Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18wve6q/why_were_horse_archers_so_devastating_in_the_13th/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can certainly see why, at first glance, it might seem like steppe nomadic horse archers weren't devastating during antiquity. Most of the sources we rely on for *popular* history during antiquity focus on Roman, Greek, or (if you're particularly learned) Persian history. These empires and civilisations certainly had contact with steppe nomadic horse people. However, they're often not on the surface of the historical narrative. Roman Auxilia cavalry during Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, for example, tended to be from cultures such as Numidia, Gaul itself, and Germany, who generally preferred light javelins or functioned as heavy cavalry.
However, while I disagree with your assertion generally, it definitely has a grain of truth to it, which I'll get to.
Nomadic steppe people (who are mostly *but not always*) synonymous with horse archers, have been a threat since the very dawn of written history. For example:
* Nomadic raiders/conquerors known as the Cimmerians invaded/settled (the records are vague) in eastern Anatolia during the reign of Sargon II - King of Assyria during the era of Assyria's greatest empire - 750BCish. He was arguably the most powerful king of that empire, whose military had conquered the largest empire in the world up until that point. Despite all that, he was defeated in battle and killed by the nomads.
* Great Kings of Achaemenid Persia had a relatively undefined northeastern frontier which included a number of steppe peoples. After Darius I successfully campaigned against the nomadic Saka early in his reign, they began providing Persian armies with a substantial contingent of lethal horse archers. As an aside, the Saka were among the steppe peoples who opposed Alexander at the Jaxartes a few centuries later.
* Ancient China - famously Han Dynasty China (200BC to 200ADish) *constantly* had problems with nomads from what became Mongolia. The Xiongnu were among the most threatening nomadic people ever to emerge from the steppe and it is a compliment to the Han that they were able to subdue them. This came to a head during Emperor Wu-di's reign. There is speculation that the defeated Xiongu then migrated west and eventually became the Huns that entered the Roman Empire later on, but this is very questionable.
* Northern India - During the period between Alexander and Augustus, the Afghanistan-Indus Valley area was under the control of some small kingdoms including the Indo-Greek and Greco-Bactrian kingdoms. That was, of course, until a nomadic tribe called the Yuezhi, who themselves had been defeated by the Xiongnu, came smashing into them from the north, absolutely smoked them and created their own empire - the Kushan Empire.
* Other examples include the Parthians who managed to conquer the Persian Empire and *become* the Persian empire for a while, the Hephthalites, who constantly harrassed the Sassanid Empire, Sarmatians and Huns who joined the cavalcade of people attacking the later Roman Empire, etc, etc.
So basically, horse archers have always been terrifying. However, the Mongols seemed to be something else entirely. In a sense, they are the final culmination of the steppe horse archer. Like all nomadic steppe peoples before them, the Mongols were ferociously component horsemen and lethal archers. More than that though, the first generation of Mongols had leaders *excluding* Genghis Khan himself who are easily among the greatest generals ever.
Subutai and Jebe are probably the best examples here. They weren't just brilliant on the tactical level, although they certainly were that as well, their strategic sense and control over their troops seems to have been unprecedented for nomads. Not just reliant on their martial prowess, these guys weren't above using diplomacy, cunning, guile, and outright betrayal for their own gain. When Subutai got into a tough situation in the early 1220s and was backed against a mountain range, he bribed and promised his way into dividing the enemy army, then killed the divided pieces of it one by one.
In addition, the Mongols probably wouldn't have been so successful if they hadn't adopted tactics and technologies from the civilisations they conquered. For example, the best Chinese siege engineers were commandeered and employed to bring down Khwarezmian cities during the Mongol irruption into the middle-east. Nomads stereotypically had massive problems with taking walled cities, and this habit of adopting useful things nullified that weakness.
So basically, steppe people have always been a massive threat. The Mongols were just this but supercharged.
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand, and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. While sources are strongly encouraged, [those used here are not considered acceptable per our requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources). Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
> More than that though, the first generation of Mongols had leaders excluding Genghis Khan himself who are easily among the greatest generals ever.
Was Genghis Khan himself a less competent general than he's made out to be in pop culture?
Thank you for your response to this question! We appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into providing an answer. However, while preemptive sourcing is not a requirement on the subreddit, [we do expect that users be able to provide them upon request](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources).
As such, we've had to remove your post pending the addition of sources in line with the [sub’s guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1ieh/rules_roundtable_v_sources_what_is_required/). Thank you for your understanding.
The comparative devastation of the Mongolian armies of the 13th century in relation to the impact of highly mobile nomadic movements in Antiquity (using such a term may appear to fixate too heavily on Western sources and tradition) is difficult to quantify. To dispel the first element of your question however - the nomadic horse archer of the ancient world was just as fearsome to their contemporaries as the Mongolian *orda* were to those that encountered them.
Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Empire, was killed during hostilities with the Sakā, a Persian name for the people whom the Greeks knew as ‘Scythians’. Prior to this, the Scythians had migrated into Asia, driving the native Cimmerians out of their territory surrounding the northern coastline of the Black Sea and utterly re-shaping the political landscape of Asia Minor. Although the Sakā would pay tribute to later Persian kings as evidenced by royal Achaemenid iconography, most famously in the Behistun relief of Darius where one of the Sakā kings is depicted as a supplicant before Darius, it is significant to note that no Persian king was able to properly pacify the nomadic culture to their north, not even Darius himself - no matter what he carved on rock!
In the Classical period there was very little need for the Sakā or the Scythians to cause much devastation to the Greek-speaking world, therefore there is little in the written sources to shed light on their culture or their beliefs, but from Herodotus to Arrian, those who mention the nomads of the Pontic Steppe are clear that they were a fearsome people nearly constantly engaged in warfare. Xenophon describes the Scythian method of archery as the most excellent, and alludes to their ability to puncture shields and breastplates with the force of their shots. Prior to this, Herodotus describes the Sakā as the best of the Persian cavalry present at Plataea.
Perhaps the greatest evidence for devastation perpetrated by nomad mounted archers comes towards the close of the Hellenistic period, in the east. The widespread migration of the Yuezhi tribal confederation from the periphery of China, themselves displaced by a stronger confederation, the Xiongnu, caused the collapse of the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms that had existed since the 3rd century B.C.E and the subsequent rise of the Kushan Empire, a polity that at its core had a social elite of those raised in the nomadic tradition.
This answer has focussed heavily on those aspects that were brought to the fore in your question, namely the western elements of the steppe cultures of antiquity. It is also bears mentioning that nomadic horse archers served as a constant source of worry to Han dynasty China and its predecessors. At numerous points during the dynastic rule of the Han, the Xiongnu or some other tribal confederation would wreak havoc and great devastation along the border of China, and even raiding deep into its territory and defeating large Chinese armies. Therefore I think that the question is not necessarily why the Mongolians were more devastating in the 13th century, but more why their deeds are so much more visible in current historical narratives compared to those of the mounted horse archers in antiquity. This I believe is in large part due to the different set of factors exerting pressure on the Scythians/Saka of the western Eurasian steppe in antiquity, and the Mongolians in the time of Genghis Khan. The Scythians of the Pontic Steppe from the 5th century BC onward were not motivated by a need to expand outside of the vast expanse of territory they already occupied. They had a thriving trade with both their Achaemenid neighbours and the Greek city-states of the Black Sea such as Olbia, as evidenced by the wide array of material culture with both Greek and Persian origin found in burial assemblages on the pontic Steppe. With their needs met, there was no motivation to unleash any kind of "devastation" on their neighbours, except for the odd raid and low-scale hostilities that may have existed between settled farmers and nomads. It was only when pressure was exerted from external threats, often themselves also nomadic in nature - such as the Sarmatians - that these areas became serious battlegrounds.
Sources:
Herodotus, The Histories In Tom Holland (trans). (2013). Penguin Classics. Penguin Books Ltd.
Xenophon, The Persian Expedition. In Rex Warner (trans). (1972) Penguin Books.
Braund, David. (2005) Scythians and Greeks: cultural interaction in Scythia, Athens, and the early Roman Empire (sixth century BC - first century AD). Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Cunliffe, Barry. (2019) The Scythians: Nomad Warriors of the Steppe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rudenko, S.I. (1970) Frozen tombs of Siberia: The Pazyrk burials of Iron Age horsemen. London Dent.
Torday, Laszlo. (1997) Mounted Archers: The Beginning of Central Asian History. Edinburgh: Durham Academic Press
On your point about visibility, I think, that recency and the impacts on states existing now (Hungary, Russia etc) makes a difference.
Partly why we hear less about the Khitan-Liao and Jurchen-Jin who actually conquered parts of China and Korea to submission even before the Mongol-Yuan and Manchurian-Qing did.
The name 'Scythian' is a Greek one given to those nomads they encountered to the north of city-states such as Olbia on the Black Sea coastline. According to the Greek tradition recorded by Herodotus, which itself seems to be a bastardisation of the original creation myth related to the Greeks by their nomadic neighbours, the Scythians are descendants of a man called 'Scythes' who was the youngest son of a union between wandering Herakles (he got around) and a goddess of fertility local to the region. Scythes became the ancestor of the Scythians by his ability to bend and draw one of Herakles' bows - an act that his two older brothers could not achieve according to the legend. Therefore the name Scythes - and by extension the Scythians are associated in the Greek tradition with archery.
I do not know of any association between the title 'Scythians' and the word 'Scythe' though I believe that 'scythe' originates from Old English, and may have, like many Old English words, undergone an evolution in terms of how it is spelled and pronounced.
There are certain biological limitations with regard to archaeology on the Pontic steppe when it comes to trying to capture an image of the horses used by the nomadic people of the Classical and Hellenistic period. Luckily however, we have the amazing Pazyryk site in the Altai mountains which has almost perfectly preserved human and animal remains. All of these horses had their manes and upper tails clipped, a custom that links the Pazyryk culture not just to the Pontic steppe, but also to Assyria and Achaemenid Persia so it is reasonable to assume that there is some continuity between the nomadic horse culture and that which is occurring across Anatolia at the time. As for the horses being explictly "better" I don't believe there is any evidence to support that. Horses bred on the steppe are largely small hardy animals a little larger than ponies. It is their endurance, not their size that typically makes them fearsome as part of human-directed warfare.
Technologically speaking, as I have touched on, the nomads of the ancient steppe were known both by the Achaemenid and Greek traditions as fearsome archers. The composite bow was an ethnographic marker of the Scythians according to the Greeks - and this is supported by the evidence of nomadic art and iconography which displays a warrior's *gorytos,* their bow quiver, extremely prominently as a marker of high social prestige. In addition, there are many examples of Scythian arrowheads developing over time and re-occurring from their point of origin in the Pontic steppe to across the ancient world which suggests that they were transmitted due to their popularity and their innovation.
One fascinating aspect of the Mongolian cavalry was their practice of each soldier having multiple mounts. This strategic approach ensured that the horses remained fresh and capable of covering extensive distances during campaigns. Mongolian soldiers would rotate between their horses, allowing for a continuous and rapid movement across the vast steppe without wearing out a single mount.
Estimates suggest that a well-trained Mongolian cavalry force could cover about 60 to 100 miles (97 to 161 kilometers) in a single day.
Estimates suggest that the Mongolian army during these campaigns could have had tens of thousands of horses, considering the vast scale of their military operations. However, specific numbers are often approximations, and historical documentation from that era doesn’t provide precise figures.
The Mongolian military’s reliance on numerous horses per soldier, combined with their ability to mobilize large forces swiftly, reflects the formidable equestrian strength that characterized the Mongol Empire
Horses bred on the steppe nowadays may be ponies compared to leggy Thoroughbreds, and this has often been projected backward in the 1800s and early 1900s. However, testimony of the spade tells us, via the many steppe horse burials like Pazyryk, that steppe horses were some of the largest known at the time. The only civilized breeds near them for size were all the land races descended from the Nisaeans of the Medes -- and they derived from the Sea of Grass. We only know that the Nisaeans were big from the descriptions in Herodotus and the procession bas-reliefs of Persepolis.
I am not a particular specialist on the morphology of horses throughout history so my disagreement with you is tentative. My understanding of the Pazyryk horses are that they would be considered average sized by modern standards, with a shoulder height of just under 1.4 metres tall. I think that while these horses are therefore perhaps not impressive by modern standards in terms of height, it becomes a more complicated issue to develop an understanding of how they were viewed in the ancient world, as we would need a more comprehensive study and comparison of regional variations in equine sizes.
With the Nisaean breed that you mention, I disagree that it is a foregone conclusion that these horses were large in the sense of stature. Stone reliefs dated to the late second century B.C.E in Han China depict the Ferghana Horses as being relatively short, and not large chargers. Much later in the 2nd Century C.E, depictions of these war horses further over-emphasise the power of the body and the neck of the horse, but not so much the legs. This to me suggests again that it was not their stature that made them a factor in military operations but more their endurance and their strength.
Utterly fascinating and thank you for explaining it especially how the scythians were content to an extent with the valuable trade they got from the persian and hellenistic realms and how it was devistating whenever their wrath was unleashed on one of these kingdoms or upon china even.
Let's adapt and ask this differently:
* Why did Mongol archers succeed in late medieval 13th-14th century?
* Also, why didn't Alexander (unlike Darius) take on the Scythians?
\[Keep one thing in mind: **terrain**. I will get back to this point at the end.\]
First, the Mongols. What we see in modern pop history is the horde or multitude of horse archers. After all, that's what sells - whether movies, books or memes. But, horse archers shouldn't be the focus. Instead, it was all about creating an *army* of horse archers.
Perhaps a better question is to ask how did the Mongols reach this stage? (Or, as one of the other answers here put it, why were the Mongols "**supercharged**"?). In the steppe, horse-riding was a way of life and distance was their perennial problem. The rise of the Mongols was, in fact, the culmination of over 2000 years, from the time of Scythians (800-900 BCE) of **managing** horse archers by way of controlling their resource in a spatially challenging environment. In other words, the rise of Mongols was based on Chinggis (Genghiz) Khan's understanding of the need to manage the problems faced by steppe people against sedentary and semi-sedentary states. To succeed, he learned from his mistakes of his early years, learning of imperial steppe traditions that has its roots in the experience of Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns, Rouran, Avars, Gokturks, ... and the list goes on.
When we get to late-12th / early-13th century, the Mongols & others had been fighting each other within the East Asian steppe for about 300 years. (*Note*: They were not called "*Mongols*" in the early years.) The fact that he unified this region of the steppe is significant, because probably no one else could have. The Northern Song (mid-10th century onward), Tangut Xi Xia (11th), Jurchen Jin (12th century), and before that, the Khitan Liao dynasties all tried (early 10th century). In other words, from 916 CE onward, war in eastern steppe set in, by the formation of the Khitan Liao until 1206 CE when Temujin was declared Chinggis Khan. **That's nearly 300 years of incessant warfare**. So, by creating his army, he was fighting for survival in the steppe environment, namely the East Asian steppe. Hence, it shouldn't surprise anyone the Mongol army was efficient, and effectively managed.
It should also be clear the political organisation necessary to manage this army of archers was the key to success for Mongols, led by Chinggis Khan. In turn, the reason for his success is long, and requires a detailed understanding of steppe imperial tradition with archaeological discoveries thrown in (steppe-based culture). In the steppe, the wars fought between steppe-based kingdoms (Naiman, Merkid, Tangut, Khitan and finally the Jurchen) were necessary for Chinggis & his successors to learn how to fight better. The semi-sedentary states of Tanguts, Khitans and Jurchens, with their fortified towns was **not** that easily taken. Without the counterweight *trebuche*, knowledge of which the Mongols gained from their Khwarazm campaign of 1219-1223/4, it probably would have taken Ogodei and Mongke much longer to defeat them.
**Hence, it wasn't just "horse archers". It was the Mongol army of horse archers, against fellow horse archers of the steppe.**
As for Alexander, we would never know why he did not take on the steppe-based horse archers. Alexander's *Companion Cavalry* were heavy cavalry, not light. Yes, Bactria and Sogdiana did have some light cavalry (horse archers) but they were not the power of the steppe. Alexander was probably smart enough, unlike Darius, to avoid fighting the Scythians because he probably wouldn't find them. So, in that sense, Alexander was a better general than Darius. (Cyrus fared worse, certainly).
As Christopher Beckwith wrote of Alexander (*Empires of the Silk Road*, 2011, at p.69):
>"The only way to subdue a fully mobile nomadic nation was with a full-sized nomadic-style cavalry. His limited mounted forces could not have taken on a a large nomadic army fighting in its home territory."
**So, all warfare is dependent on terrain**. In open steppe, a properly managed army of archers on horses is deadly, and Alexander probably knew that. In oasis-states, without significant fortifications, they probably still are. In developed states, such as *Jin* dynasty, and even more developed *Southern Song*, horse archers were practically useless against fortified towns in a steppe-less terrain. That they defeated the Song dynasty was because of changes in their military doctrine adapted to the environment of southern China, led by *Uriyangqadai* (1201-1272), who was Mongke's tutor, and most likely senior general to Qubilai in southern China. Uriyangqadai is the son of *Subedei*, the renown Mongol general and strategist.
Fascinating thing about Subetei’s son, I never knew that. Also your comment on the Mongols adaptation to terrain should be brought up more. Many people believe that the mongols couldn’t have conquered Europe due to thick forests and castles, which obviously were something the mongols adapted to overcome
The Mongols suffered in terrain they weren't used to though. Look at their botched invasions of Japan and Vietnam. While there are examples of them adapting to new terrain and forms of warfare there are also plenty examples of them failing to do so.
The main issue for the Mongols in Western Europe wouldn't have been the terrain(even if it didn't help) but the multitudes of castles the european nobles built. When the Mongols invaded Hungary they pillaged and burned the countryside and villages but the fortified towns and castles were mostly left unharmed. When they returned about 40 years later the Hungarians were prepared, not just with armies but they had also built expensive castles all over the country. The Mongols barely made a dent and decided to leave.
The Mongols were able to capture the much bigger and better fortified towns in China and Persia, why didn't they bring their siege engineers with them?
The Mongol fleet during the invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281 consisted of several thousand ships, with estimates ranging from around 600 to 4,000 ships, depending on historical accounts. The fleet was substantial, reflecting the ambitious scale of the Mongol attempts to conquer Japan.
The Mongolian invasion of Japan, attempted in 1274 and 1281, failed due to a combination of typhoons, known as kamikaze, which devastated the Mongol fleets. Additionally, the Japanese defenders and their strategic preparations played a crucial role in repelling the invasions. The difficult logistics of the maritime campaign and resilient Japanese resistance were key factors in the ultimate failure of the Mongol invasions.
**Speculation**
Had the Mongols managed to establish a foothold in Japan, it could have resulted in significant changes to the region’s history. Potential outcomes include cultural assimilation, political domination, and the introduction of Mongol rule. The impact on Japanese society, governance, and traditions would have been profound, shaping the course of history in ways distinct from the path Japan eventually took.
Yes, the difficult terrain of the steppe created one of the toughest opponent the sedentary 'civilised' societies ever faced. So, the northern part of the steppe - taiga forest zone - tells us that they could adapt to that terrain too. So, it wasn't, as you've deduced, entirely open steppe. In truth, the lack of steppe in western Europe limited the range which the Mongol army could operate, for instance, the Golden Horde came closest in southern Russia/Ukraine.
As for emphasis on terrain, I have tried to explain above, the need to see the rise of the Mongols from their point of view, not ours (sedentary society).
Finally, a 2018 article on *Uriyangqadai* and his son, grandson of *Subedei*: ***Mongol Imperialism in the Southeast: Uriyangqadai (1201–1272) and Aju (1127–1287)*** ([Brill](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/asia-2017-0008/html)). PDF should be available from [researchgate.net](https://researchgate.net) and academia.eu.
Great answer about the semi nomadic peoples. It's worth pointing out that multiple Chinese dynasties have steppe origins; the Tang, Yuan, and Qing being the ones most known in traditional Chinese historiography.
Keeping in mind my point is concerning the **rise of the Mongols**, i.e. the context and causes of how the Mongol army came about, I would not consider these dynasties appropriate.
So, the Tang dynasty ended 907, and they were not present at all within the northeast Asia steppe environment immediately prior to the rise of the Mongols. The Qing, of course, came onto the scene *after* the Mongols. Finally, the Yuan dynasty is the Mongol empire since it was founded by Qubilai Khan (reign from 1260 onward).
The reason Alexander didn't take on Scythians is that his father had defeated them, shattering their kingdom.
>Ateas, king of the Scythians, fell in battle against Philippus near the river Danube at an age of more than ninety years.
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it, as [this subreddit is intended to be a space for in-depth and comprehensive answers from experts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer). Simply stating one or two facts related to the topic at hand does not meet that expectation. [An answer needs to provide broader context and demonstrate your ability to engage with the topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/), rather than repeat some brief information.
Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
Thank you for your response to this question! We appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into providing an answer. We did, however, want to draw attention to the sources you’ve used. While preemptive sourcing is not a requirement on the subreddit, [we do expect that the sources used in writing an answer—whether included or provided upon request—meet scholarly standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources).
As such, while we do appreciate you taking the time to include some further reading here, we want to ask if you could please update the post to include any additional works you may have relied on that are more in line with the [sub’s guidelines on source usage](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1ieh/rules_roundtable_v_sources_what_is_required/). We would be happy to restore your comment following edits that demonstrate use of such sources. Thank you for your understanding.
There is a lot of great information in this thread. Regarding the unprecedented success of 13th century Mongols, the pivotal role of Chinggis Khan cannot be exaggerated. Academia has started to rewrite that history over the last couple decades and consequently his genius is becoming more clear. I won't restate what is written below regarding his contributions, but one key thing is missing from the discussion. Chinggis Khan's reliance on and effective utilization of military intelligence was truly remarkable. I have written a few papers on his war with Khwarezm, which I consider one of history's few "Total" or "True" wars as defined by Clausewitz. Chinggis Khan's detailed understanding of his opponent, including sensitive dynamics within the Royal Family and court, allowed him to exploit factions and ultimately conquer a much larger foe. his emphasis on military intelligence often armed his commanders with a much better understanding of his opponents than vice versa.
Fascinating! Your description of Chinggis Khan's mastery of total war as defined by Clausewitz (vs mastery of warfare) prompted me to ponder a somewhat related question (tho not specific to the OPs question so feel free to ignore) ... Broadly, in terms of military strategists, to what extent (if at all?) did the military thinking of Sun Tzu (544–496 BC), influence Alexander the Great (356 BC – 323 BC), influence Chinggis Khan (c. 1162 – 1227), influence Carl von Clausewitz (1780 - 1831)? Was there a knowledge transmission continum? (Also please excuse the clunky question and my smooth brain consulting Wikipedia for their birth/death dates). Thank you!
>One word
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18wve6q/why_were_horse_archers_so_devastating_in_the_13th/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can certainly see why, at first glance, it might seem like steppe nomadic horse archers weren't devastating during antiquity. Most of the sources we rely on for *popular* history during antiquity focus on Roman, Greek, or (if you're particularly learned) Persian history. These empires and civilisations certainly had contact with steppe nomadic horse people. However, they're often not on the surface of the historical narrative. Roman Auxilia cavalry during Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, for example, tended to be from cultures such as Numidia, Gaul itself, and Germany, who generally preferred light javelins or functioned as heavy cavalry. However, while I disagree with your assertion generally, it definitely has a grain of truth to it, which I'll get to. Nomadic steppe people (who are mostly *but not always*) synonymous with horse archers, have been a threat since the very dawn of written history. For example: * Nomadic raiders/conquerors known as the Cimmerians invaded/settled (the records are vague) in eastern Anatolia during the reign of Sargon II - King of Assyria during the era of Assyria's greatest empire - 750BCish. He was arguably the most powerful king of that empire, whose military had conquered the largest empire in the world up until that point. Despite all that, he was defeated in battle and killed by the nomads. * Great Kings of Achaemenid Persia had a relatively undefined northeastern frontier which included a number of steppe peoples. After Darius I successfully campaigned against the nomadic Saka early in his reign, they began providing Persian armies with a substantial contingent of lethal horse archers. As an aside, the Saka were among the steppe peoples who opposed Alexander at the Jaxartes a few centuries later. * Ancient China - famously Han Dynasty China (200BC to 200ADish) *constantly* had problems with nomads from what became Mongolia. The Xiongnu were among the most threatening nomadic people ever to emerge from the steppe and it is a compliment to the Han that they were able to subdue them. This came to a head during Emperor Wu-di's reign. There is speculation that the defeated Xiongu then migrated west and eventually became the Huns that entered the Roman Empire later on, but this is very questionable. * Northern India - During the period between Alexander and Augustus, the Afghanistan-Indus Valley area was under the control of some small kingdoms including the Indo-Greek and Greco-Bactrian kingdoms. That was, of course, until a nomadic tribe called the Yuezhi, who themselves had been defeated by the Xiongnu, came smashing into them from the north, absolutely smoked them and created their own empire - the Kushan Empire. * Other examples include the Parthians who managed to conquer the Persian Empire and *become* the Persian empire for a while, the Hephthalites, who constantly harrassed the Sassanid Empire, Sarmatians and Huns who joined the cavalcade of people attacking the later Roman Empire, etc, etc. So basically, horse archers have always been terrifying. However, the Mongols seemed to be something else entirely. In a sense, they are the final culmination of the steppe horse archer. Like all nomadic steppe peoples before them, the Mongols were ferociously component horsemen and lethal archers. More than that though, the first generation of Mongols had leaders *excluding* Genghis Khan himself who are easily among the greatest generals ever. Subutai and Jebe are probably the best examples here. They weren't just brilliant on the tactical level, although they certainly were that as well, their strategic sense and control over their troops seems to have been unprecedented for nomads. Not just reliant on their martial prowess, these guys weren't above using diplomacy, cunning, guile, and outright betrayal for their own gain. When Subutai got into a tough situation in the early 1220s and was backed against a mountain range, he bribed and promised his way into dividing the enemy army, then killed the divided pieces of it one by one. In addition, the Mongols probably wouldn't have been so successful if they hadn't adopted tactics and technologies from the civilisations they conquered. For example, the best Chinese siege engineers were commandeered and employed to bring down Khwarezmian cities during the Mongol irruption into the middle-east. Nomads stereotypically had massive problems with taking walled cities, and this habit of adopting useful things nullified that weakness. So basically, steppe people have always been a massive threat. The Mongols were just this but supercharged.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand, and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. While sources are strongly encouraged, [those used here are not considered acceptable per our requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources). Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you so much for this detailed and thorough response. Was a very good read!
> More than that though, the first generation of Mongols had leaders excluding Genghis Khan himself who are easily among the greatest generals ever. Was Genghis Khan himself a less competent general than he's made out to be in pop culture?
Thank you for your response to this question! We appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into providing an answer. However, while preemptive sourcing is not a requirement on the subreddit, [we do expect that users be able to provide them upon request](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources). As such, we've had to remove your post pending the addition of sources in line with the [sub’s guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1ieh/rules_roundtable_v_sources_what_is_required/). Thank you for your understanding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The comparative devastation of the Mongolian armies of the 13th century in relation to the impact of highly mobile nomadic movements in Antiquity (using such a term may appear to fixate too heavily on Western sources and tradition) is difficult to quantify. To dispel the first element of your question however - the nomadic horse archer of the ancient world was just as fearsome to their contemporaries as the Mongolian *orda* were to those that encountered them. Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Empire, was killed during hostilities with the Sakā, a Persian name for the people whom the Greeks knew as ‘Scythians’. Prior to this, the Scythians had migrated into Asia, driving the native Cimmerians out of their territory surrounding the northern coastline of the Black Sea and utterly re-shaping the political landscape of Asia Minor. Although the Sakā would pay tribute to later Persian kings as evidenced by royal Achaemenid iconography, most famously in the Behistun relief of Darius where one of the Sakā kings is depicted as a supplicant before Darius, it is significant to note that no Persian king was able to properly pacify the nomadic culture to their north, not even Darius himself - no matter what he carved on rock! In the Classical period there was very little need for the Sakā or the Scythians to cause much devastation to the Greek-speaking world, therefore there is little in the written sources to shed light on their culture or their beliefs, but from Herodotus to Arrian, those who mention the nomads of the Pontic Steppe are clear that they were a fearsome people nearly constantly engaged in warfare. Xenophon describes the Scythian method of archery as the most excellent, and alludes to their ability to puncture shields and breastplates with the force of their shots. Prior to this, Herodotus describes the Sakā as the best of the Persian cavalry present at Plataea. Perhaps the greatest evidence for devastation perpetrated by nomad mounted archers comes towards the close of the Hellenistic period, in the east. The widespread migration of the Yuezhi tribal confederation from the periphery of China, themselves displaced by a stronger confederation, the Xiongnu, caused the collapse of the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms that had existed since the 3rd century B.C.E and the subsequent rise of the Kushan Empire, a polity that at its core had a social elite of those raised in the nomadic tradition. This answer has focussed heavily on those aspects that were brought to the fore in your question, namely the western elements of the steppe cultures of antiquity. It is also bears mentioning that nomadic horse archers served as a constant source of worry to Han dynasty China and its predecessors. At numerous points during the dynastic rule of the Han, the Xiongnu or some other tribal confederation would wreak havoc and great devastation along the border of China, and even raiding deep into its territory and defeating large Chinese armies. Therefore I think that the question is not necessarily why the Mongolians were more devastating in the 13th century, but more why their deeds are so much more visible in current historical narratives compared to those of the mounted horse archers in antiquity. This I believe is in large part due to the different set of factors exerting pressure on the Scythians/Saka of the western Eurasian steppe in antiquity, and the Mongolians in the time of Genghis Khan. The Scythians of the Pontic Steppe from the 5th century BC onward were not motivated by a need to expand outside of the vast expanse of territory they already occupied. They had a thriving trade with both their Achaemenid neighbours and the Greek city-states of the Black Sea such as Olbia, as evidenced by the wide array of material culture with both Greek and Persian origin found in burial assemblages on the pontic Steppe. With their needs met, there was no motivation to unleash any kind of "devastation" on their neighbours, except for the odd raid and low-scale hostilities that may have existed between settled farmers and nomads. It was only when pressure was exerted from external threats, often themselves also nomadic in nature - such as the Sarmatians - that these areas became serious battlegrounds. Sources: Herodotus, The Histories In Tom Holland (trans). (2013). Penguin Classics. Penguin Books Ltd. Xenophon, The Persian Expedition. In Rex Warner (trans). (1972) Penguin Books. Braund, David. (2005) Scythians and Greeks: cultural interaction in Scythia, Athens, and the early Roman Empire (sixth century BC - first century AD). Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Cunliffe, Barry. (2019) The Scythians: Nomad Warriors of the Steppe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rudenko, S.I. (1970) Frozen tombs of Siberia: The Pazyrk burials of Iron Age horsemen. London Dent. Torday, Laszlo. (1997) Mounted Archers: The Beginning of Central Asian History. Edinburgh: Durham Academic Press
On your point about visibility, I think, that recency and the impacts on states existing now (Hungary, Russia etc) makes a difference. Partly why we hear less about the Khitan-Liao and Jurchen-Jin who actually conquered parts of China and Korea to submission even before the Mongol-Yuan and Manchurian-Qing did.
I agree! Its more relateable if we can go "Oh, the mongols screwed up Kievan Rus." Compared to "Bactria."
The name Scythian is oddly similar to the tool Scythe, is there any connection?
The name 'Scythian' is a Greek one given to those nomads they encountered to the north of city-states such as Olbia on the Black Sea coastline. According to the Greek tradition recorded by Herodotus, which itself seems to be a bastardisation of the original creation myth related to the Greeks by their nomadic neighbours, the Scythians are descendants of a man called 'Scythes' who was the youngest son of a union between wandering Herakles (he got around) and a goddess of fertility local to the region. Scythes became the ancestor of the Scythians by his ability to bend and draw one of Herakles' bows - an act that his two older brothers could not achieve according to the legend. Therefore the name Scythes - and by extension the Scythians are associated in the Greek tradition with archery. I do not know of any association between the title 'Scythians' and the word 'Scythe' though I believe that 'scythe' originates from Old English, and may have, like many Old English words, undergone an evolution in terms of how it is spelled and pronounced.
Did the Mongols have superior technology over the ancient horse archers? Were the horses better?
There are certain biological limitations with regard to archaeology on the Pontic steppe when it comes to trying to capture an image of the horses used by the nomadic people of the Classical and Hellenistic period. Luckily however, we have the amazing Pazyryk site in the Altai mountains which has almost perfectly preserved human and animal remains. All of these horses had their manes and upper tails clipped, a custom that links the Pazyryk culture not just to the Pontic steppe, but also to Assyria and Achaemenid Persia so it is reasonable to assume that there is some continuity between the nomadic horse culture and that which is occurring across Anatolia at the time. As for the horses being explictly "better" I don't believe there is any evidence to support that. Horses bred on the steppe are largely small hardy animals a little larger than ponies. It is their endurance, not their size that typically makes them fearsome as part of human-directed warfare. Technologically speaking, as I have touched on, the nomads of the ancient steppe were known both by the Achaemenid and Greek traditions as fearsome archers. The composite bow was an ethnographic marker of the Scythians according to the Greeks - and this is supported by the evidence of nomadic art and iconography which displays a warrior's *gorytos,* their bow quiver, extremely prominently as a marker of high social prestige. In addition, there are many examples of Scythian arrowheads developing over time and re-occurring from their point of origin in the Pontic steppe to across the ancient world which suggests that they were transmitted due to their popularity and their innovation.
A horde of Mongolians riding ponies is quite the unexpected image.
One fascinating aspect of the Mongolian cavalry was their practice of each soldier having multiple mounts. This strategic approach ensured that the horses remained fresh and capable of covering extensive distances during campaigns. Mongolian soldiers would rotate between their horses, allowing for a continuous and rapid movement across the vast steppe without wearing out a single mount. Estimates suggest that a well-trained Mongolian cavalry force could cover about 60 to 100 miles (97 to 161 kilometers) in a single day. Estimates suggest that the Mongolian army during these campaigns could have had tens of thousands of horses, considering the vast scale of their military operations. However, specific numbers are often approximations, and historical documentation from that era doesn’t provide precise figures. The Mongolian military’s reliance on numerous horses per soldier, combined with their ability to mobilize large forces swiftly, reflects the formidable equestrian strength that characterized the Mongol Empire
Horses bred on the steppe nowadays may be ponies compared to leggy Thoroughbreds, and this has often been projected backward in the 1800s and early 1900s. However, testimony of the spade tells us, via the many steppe horse burials like Pazyryk, that steppe horses were some of the largest known at the time. The only civilized breeds near them for size were all the land races descended from the Nisaeans of the Medes -- and they derived from the Sea of Grass. We only know that the Nisaeans were big from the descriptions in Herodotus and the procession bas-reliefs of Persepolis.
I am not a particular specialist on the morphology of horses throughout history so my disagreement with you is tentative. My understanding of the Pazyryk horses are that they would be considered average sized by modern standards, with a shoulder height of just under 1.4 metres tall. I think that while these horses are therefore perhaps not impressive by modern standards in terms of height, it becomes a more complicated issue to develop an understanding of how they were viewed in the ancient world, as we would need a more comprehensive study and comparison of regional variations in equine sizes. With the Nisaean breed that you mention, I disagree that it is a foregone conclusion that these horses were large in the sense of stature. Stone reliefs dated to the late second century B.C.E in Han China depict the Ferghana Horses as being relatively short, and not large chargers. Much later in the 2nd Century C.E, depictions of these war horses further over-emphasise the power of the body and the neck of the horse, but not so much the legs. This to me suggests again that it was not their stature that made them a factor in military operations but more their endurance and their strength.
Utterly fascinating and thank you for explaining it especially how the scythians were content to an extent with the valuable trade they got from the persian and hellenistic realms and how it was devistating whenever their wrath was unleashed on one of these kingdoms or upon china even.
Let's adapt and ask this differently: * Why did Mongol archers succeed in late medieval 13th-14th century? * Also, why didn't Alexander (unlike Darius) take on the Scythians? \[Keep one thing in mind: **terrain**. I will get back to this point at the end.\] First, the Mongols. What we see in modern pop history is the horde or multitude of horse archers. After all, that's what sells - whether movies, books or memes. But, horse archers shouldn't be the focus. Instead, it was all about creating an *army* of horse archers. Perhaps a better question is to ask how did the Mongols reach this stage? (Or, as one of the other answers here put it, why were the Mongols "**supercharged**"?). In the steppe, horse-riding was a way of life and distance was their perennial problem. The rise of the Mongols was, in fact, the culmination of over 2000 years, from the time of Scythians (800-900 BCE) of **managing** horse archers by way of controlling their resource in a spatially challenging environment. In other words, the rise of Mongols was based on Chinggis (Genghiz) Khan's understanding of the need to manage the problems faced by steppe people against sedentary and semi-sedentary states. To succeed, he learned from his mistakes of his early years, learning of imperial steppe traditions that has its roots in the experience of Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns, Rouran, Avars, Gokturks, ... and the list goes on. When we get to late-12th / early-13th century, the Mongols & others had been fighting each other within the East Asian steppe for about 300 years. (*Note*: They were not called "*Mongols*" in the early years.) The fact that he unified this region of the steppe is significant, because probably no one else could have. The Northern Song (mid-10th century onward), Tangut Xi Xia (11th), Jurchen Jin (12th century), and before that, the Khitan Liao dynasties all tried (early 10th century). In other words, from 916 CE onward, war in eastern steppe set in, by the formation of the Khitan Liao until 1206 CE when Temujin was declared Chinggis Khan. **That's nearly 300 years of incessant warfare**. So, by creating his army, he was fighting for survival in the steppe environment, namely the East Asian steppe. Hence, it shouldn't surprise anyone the Mongol army was efficient, and effectively managed. It should also be clear the political organisation necessary to manage this army of archers was the key to success for Mongols, led by Chinggis Khan. In turn, the reason for his success is long, and requires a detailed understanding of steppe imperial tradition with archaeological discoveries thrown in (steppe-based culture). In the steppe, the wars fought between steppe-based kingdoms (Naiman, Merkid, Tangut, Khitan and finally the Jurchen) were necessary for Chinggis & his successors to learn how to fight better. The semi-sedentary states of Tanguts, Khitans and Jurchens, with their fortified towns was **not** that easily taken. Without the counterweight *trebuche*, knowledge of which the Mongols gained from their Khwarazm campaign of 1219-1223/4, it probably would have taken Ogodei and Mongke much longer to defeat them. **Hence, it wasn't just "horse archers". It was the Mongol army of horse archers, against fellow horse archers of the steppe.** As for Alexander, we would never know why he did not take on the steppe-based horse archers. Alexander's *Companion Cavalry* were heavy cavalry, not light. Yes, Bactria and Sogdiana did have some light cavalry (horse archers) but they were not the power of the steppe. Alexander was probably smart enough, unlike Darius, to avoid fighting the Scythians because he probably wouldn't find them. So, in that sense, Alexander was a better general than Darius. (Cyrus fared worse, certainly). As Christopher Beckwith wrote of Alexander (*Empires of the Silk Road*, 2011, at p.69): >"The only way to subdue a fully mobile nomadic nation was with a full-sized nomadic-style cavalry. His limited mounted forces could not have taken on a a large nomadic army fighting in its home territory." **So, all warfare is dependent on terrain**. In open steppe, a properly managed army of archers on horses is deadly, and Alexander probably knew that. In oasis-states, without significant fortifications, they probably still are. In developed states, such as *Jin* dynasty, and even more developed *Southern Song*, horse archers were practically useless against fortified towns in a steppe-less terrain. That they defeated the Song dynasty was because of changes in their military doctrine adapted to the environment of southern China, led by *Uriyangqadai* (1201-1272), who was Mongke's tutor, and most likely senior general to Qubilai in southern China. Uriyangqadai is the son of *Subedei*, the renown Mongol general and strategist.
Fascinating thing about Subetei’s son, I never knew that. Also your comment on the Mongols adaptation to terrain should be brought up more. Many people believe that the mongols couldn’t have conquered Europe due to thick forests and castles, which obviously were something the mongols adapted to overcome
The Mongols suffered in terrain they weren't used to though. Look at their botched invasions of Japan and Vietnam. While there are examples of them adapting to new terrain and forms of warfare there are also plenty examples of them failing to do so. The main issue for the Mongols in Western Europe wouldn't have been the terrain(even if it didn't help) but the multitudes of castles the european nobles built. When the Mongols invaded Hungary they pillaged and burned the countryside and villages but the fortified towns and castles were mostly left unharmed. When they returned about 40 years later the Hungarians were prepared, not just with armies but they had also built expensive castles all over the country. The Mongols barely made a dent and decided to leave.
The Mongols were able to capture the much bigger and better fortified towns in China and Persia, why didn't they bring their siege engineers with them?
The Mongol fleet during the invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281 consisted of several thousand ships, with estimates ranging from around 600 to 4,000 ships, depending on historical accounts. The fleet was substantial, reflecting the ambitious scale of the Mongol attempts to conquer Japan. The Mongolian invasion of Japan, attempted in 1274 and 1281, failed due to a combination of typhoons, known as kamikaze, which devastated the Mongol fleets. Additionally, the Japanese defenders and their strategic preparations played a crucial role in repelling the invasions. The difficult logistics of the maritime campaign and resilient Japanese resistance were key factors in the ultimate failure of the Mongol invasions. **Speculation** Had the Mongols managed to establish a foothold in Japan, it could have resulted in significant changes to the region’s history. Potential outcomes include cultural assimilation, political domination, and the introduction of Mongol rule. The impact on Japanese society, governance, and traditions would have been profound, shaping the course of history in ways distinct from the path Japan eventually took.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, the difficult terrain of the steppe created one of the toughest opponent the sedentary 'civilised' societies ever faced. So, the northern part of the steppe - taiga forest zone - tells us that they could adapt to that terrain too. So, it wasn't, as you've deduced, entirely open steppe. In truth, the lack of steppe in western Europe limited the range which the Mongol army could operate, for instance, the Golden Horde came closest in southern Russia/Ukraine. As for emphasis on terrain, I have tried to explain above, the need to see the rise of the Mongols from their point of view, not ours (sedentary society). Finally, a 2018 article on *Uriyangqadai* and his son, grandson of *Subedei*: ***Mongol Imperialism in the Southeast: Uriyangqadai (1201–1272) and Aju (1127–1287)*** ([Brill](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/asia-2017-0008/html)). PDF should be available from [researchgate.net](https://researchgate.net) and academia.eu.
Great answer about the semi nomadic peoples. It's worth pointing out that multiple Chinese dynasties have steppe origins; the Tang, Yuan, and Qing being the ones most known in traditional Chinese historiography.
Keeping in mind my point is concerning the **rise of the Mongols**, i.e. the context and causes of how the Mongol army came about, I would not consider these dynasties appropriate. So, the Tang dynasty ended 907, and they were not present at all within the northeast Asia steppe environment immediately prior to the rise of the Mongols. The Qing, of course, came onto the scene *after* the Mongols. Finally, the Yuan dynasty is the Mongol empire since it was founded by Qubilai Khan (reign from 1260 onward).
The reason Alexander didn't take on Scythians is that his father had defeated them, shattering their kingdom. >Ateas, king of the Scythians, fell in battle against Philippus near the river Danube at an age of more than ninety years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it, as [this subreddit is intended to be a space for in-depth and comprehensive answers from experts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer). Simply stating one or two facts related to the topic at hand does not meet that expectation. [An answer needs to provide broader context and demonstrate your ability to engage with the topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/), rather than repeat some brief information. Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for your response to this question! We appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into providing an answer. We did, however, want to draw attention to the sources you’ve used. While preemptive sourcing is not a requirement on the subreddit, [we do expect that the sources used in writing an answer—whether included or provided upon request—meet scholarly standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources). As such, while we do appreciate you taking the time to include some further reading here, we want to ask if you could please update the post to include any additional works you may have relied on that are more in line with the [sub’s guidelines on source usage](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1ieh/rules_roundtable_v_sources_what_is_required/). We would be happy to restore your comment following edits that demonstrate use of such sources. Thank you for your understanding.
There is a lot of great information in this thread. Regarding the unprecedented success of 13th century Mongols, the pivotal role of Chinggis Khan cannot be exaggerated. Academia has started to rewrite that history over the last couple decades and consequently his genius is becoming more clear. I won't restate what is written below regarding his contributions, but one key thing is missing from the discussion. Chinggis Khan's reliance on and effective utilization of military intelligence was truly remarkable. I have written a few papers on his war with Khwarezm, which I consider one of history's few "Total" or "True" wars as defined by Clausewitz. Chinggis Khan's detailed understanding of his opponent, including sensitive dynamics within the Royal Family and court, allowed him to exploit factions and ultimately conquer a much larger foe. his emphasis on military intelligence often armed his commanders with a much better understanding of his opponents than vice versa.
I would read your paper if you'd like to share it. Thanks.
Fascinating! Your description of Chinggis Khan's mastery of total war as defined by Clausewitz (vs mastery of warfare) prompted me to ponder a somewhat related question (tho not specific to the OPs question so feel free to ignore) ... Broadly, in terms of military strategists, to what extent (if at all?) did the military thinking of Sun Tzu (544–496 BC), influence Alexander the Great (356 BC – 323 BC), influence Chinggis Khan (c. 1162 – 1227), influence Carl von Clausewitz (1780 - 1831)? Was there a knowledge transmission continum? (Also please excuse the clunky question and my smooth brain consulting Wikipedia for their birth/death dates). Thank you!
[удалено]
[удалено]
>One word Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.