From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

While I agree this article is very POV, it is largely factually correct. It could use a re-write to present the information in more encyclopedic terms.

Also, I deleted the "Mongol warrior versus European opponent" section, as the most important detail of the paragraph centered around the ability of arrows to penetrate European plate metal armor (and how silk made for a superior garment in combat). No arrow ever penetrated plate iron or steel (although an arrow could have penetrated mail armor, the paragraph seemed to mean plate armor), not even one fired from a 'famous' Mongol bow. 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"He used Chinese technicians that were very advanced for the time. The siege engines were disassembled and were carried on horses to be rebuilt at the site of the battle."

I don't agree that chinese siege tech was advanced for his time. In fact, european siege machines were way better, capable of launching bigger ordinance more far.

Also, i think the author of this articles forgives that if Europe had something for that time, it was castles. Mongols would have to conquer Europe castle by castle, meaning not taking profit of his movility and then being vulnerable to some short of Crusade (in that same time, the Teutonic Order has a crusade in Poland.

Lets just say that it used to be. Orngjce223Orngjce223 14:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree. But please note that the article was written primarily by Chinese people, so it is unsurprising to see that they talk about the "very advanced" technology that the Chinese people possessed. The question is, if the Chinese had such very advanced technology, how did the Mongol conquer China so easily? The Chinese had city walls. The Chinese had vast armies. The Chinese had very advanced technology. What happened?

---

There is a large error here compound bows were invented in the 1960 and have pulies on them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_bows Composite bows are made with 2 or more materials. Longbows were effectivly composite as they were made with diffrent parts of tree possesing diffrent caracteristics.

---

No The Mongols did not conquer china "easily" it took much longer to take the southern Sung than to take any other country. In addition, China was divided into three kingdoms when the Mongols began raiding. I think you should learn something about history.

And yes, Chinese technology was superior to the rest of the world. The Wu Jing Zong Yao of 1044 illustrates hand thrown bombs and lances that spew flames. Turnbull gives a range of over 1000 yards for Chinese siege crossbows in his book "siege weapons of the far east"

What allowed the Mongols to take China was their reliance on native Chinese infantry, as the Mongolian style of cavalry warfare was unsuitable for the hilly terrain of southern China. Infact, Chris Peers "Medieval Chinese armies" states that more Chinese were fighting for the Mongols than Mongols themselves!

---

Contents 1 Chinese Siege Warfare 2 Psychological Warfare 3 War in China 4 Eurocentric and orientalism 4.1 bombs/grenades 4.2 Superioriy over European Opponents 4.3 Defeat of the Mongols 4.4 Superiority over western opponents

[edit] Chinese Siege Warfare

Chinese Siege Warfare: Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity - An Illustrated History http://authors.history-forum.com/liang_jieming/chinesesiegewarfare

[edit] Psychological Warfare

A strange sentence: "It may be, however, that these intimidation tactics saved many lives by persuading opposing forces to surrender rather than fight." Seems to me you could argue equally that the lack of resistance caused others to get killed instead. A resistance might have slowed the advance and saved towns further on.

In any case, I doubt it belongs in an encyclopedia article.

[edit] War in China

I am taking a course on East Asia studies, my professor who had done her thesis in Yuan Dynasty told me that the prmiary reson that Mongol was able to conqueror China was because Kubli Khan had many Chinese generals who defected from Northern China. In fact, if you look at record closer, most of generals mentioned in the conquest of Southern Sung Dynasty was Chinese names, not Mongols. Even with help of Chinese, it took over 50 years to complete the conquet of whole China, this demonstrated China's strength even at its weakest period in its history (comparing to merely few years of conquering of East Europe and else where). Sung Dynasty was the most technological advanced nation at that time, and Europeans did not surpass Chinese technology until the industrial revolution.

[edit] Eurocentric and orientalism

"But please note that the article was written primarily by Chinese people, so it is unsurprising to see that they talk about the "very advanced" technology that the Chinese people possessed"

Watch you languague! There are many articles that were written by white-Westeners on superiority of Western civilization, and do you think it is right to accuse them of providing wrong info. based on their racial and cultural background? If you do not know anything about Asian history, please do not use any bias view here. Ignorance and racism are not welcome!!!!

I second that. I'm also chinese-american. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bombs/grenades

Seen on television. An Japanese architect uncovered the remains of the Mongol fleet on the seabed. One of the things he found was a round object. It turned out to be some sort of grenade. Don't know if it contained any scrapel. This was certainly an innovation in warfare and it should be mentioned in this article. Saw the documentary on National Geographic or Discovery Channel. I don't know any other source. That is why I don't edit the main article.

Wereldburger758

[edit] Superioriy over European Opponents

...Mostly came from the fact that European armies of the time consisted mostly of light infantry and conscripts, and a very small core of armoured knights. Sure, yes, the knight cannot chase down the mongol, yada yada. Knights in Russia were well-armoured AND used their bows well, after all they've practiced the horse archery thing for centuries on end, living and fighting in the Steppes. So had the Kwarazmians, the Qipchaks, the Alans and so on. Russian, Arab, German, Polish and Hungarian armies also had horses with more stamina and strength. One on one, a wealthy Mongol warrior and a "knight" from Eastern Europe/Central Asia are probably evenly matched. What everyone forgets when they rave about the mongol raid of 1241 is that when the Mongols routed the 100,000 or so at Mohi, of those 100,000 about 80,000 would have been peasants. Same with any Islamic or European opponent. The average quality of the fighting man was much better among the Mongols; European armies consisted of small elites and a mass of bodies, while the Mongols could bring several tens of thousands of PROFESSIONAL warriors to the field, a thing no other country on Earth bar China could at the time.

Combine that with strict hierachical command, greater mobility of the entire force, and the fact that European feudal armies were a nightmare and a half to raise, maintain and command, and you can see that the victories of the Mongols in Europe and elsewhere in the west were not at all dependent on the arrow penetrating the armour. Which it could, by the way, but not reliably.

[edit] Defeat of the Mongols

The Defeat of the Mongols section seems like it was pulled straight from a history textbook; needs to be changed to be more appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

[edit] Superiority over western opponents

Europe had one of the lowest population on earth at that time so it's not surprising that the Mongols after conquering vast areas of Persia and China could summon more "professional soldiers". You've also got to understand that the Mongols were the aggressive people, not the Europeans so obviously they were more prepared. Both the Arabs and the Europeans proved they could produce "professional" soldiers en masse during the Crusades, even through no army at the time was "professional" and many of the Mongols were still farmers. Instead of conquering all of Europe as has been suggested, had the Mongols advanced further, they would have come up against the more centralized states Like France and England, with better and more co-ordinated armies than those of Eastern Europe and who would have put up a lot more resistance.

"China was divided into three kingdoms when the Mongols began raiding." Perhaps you should learn some history because Europe was much worse and either way it's not really an excuse, militarily speaking.

By the way, Western technology was not superior to China's only by the time of the industrial revolution, in fact that's one of the most uneducated things I've ever heard. Instead the marker became visible around the late 13th/early 14th centuries and much more distinct during the Renaissance. If you professor told you otherwise... I don't know what that says about her. Oh yeah, I would trust the views of a educated Western European or American person much more than those of Chinese one, because unlike China's, Europe and Americas' governments do not adulterate what their youth learn as factual history, at least not as much anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.78.46 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 December 2006.

"Europe had one of the lowest populations on earth at that time" - I'm not even sure what that means. If you mean for a landmass of its size, it's certainly not true as you could pick many places on Earth "at that time" that had a much smaller population/population density (e.g., the Sahara). Europe in fact was one of the more densely populated regions of the Earth at the time, so I don't really see how this could be true anyway. At any rate, the Mongol armies were almost always smaller than their opponents in numbers.

"You've also got to understand that the Mongols were the aggressive people, not the Europeans so obviously they were more prepared." Europe in the Middle Ages was essentially a martial culture-- weak monarchs and lords constantly fighting amongst themselves for dominance. In short, the Europeans were exceptionally aggressive, inasmuch as we can treat them as a group anyway.

"and many of the Mongols were still farmers." Almost none of the Mongols were farmers; they were livestock herders and nomads. The sedentary farming life was completely alien to them, which explains some of their behavior towards conquered peoples and territories.

"Instead of conquering all of Europe as has been suggested, had the Mongols advanced further, they would have come up against the more centralized states Like France and England, with better and more co-ordinated armies than those of Eastern Europe and who would have put up a lot more resistance." This is the 13th century; France and England are NOT centralized states. In fact, Hungary and Poland were two of the most centralized and powerful states of the period.

"By the way, Western technology was not superior to China's only by the time of the industrial revolution, in fact that's one of the most uneducated things I've ever heard. Instead the marker became visible around the late 13th/early 14th centuries and much more distinct during the Renaissance." Not true, but difficult to pin down precisely. Gunpowder, the water clock, the trading fleet of Zheng He-- these were all Chinese innovations that would not be copied by Europeans until much later. IMHO (and an opinion is all we can really get here) the "shift" wherein China's technological advantage faded relative to Europe was in the 17th century.

"Oh yeah, I would trust the views of a educated Western European or American person much more than those of Chinese one, because unlike China's, Europe and Americas' governments do not adulterate what their youth learn as factual history, at least not as much anyway." Being raised in China does not make someone stupid or a liar, nor does it render their work unereliable. Indeed, in discussing Mongol history, Chinese scholars would intuitively be better informed than westerners as many of the primary sources are in Chinese. siafu 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't break my argument down because then it's completely pointless as the points are linked. The fact was that the Eastern European armies that faced the Mongols were made up of people not trained to fight, mainly miners as has been said. This was not the case all over Europe and, as has been implied on this website numerous times, the Mongol Horde was not a standing army. England was more centralized than any other nation in Europe. That gave it a good army compared to its small population, forged in wars against Scotland, Wales and France in the 12th and 13th Century, while a large proportion of English infantry was to some extents professional (a relic of Anglo-Saxon times) and had developed sophisticated longbow tactics. France too was a lot more centralized than anywhere that lay east of it and so garnered numerous benefits from that. But yes, by being the invaders the Mongols would have better quality men and of course Europe can be treated as a group but compared to the Middle East and Asia its overall population was lower.

As for technology, I suggest you do a lot more research because you're wrong, wrong, WRONG. Yes gunpowder was developed in China. Did they recognize it's full military potential? NO and by the 13th century it had arrived in Europe and been developed into a much better fire-arm than a rock-shooting piece of bamboo. At that time, indeed for some time, Western conventional siege operations etc. had been just as good and sophisticated than those in the east, but further augmented by the use of cannons. The compass had been developed in Europe in the 12th century and Zheng He's fleet was not an invention, in fact Western ships were generally just as good if not better during the Middle Ages and as for the water clock... By the way "in your honest opinion" I don't care.

"Being raised in China does not make someone stupid or a liar, nor does it render their work unreliable. Indeed, in discussing Mongol history, Chinese scholars would intuitively be better informed than westerners as many of the primary sources are in Chinese." I never said it did make them liars. But because most of the pages on this infernal website are edited not by educated history professionals but by amateurs I assume that those from China are invariably informed by a politically skewed history education or by history books censored by the Chinese Government and at least use this information as a basis for arguments and pages, and as you said "opinions are all we have".

England was not a centralized state; it was just another weak medieval monarchy, you're still wrong here. Additionally, Chinese use of gunpowder also involved grenades and landmines, and the siege equipment used by the Mongols was developed in China and by Muslims (e.g. the counterweight trebuchet) and was more advanced than that used by the Europeans. Most wrong of all is the claim that Western ships were "generally just as good if not better during the Middle Ages"-- this is utter nonsense. Ships of this caliber would not appear anywhere in the world again until the late rennaissance. You don't think any other country had primitive grenades? I assure you they did. "Landmines weren't invented until

England was not another weak monarchy, it was the most centralized in Europe from the 13th to 15th centuries. It had the most professional army in Europe from the mid 13th century to the mid 15th century as well. The Mongols made one attempt to enter Europe, and they fought poorly trained levies from Eastern Europe, no where near the ability of those in the west.

Actually, the most centralized state in Europe at the time was the Byzantine Empire (though it wasn't the most powerful), and second would probably be Hungary. Either way, the Mongols didn't face the English, and probably wouldn't as elsewhere it's been made clear that invading over bodies of water never worked out well for them (Japan, Java, &c.). Moreover, any medieval army was composed primarily of levies of peasants, but the armies of Poland and Hungary had some of the largest and strongest cavalry corps available (e.g., the Teutonic Knights), which would have actually been somewhat better prepared than the disorganized armies to be found further west in the HRE and France.

France, England and Italy had some of the best troops of that era. England practically had a professional army by the start of the 14th century; if you presume that the Teutonic Knights or the Cavalry of Poland were strong you obviously do not know how powerful France's cavalry was. More importantly, these countries were just as advanced militarily as anything that lay east, given what had been adopted from the Arabs and Byzantines at the end of the 11th century, excluding gunpowder warfare which was adopted as the technology moved west but which developed into more effective weapons in the west.

Italy was not even a nation, but a mishmash of squabbling domains. Many of the Italian troops were additionally mercenaries hired out elsewhere (as is also true of those from the HRE).

"if you presume that the Teutonic Knights or the Cavalry of Poland were strong you obviously do not know how powerful France's cavalry was" I don't see how the strength of French cavalry has any effect on that of Poland; the two are independent. As for France, the cavalry was so strong that it was defeated by outnumbered English troops under Henry V at Agincourt, and it also failed to resist the advances of Saladin in the Middle East, given that France was one of the main providers of crusading knights. Saladin also made copious use of the horse archer, so it's not so unfair to draw a minor parallel with the Mongols here.

You don't think any other country had primitive grenades? "Landmines" weren't invented until the 14th century and were hardly practical, and the first metal Chinese cannon weren't manufactured until 30 years after those produced in Europe, while metal handgonnes are first documented in the late 13th Century in Italy. As for ships, do you know when the late Renaissance was? By the 1500s shipbuilding was well in advance of anything in the Far or Central Asia, which began to overtake the East in the 1400s. Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't have done so without the adoption of rudders etc., but that occured in the twelth century.

"You don't think any other country had primitive grenades?" No, in fact, I don't. I challenge you to prove me wrong. ""Landmines" weren't invented until the 14th century and were hardly practical," Actually, this is not true, as they were used against the Mongoles both by the Jin and the Song.

By the 14th century grenade (pots filled with gunpowder and a small fuse) were in widespread use throughout the world, and had been developed in the Middle East a century before.

From grenade (in the history section):

The first grenade was invented in China, when Chinese soldiers packed gunpowder into ceramic and/or metal containers.

The use of the word 'grenade' in the English language apparently originated in the Glorious Revolution (1688), where cricket ball-sized iron spheres packed with gunpowder and fitted with slow-burning wicks were first used against the Jacobites in the battles of Killiecrankie and Glen Shiel.

Invented in China. Curious. First English grenade validated to 1688. Huh.

"and the first metal Chinese cannon weren't manufactured until 30 years after those produced in Europe," I don't recally mentioning metal cannon, but this was really put to proper use by the Turks first. Whatever, though, much later than the time period being discussed.

Metal cannon, undeniably better than non-metal ones of the time, were first used to great effect by the French in the 15th century and had seen use with European armies since the early 14th century leading up to their first effective use. Like I said before, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that the Chinese had metal cannon until after the technology was well established in Europe.

Still don't recall mentioning cannon.

"As for ships, do you know when the late Renaissance was? By the 1500s shipbuilding was well in advance of anything in the Far or Central Asia, which began to overtake the East in the 1400s. Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't have done so without the adoption of rudders etc., but that occured in the twelth century." I know when the late Rennaissance was, yes, and I was intending it to refer to the late 1500s. Zheng He's ships were more massive than anything to be built until the advent of the Spanish Galleon, and used such techniques as rudders and segmented hulls, not to mention advance sail design. The Marconi rig (i.e., triangular sails) wasn't developed by Europeans until the 1600s-- compare this to the sail design for the Chinese "Junk" which has existed since the late Han Dynasty, or even the Arabian dhow, which was using triangular sails long before Europeans. The truth is that until the Rennaissance, Europe was a technological backwater with loose political organization centered around military endeavour. European nations spent all their time and energy fighting amongst themselves (with the exception of the Crusades, which were themselves disastrous), even within nations (that is, the idea of the "nation" didn't exist there at the time).

You've only listed some advantages of Chinese ship design. Disregarding water-tight hulls, European vessels were generally more seaworthy, a trait resulting from widespread use of square sails which were less unpredictable in bad weather. Square-rigged sails were also much faster in every direction but up wind and navigation was also a lot better in Europe and the Middle East. Triangular sails have been around in Europe since Europeans first saw Arab dhows, but never caught on until the late middle ages (Not the 17th century; there were plenty of triangular sails before that).

"You've only listed some advantages of Chinese ship design." That's all I have to do-- you haven't really presented a good counter-argument, so your initial statement is failing.

"square sails which were less unpredictable in bad weather." I'm not sure what you mean by "unpredictable" but in bad weather it's advantageous to use a triangular sail (preferably reefed) as it can be much more easily controlled.

"Square-rigged sails were also much faster in every direction but up wind"-- clearly you're not a sailor. Square-rigged sails only have an advantage to leeward, and even then not much. Abeam and windward, they lose to triangular sails.

"and navigation was also a lot better in Europe and the Middle East." From [[compass]: "An early form of compass appears in China in the 11th century. The familiar mariner's compass was invented in Europe around 1300." The next great invention for navigation was the astrolabe some 100 years later; it wasn't until the 18th century that the sextant was invented in Europe. So, what did the Europeans have going for them for navigation that wasn't better at the time in the East?

"compared to the Middle East and Asia its overall population was lower. " This still doesn't make sense. Of course compared to Asia the overall population of Europe was lower; it's much, much larger. As for the Middle East, what exactly are you including? In general this claim is not true, but if you expand your definition to include Asia Minor, Iran, and Eqypt it could be. Of course, then, once again we're talking about a much larger chunk of land. Europe was a densely populated area then, exceeded in density only by India, East Asia (China, Indochina, Japan, &c.), and Mesopotamia.

"I assume that those from China are invariably informed by a politically skewed history education or by history books censored by the Chinese Government" Well, you know what they say about assuming. Perhaps it would be better to make this statement from the grounds of fact rather than assumption, or not make it at all. As I said above, many of the primary sources are in Chinese and not translated into English; there is no reverse effect here. Intuitively, therefore, the exact opposite of your claim seems to have some weight while yours is based entirely on assumption. In short, don't attack the source wildly, attack the arguments. siafu 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is aware of what education is like under dictators.

Is everyone? You, apparently, are not. If this is what you really think about education in the PRC, I suggest you do some actual research and leave your silly preconceptions aside. Additionally, I would challenge you to show how a Communist State like China in particular is necessarily a dictatorship (e.g., functioning akin to Stalinist Russia), and not simply an oppressive oligarchy. But since that's not really relevant anyway, we can leave it aside. In short, unless you intend to present some solid evidence for why we should simply discard the scholarship of those who happen to have been raised and/or live in China, or can challenge any individual source with specifics, this argument is simply poorly informed, and verging on simply bigotry. siafu 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between an aggressive oligarchy and a dictator when it comes to eduaction. I can't speak out on the quality of education in China but censorship is extremely widespread and no doubt for the public history education conforms in some way to how Hu Jintao wants China to be seen by his people, just like in any other education system under a dictator in history.

Still haven't demonstrated that there exists a dictatorship, nor that there is a bias in Chinese education beyond the one that you are simply assuming because of the form of government present. siafu 18:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)