Talk:Military of the Mongol Empire

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force

Mongols B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archive 00 (from merged "Military advances of Genghis Khan")
Archive 01 (May 2005 - July 2007)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stirrups

"All horses were equipped with stirrups. Those had been invented by the Huns quite some time before, but remained largely unknown to the rest of the world. This technical advantage allowed the Mongol archers to turn their upper body, and shoot in all directions, including backwards."

When I first read this I thought it was saying that most of the Mongols' rivals had no knowledge of stirrups, which I believe is incorrect (stirrups being the prime component of medieval mountien warfare). If the sentence is just saying that the Huns invented stirrups first, and others were unaware of them until some time later (including the Mongols), then that part of the sentence may be unnecessary. It may not be accurate, either; the stirrups article here seems to depict stirrups as being a more gradual invention, with the Huns not mentioned. -BaronGrackle 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the stirrups was invented by the Chinese, not the Huns. - Tak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.188.27 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The horsemen of the steppe invented the stirrup, sorry.50.111.4.123 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the statement is that the Mongols used them to their advantage, because the Parthian shot wouldn't have been possible without. The invention by the huns may be a myth, as obviously the Parthians and Scythians must have used them before that. Unfortunately the article Stirrups doesn't mention mounted archery at all. But even if the Mongol's opponents may have known and had stirrups, apparently they didn't use them in the same way. --Latebird (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So say "the rest of the world didn't use them the same way" rather than "nobody else knew about stirrups". These two statements differ by quite a lot. 70.53.120.231 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Organization

Can anybody explain to me how "the Mongol military...can be regarded as the first modern military system."? What about the Romans and their Legion organization? Were they not a "modern" military system? Or does this have to do with the tactics used with the different units? Ace blazer (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rather subjective issue, and needs to be explained better. What makes it "modern" is the amount of autonomy each unit - big or small - was given, and the practical approach to warfare. They maintained a "use what works" attitude in place of the honor based rule systems most other forces of the time adhered to. The roman legions may come close in terms of organisation, but most of them probably would have frowned upon tactical retreats as dishonorable. --Latebird (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Roman commanders such as Sulla, Pompey, Marius, Scipio and Caesar used 'tactical retreats' in their careers. Updated: The Macedonians probably developed what we would call the first professional 'modern' army.50.111.4.123 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Decimal system

Any reason the Decimal system section was removed? Cythraul (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it. I reverted the removal. 74.176.213.104 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, this sentence does seem a little vague, perhaps change it? Uhlan ^talk 03:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective opinion on the training.

The section on Training and Discipline has the following sentence "This training was maintained by a hard, but not overly harsh or unreasonable, discipline." This seems to be a subjective opinion on how severe the training was and it also lacks any citation? JamesF0790 (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

extremely poorly sourced

whoever wrote the majority of this article did not cite sources - needs much work 50.111.1.232 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]