Traditional Mongolian bow. Through hardship to the stars! The invention that changed the course of history

Once again, let us return to the question of why the Mongol warriors were so strong. The answer is quite simple - the skillful use of their weapons and excellent tactics built on this skill, and excellent organization. And while the conquered and neighboring peoples did not learn how to deal with this, the Mongol army was practically invincible.

One of the points of the pseudo-historical revisionists from the so-called "alternative history" who deny the reality of the Mongol invasion is the attacks on the Mongol bow. At the same time, for some reason, they refer, as an example of the "falsity" of history, to the author of a school textbook, Ser. 90s S. A. Nefedov, who wrote: " The main weapon of the Tatars was the Mongolian bow, "saadak" - it was thanks to this new weapon that the Mongols conquered most of the inhabited world. It was a complex killing machine, glued from three layers of wood and bone and wrapped with tendons to protect against moisture; gluing was carried out under pressure, and drying lasted several years - the secret of making these bows was kept secret.This bow was not inferior in power to a musket; an arrow from it pierced any armor for 300 meters, and it was all about the ability to hit the target, because the bows did not have a sight and shooting from they required many years of training". Here, over these lines from a school textbook, the alternatives mock as they can, they say, historians came up with the Mongols, and in order to explain their victories, they allegedly came up with a super-bow that pierces any armor from 300 meters. It is not difficult to understand why the alternatives are so attached to Nefedov - except for him, none of the historians wrote this. I don’t know what exactly made Nefedov write such lines, but I think he simply misunderstood the information he read. However, in some articles you can read that an aimed shot of a Mongolian bow was equal to 150-200 m In fact, this is not so.Nevertheless, the Mongolian bow became exactly the blitzkrieg weapon that provided the Mongols with triumphant victories.

As for the bow itself, there was nothing magical and incredible in the Mongolian bow. It was the most common composite bow, common throughout Eurasia (including Rus'). This bow has been known to the nomads of Central Asia since the time of the ancient Huns. The Mongols also did not know any magic arrowheads. As S. Khudyakov and a number of other researchers of the weapons of Asian nomads have shown, Mongolian arrowheads are a traditional set of arrowheads known throughout Eurasia. The Mongolian bow has been studied in sufficient detail. Length - 150-170 cm, tension force - 80 kgf, initial arrow speed 80 m / s, aimed shot in modern archery competitions common in Mongolia - 60-75 m (and not 150-300 m, as they say some authors), the range of the arrow is 250-300 m (there is historical information about the shot up to 750 m, but this is already under special conditions). Not only the Mongols, but also their opponents were armed with the same composite bows. Nevertheless, the Mongols managed to turn their bow into a blitzkrieg weapon for several decades, with which they conquered the mighty empires of China, Central Asia and the Middle East, defeated the formidable armies of Rus' and Europe. So why did the star of the Mongolian bow rise and why by the 1280s. did this star go down?

Nomads, since the domestication of the horse, have been riders. The horse became the main means of warfare for the nomad. " Tatars are born and grow up in the saddle. By themselves they learn to fight. From spring to winter [they] chase and hunt every day. [This] is their livelihood. Therefore [they] have no foot soldiers, and all are mounted warriors", - writes a Chinese official in the essay" Meng-da bei-lu. "The bow was the main tool for the subsistence of nomads, for whom hunting was no less important than cattle breeding.

“They eat meat, not bread. They hunt hares, deer, wild boars, marmots, wild rams (from the bones of their spine you can make spoons), gazelles (their backs are yellow, and their tail is the size of a fan), wild horses(they look like donkeys) and fish from the rivers (it can be caught after the onset of frost) ...
Their custom is archery and hunting. When their ruler arranges a wild hunt, they always gather large masses of people. [They] dig holes and stick stakes [in them]. [The latter] are interconnected with hair ropes, and [shreds] of felt and bird feathers are tied [to the ropes]. [It] is like catching hares with a net among the Chinese.
[Ropes] stretch [around] up to 100-200 li. Since feathers [and pieces of felt] sway in the wind, the frightened animals do not dare to run across. After that, [people] surround [the fenced area, gradually] pressing [animals to the middle of the circle], catch and beat [them]...
Battalion hunts [among the Black Tatars] begin on the ninth moon and end on the second moon. Since during the hunt [people] eat the meat they got on the hunt all the time, then [at this time] they slaughter sheep a little."
Xu Ting, Pen Dai "Brief information about the black Tatars" (Chinese authors called the Mongols Tatars).

Plano Carpini confirms this information about the Mongols (more broadly about the nomads of Central Asia):

“Men do nothing at all, with the exception of arrows, and also have some care for the herds; but they hunt and practice shooting, for all of them, young and old, are good arrows, and their children, when they are two or three years old , immediately begin to ride and control horses and ride them, and they are given a bow according to their age, and they learn to shoot arrows, for they are very dexterous and also bold
Girls and women ride horses and dexterously ride horses like men. We also saw how they carried quivers and bows. And both men and women can ride long and hard. Their stirrups are very short, they take great care of their horses, moreover, they guard all property intensely.
Plano Carpini "History of the Mongols", IV, 4, 2-3.

The Georgian "Centennial Chronicle" reports about the Mongols:

"At the same time, they gained courage and were chosen archers, impeccably throwing heavy arrows from their tight bows, the blow of which no armor could withstand. They were especially dexterous on horseback, because they grew up on horseback, did not know armor, except for a bow and arrows" .
"Kartlis Tskhorevba"

Thus, from childhood, the Mongols learned to hold a bow in their hands and shoot on horseback. It is extremely difficult to get into a running game, like a hare, and requires a lot of preparation. The Mongol had such training all his life, starting from childhood, because the survival of his family depended on the ability to accurately shoot from a bow.

Mongolian archers are exchanging fire with Japanese samurai. "Myoko shurai ecotoba", XIII c.

The most formidable weapon of the rider was the bow. The nomads had melee weapons, but they were powerless against the dense formation of infantry, especially against the phalanx, bristling with spears. The Mongols did not have infantry as a kind of troops - there was little sense from it in the steppe, and the Mongols also did not have large urban settlements where infantry could be used. However, the infantry was powerless against the cavalry, armed with bows. True, only on the ground, where the cavalry had room to maneuver. To combat dense infantry formation, heavy plate cavalry was needed, where the rider, and preferably the horse, would be protected by strong armor. However, despite the ability to extract and process iron, the Mongols experienced a huge shortage of metal. Iron was simply not enough for armor. Moreover, there was not enough iron for arrowheads. Iron deficiency had to be covered with leather armor and bone arrowheads (which were just smeared with poison, which medieval authors write about - iron tips did not need poison). "Meng-da bei-lu" reports that some tribes of the Mongols did not have iron: " The so-called wild Tatars are very poor and even primitive and do not have any abilities ... Those who are farther from the Chinese lands are called wild Tatars. They do not have utensils and armor, and use only bone tips for arrows.".

Due to such a deficiency of iron, the Mongol tribes suffered severe defeats, and from the middle. 12th century in general, they became easy prey for the slave traders of the Jin empire, which every three years sent punitive expeditions against the Mongols to the steppe.

"When the Tatars were [still within] their own state, [during the reign of] Da-ding (1161 - 1189) of the Jin robbers, rumors spread in Yanjing and the Khitan land that the Tatars kept coming and going and they will push the emperor so that [he] will have nowhere to go. The leader [of the state] Ge Yong found out about this from the outside ... and said with alarm: “The Tatars will certainly be a disaster for our state!” And then he gave the order to urgently send troops to [their] miserable backwoods and exterminate them.[In the future] every three years troops were sent to the north to exterminate and destroy [the Tatars], and this was called the “reduction of adults” [among the Tatars]. the Chinese all remember it to this day. [They] say that about twenty years ago in Shandong and Hebei, in whose house there were Tatar [children] bought and turned into little slaves, they were all captured and brought by the troops."
"Meng-da bei-lu"

Buryat horse archer, 1895

The Mongols could not oppose anything to the plate cavalry of the Jurchens - they did not have iron for the plate cavalry. Metal-clad Mongol warriors, who became popular with light hand researcher M. Gorelik, exist only in the ardent fantasies of artists-reenactors. In fact, the Mongolian army actually had no armor. Plano Carpini writes that only noble warriors had swords and armor:

“But everyone should at least have the following weapons: two or three bows, or at least one good one, and three large quivers full of arrows, one ax and ropes to draw tools. The rich have swords sharp at the end , cutting only on one side and somewhat crooked, they also have an armed horse, shin covers, helmets and armor.Some have armor, as well as covers for horses made of skin ...
The helmet on top is iron or copper, and what covers the neck and throat all around is made of leather. And all these pieces of leather are composed in the manner indicated above.

The mention of copper helmets is really remarkable. Such helmets came from ancient times, but the lack of iron did not supplant them. Instead of a brilliant, well-armed army of the Mongols, their opponents actually saw an army of homeless people armed at random. The Georgian "Centennial Chronicle" writes that in the 20s. 13th century The Mongolian army had neither armor nor swords:

"And so, because of our sins, the Lord betrayed our country to the Tatars, he was fully mastered and expelled. Having learned about his flight and hiding in the fortresses, Genghis Kaen sent (in pursuit) after him two leaders - Iamu and Salpian, of whom the Georgians They are called Seb and Jebo. He ordered them to go through the lands of Khorasan and Iraq, and, as long as they had the strength, to scout those countries. And they moved with twelve thousand horsemen, without armor and food, but only with bows and without swords.
"Kartlis Tskhorevba".

The German Emperor Frederick II bitterly writes that the Mongols put on captured European armor, and actually considers Mongolian lamellar armor obsolete:

“They are dressed in undressed cowhide, donkey or horse skins. Their armor [is made] of iron plates sewn [on the skin]; they use them to this day. But, which we can say not without regret, now they are armed with loot defeated Christians with weapons better and more beautiful, so that, [according to the plan of] an angry god, we may be delivered over to a more shameful and terrible death with [our] own weapons."
Matthew of Paris "The Great Chronicle".

Mongols with bows, 1931-32

Elsewhere, Matthew noted the lack of iron among the Mongols, but attributed this to Mongol courage: " In order not to take flight, they are well protected by armor in front, [and] not behind", and " From the back they do not have armor, in front, however, they are protected by armor.". The reports of medieval authors that the leather armor of the Mongols did not break through should be attributed to the fear sown by the steppe warriors. In fact, the Mongols simply did not have metal for a full-fledged armor. Even after the creation of the empire, the Mongols did not manage to make up for the lack of iron The Flemish monk G. de Rubruk, who visited Karakorum in 1253-54, writes that out of twenty Mongol warriors, only two had iron armor, and even the guards of the khan were dressed in coarse leather armor:

"Between the sea and the mountains live some Saracens named Lesgi, mountaineers who are also not conquered, so the Tatars who lived at the foot of the Alans mountains had to give us 20 people to lead us through the Iron Gates. And I was glad about this, because I hoped to see them armed, for I could never see their weapons, although I was very interested in them. And when we got to the dangerous crossing, out of 20, two turned out to have armor. I asked where they got them from. They said that they got armor from the aforementioned Alans, who know how to make them well and are excellent blacksmiths. Hence, I believe, the Tartars themselves have few weapons, namely, only quivers, bows and fur shells (pelliceas). I saw how iron shells (platas) were brought to them from Persia ) and iron helmets, and also saw two who seemed to Mangu armed in arched shirts made of hard leather, very ill-fitting and uncomfortable.
"Journey to Eastern Countries", ch. 50.

Thus, Genghis Khan faced the huge problem of arming the army. If he managed to organize an army, breaking it into tactical units: " Let's say about the division of the troops in this way: Genghis Khan ordered that one man be put at the head of ten people (and he is called a foreman in our language), and one who is called a centurion was put at the head of ten tenants, and one was put at the head of ten centurions. one who is called a thousandth, and one was appointed at the head of ten thousandths, and this number is called darkness among them". There was nothing to equip this army for battles with plate feudal cavalry and trained infantry.

Genghis Khan found a simple and effective way out - the massive use of the bow. Genghis Khan left his descendants an oral decree that had the force of law, a bilik, where he demanded:

“Just as our merchants [urtak] come with clothes woven with gold and good things [tangsuk] and are firmly convinced of getting a profit from these fabrics and fabrics, the emirs of the army should also properly teach their sons throwing arrows, horseback riding and martial arts and exercise them in these matters, and to make [them] so brave and undaunted that they be like persevering merchants in those arts [resourcefulness and enterprise] that they know."
Rashid ad-Din "Collection of chronicles".

Marco Polo describes Genghis Khan's military reform thus:

"This Genghis Khan ruled the country well. What else can you say? It's even surprising how many Tatars gathered here. Genghis Khan saw that he had a lot of people, armed him with bows and other weapons of theirs and went to fight foreign countries."
"The Book of the Diversity of the World", LXV.

Thus, the Mongols had a huge army of mounted archers. This army was divided into smaller units, up to a dozen, who knew how to fight both individually and together. The Mongols achieved this by the introduction of cruel iron discipline and many years of military experience. The bet in battle was made on a long-range battle. The Mongols tried not to engage in close combat.

“You need to know that whenever they see enemies, they go to them, and each one throws three or four arrows at their opponents; and if they see that they cannot defeat them, then they retreat back to their own; and this they do for the sake of deception, so that their enemies pursue them to the places where they ambushed them, and if their enemies pursue them to the aforementioned ambush, they surround them and thus wound and kill.In the same way, if they see that there is a large army against them, they sometimes depart from it for a day or two of travel and secretly attack another part of the land and plunder it, while they kill people and destroy and devastate the land. ten or twelve days' journey.Sometimes also they remain in a safe place until the army of their enemies is divided, and then they come stealthily and devastate the whole land.For in wars they are very cunning, because they have fought with other nations for forty years and even more".
Plano Carpini "History of the Mongols", VI, 3, 3.

Mongolian arrowheads. From the collection of D. Simonyan.

Thus, the armies of the Jin Empire, the Sunn Empire, Khorezm, the principalities of Rus' and other opponents of the Mongols were defeated. The massive use of the bow, the maneuvering tactics of exhausting the enemy, luring into an ambush by a deceptive retreat, and knocking out the enemy's horses were the key to Mongol victories for a long time. Despite its effectiveness, the bow, however, is not some kind of super-weapon. Otherwise, firearms would never have supplanted the bow. The fact is that the bow is effective in combat only at close range. The Arabs determined an aimed shot from a bow at 60 m. Above this distance, the penetrating power of the bow dropped sharply, as did the aiming - the arrow simply bounced off the armor without causing harm. Anna Komnena, describing the European crossbow, writes: " An arrow shot with great force, wherever it hits, never bounces back ...", i.e., an arrow from a bow bounced, but not a bolt from a crossbow. Albert of Aachen describes the battle of the crusaders with the Arabs in 1097, where the enemy's arrows practically do not cause damage due to the distance: " From time to time, the Turks, hoping for their large numbers, having gathered their forces, gave a courageous rebuff and threw arrows into the air, falling in frequent hail. But as soon as this cloud of arrows dissipated, as faithful ones, constantly keeping spears in their hands, with which they hit the enemy, they rushed at him again and, spreading death through his ranks, finally forced the Turks, defeated and placed beyond the possibility of defending themselves, to flee over the abysses. mountains and escape along the paths known to them alone". Although above Albert describes a terrible bow shot at close range: " Gerard of Kerisi, also chasing the enemy on a fine horse, saw a Turk stopping on the top of a mountain with confidence in own forces, and rushed bravely at him; but the Turk, piercing his shield with an arrow, hit him between the liver and lungs, and, knocking him over dead on the ground, took his horse with him".

The remains of one of the victims of the Mongolian archer. Found at the site of the Zolotorevsky battle.

The Mongolian bow differed little from the Arab and Turkish bows of that time. It was only effective at close range. But from what distance did the Mongols fire? Archeology provides the answer. Rashid ad-Din writes about the palace of Khan Ogedei: " Each side of that palace was as long as the flight of an arrow."As archaeological excavations have shown, the Ogedei palace had dimensions of 45 by 55 m, i.e. for the Mongols, the flight of an arrow was 45-55 m. This is the distance of an aimed shot when the arrow retains penetrating power. From such a distance, an arrow could (Plano Carpini recommends using double armor against the Mongols), break through the shield, stun with a blow to the helmet, hit the enemy in an unprotected place. A tumen volley of several thousand arrows, fired at close range, produced a stunning effect on contemporaries. Divided into hundreds and tens of tumens the Mongols scattered, leaving the pursuing enemy, snarling with arrows, hitting enemy horses, and at a good moment again uniting and raining down on the enemy a hail of arrows.If the enemy fled, then the Mongols pursued him sometimes for several days, killing those who fled.

“They (Tatars), who were camped on the banks of the Berduja, now called Sagim, instantly saddled their horses and entered into a fight. And a fierce battle broke out. We were angered by the Almighty for our unbelief and our sins, and the Georgians and their soldiers fled, and King Lasha himself, and a myriad of Christian souls perished.
"Centennial Chronicle", "Kartlis Tskhorevba".

Such tactics impressed contemporaries, who were simply frightened by the Mongolian bow. A certain European poet in the "Poem about the Mongol invasion" conveyed the impression of the Europeans from the bow of the Mongols:

The bow will pull, the mouth will bare,
Long-range shot will sting,
Three times the important will belittle,
Thrice resistant will knock down!
From his cursed arrow
Neither shield nor armor will save;
Dick, furious shaggy people,
How to run from the adversary?
Their spears are tarred
ignited by fire,
Their arrows fly far
Their arrows pierce steel
Their arrows hit, but ours do not,
And the enemy, fierce, follow us,
Like a leopard for a sacrifice, spins,
It's falling like rain!

The Arab writer Muhammad al-Nasawi describes the battle near Isfahan (1227), where the left wing of the Khwarezmian army was ambushed:

"When the sultan crossed and came out on a steep bank, and the sun was already beginning to hide, those hidden in ambush came out of hiding from the left wing [of the sultan's troops], like a raging fire that leaves nothing. They hit the left wing and threw it back to the center [of the Sultan's troops] It was only one blow, but so [strong] that the legs were torn off the ground, and the necks were off the bodies. Those who carried the banners were defeated, the blood froze in the veins from the blows of the swords, and fountains of blood gushed like beams of sparks cut from flint, but the khans and emirs, the commanders of the left wing, stood firm, remaining true to their oath until death.
Only three of them survived: Kuch-Tegin-Pakhlavan, Hajib al-Khass Khanberdi and Amir-Ahur Odek. Ahash-Malik fought until he fell, studded with arrows, like a hedgehog [needles], and died for his faith."
"Biography of Sultan Jalal ad-Din Mankburna", ch. 61.

Master Rogerius describes the defeat of the detachment of the Kaloch archbishop by the Mongols:

“The Archbishop of Kaloch, Ugrin, very hard endured the fact that they, like robbers, confused so many good people, and even harder that the king seemed to him and his people to be cowardly. Therefore, going out, contrary to the command of the king, with a few of his people, he wanted to fight the Tatars. But they, turning their backs, began to retreat a little. The archbishop, seeing this, began to pursue them at full speed. Having reached the swampy area, they quickly passed it. The archbishop, without turning, for he was very close to them, hurriedly entered the swamp, and since he and his people pressed the ground with the weight of their weapons, he was no longer able to cross the swamp or return. The Tatars, quickly returning, surrounded the swamp and, sending arrows with rain, killed them all there.
"A woeful song about the ruin of the Hungarian kingdom by the Tatars", ch. 21.

Successfully combining the mass use of the bow and the maneuverability of the cavalry, the Mongols conquered vast territories with fire and sword, leaving death and destruction in their wake. However, the weakness of the Mongols was also in the bet on the bow. Being excellent archers and horsemen, the Mongols were weak in hand-to-hand combat. The lack of iron armor and poor preparation for hand-to-hand combat ended for the Mongols with heavy losses in close combat. They could not compete on equal terms with professional feudal armies in close combat. "The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan by Batu" tells about the attack of the detachment of Evpaty Kolovrat, who imposed close combat on the Mongols and inflicted enormous damage on them:

"And they rushed after the godless tsar, and were barely able to catch up with him in the Suzdal land. And they suddenly attacked the resting army of Batyevo, and began to flog without mercy, and brought confusion to all the Tatar regiments. The Tatars became like drunk or distraught. Evpatiy fought so mercilessly that the swords were blunted, and snatched<он мечи>Tatar, and chopped them. The Tatars thought it was the dead who were resurrected! Evpaty at full gallop fought with strong regiments and beat them mercilessly. And he fought with the Tatar troops so bravely and courageously that the tsar himself was frightened ...
And he sent his brother-in-law's son, Khostovrul, against Evpaty, and with him many Tatar troops. Hostovrul boasted to the king that he would bring Yevpatia alive to the king. And large Tatar forces surrounded everyone, wanting to capture Yevpatiy alive. Khostovrul entered into single combat with Evpatiy. Yevpatiy, the hero by force, cut Khostovrul in two to the very saddle. And he began to flog the Tatar army and beat many famous heroes of the Batyevs, cutting some in two, and cutting others to the saddle.
The Tatars were frightened, seeing that Yevpaty was a giant hero. And they aimed an innumerable number of battering rams at him, and they began to hit him with them, and they killed him with difficulty.

The inhabitants of Kozelsk inflicted considerable losses on the Mongols, destroying four thousand Mongols in a sortie. This seems like an incredible exaggeration, but these descriptions are confirmed by foreign sources.

"And when one of the Tatars, as usual, approached Pest, he, armed and sitting on a horse, went out to meet them. And when they were already supposed to converge, the Tatars, as was their custom, showing their backs, disappeared. spurring his horse, he overtook one of them and hit him with a spear so that the broken shaft of the spear threw the Tatar from his horse to the ground. blade, cut off his hand with one blow. He, falling out of the saddle, immediately died. The other Tatars, turning to flight, picked up the fallen one and, together with the horses, brought him to their army. "
Master Rogerius "Sorrowful song about the ruin of the Hungarian kingdom by the Tatars", ch. 23.

"Jalal ad-Din met him with the firm intention of waging jihad and diligently defending Islam. He ran into him at Parvan with cavalry like mountain streams and warriors [brave] like lions. When both detachments appeared, he himself rushed to the center of Toli -Khan, upset his [battle] order, threw his banners under the hooves of the cavalry, forced him to flee and leave his position. And [then] swords of revenge fell upon the Tatars. Sitting in the saddle of hatred, Jalal ad-Din cut off the ends of the neck veins with swords, separated the shoulders from the places where they converge. How could it be otherwise? After all, they caused great suffering to him, his brothers and father, his state, his relatives and close associates who guarded him. He was left without a father and offspring, without a master and without a slave, misfortune threw him into the steppes, and dangers led him into the desert.
Toli Khan was killed in the heat of battle, in the midst of the attack. Many prisoners were taken, so that the servants brought the people they captured to him (Jalal ad-Din) and drove stakes into their ears, settling scores with them.
Muhammad an-Nasawi "Biography of Sultan Jalal ad-Din Mankburna", ch. 36.

Mongolian arrowheads.

In the already mentioned battle near Isfahan, the Mongols suffered heavy losses and retreated: " As for the damned [Tatars], they returned from Isfahan in fear. Although they were victorious at the end of the day, the swords took more [people] from them than from the Muslims, and they turned back, defeated"(M. al-Nasawi).

Plano Carpini names another method of fighting the Mongols:

“All who wish to fight them should have the following weapons: good and strong bows, ballistas, which they are very afraid of, a sufficient number of arrows, a club (dolabrum) of good iron, or a long-handled ax (arrow points for a bow or ballista must, like the Tartars, when they are hot, to be tempered in water mixed with salt so that they have the power to pierce their weapons), also swords and spears with a hook to be able to pull them off the saddle, since they fall very easily from it, knives and double armor, since their arrows do not easily pierce them, a helmet and other weapons to protect the body and horse from their weapons and arrows.

Ballistas are crossbows, because the version of Carpini's book written by C. de Bridia leaves no doubt about this:

"And the ballistarii, located in front of the army and spaced in at least three [rows], must throw arrows before they can reach the battle order of the tartars, [that is] in the best way and in time so that their own battle ranks either run or are and if the enemy turns to flight, the ballistarii with archers, and those who are in ambush, pursue them, while the army gradually moves behind them.

This was the cure for the Mongolian blitzkrieg - to drive the Mongols further than a distance of 45-55 m in order to deprive their bows of lethal power, and also to get close to the Mongols in close combat, preferably depriving their cavalry of maneuver. As soon as the opponents of the Mongols understood this by the 80s. 13th century Mongols' successes ended everywhere. This is exactly how Mamai nga Kulikovo field was defeated - in a cramped field, in close combat, where the bow became useless. The Mongols could still hold on to what they had conquered, but they no longer had the strength to make new conquests. Star of the Mongol empires in the XIV century. began to roll, and the enslaved peoples got a chance for revenge, from which no bow could save.

The Mongolian bow has a reverse kibiti bow. This means that both the bow itself and the ends of the bow are curved outward in a special way. Traditional manufacturing techniques for these weapons included the use of wood, birch bark, and reinforcement with horn overlays.

Unlike other bows, they had an additional side bend in the form of an overlay made of leather, wood and horns. It was arranged to protect the nomad from the return blow of the bowstring on the wrist of the left hand, which largely determined the methods of firing shots. Including, striking contemporaries, the traditional shooting of nomads from behind. That is why the Mongols did not need traditional bracers used by other peoples.

Making this bow is a long, patient process. It was created from several layers of wood, covered with birch bark on the outside. A rather small (up to 170 cm long) bow of the Mongols had incredible lethal power, piercing not only the armor of European knights, but also the warrior himself through and through.

The Mongolian bow consisted of three main elements: wood, bone, horn and glue. The bow was made by a special craftsman. All other parts of the Mongol archer's equipment, such as a quiver, bow or bow case, arrows, were also made by specialist artisans. The quiver and bow were made of specially dressed leather. The skin was soaked for seven to ten days in a wooden barrel of salt water, then brushed, stretched and kneaded to the desired state. The quiver consisted of two wooden planks connected by a wooden frame and covered with leather. The belt for carrying the quiver was thrown over the right shoulder and the quiver hung at the right hip. The number of arrows in a quiver could be different - from four to fifteen, depending on the type of hunting and the type of arrows. The headband was cut from one large piece of subtriangular leather, with the seam located on one side and only up to the middle of the cover. In the upper, narrow part of the bow there was a loop through which the shooter's belt was threaded. The cover was worn on the left side in an inclined position, as the most convenient for riding a horse. The bow in the sheath was in a taut state, with the string down, the tree up, and was only half covered with a sheath.

Contrary to popular belief, the Mongols almost never used poison arrows. Their weapons were already deadly enough. The arrowheads had the most different weight, size and configuration. Many of them were not just a part of the weapon, but also a kind of traditional mascots of nomads.

The bowstring was made from the vertebral tendons of animals. They were divided into threads, twisted together, getting a tight and elastic bowstring. To avoid injuries during shooting, the nomads used a special ring that protected the fingers of the right hand.

The technology for making Mongolian-type bows was extremely complex and required high technical development. Master archers possessed excellent knowledge of the properties of all the composite materials from which the bow was made: various types of wood, horn, bone, birch bark tendons, glue, varnishes, etc. For the manufacture of the wooden base of the bows, best breeds wood of the highest quality, for overlays - horn and bone plates without the slightest flaw. The most carefully selected tendons and birch bark, varnishes and raw materials for the preparation of glue.

In Western and Central Asia, the technique for the production of composite bows has reached such perfection that when dressing onions, the climatic features of the regions where they will be used, the purpose of the bow for certain purposes, and the individual addition of the archer were taken into account. Depending on these factors, the ratio and quality of its constituent parts, the length, width, magnitude of the bend and the shape of the bow were determined. From design features and the shape of the bow very much depended on its power, the amount of effort applied to pull it and keep it taut. 31 It has been experimentally proven that with the optimal ratio of bow and arrow, the correct distribution and combination of composite materials, the size and shape of the bow depended on its range, arrow flight speed, its penetrating ability and stopping effect.

WITHtrills

The manufacture of arrows, hollow inside, provided a whistle during the flight. This brought mortal horror to the enemies of the nomads. This, of course, is the similarity with the whistle of a certain type of Mongolian arrows, called "singing death." Both of them believed that whistling arrows scare away evil spirits. Mongolian arrows made a sound with a kind of whistle located at the tip. The most powerful Mongolian bow, as many historians believe, had an arrow range of over 300 meters.

The end of bow making was accompanied by a special ceremony of opening the bow, which consisted of pronouncing a wish-blessing erool, where praise for the virtues of the bow was combined with wishes of good luck to its owner. Following the pronunciation of the wish-blessing, a libation was made on the “head” of the lukaairag, for which the shooter chose one of the ends of the bow, to which the hadak accompanying the wishes was attached. The libation was carried out with the help of a ritual wooden spoon, on the deep part of which there were nine or twelve small pits. The ceremony ended with refreshments for those present. The first use of the arrow was also accompanied by wishes and a redemptive anointing.

In relation to the bow, the Mongols had a number of prescriptions and prohibitions, which subsequently passed to the gun. These include, first of all, the prohibition to step over the bow (gun), as well as rubbing the bow (or gun) in case of misses with the blood of predatory animals, so that the weapon becomes more deadly.
Archery to this day remains one of the favorite traditional entertainments of the Mongols and, along with national wrestling and horse racing, plays a significant role in the annual folk festival nadam, whose roots are associated with military sports and go back to the distant past of the Mongolian people.

A recurve composite bow, which consists of several layers of wood (mainly birch) glued together with animal glue. On the bow there are horn overlays located on the inside and glued on outside veins. The length of the Mongolian bow as a whole is 150-170 cm. The arrows for the Mongolian bow were about 90-95 cm long.

This weapon differs from other composite bows in that it has a bowstring outlet in the form of an overlay attached with inside Luke. The materials for its manufacture are horns, leather and wood. The overlay is capable of retracting the bowstring from the bow arms located at the base of the arcs. It is to some extent a protective element that prevents damage to the archer's hands in the event of an accidental breakage of the bowstring at the time when the bow is being drawn.

The Mongolian bow has won the title of the most efficient bow in the world. Compared to the English longbow, it is not as long, but it has much more power. Its tension force can reach 80 kgf, while the longbow has about 35-40 kgf. This feature provides a large distance of aimed shooting of the Mongolian bow - up to 320 meters, and for the longbow - up to 228 meters. National archery competitions in Mongolia can be of two types: "Khana" and "Khasaa". First of all, the archers fire 20 arrows at the Khan's target. The length of this target is 4 m, and its height is only 48 cm. After that, the Khasaa target, consisting of 30 cylinders, is fired upon. It also needs to fire 20 arrows. The person whose mission is to count the points walks around the targets and makes a verdict on each shot, shouting the traditional words: undershoot, overshoot or sideways.

The distance from the target to the archer is calculated depending on the gender. For men it is 75 m, and for women it is 60 m.

As mentioned above, the main feature that the Mongolian bow has is the selection of materials for its manufacture. It can be both trees and veins and horns of animals. One of the main details of the bow is the horn of a mountain goat. In the soaked state, it becomes flexible and can be attached to the frame without much difficulty. The horn is the basis of the future strength of the bow.

At modern shooting competitions, a good archer from 90 m hit a growth target. In general, aimed shooting by Mongolian archers (from composite bows, galloping and canopy) was carried out up to 200 m, English archers (from wooden bows) were fired at 300 m, Turkish and Chinese (from the best bows) - up to 70 m, most often - at 40-50 m.

In the official chronicles of the Mongols, the fact of the extraction of the beast (roe deer) by Khan Kulkan (the youngest son of Genghis Khan, died during the siege of Kolomna) was recorded at a distance of about 400 m. Which characterized him as an excellent archer. The fact of the extraction (!) of the beast is important, but not the range. It can be assumed that the range was much greater.

The range of archery is often greatly exaggerated. A reliable record for the range of an arrow from a sports bow, confirmed by disinterested witnesses, was only about 450 m. This record was set by the secretary of the Turkish embassy in England in the middle of the 18th century. The British national record at the time was half that.

One of the officially documented records in the range of archery was noted in the 3rd century BC. e. at the Games in the Pontic city of Chersonese (Bosporan Kingdom). The Olympian archer Anaxagoras (from the city of Olbia), won in archery range, shooting an arrow in more than 3 stages (3 stages = 534 meters). In the official chronicles of the Mongols, the fact of the extraction of the beast (roe deer) by Khan Kulkan (the youngest son of Genghis Khan, died during the siege of Kolomna) was recorded at a distance of about 400 m. Which characterized him as an excellent archer. The fact of the extraction (!) of the beast is important, but not the range. It can be assumed that the range was much greater.

The record Turkic compound bow threw an arrow at 250 own lengths. A conventional composite bow fired about 150 own lengths. Wooden - 100, composite - somewhere around 120.

The modern archery range record is about 300 m, or over 300 bow lengths.

A significant amount of historical evidence suggests that the armor saved from arrows, and the knights in chain mail received only minor wounds, and the armor did not break through with arrows at all. Tests were carried out, steel plates were shot from large English bows from a distance of 10 m. Plates 1 mm thick were punched at right angles, but 2 mm steel could not be pierced. In addition, the penetrating power of the arrow also depended on the tip used. So, for shooting at chain mail, tips in the form of long needles were used, and for breaking through solid armor (like knightly cuirasses) in the 14th century they began to use a short faceted diamond-shaped tip. At the same time, during battles with the Mongols in the 13th century, Western warriors (Crusaders, Hungarians, Czech and Polish knights) were amazed by the fact that the Mongol arrow pierced through the man-at-arms (M.I. Ignatov), if he did not hide behind shield. And with the adopted battle strategy - rapprochement to hand-to-hand combat, and the Mongol light cavalry did not allow this, the men at arms had practically no chance.

The latter evidence deserves closer attention. The fact is that many contemporaries call the bow the main weapon of the Mongols. So, Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting testify: “Their customs are archery ...”; and further: “If we turn to the most important of their types of weapons, then bow and arrow will come first(highlighted by us. -Yu.K.), and the saber - on the next one after them. The captured Englishman mentioned above also speaks of this: “... they tirelessly and bravely fight with spears, clubs, axes and swords, but preference for bows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) and accurately, with great skill, they shoot from them ... ". Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich P Hohenstaufen also writes about this in a letter addressed to the English King Henry III: “... bows are the most familiar weapon for them(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), along with arrows and other throwing weapons ... ". The Dominican monk Vincent of Beauvais notes the same: “... most of all they rely on bows and arrows... "(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), and Premonstratensian monk Hetum Patmich: "Tatars are excellent riders and are proficient with weapons, especially bows and arrows"(highlighted by us - Yu.K.). And here is the testimony of the Venetian Marco Polo, who, as you know, lived among the Mongols for a long time, serving Khan Kublai: “... in more than that they use a bow(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), because they are dexterous shooters.

Light Mounted Archer– classic appearance Mongolian warrior. Equipment will be considered here. The dressing gown is wrapped on the right side, tight trousers, leather boots with thick soles. Fur-trimmed hat. A saber and a saadak hang on the belt. The quiver is hung on a belt over the shoulder and thrown over the back on the right side. The warrior is armed with a short Mongolian bow.
1. Mongolian bow in a loose state. When pulling the string, the bow had to be bent against its natural curvature. 2. Mongolian arrowheads. 3. Mongolian robe. The method of wrapping it on the right side is shown. 4 and 5. Two styles of Mongolian hairstyles. 6. Mongolian boots made of thick leather. 7. Quiver.

At this point it is worth dwelling in more detail. The fact is that if we turn to the testimony of a number of contemporaries, we can see that the Mongols paid quite a lot of attention to shooting training. “As for their black Tatars shooting from a horse, they are tied to the back of a horse even in infancy. ... At 3 years old they are tied with a rope to the pommel of the saddle, so that there is something to hold on to with their hands, and they let the crowd rush at full speed. At 4-5 years old they are given to hold a small bow and short arrows, with which they grow up. ... All of them are rapidly worn on horseback, while they stand on their toes in stirrups, and do not sit, so their main strength is in the calves, and it is not in the hips at all. They are as fast as a running whirlwind and mighty as a crushing mountain. Since in the saddle they turn to the left and turn over to the right with such ease as if the wings of a windmill, they can, turning to the left, shoot to the right, and not only there - they also aim backwards, ”report Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine says practically the same thing: “Men do nothing at all, with the exception of arrows ... they hunt and practice shooting, for all of them, young and old, are good arrows, and their children, when they are two or three years old, they immediately begin to ride and manage horses and ride them, and they are given a bow according to their age, and they learn to shoot arrows ... ". And here is what Benedict Pole reports (in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia): “Men only make arrows and practice archery. They also force three or four year old boys to exercise in the same way. Vincent of Beauvais says the same thing in his encyclopedia: “They amuse themselves with wrestling and archery, which they consider to be the best entertainment, as well as military exercises.” Zhao Hong also indirectly confirms this: “Tatars are born and grow up in the saddle. By themselves they learn to fight."

Young Mongolian warrior
The Mongolian warrior was inseparable from his horse. The horse harness is decorated, the tail is braided. A method of archery from a saddle is shown. Two warriors are practicing archery, trying to hit a wooden block.
Box 1. Mongolian saddle. It had a solid construction, was made of wood and was soaked in sheep fat to protect it from rain. The saddle had a high front and back pommel, providing the archer with a secure fit and the ability to turn the body in all directions.
Box 2. paisa (label). Khan in Karakoram had an efficient courier service. Thanks to couriers, the khan quickly learned about all the news and immediately transmitted orders to all parts of his vast empire. The gents, who served as the khan's eyes and ears, wore a label made of iron or silver, which showed the status of the person to whom the report was delivered. One such label has survived to our time.

Most likely, this practice was one of the first reforms of Genghis Khan. We find indirect confirmation of this from Marco Polo: “It happened that in 1187 the Tatars chose a king for themselves, and he was called Genghis Khan in their language ... Genghis Khan saw that he had a lot of people, armed him with bows and their other weapons and went to fight foreign countries". Rashid ad-Din confirms this assumption in his story about Genghis Khan: “He also said ... the emirs of the army should properly teach their sons throwing arrows, horseback riding and martial arts and exercise them in these matters.” An indirect confirmation of this can be seen in the words of Genghis Khan himself, which Li Zhi Chang quotes when describing his conversation with Chang Chun: “... we are Mughals, with early years We are used to shooting from horseback and we cannot suddenly leave this habit.

In any case, during the period of the Great Conquest, the Mongols in the eyes of contemporaries were firmly associated precisely as archers. So the great Galician boyar Yuri Domogaroch, a participant in the battle on the Kapka River, whose words are recorded in the Chronicler of Daniel of Galicia, directly says: Moreover, among Armenian authors, the definition of "arrows" is often given as a synonym for the term "Mongol". So Vardan Areveltsi (1198-1271) in the work "Collection of History", speaking of the Mongols, calls them "the people of shooters", and in another work, "Geography", he calls the city of Samarkand captured by the Mongols - "the capital of the people of shooters" . Syuni Bishop Stefanos Orbelian (died in 1304) in his work “The History of the Sisakan Region” also calls the Mongols “the people of shooters”, and Mongolia – “the country of shooters”. The prominent statesman of Cilician Armenia Smbat Sparapet (1208-1267) also calls the Mongols "the people of shooters" in his work "Chronicle", who personally visited the Mongolian capital Karokorum twice. And speaking of the military formations of the Mongols, he calls them "troops of shooters." And one of the most famous Armenian historians, a contemporary of the capture of Transcaucasia by the Mongols, Kirakos Gandzaketsi (1200-1271), in the "History of Armenia" calls the Mongols - "tribe of shooters". In turn, another prominent Armenian historian Grigor Aknertsi, better known as the monk Magakia, directly titled his work “History of the people of the Shooters”. The Armenian tradition of calling the Mongols "the people of shooters" or simply "shooters" is also given by the Fleming Willem from Rebrek.

Mongols in the Middle East, 1220.
G1: Mongolian heavily armed horse archer.
The peculiarity of the equipment of this warrior is a powerful leather scaly carapace and a pointed helmet with a silk lining. A surcoat is thrown over the shell, which prevents the metal from heating up in the sun. Mongolian bow with the most high angle wrinkled shoulders. The reins of the horse are connected by a thin rope to the wrist. This rope does not allow you to completely lose nro-water during archery.
G2: Mongolian light warrior.
Mongolian scout and skirmisher. Unlike the heavily armed warrior who prepared for the campaign, this one was in the war straight from the field. The Mongolian short horse is a relative of the Przewalski's horse.
G3: Persian foot archer.
The deceased Persian foot archer had a helmet characteristic of his time, a heavy linen overshirt and a silk undershirt. The bow is clearly Persian tin.

Many of the contemporaries characterize the Mongols not just as shooters, but as excellent shooters. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine: "... all of them, young and old, are good shooters ...". Juvaini: "... if they wish, they can shoot down the stars with arrows...". Matthew Paris: "...are amazing archers...". Stefanos Orbelyan: "... skillful (here we mean the people. - Yu.K.) in throwing arrows ...". André of Longjumeau: "They don't use ballistae, but they are excellent archers." Friedrich II Hohenstaufen: "These tartars, incomparable archers ...". Hetum Patmich: “The war with them is very dangerous, because in one such, even a small war, more people die than in any clash with any other people. And this happens for the most part due to the fact that they shoot strongly and accurately”; and further: "It is very dangerous to pursue them, because, turning around, they begin to shoot arrows and thus injure and kill people and horses." Marco Polo: "They know how to shoot deftly ...". The same is noted by Smbat Sparapet in a letter to the Cypriot king Henry II de Lusignan: "They are excellent arrows ...".

Moreover, a number of contemporaries directly distinguish the Mongols as archers against the background of other peoples. Thus, a Georgian anonymous author, a contemporary of Tsar George IV Lasha (1213-1222), reports: “At the same time, they gained courage and were chosen archers(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), flawlessly shooting from their tight bows with heavy arrows, the impact of which could not withstand any armor. They were especially dexterous on horseback, because they grew up on horseback, they did not know armor, except for a bow and arrows. And here is how the impressions of Russian warriors from the first clashes with the Mongols are recorded in the Chronicler of Daniel of Galicia: The Hungarian Dominican monk Julian, who visited the South Russian steppes twice, in 1235 and 1237, specifically noted in a message to the papal legate Salvio de Salvi: “They say that they shoot further than other nations can. At the first clash in the war, their arrows, as they say, do not fly, but, as it were, pour like a downpour. With swords and spears, they are rumored to fight less skillfully.

Mongolian light horseman, Rus'.
An episode of a long chase, which the Mongols could undertake after the battle, was spotted by a Mongol cavalryman in the coastal thickets of a hiding Russian warrior. The Mongol wears a robe captured during the Khorezm campaign; a warm sheepskin coat is put on under the robe. Hat with fur-trimmed earmuffs. The appearance of the Mongol was recreated according to the "Saray Album" (Istanbul). Attached to the saddle is a coil of rope, an axe, and a wineskin with sour milk. The armor of the Russian warrior is depicted in accordance with the samples presented in the Kremlin Armory. The weather shown in the illustration corresponds to the authors' ideas about the "harsh Russian winter"!

In turn, Bishop Stefan Vatsky, in a letter to Parisian Bishop William III of Auvergne, also notes: “They are more skilled archers than Hungarian and Comani, and their bows are more powerful.” Friedrich II of Hohenstaufen writes about the same to the English King Henry III: "... bows ... which they constantly use, which is why their hands are stronger than those of other people, then they utterly defeated the Cumans." Here is how Getum Patmich, one of the statesmen of Cilician Armenia, described the Mongols: "And they have already become so accustomed to the art of shooting that they have surpassed the rest of the world's population in it."

As you can see, if we turn to the tactics of the Mongols, it becomes obvious that their shooting combat prevails over everything else. Direct indications of this can be seen in Marco Polo: “In battles with the enemy, they gain the upper hand like this: running away from the enemy, they are not ashamed, running away, turn around and shoot. They taught their horses, like dogs, to turn in all directions. When they are driven, they fight gloriously on the run, and just as strongly, as if they were standing face to face with the enemy; runs and turns back, shoots accurately, beats both enemy horses and people; and the enemy thinks that they are scattered and defeated, and he himself loses, from the fact that his horses have been shot down, and the people have been pretty much killed. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine also speaks of the same: “... whenever they see enemies, they go at them, and each one throws three or four arrows at his opponents ...”; and further: "... they do not willingly enter the battle, but wound and kill people and horses with arrows ...". Benedikt Polek echoes him: “When they have to meet with the enemy, many of them are armed with a large number of quivers and arrows, and before the enemy’s arrows reach them, they release their own, even if this is premature and they cannot shoot arrows accurately. And when they can reach the enemy with arrows without hindrance, they say that it resembles rain rather than flying arrows. And this happens because of the extreme density of flying arrows.

This also follows from the course of the battles, a number of which have come down to us in more or less detailed descriptions. For example, Muhammad al-Nasawi, speaking about the battle of Isfahan on August 25, 1228, in which the Mongols defeated the last Khorezmshah Jalal ad-Din Mankburni, describes the heroic resistance of the latter’s troops in this way: “But the khans and emirs, commanders of the left wing, stood firmly, until his death, remaining true to his oath. Only three of them survived: Kuch Tegin Pakhlavan, Hajib al-Khass Khanberdi and Emir Ahur Odek. Ahash-Malik fought until fell, studded with arrows, like a hedgehog with needles(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), and died for the faith. In turn, Juvaini, describing the battle of the Mongols with the Jin, which took place near the river. Huang He in 1231, testifies: "... the Mongols knocked them down with a hail of arrows, and they stretched out on damp earth ...". A similar situation can be traced during the capture of the passes through the Carpathians by the Mongols, which was described by Master Rogerius, who was in Hungary in 1241 as an envoy of Cardinal John of Lucy: “... on the twelfth day after the onset of March, there was a battle with the Tatars at the pass, and when almost all his people were severely wounded with arrows and swords, he left with a few of them ... ". We see the same thing when he describes the battle of the Archbishop of Kaloch, Ugrin Kzak, with the Mongols approaching the city of Pest: “... he wanted to fight the Tatars. Note, shading their backs, began to gradually retreat. The archbishop, seeing this, began to pursue them at full speed. Having reached the swampy area, they quickly passed it. The archbishop, without turning, for he was very close to them, hurriedly entered the swamp, and since he and his people pressed the ground with the weight of their weapons, he was no longer able to cross the swamp or return. Tatars, quickly returning, surrounded the swamp and, sending arrows with rain, they were all killed there(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) ". The same picture is observed in the Battle of Liegnitz, which took place on April 9, 1241 between the Mongols and the united Polish army. Her detailed description came to us in the work of Jan Dlugosh: “The crusaders and foreign knights broke the first ranks of the Tatars with spears and moved forward. But when it came to hand-to-hand combat - with swords, the Tatar archers surrounded the detachments of crusaders and foreign knights from all sides so that other - Polish - detachments could not come to their aid without putting themselves in a dangerous position. Detachment that faltered and eventually lay down under a hail of arrows, like tender ears under hail, for many among them were people without shields and shells. And when the son of Diepold, the Moravian margrave, Boleslav and others fell there knights from the front, the rest, which were also thinned out by Tatar arrows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), retreated to the Polish detachments. The situation is repeated in the battle of the river. Shio, which took place on April 11, 1241 between the Mongols and the united Hungarian-Croatian army and a detailed description of which was left to us by Thomas of Split: “They sent a cavalry detachment forward ... Having lined up and successfully positioned themselves, they opposed them in full armor and in strict order . But the detachments of the Tatars, without waiting hand-to-hand combat and, as usual, pelting enemies with arrows, hastily rushed to run "; and further: “... the Tatar horde, as if in a round dance, surrounded the entire camp of the Hungarians. Some, pulling their bows, began to shoot arrows from all sides, others hurried to set fire to the camp in a circle. ... Enemies, scattered everywhere, did not stop throwing spears and arrows. ... They did not defend themselves with weapons from a shower of arrows and spears, but, substituting their backs, completely collapsed under these blows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), as usual, acorns fall from a shaken oak. And these are the descriptions of the same battle by Master Rogerius: “ Tatars... surrounding him, began to shoot at the Hungarians arrows that hit like hail. ... The arrows fell so often that they darkened the sky for the combatants and flew through the air like a swarm of beetles and locusts.. ... And if the Hungarians interspersed from different places went into battle, then Tatars. meeting them, arrows forced them to flee from battle formations(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) ... ". In turn, Rashid ad-Din, describing the battle of the Mongols with the Mamluks, which took place in 1260 in the area of Ain-i Jalut, testifies that the vanguard of the Mamluks fled without even entering into a firefight with the Mongols: “The Mongol army attacked, firing from bows, and Kuduz dodged and fled. Armenian author of the XIV century. Nerses Palienz, describing the battle that took place between the troops of Ilkhan Ghazan and the Mamluks in the area of Jabal al-Salihiya, near the city of Damascus, on February 12, 1300, reports: “On the day when the army of the Sultan was preparing for battle, his soldiers prepared felt scarecrows, hung sparkling things on them so that they shone in the sun, and stuffed scarecrows on 10 thousand camels, and they all lined up in a row, while the soldiers themselves hid behind the camels ... since the Mongols, that is, the Tatars, except for arrows, had nothing else(highlighted by us. - Y.K.), the Muslims were waiting for them to shoot their arrows at felt stuffed animals that were put on camels”; and further: “It happened at three o'clock in the afternoon, and until nine o'clock in the evening arrows flew in the air, and the sun was darkened from them, and people were in the shade from the density of arrows. With these arrows, the army of the Sultan was defeated and put to flight. And here is the description of Hetum Patmich of the battle that took place between the same opponents near the city of Homs, Syria, in 1301: “... the Tatars, united, shot arrows and killed many enemy horses, while those Saracens who approached from the rear, the advance detachment, stumbled. Therefore, of the many Saracens, only a few left alive. Many Saracens were mortally wounded by arrows, from which they died."(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.). Here it is worth making a digression. The fact is that the last two battles, although they took place at the beginning of the 14th century, but, in our opinion, they still reflect the Mongol tactics, since the military reforms of Ilkhan Ghazan, which, apparently, were carried out at the very end of his reign, should have markedly changed the military affairs of the Khulagid.

A noteworthy fact is that during their companies, the Mongols took care not only of the replenishment of arrows - the most consumable material, but also of the replenishment of bows, bowstrings for them and quivers. Thus, in the biography of the Khitan Xiao Baizhu in Yuan-shih, an episode from track record his grandfather: "During Taizu's campaign to the west, Chonu sent thin and thick bamboo, bows, crossbows and bowstrings, 10,000 pieces of each type, by horse relays." Benedict the Pole speaks of the same thing in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia: “They also carry with them a large number of weapons, bows, quivers and arrows.” This indicates that the shelling was very intense, and even the guns themselves could not withstand it.

From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that in battle the Mongols relied precisely on remote shooting combat. And it was the remote shooting battle of the Mongols that caused concern among their opponents. This is directly indicated in the “Secret Tale” by the words of the Naimans: “They say that in the northern side there are some insignificant Mongols there, and that they allegedly frightened the ancient glorious great Van Khan with their sidak ...”; and further: “Whatever these Mongols are, we will go and bring here their sidak. ... Let's take away from these, what are they, Mongols, their saidaks! . Direct confirmation of this can be seen in the testimonies of contemporaries. Thus, the Armenian historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi writes: "... the sound of their quivers terrified everyone." The Croatian priest Foma Splitsky echoes him: “... the deadly Tatar arrows shot straight at the target struck for sure. And there was no such armor, shield or helmet that would not have been pierced by a blow from the Tatar hand. This is also mentioned in an anonymous essay about the Tatar invasion of Poland, Moravia and Hungary, compiled shortly after the events described, which is partially preserved in the Paris Codex: “Fear and trembling, Moravia, have seized you, a violent enemy surrounds you and oppresses you from everywhere . With a bow and a sword, he destroyed your strong ones, he does not spare either sex or age ... ". And here is what Giovanni of Pian del Carpine recommended: “Everyone who wants to fight them should have the following weapons: good and strong bows, ballistas, which they are very afraid of, a sufficient number of arrows, a good iron club or a long-handled ax ..., also swords and spears with a hook, to be able to pull them off the saddle, since they fall off it very easily, knives and double armor, since their arrows do not easily pierce them, a helmet and other weapons to protect the body and horse from weapons and arrows » . And these are the recommendations of Benedict the Pole in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia: “... ambushes should be set up on the flank on selected horses. And the ballistarii, located in front of the army and spaced in at least three [rows], must throw arrows before they can reach the battle order of the tartars, [that is] in the best way and in time so that their own battle ranks either run or are brought into confusion. If the enemies turn to flight, the ballistarii with archers, as well as those who are in ambush, pursue them, while the army gradually moves behind them. If there are no other ballistarii [for pursuit], then riders on armored horses move forward. Hiding very powerful shields closed in front of the horses, they suddenly confuse the Tartar archers. But the recommendations included in the “Military Instructions” (“Praecepta bellica”), which were compiled in May - June 1241, in Esslingen, in the curia of the German king Conrad IV, to counter the Tatars: “1. Let the sovereigns themselves they are not looking for Tatars in the field, ... 2. Let the ballistarii be with them. .. 5. Also, let anyone who has an income of three marks take with him a shield called “setsishilt” (here we mean large, as a rule, easel, “pavez” shields. - Yu.K.) ” .

Thus, from the above it is clear that no heavily armed cavalry of the Mongols, if they had any, made any impression on their opponents and allies. In the eyes of contemporaries, the Mongols were only archers, but incomparable archers. This feature of theirs was the key to the success of the Great Conquest.

Summing up, the following conclusions should be emphasized:

1. A rather harsh habitat, lack of sources for obtaining metals and a trade blockade by neighbors did not contribute to the development of the Mongols in cultural and economic terms, as a result of which they looked backward compared to other peoples of the region.

2. The shortage of iron and the prohibition of neighbors selling weapons to the Mongols forced the latter to cover the shortage in weapons by all available means, as a result of their use of leather armor, bone arrowheads, etc. The Mongols' iron armor appears only during the capture of large states - the Jin Empire and Khorezm. But due to the primary destruction of the production bases of the captured states, the wear and tear of metal armor was not covered. According to contemporaries, only commanders and the highest aristocracy were armed with iron armor, which is confirmed archaeologically.

3. According to contemporaries, the main weapons of the Mongols were the bow and saber, which could be supplemented with an ax, club, palm tree and combined spears. At the same time, spears are not mentioned first in the list of weapons.

4. The sources clearly indicate that the Mongols used the spear exclusively for inflicting a simple thrust. At the same time, there is no exact evidence in the sources that they used a ram spear strike. The refusal of the Mongols to use shields during field battles, as well as the medium-sized breeds of Mongolian horses, indirectly indicate that the Mongols did not use massive ram spear strikes.

5. During the capture of the Far Eastern states, it is possible that large horses and horse armor came to the Mongols for the first time, there is no clear evidence of this. Only after the capture of Khorezm did contemporaries note the appearance of a large horse population among the Mongols. The beginning of the campaign against Khorezm coincides with the appearance on the pages of the chronicles of references to well-armed or even heavily armed Mongols detachments. But these detachments were temporary and were formed only in certain cases. The temporary concentration by the Mongols of warriors with armor to solve special problems is also confirmed by the practice of their battles.

6. Contemporaries of the Mongols claimed that it was the bow that was their main weapon. This is confirmed by the constant training of the Mongols in shooting, noted on the pages of the chronicles. The overwhelming majority of contemporaries pointed out that the Mongols stood out from the background of other peoples precisely by skillful shooting. This is confirmed by the course of those battles that have come down to us. detailed descriptions, as well as the supply of consumables during campaigns.

Thus, our analysis of written sources demonstrates that the Mongols did not have heavily armed cavalry, as well as the prerequisites for its appearance, which refutes the conclusions obtained by M.V. Gorelik. In the future, continuing to study this issue, we plan to highlight the features of the Mongolian archery and their shooting tactics.

Anninsky S.A. News of the Hungarian missionaries of the XIII-XIV centuries about the Tatars and Eastern Europe // Historical archive. T. III. - M.; L, 1940.
Artemiev A.R. Armament of the Tatar-Mongolian warriors in the campaign against the Volga Bulgaria and Rus' in 1236-1241. // 100 years of Hun archeology: Nomadism - past, present in the global context and historical perspective: Hun phenomenon. T. D. Ch. 1. - Ulan-Ude, 1996.
Artemiev A.R. Problems of singling out the Mongol-Tatar weapons complex among ancient Russian materialsХШв. // Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: to the 80th anniversary of Valentin Vasilyevich Sedov. - M., 2004.
Artemyeva N.G. Items of protective weapons from the Krasnoyarovsk settlement // Russia and the Asia-Pacific Region. No. 4. - Vladivostok, 1999.
Artemyeva N.G. A new type of Jurchen shell // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 1. - Vladivostok, 2002.
Artemyeva N.G., Prokopets S.D. Protective weapons of the Jurchen warrior // Russian archeology.. - 2012.-№1.
Ata-Melik Juvaini. Genghis Khan. History of the Conqueror of the World.-M., 2004.
Bakhruishn S.V. Scientific works. T.Sh: Selected works on the history of Siberia in the 16th-16th centuries. - M., 1955.
Belorybkin G.N. Zolotarevskoe settlement. - SPb., 2001.
Vincent of Beauvais. Historical mirror // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Witt V. O., Zheligovsky O. A., Krasnikov A. S., Shpayer N. M. Horse breeding and horse use. - M., 1964.
Guyton. Flower garden of the history of the lands of the East // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Galastyan A.G. Armenian sources about the Mongols. - M., 1962.
Gapitsko-Volyn chronicle. - St. Petersburg, 2005.
Guillaume de Rubruk. Journey to the Eastern Countries // Travels to the Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Gordeev N.V. Russian defensive armor // State Armory of the Moscow Kremlin. - M., 1954.
Gorbunov V.V. Spears of warriors of the Srostka culture // Equipment of Eurasian nomads. - Barnaul, 2005.
Gorelik M.V. Medieval Mongolian armor // Third International Congress of Mongolian Studies. -Ulaanbaatar, 1978.
Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - 1st half of the 16th centuries) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. - Novosibirsk, 1987.
Gorelik M.V. Steppe battle (From the history of military affairs of the Tatar-Mongols) // Military affairs of the ancient and medieval population of North and Central Asia. - Novosibirsk, 1990.
Gorelik M.V. Helmets and falchions: two aspects of the mutual influence of the Mongolian and European weapons business // Steppes of Europe in the Middle Ages. T. 3: Polovtsian-Golden Horde time. - Donetsk, 2003.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian Costume and Weapons in the 12th-14th Centuries: Traditions of Imperial Culture // Golden Horde Heritage. Materials of the International scientific conference "Political and socio-economic history of the Golden Horde (XIII-XV centuries)". March 17, 2009 Issue. 1. - Kazan, 2009.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian plate cavalry and its fate in the historical perspective // Warfare of the Golden Horde: problems and prospects of study. Materials of the round table held within the framework of the International Golden Horde Forum. Kazan, March 29-30, 2011 - Kazan, 2011.
Gusynin V. A. The Far Eastern complex of armor plates from the Zolotarevsky settlement // Bulletin of military-historical research: International collection of scientific papers. Issue. 3. - Penza, 2011.
Giovanni des Plano Carpini. History of the Mongols // Travels to Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Ye Lun-li. History of the Khitan state (Qidan Guo Zhi). - Monuments of writing of the East. T. XXXV.-M., 1979.
Jean de Joinville. The book of pious sayings and good deeds of our holy King Louis. -SPb., 2012.
Juse P.K. Materials on the history of Azerbaijan from Tarikh-al-Kamil (complete collection of history) Ibn-al-Asir.-Baku, 1940.
Ivanin M. I. About the military art and the conquests of the Mongol-Tatars and the Central Asian peoples under Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. - St. Petersburg, 1875.
Ilminsky NI. Extracts from Ibn el-Atir about the first invasion of the Tatars on the Caucasian and Black Sea countries, from 1220 to 1224 // Scientific notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences: on the first and third branches. T. II. Issue. 4. - St. Petersburg, 1854.
"History of the Tatars" by brother Ts. de Bridia I / Yurchenko A.G. Christendom and the "Great Mongol Empire" (Materials of the Franciscan mission of 1245). - St. Petersburg, 2002.
Kirakos Gandzaketsi. History of Armenia.-M., 1976.
Book of Marco Polo II Travels to Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Kozin S.A. The Secret History: The Mongolian Chronicle of 1240 under the title Mongrol-un niruCa tobCiyan. Yuan chao bi shi: Mongolian everyday selection. - M.; L., 1941.
Kuleshov Yu.A. Production and import of weapons as a way to form the Golden Horde weapons complex // Golden Horde Civilization. Issue Z. - Kazan, 2010.
Kuleshov Yu.A., Gusynin V.A. Finds of helmets of the "Jin type" from the territory of Eastern Europe // Military affairs in the Asia-Pacific region from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century. Issue. 2. - Vladivostok, 2012.
Kushkumbaev A.K. The Institute of Batteries and Military Affairs of the Nomads of Central Asia. - Kokshetau, 2009.
Kushkumbaev A.K. Bow and arrows as part of the Golden Horde weapons: issues of study and methods of using combat weapons // Issues of the history and archeology of medieval nomads and the Golden Horde: Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the memory of V.P. Kostyukov. - Astrakhan, 2011.
Kychanov E.I. History of the Tangut state. - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Kychanov E.I. Tangut (Xi Xia) sources about the Tatars // Mongolica - VIII: dedicated to the 190th anniversary of the Asian Museum - the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the RAI (SPbF IN RAS). - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Lenkov V.D. Metallurgy and metalworking among the Jurchens in the 12th century (Based on research materials from the Shaiginsky settlement). - Novosibirsk, 1974.
Lee Zhi Chan. Journey to the Zalad monk Chang Chun, described by his disciple Zhen Chang Zi named Li Zhi Chan // Works of members of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Beijing. T. IV. - St. Petersburg, 1866.
Lin Kyun-i, Munkuev N.Ts. "Brief information about the black Tatars" by Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting // Problems of Oriental Studies. No. 5. - M., 1960.
Malyavkin A. G. "Jin-shi". 1 quan // Collection of scientific works of Przhevaltsev. - Harbin, 1942.
Matthew of Paris. The Great Chronicle // Russian Spill: Arabesques of History. The world of Lev Gumilyov. -M., 1997.
Matuzova V.I. English medieval sources of the IX-XIII centuries - M., 1979.
Munkuev N. Ts. Men-da bei-lu (“Complete description of the Mongol-Tatars”), - M., 1975.
Nefedov S.A. The Mongolian bow and the Mongol conquest // The role of the nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the development of world military art: Scientific readings in memory of N.E. Masanova - Collection of materials of the international scientific conference in Almaty, April 22-23, 2010 - Almaty, 2010.
Inventory and sale at public auction of the remaining estate after the murder of Mikhail Tatishchev accused of treason by the people in 116 // Provisional of the Imperial Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Book. 8. - M., 1850.
Patkanov K.P. History of the Mongols monk Magakia, XIII century. - St. Petersburg, 1871.
Patkanov K.P. History of the Mongols according to Armenian sources. Issue. 1. - St. Petersburg, 1873.
Penskoy V.V. The Great Gun Revolution. - M., 2010.
Ponaryadov V.V. Medieval techniques of using a spear in equestrian combat according to Muslim military treatises of the 13th-15th centuries. // Military Archeology: Collection of materials of the Problem Council "Military Archeology" at the State Historical Museum. No. 3. - in the press.
Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Persians. War with vandals. Secret history. - M., 1993.
Prokopets S.D. A new type of design for the Jurchen helmet // Eighth Far Eastern Conference of Young Historians. Collection of materials. - Vladivostok, 2004.
Prokopets S.D. New finds of protective weapons from the Krasnoyarovsk settlement // Archeology, ethnology, paleoecology of Northern Eurasia and adjacent territories. Materials of the XLVII regional (III-th All-Russian international participation) archaeological and ethnographic conference of students and young scientists of Siberia and the Far East (Novosibirsk, April 3-7, 2007). - Novosibirsk, 2007.
Prokopets S.D. Reconstruction of the method of attaching armored plates in the armor of a Jurchen warrior // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 1. - Vladivostok, 2009.
Prokopets S.D. Production and turnover of protective weapons among the Jurchens of Primorye // Bulletin of NGU. Series: History, Philology. T. 9. Issue. 3. - Novosibirsk, 2010.
Rayid-ad-Din. Collection of annals. T. 1. Book. 1M.; D., 1952.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 1. Book. 2. - M.; L., 1952.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 2. - M.; L., 1960.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 3. - M.; L., 1946.
Ricoldo de Monte Croce. Journey through the Holy Land // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Surovtsov M.N. On the dominion of the Khitans in Central Asia: a historical and political review of the activities of the Khitans from the initial news of the appearance of the people and the founding of the Liao dynasty by them - until the fall of this latter in the West // History of the Iron Empire. - Novosibirsk, 2007.
Usama ibn Munkiz. Book of Edification. - M., 1958.
Thomas of Split History of the Archbishops of Salona and Split. - M., 1997.
Hogolboon Lhagasuren. Medieval burials of the Mongols (XII-XIV centuries) / Dissertation ... cand. ist. Sciences. - M., 1994 // Archive of the IA RAS, No. R-2/2557.
Khrapachevsky R.P. Golden Horde in the sources. T.III. Chinese and Mongolian sources. - M., 2009.
Khrapachevsky R.P. The armies of the Mongols during the conquest of Ancient Rus'. - M., 2011.
Khudyakov Yu.S. Tips of spears and "palm trees" from medieval sites of the Baikal, Transbaikalia and Mongolia // Archaeological monuments of the Middle Ages in Buryatia and Mongolia. - Novosibirsk, 1992.
Tsalkin V.I. Pets of the Golden Horde // Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Department of Biology. T. LXXII (1). - M., 1967.
Tsulaya G.V. Georgian book legend about Genghis Khan // Soviet ethnography. - No. 5. - M., 1973.
Shavkunov V.E. Armament of the Jurchens in the 12th-13th centuries. - Vladivostok, 1993.
Shavkunov V.E. On the issue of the protective armor of the Jurchens of Primorye // Asia-Pacific Region: Archeology. Ethnography. Story. - Vladivostok, 2008.
Shavkunov V.E., Mezentsev A.L. Jurchen helmet // Local history bulletin. Issue. I, Vladivostok, 1993.
Shihab ad-Din Muhammad an-Nasawi. Biography of Sultan Jalal ad-Din Mankburna. - Baku, 1979.
Yurchenko A.G. Christendom and the "Great Mongol Empire" (Materials of the Franciscan mission of 1245). - St. Petersburg, 2002.
Bedrosian R. Het'um the Historian "s: "History of the Tartars" -http://rbedrosian.com/hetumtoc.html
Erdenebat Ulambayar Altmongolisches Grabbrauchtum: Archaologisch-historische Untersuchungen zu den mongolischen Grabfunden des 11. bis 17. Jahrhunderts in der Mongolei: Katalog der Grabfunde. - Bonn. 2009. Dissertation PhD. // Der Philosophischen Fakultat der Rheinischen Friedrich - Wilhelms - Universitat zu Bonn.
Mecherzynski K. Jana Dlugosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejdw polskich ksiqg dwanaicie. T. II. Ks.V-VIll. - Krak6w, 1868.
Semkowicz A. Krytyczny rozbi6r Dziej6w Polskich Jana Dlugosza (do roku 1384). - Krakow, 1887.
Strakosch-Grassmann G. Der Einfall der Mongolen in Mitteleuropa in den Jahren 1241 und 1242. -Innsbruck, 1893.

The nomadic empire appeared as a result of a combination of many circumstances. However, the main one could be the invention of the bow, the effectiveness of which is comparable to firearms.

After the unification of nomadic tribes in 1206, Temujin was proclaimed Genghis Khan. By 1215, the Mongols conquered most of the Chinese Jin Empire. In 1221 Urgench was taken, Khorezm ceased to exist. In 1234, the rest of the Jin empire goes into history. From 1237 to 1241, most of the Russian principalities were defeated. In 1241 nomads invade Eastern Europe, in 1243 they conquer Anatolia. Baghdad fell in 1258, and the famous stronghold of the Assassins - the fortress of Alamut - was surrendered in 1256.

All Mongol commanders could not be as talented as Genghis Khan, and their armies were not the most numerous. However, the rapid expansion of the nomadic possessions did not stop for several decades after the death of Genghis Khan, regardless of who led their armies. Due to what, then, did the Mongols manage to change the course of history?

New battle tactics

Contemporaries often left memories of the high-profile victories of the Mongol warriors. Historical sources note an unusual manner of fighting nomads: horsemen quickly moved across the battlefield, changing the direction of movement, often retreat was their tactic. At the same time, the warriors, perfectly mounted on horseback, did not stop shooting at the enemy for a minute, even during the retreat. The pursuing enemy was losing strength and concentration. The Mongols, seeing that the advantage was already on their side, immediately changed direction and launched a counterattack.

Other scenarios prepared by the Mongols were: crushing the enemy forces into parts and organizing an ambush. The enemy, exhausted and carried away by the pursuit of the main forces of the nomads, received a side blow from a detachment that had taken cover in an ambush.

The effectiveness of the battle of the Mongol horsemen during the retreat was higher than that of most warriors of that time, when they fought face to face. Chroniclers paid special attention to the ability of the Mongols to shoot from a bow. Cases of aimed shooting at hundreds of meters were described. Not only people, but also horses became victims of deadly arrows. The power of this type of weapon made it possible to immediately kill animals, which influenced the battle with enemy cavalry: it is much easier to hit a horse because of its size, and once a horse is killed, the rider is also disabled. Horde hundreds brilliantly used their trump cards: mobility, the ability to keep a distance and possession of small arms.

The invention that changed the course of history

Many historians (here it is worth highlighting the famous Russian specialist, Doctor of Historical Sciences Sergei Nefedov) indicate that the invention of a new bow design played a decisive role in the victories of the nomads. The warriors of the Eurasian steppe used a bow with a composite (multi-component) design for a long time. The wooden arc on the sides in the center of the bow was tightened by the craftsmen with bone plates. The revolutionary invention of the Mongols was that they got rid of one plate, and the second was placed frontally: earlier, the lining strengthened the structure, but now the bow has become much more elastic. This advantage was not used by sedentary peoples, since the tensile strength of wood, which they most often took for making bows, is several times lower than that of parts made from animal bones.

In addition to increasing power, the innovation made it possible to greatly reduce the size of the weapon and use it with maximum benefit when riding. With a sufficient number of arrows, the horsemen could conduct intense fire on the move, which was comparable in effect to the use of automatic firearms. At the same time, the power of an arrow fired from a new type of weapon was so great that it was not inferior to the power of the first guns.

Coincidence

The features of the Mongolian bow were also the complexity of production and operation, which also prevented its use by other peoples. The manufacture of Mongolian composite bows can be compared to forging samurai swords. Layers of wood and bone plates, like layers of metal in Japanese swords connected to each other using a special technology. The production of weapons required considerable effort. Moreover, it was not feasible everywhere. In a humid climate, for example, it was impossible to achieve the necessary strength of the structure: it was not possible to dry the glued parts.

The special way of life of nomads also gave an advantage in mastering a new type of weaponry. In order to pull the bowstring as strongly and often as possible (riders could do this hundreds of times during the hours of battle), it is necessary to have special training. Nomads learned to shoot and ride from childhood. As a result for long years persistent training developed a reflex skill to fire on horseback. Neither Europeans nor Arabs could use new weapons at the same level.

Another factor that influenced the success of the use of the Mongolian bow by a certain community of tribes, historians consider the inaccessibility of heavy weapons for most nomads. Metal armor and swords are found only in a few burials of the Horde: most likely, they were available only to rich warriors. As a result, a special battle tactic was predetermined. The army, for the most part consisting of lightly armed archers, could constantly move away from a head-on collision with the enemy, exhaust and shoot him, and often on the battlefield it did not even come to the use of swords and spears.

The new battle tactics that appeared along with the Mongolian bow made it possible for the nomads to make a qualitative leap in the art of war and create an empire on a scale never seen before.