Mongol Influence on Combined Arms Tactics (Need Sources)

If you want to discern any Mongol influence upon Rommel, why don't you read his inter-war (1937) book, "Infantry Attacks"? The first chapter is titled, "The Movement War"! Evidence of influences should definitely be provided there!

... Okay, first, relax with the exclamation marks after every sentence.

james smith esq said:

Well, first of all, your premise of inter-war influence is contingent upon the historiography of Mongol tactics up til that point. Do you have that bibliography; a bibliography of the historiography of Mongol tactics, written up to ~1936.

Click to expand...

Funny, coming from a guy who started by quoting Wikipedia. And in case you missed the title of this thread, I'm the one asking for sources here, and it's obvious to me you can't help me and are wasting my time. But to humor you (just this time), here's a paper from a US Army journal:

"Genghis Khan and 13th-Century AirLand Battle" - Captain Dana J. H. Pittard, US Army
URL:

Here's some relevant quotes:

• "The German blitzkrieg of World War II is often noted as the prototype of much of the US Army’s current doctrine–AirLand Battle. The German blitzkrieg, though seemingly revolutionary at its outset, was really nothing new. Its maneuver warfare fundamentals had been followed over 700 years earlier by Genghis Khan and his Mongol “hordes.” Genghis Khan and his armies accomplished feats that would be hard, if not impossible, for modern armies to duplicate."

• "In 1927, Liddell Hart wrote that “the tank and the airplane were natural heirs and successors to the Mongol horsemen.” "

And the Hart quote on the Mongols he cites is from "Great Captains Unveiled," and in case you missed it, this was written in 1927, i.e. interwar period. The paper also states the following: "Two of the leading exponents of mobile warfare in World War II–German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and American General George S. Patton–were both well-read students and admirers of the great Mongol commander, Subotai."

And here's both Rommel's and Guderian's books in my lap:




And here's a quote from Guderian, on page 20, which mentions both Fuller and Hart's influence on his own development of tactics (I circled it for you)



And as for Rommel's "chapter 1" which you challenged me to quote, if you had actually read that book (and I doubt you have) you would already know that Chapter 1's "War of Movement" isn't what you think it is. It's the actual description of the movements of units in the actual war. He did not write this book as a discussion on his influences, but as a sort of diary. The very second paragraph of that chapter, Rommel starts describing the situation: "At an early hour the 4th Battery of the 49th Field Artillery Regiment hurried through the old imperial city...." Yea, not exactly the moment to start randomly talking about the Mongolian influences, is it?

To conclude, thanks for wasting 20 minutes of my life. I have no interest in getting in a debate with you. Now, please, kindly move along from my thread (...and this is the point, where an exclamation mark actually belongs!)

Well, since you’re such a scholar, please show where I started by “quoting” Wikipedia?
I didn’t and you’re a FRAUD!
And, a bibliography of two or three secondary sources is about equal to your scholarly pretentions; deficient!
I guess, since you’ve read Infantry Attacks, you must have noticed that the salient elements of the chapter “The Movement War” -those that provide tactical analyses- are the sections set aside as Observations? Or, did you miss that?
As far as wasting your life, you seem to have done that for the 23, or so, years you’ve lived (or at least the 23 or so years that you spent maturing intellectually, ‘cause you haven’ advanced past that stage), so far; and, I’m sure you’ll continue to do so!
And, as far as YOUR forum, lock it, if you have that authority! If you don’t, it ain’t yours! But, don’t worry, my Dad taught me not to waste time with pretenders!
Welcome to IGNORE!!!

Mohsin77 said:

My Islamic civilization was hit very hard by the Mongols as well, but there is definitely something we have to learn from them.

A lot of steppe nomads have always attacked civilized empires throughout history, but no one was as successful as the Horde. They even defeated all other cavalry based armies like the Khwarizmian Empire, which also had its roots in the Steppe. The Mongols perfected the art of war, I think. They basically fought all the strongest empires in the world, kingdoms much greater in strength, and won decisively. So I would definitely consider them unique.

Click to expand...

I don't know the rest of the world, but in east Asia, all the opponents at the time were at their OWN weakest points. They are weak by all means compared to any other earlier Chinese dynasties, not only to the Mongols of 12th century. Jin had been fighting Xi Xia and Southern Song for more than a hundred years by the time it was finally defeated by the JOINT attack of Mongol and Southern Song.

The Mongols are one who perfected mobile warfare, but they were not the only one nor the earliest one practicing mobile warfare in a large scale. Their achievement were heavily but not solely due to the weak and divided opponents who were already crumbling under their own weights.

The other steppe originated Empire were not steppe people anymore by the time they settled and built their Empire. The Yuan emperor who retreated to the steppe from Beijing was seen by Mongols to be too sinicized to be Mongols. As siege has said, settled farming empire has too much to protect and care than nomadic herder whose only asset is his horse, bow and arrows. I must also add that, a nomadic raider loose nothing if defeated in a fight, he can come back any time, a farmer will loose everything if defeated even if he is alive. A Chinese saying is perfect analogy "光脚的不怕穿鞋的","Bare footed is more daring than shoe wearer" because they have nothing to loose, but everything to gain. Everything else equal (strength and will), the probability theory will favour the former than later to win. That is what happened in 12th to 13th century.

Mongols is the one who made a big name using that tactic, but they won the wars by opportunities presented by history. Note, the opportunity here does not mean random luck, but certainty of socio-economical development of human history. The opportunities weren't there for earlier steppe people and never after when firearms were introduced. The same Mongol warriors practicing the same tactics were eventually destroyed by the Qing who was heavily equipped with cannons and muskets in the 18th century.

P.S. in a way that "opportunity" is the meaning of the concept of "Mandate of Heaven", or "God's will".

taxiya said:

I must also add that, a nomadic raider loose nothing if defeated in a fight, he can come back any time, a farmer will loose everything if defeated even if he is alive. A Chinese saying is perfect analogy "光脚的不怕穿鞋的","Bare footed is more daring than shoe wearer" because they have nothing to loose, but everything to gain. Everything else equal (strength and will), the probability theory will favour the former than later to win. That is what happened in 12th to 13th century.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point, and it does stretch to lessons in everyday life as well. This is why there are no world champion boxers from affluent backgrounds (at least that's what I heard Lennox Lewis say recently.) However, the situation here is slightly different, because the Mongols were playing chess, while everyone else was still playing checkers. Or maybe I should say they were playing Go, while everyone else was playing Chess? lol.

It's true their constitutions were much harder, and they had much less to lose etc. It is also true that some of the opponents they faced were going through a low phase in their history. However, what's really worth focusing on (I think) are the innovations that they brought to tactics and strategy in maneuver warfare. Because these can be implemented by all armies, and indeed have been, to some extent.

We can say it was "God's will" and the "Mandate of Heaven," and I'm a believer in that. But once you get knocked down, you still have to dust yourself off, pick up the pieces, and figure out what you did wrong... basically learn from your mistakes and improve (... which is easier said than done, of course.)

taxiya said:

Jin had been fighting Xi Xia and Southern Song for more than a hundred years by the time it was finally defeated by the JOINT attack of Mongol and Southern Song.

Click to expand...

Jin fvcked up everything it could on its own. Not that much external Song or Tangut merit here. Still doesn't change the fact, what large part of field battles and all key ones were lost by them open&fair.

taxiya said:

As siege has said, settled farming empire has too much to protect and care than nomadic herder whose only asset is his horse, bow and arrows.

Click to expand...

Steppe nomads got their balls grabbed incredible amount of times.
There was a reason behind questionable Juchi's blood; Actual states frequently tried the same thing.

P.s.(not to Taxiya) mongol way of war is just a natural nomadic way of war. Turkic peoples of European steppes, - Kumans, Kipchacks, - all did the same; certainly Mongol empire wasn't the first one to fight this way.
What mongols did was keeping just enough unity for their conquests early after the death of Chingis Khan, but not enough to finish the thing.
So Europe and the middle east got to feel what they're but a frog in the well, but, unlike their less lucky eastern neighbors - lived on to tell the tale and managed to avoid huge delays in their development.

gelgoog said:

Europe also had incidents with cavalry before. For example the Scythians, the Parthian Empire (one of Rome's traditional enemies), or the Huns.

The thing with the Mongols is that they had the organization to make that vast empire and the will to expand.

Click to expand...

The Asiatic Huns and Goths penetrated deep into Europe. The Huns retreated after a while but the Goths actually took the reigns of power and changed the history and sociopolitical structure of Europe forever.


A little detail that's often overlooked in European history: Goths became emperors and kings in the Roman Empire.

Mohsin77 said:

Yes, they got many technologies from the Chinese. Catapults and Siege weapons, gun powder/cannons etc. If it weren't for Chinese technology, their siege capability would have been insufficient to continue expanding into Eurasia.

Apparently the most important aspect the inter-war Euro theorists got from the Mongols, was breaking up large formations into smaller ones, and being able to coordinate over large areas, which allowed for rapid maneuverability of elements in a coordinated way. This required meritocracy in the chain of command and responsibility given to lower ranking officers to operate independently. This is what allowed the Mongols to encircle their opponents etc. A purely mounted force proved the importance of manoeuvrability as well, which is what led to the emphasis on mounted infantry and tank formations, and also the air forces, hence combined arms.

Click to expand...

What I learned of Mongols was that,
1. The Mongol horse was extremely mobile on rugged terrain.
2. Every Mongol soldier always had spare horses with him. When one gets tired, he'd hop on the next one. In other words, very fast moving cavalry. When they conquered cities and massacred entire populations, they gained access to a new supply of horses. The spare horses could also be used as slaughter animals for food while on the move.
3. Mongols learned horse riding and archery when they were still young children. The ability to shoot moving targets while moving on horse yourself was extremely effective and perfected at a young age. The opponents had no counter against this tactic nor knew it themselves.
4. Mongol cavalry kept little blocks of dried meat under their saddles that became compressed when riding. A single small block could be put in boiling water to make a quick meal on the go (think: "instant noodles").
5. Most of the Mongol armies were in fact subjugated Turks who had the same tactics and way of life.
6. In battle, Mongols always left a gap for the enemy to retreat so they don't end up fighting to the death. Knowing that this option of retreating exists actually lowered the morale of the opponents in battle.
7. They picked their battles very carefully because they had to maintain the "image" of being invincible. Fought with logic instead of emotions.
8. Always picked a terrain that suited their point of strength - the horse archer. That may explain why they failed in Vietnam where the only terrain was the jungle wetlands.


I'm not sure how those tactics can be fully applied in modern warfare. The Mongols pretty much nullified the concept of supply lines which I don't think can be replicated anymore, especially with modern equipment that runs on fuel.