Nov. 2009: 16. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.
The military exploits of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan as well as other leaders and the ruthless brutality that characterized the Mongol conquests have survived in legend. The impact of the invasions can be traced through history from the different policies set forth to the contributions the Mongols gave the world. The idea of the ruthless barbarian’s intent upon world domination will always be a way to signify the Mongols. Living steadfast upon the barren steppe they rode out of Mongolia to pursue a better life for their people.
The Mongol group lead by Genghis Khan had a reputation for their barbaric behaviors and actions, but their advancements of bows, treatment of horses and respect for their group proves that the Mongols are not always the barbaric type that they were known for. The Mongols used their development of a composite bow to give themselves and better chance when fighting against a foot soldier. This bow gave them an accurate 350 yard shot helping attack from a far distance away. This showed their fighting soldiers that they are trying to figure out a way to keep them safer so they don't have to risk their lives to attack another group.The Mongols also had high respect for their horses, which turned out to be one of the most helpful strategies in battle.
Lanning, M. L. (2005). The History Place - Top Ten Battles of All Time. Retrieved from http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/topten/
... were positive, one may argue that these individuals only saw the tolerant and fair-minded side of the Mongols, and not the relentless warrior part of the society who was known for its “dirty” tactics of war, which went as far as launching diseased-ridden corpses over the walls of castles during sieges. Alternatively, one may argue that the scholars who provided negative documentation of the Mongols only saw the destructive side, not the open-minded side of the society who were known for their cultural acceptance. Although these accounts allowed for an adequate idea of the nature of the Mongols, a record from a peasant who was not a member of the upper class in their society, as all reports presented were from historians, scholars, and political leaders. This would allow for a different perspective on the issue and would produce a better understanding of the topic.
The Mongols were a tough, strong, and a fierce Asian group of people. Their reign
Ariq Boke normally can be viewed as a controversial figure in Mongol history. Often times he is portrayed negatively through the primary sources of his era, especially those of Rashid Al-Din. However, despite his controversial background, Ariq Boke was an important figure in the Mongol empire because he represented the conflicting internal conflicts of the Mongol imperium, as well as demonstrated the turbulence of the time. The war between Ariq Boke and his older brother Khubulai, is normally viewed as a struggle for succession, as well as the physical confrontation between nomadic and settled life. Thus, Ariq Boke’s life in the Mongol Empire, not only demonstrated the poor succession procedures because he held greater credibility as a candidate
The first part gives a record of the historical legend of the Mongols as obtained from pre-medieval oral traditions, legends, myths, historic events nad stories. This part starts by narrating the legend that a bluish wolf was the Mongolians forefather and this wolf was born destined from the heavens. Mor...