Talk:Military of the Mongol Empire

Military history: Asian / Chinese B‑class

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

B

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

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

Stirrups

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

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

But the stirrups was invented by the Chinese, not the Huns.

- Tak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.188.27 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Horse quantity discrepancy

Halfway through the article it says "Each Mongol soldier maintained between 2 and 4 horses." Then at the end it says "To ensure they would always have fresh horses, each trooper had around five spare mounts". Although not vastly inconsistent, they are clearly not the same number. Vicarious (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it isn't really necessary to make the same statement twice, so we could remove one instance. Second, we won't get any accurate figures, so it may be good enough to just say "several horses". --Latebird (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find a source and updated the info, it still says it twice, but I'm feeling too lazy to fix that. Vicarious (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Mongol Leaders

"A general such as Subutai, unable to ride a horse in the later part of his career, due to age and obesity, would have been ridiculed out of most any European army of the time.[citation needed] No one would have respected him, let alone obeyed his orders."

This is pure unreferenced speculation on the writers part. What about Ivar Boneless, for example? This should really be removed unless a reference can be found (which I actually doubt).

-- Wikigeek at gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.106.234 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Training and Discipline

The first sentence of this paragraph is "Most European armies consisted of a few professional men at arms, and knights, and large levies of peasants or militia. Only the Knights and the few professional fighting men trained regularly, and their training emphasized individual combat, such as jousting, rather than group combat tactics." This is both irrelevant and untrue. Maybe someone can rewrite it? Krastain (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is entirely wrong, but it's at least an oversimplification. A statement like this is relevant as a comparison, but a more specific (and sourced) comparison would of course be better. I don't think I have any suitable material at hand, so someone else will have to try a rewrite. --Latebird (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

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

71.237.70.49

Your change to the strategy section dated October 3rd isn't strategy, it's tactics where it already appears in the "summary" section. Edit that section instead if you must include those bits. Don't be redundant and use language appropriate for an encyclopedia (ie. stupid is a little too informal). Also try to provide proper citations for your new and old edits as well. I'll be watching. Ace blazer (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that a lot of the stuff added onto this page sounds like something out of a textbook. Please don't copy textbooks word for word and take the time to write a good Wikipedia article - as noted above - with proper citations and language. Another tip (hopefully you know how to access the article history page), I've noticed that you make a lot of edits when editing an article. Press the "show preview" button instead to take a look at your changes and then press the "save page" button for the final edit. Ace blazer (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I didn't copy out of the textbook. trust me on that. there is no textbook involved. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith on my part. I pointed out that your edit was already mentioned. I would revert your edit again but I'll let you defend the inclusion first. Take a look at the summary section under the "Battlefield Tactics" header and talk about it.

There's no point in mentioning information twice in the same article. Would it be strategy or tactics? If you keep your recent add-on, I'd recommend removing the summary section. This may seem small but this applies to the article overall as there are redundant sections and a severe lack of citations.

Press the "show preview" button when making your edits please, it makes looking at the edits easier. Ace blazer (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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