Subject: ba'adur 'hero'
Culture: Mongol
Setting: Great Mongol empire, Asia 13thc
Evolution:
Caveat
* Peers 2015 p40-41
"Men probably supplied most of their own equipment, and so the quality and quantity of weapons and armour might vary significantly within a unit. Modern writers often refer to Mongol 'light' and 'heavy' cavalry, implying the sort of distinction which existed between hussars and cuirassiers of nineteenth-century European armies, for instance. However, in the great majority of contemporary accounts there is no suggestion that the members of the 'minghans' or 'toumans' were differentiated in any way according to their equipment or their function on the battlefield. It is true that Carpini says that within each unit the best-armoured men were placed in the front rank, but that is no more than one would expect of any military formation, and it need not mean that their tactical roles was any different. A few units -- the guards, and the Uru'uts and Mangquts during the wars of unification, for example -- seem to have been regarded as especially effective, but the distinctions between the better armed and equipped aristocratic 'knights' and the lighter 'skirmishers' that we see in descriptions of the Khitan, Jurchen and other contemporary armies do not appear to have existed in the Mongol 'toumans'. Juvaini, emphasising the 'levée en masse' nature of the Mongol army, describes it as 'a peasantry in the dress of an army, of which, in time of need, all, from small to great, from those of high rank to those of low estate, are swordsmen, archers or spearmen'. But this writer is not very precise in his use of military terminology, and we cannot necessarily conclude from this one remark that the men with swords, bows and spears were not the same people. Nowhere else, in fact, is there any suggestion that there were Mongol soldiers who were not equipped with the bow, a weapon so characteristic of them that they were often referred to as 'the nation of the archers'."
Context (Event Photos, Primary Sources, Secondary Sources, Field Notes)
* Haskew/Jörgensen/McNab/Niderost/Rice 2008 p96 caption
The Mongols' heavy cavalry were often decisive in routing and destroying a defeated enemy army. In contrast to the horse archer, the heavy cavalryman was well protected and equipped for close quarter combat. He could use either ... his curved sword or a steel-tipped mace or lance for fighting the enemy at close quarters, having first unnerved him with a heavy, shock attack. The lamellar armour was linked by numerous laces, allowing the cavalryman to move easily in his saddle when in close combat."
* Barfield 1989 p196
"The greatest innovation of Chinggis Khan was the establishment of the keshig. It has its origins in his personal bodyguard of 70 day guards and 80 night guards. Later this number was raised to 800 night guards (and presumably 700 day guards), together with special quiver bearers, messengers, and household stewards. From the base the keshig was expanded in 1206 to 10,000 men drawn from all the units in the army. Ten units of one thousand were established. The most important was the night guard which was restricted to personal service to the khan. Then came an elite unit of quiver bearers, a ba'atud (picked warriors) and seven units of day guards. Those who had served in the old keshig were considered senior to newcomers."
* May 2007 p147
"Ba'adur -- The braves or warriors who members of the keshik should strive to emulate. Also to be found rendered as bahadur and baatar."
* Vuksic/Grbasic 1993 p76
"The best warriors were taken into the khan's guard (keshik), which number 2,000 men until 1206, and 10,000 thereafter. It was divided into the day watch (turghaut), 1,000 strong, the night watch (kabtaut), also of 1,000 men, the sharpshooters (korchin) (1,000) and the khan's personal guards (baatut), numbering 7,000. The guard remained under arms even in peacetime, and assured the khan's rule. Even though it was mostly made up of the aristocracy, others could reach high positions in the army according to their merit and regardless of origin."
Armor
* Gorelik 1995 p33
"The defensive armour of the Mongols carried on Central Asian traditions, yet in many ways was quite original. Mongolian corselets, khuyags, were made of iron, steel and sometimes of bronze, often of leather, thick and hard as plywood. Quite often in a single 'suit' of armour, different systems of armouring were combined."
* Greer p94 (describing a Mongol Heavy Cavalryman)
"Such a multitude of descriptions of Mongol armor prevail that there is no course but to use a composite of the more reasonable types.
"An iron scale (perhaps lamellar) shirt seems to be the most viable of alternatives. Other possibilities are chainmail shirts, ox-hide cuirass, cuir bouilli, leather reinforced with iron plates, and black, lacquered bands of leather. Quite concievably, all of these types were employed by individual preference, as no other explanation seems valid when so many differing descriptions abound."
* Heath 1978 p106
"MONGOL HEAVY CAVALRYMAN Contemporaries offer a fair number of descriptions of Mongol armour, albeit generally vague.
"Carpini records iron or steel helmets with leather coifs or aventails, mail corselets, and leather body-armour of overlapping strips; he also gives an accurate and detailed description of lamellar armour used for both men and horses. Marco Polo says they wore a very strong armour 'of leather that has been boiled', i.e. cuir bouilli. Matthew Paris also records leather armour, of oxhides strengthened with iron plates, adding the improbable but amusing detail that only their chests were protected, their backs being left unarmoured to discourage them from running away! Thomas of Spalatro describes 'armour of buffalo hides with scales fastened on it' (possibly lamellar) as well as iron or leather helmets. The Emperor Frederick II records 'untanned hides of oxen, horses and asses' reinforced with plates of iron which were somehow stitched in. He also mentions that there were many considerably better-equipped from the spoils of their defeated enemies (he actually says 'Christians', therefore Franks). Into this category fall iron helmets and armour of 'iron plates' of Persian origin and mail hauberks of Alan origin recorded in addition to hardened-leather armour by Rubreck. Metal armour was polished to a high shine.
"Quite clearly leather was the commonest form of body-armour, constructed from 'overlapping pliable strips' according to Carpini. He records that the hide strips -- about 31/2 inches wide -- were tightly sewn together 3 layers thick, then softened by boiling and shaped to fit. He adds that the hide was stiffened with bitumen, which would have also served to protect it from humidity. The whole armour consisted of front, back, arm and leg pieces, the front and back being joined at the shoulder (and sides, one assumes) by iron plates and buckles."
* Lessem p23
"Mongol soldiers used only light armor to retain their maneuverability on horseback. Beneath, they wore silk shirts as the threads gathered around and penetrating arrows, making them less damaging to remove."
* Marshall 1993 p40
"Over the silk [shirt] he wore a tunic, and if he was part of the heavy cavalry he was given a coat of mail and a cuirass made of leather-covered iron scales."
* Carey/Allfree/Cairns 2006 p116
"Mongol heavy cavalry were better protected [than light troopers], with warriors wearing leather, mail or lamellar cuirass and metal helmet, and their mounts wearing leather barding."
* Nicolle/Hook 1990 p35
"Almost all sources agree that the Mongol soldier wore a fur cap with earflaps, a fur-lined or felt coat, thick stockings and soft leather riding boots. Those who possessed armour might have a hardened leather or iron helmet and a lamellar cuirass, usually of hardened leather pieces laced with rawhide thongs. Only the élite would own iron lamellar laced with silk thread. An armoured flap that protected the right arm would, according to some contemporary observers, be unlaced while shooting so as not to encumber the man as he pulled his bowstring."
Spear
* Peers 2015 p63-64
"[T]he accounts of combat in the Secret History include numerous references to Mongols using weapons designed for hand-to-hand fighting, principally spears and swords. For example, when his father's people abandoned Temujin and his family after Yesugei's death, an old man who objected was stabbed in the back with a spear. Later on Belgutei was slashed on the shoulder with a sword in a fight with a Jurkin warrior. Other sources confirm the use of such weapons. At Bagh i-Khurram outside Gurganj, accourding to Juvaini, the Khwarizmians were killed with 'bow, sword and lance', and at the Battle of Huan-erh-tsui in 1211, T'u Chi says that Mukhali's men charged the Chin with lances.
"According to Carpini Mongol spears or lances often had hooks below the head, designed to catch in a mounted opponent's clothing or equipment and pull him out of the saddle. This would have been especially useful against other steppe tribes, who habitually rode with much shorter stirrups than contemporary Europeans and so were less securely seated. One of the men who stole the young Temujin's horses chased him with a lasso on the end of a pole, normally used for catching horses, which might similarly have been intended to unhorse him so that he could be taken alive. The Secret History records that Genghis placed 'the banners,' drums, pikes and spears' in the care of his night guards, so at least some of these weapons might have been stored centrally and issued to the troops as required, rather than being their personal possessions."
* Carey/Allfree/Cairns 2006 p116
"The primary weapon of the heavy cavalryman was a 12 foot lance ...."
* Greer p94 (describing a Mongol Heavy Cavalryman)
"The lance, about twelve feet long, had a small hook below the spearblade and was adorned with a tuft of black horse-hair."
* Gorelik 1995 p33
"The Mongols were equipped with spears with a hook on the socket."
* Nicolle/Hook 1990 p36
"... many spears had hooks to unhorse a foe."
* Heath 1978 p105
"Other arms were lasso, dagger, and lance, the latter often with a small hook below the head to pull enemy horsemen from the saddle. Vincent de Beaufvais, however, says few Mongols carried lances and Carpini seems to confirm this."
Impact Weapons
* Peers 2015 p64
"Marco Polo refers to 'clubs', which were probably metal-headed maces of the sort which are known from archaeological contexts, and Carpini says that every warrior carried an axe; these are not mentioned in battle accounts and may have been primarily tools rather than weapons, although they could of course have been used for self-defence in emergencies by men who lacked swords."
* Nicolle/Hook 1990 p36
"Small battle-axes and maces were used by some Mongols ...."
* Gorelik 1995 p33
"Sometimes battle-axes and, very often, maces were used."
* Lessem 27
"Mongolian mounted soldiers also carried maces and spears."
* Carey/Allfree/Cairns 2006 p116
"... [C]urved and straight sabres and small battleaxes and maces were ... present among the elite."
Saber
* Heath 1978 p105
"Polo records basic Mongol equipment as bow, mace and sword (other sources describe the latter more accurately as a curved, one-edged sabre)."
* Peers 2015 p64-65
"Archaeological finds from Russia and Mongolia suggest that Mongol swords could be of a variety of types, some of them broad and straight like contemporary European blades, but by far the most common were slightly curved, single-edged sabres, with blades around a metre long. These were lighter than the swords typically used in medieval Europe, and as we might expect from the written sources they were optimised for cutting. On several occasions Genghis gives his followers instructions to slice through the necks or shoulders of his enemies, implying that swords were normally employed as cutting rather than stabbing weapons. The curvature of a sabre makes it more effective for this purpose than a straight sword, for two reasons. One is that a shorter section of the edge comes into contact with the target, so that the force of the blow is more concentrated. More importantly it facilitates a 'drawing cut', in which the swordsman draws his hand either backwards or forwards as the blade hits, slicing more deeply and inflicting more damage than can be achieved by a simple chopping motion. With a straight blade the initial blow and the subsequent cut require the sword arm to move in two different directions, while a curved weapon allows the whole sequence to be completed in one smooth movement. More of the blade can also be brought into play without having to extend the arm, simply by slicing backwards and downwards, which could have been an advantage in a tightly-packed melee .... A single-edged sword might seem to be less versatile than one sharpened on both sides, but it has the advantage that the back, being left unsharpened apart from a short section near the tip, can be wide enough to provide extra rigidity, and can also be used to parry an opponent's weapon without risking damage to the cutting edge. So while the Mongol sabre might have been less effective than the heavy, straight swords used by Europeans and Arabs at smashing though metal armour, it could probably have been wielded more dexterously in the press of a fight, and would have done more damage to less well-protected parts of an opponent's body. The very best sword blades were said to come from India and Syria, but although these could have been traded along the Silk Road, it is unlikely that any but the wealthiest Mongols would have been able to obtain them."
* Irving Arts Center > Genghis Khan: The Exhibit
"[....] Symbolic of the quick horseback maneuvers of the Mongol warrior, the sharp, lightweight saber was designed to seriously wound an opponent. Mongol warriors valued it especially because they could cut and slash with one hand, a definite advantage over larger, cumbersome swords. Although they were primarily archers, the saber was still an important part of their arsenal when it came to close combat." ...
* Nicolle/Hook 1990 p35-36
"Swords were ... used reserved for the élite. They were not always curved sabres, as is so often thought, though even straight swords would normally be single-edged. A decorated cap and sword belt were worn as insignia of rank or command."
* Withers 2010 p83 = Withers/Capwell 2010 p331
"When the Mongols invaded China in the early 13th century, they brought with them a curved, one-handed and single edged cavalry sabre that had been used by Turkic peoples (from Central Asia) since the 8th century. The curved design of the sabre influenced the shape of the Chinese dao, superseding the straight-bladed jian."
* Lessem 26
"The Mongolian sword was short and a distant second to the bow and arrow in the cavalryman's arsenal."
* Marshall 1993 p40
"... [T]he heavy brigade carried a scimitar, a battle axe or a mace and a 4 m (12 foot) lance."
Shield
* Heath 1978 p105
"Polo records shields in one passage and Carpini says that wicker shields were carried, though he adds that they were not used much because they interfered with the use of the bow and that he only saw them in use in camp at night by guardsmen such as the Keshik. Meng Hung (a Chinese general contemporary to Genghis Khan) seems to disagree since he lists 4 types of Mongol shield: large, of hide or willow wood (the latter possibly meaning it could be of interwoven osiers); a small type used by front rank light troops to deflect arrows; large 'tortoise' shields for use in siege-work; and apparently a type of face-visor."
* Greer p94 (describing a Mongol Armored Cavalryman)
"A wicker-backed shield with a tough hide covering is generally accepted as the Mongol shield."
* Marshall 1993 p40
"Each soldier carried a leather-covered wicker shield and a helmet of either leather or iron, depending on his rank."
Bag
*
"
Bottle
*
"
