Organization of the Mongolian army (strategy, training, weapons and equipment). Analysis of weapons and combat methods of Russian and Mongolian warriors

The book by Jack Coggins is devoted to the history of the formation of the military affairs of the great powers - the USA, Japan, China - as well as Mongolia, India, African peoples - the Ethiopians, the Zulus - from ancient times to the 20th century. The author focuses on the historical conditionality of the appearance of weapons: from the Mongolian bow and samurai sword to the American Spencer carbine, grenade launcher and intercontinental missile.

Coggins identifies the most important stages in the evolution of the development of weapons in each of the countries that had a significant impact on the formation of tactical and strategic principles of warfare, talks about the types of weapons and ammunition.

The book is of interest both for specialists and for a wide range of readers and impresses with the breadth of its review.

Genghis Khan

By the time of his father's death (perhaps c. 1175), the young Temujin had already established himself as a tribal leader, but many of his fellow tribesmen passed from him under the arm of stronger leaders who could protect them from the continuous raids and attacks of their neighbors. The vicissitudes of tribal clashes soon put the young man at the head of a group of refugees, and in fierce battles he acted as the leader of a few devoted warriors who were forced to wander from one valley to another. It was in these battles that the weapons were forged and tempered, which will be destined to bring half the world to the feet of nomadic pastoralists.

Nothing is more conducive to success than military success, and after several hard-won victories, an ever-increasing number of clans began, little by little, to return to the banner of Temujin. When he felt strong enough, he attacked the neighboring tribes, pursued their leaders, as he himself had once been persecuted, and the nomads he conquered joined his army. His closest associates, those who followed him and fought alongside him in the most bitter and difficult times, now began to command this or that detachment of his ever-growing army. As his fame grew and spread, many of the neighbors voluntarily came under his arm. Those who came to him, he received with honor, those who resisted, could then grumble at their fate as much as they wanted. In the end, at the kurultai, that is, at the big council of khans, he received the title of Genghis Khakan - the great ruler, the ruler of all living.

In his character were the patience and determination of a hunter. To these natural qualities of a nomad were added the inflexibility of intentions and self-discipline, characteristic of the leaders of his level. But above all, he was a born organizer. He turned a loose collection of tribes into an army, a select community of all men, from young men to old men. Tribal gangs of raiders he turned into regiments - banners - consisting of separate tens and hundreds of warriors. Each banner consisted of a thousand people, who were divided into ten squadrons of one hundred people. Each hundred consisted of ten dozen warriors. Ten banners formed a division, or tumen, and a few tumens, usually three, for an army. Selected warriors were part of a separate tumen - the guard of the khan.

All warriors were armed with a long, slightly curved, sharp-pointed saber - similar to the weapons of the cavalry of more recent times - which could deliver both chopping and stabbing blows, and a powerful bow. Some warriors had two bows - one shorter, hunting, and combat - a longer and more powerful weapon. Various types of arrows were used - lighter ones for shooting at long distances, and arrows with a thicker shaft and a more powerful iron tip, designed to penetrate armor. A bow or bows were worn in a case - saadake - on the left side, a large quiver with arrows on the right. The saber in a leather sheath was hung on the rider's back so that its hilt protruded above the left shoulder.

Some nomads were also armed with a spear, on which a bunch of horsehair was attached below the tip, or iron hooks to pull the enemy out of the saddle, but the bow remained the main weapon.

To protect against enemy weapons, Mongolian warriors wore helmets made of iron or leather, covered with a thick layer of varnish and reinforced with sewn iron inserts. A leather collar, also reinforced with iron strips, descended from the helmet down the back to the shoulder blades. Some spearmen also had a small round shield made of leather with iron plaques. To protect the body, breastplates and bracers were made of hard leather, covering the shoulders. Sometimes riders also put on something like cuirasses made of leather, on which iron plates were sewn.

Sometimes horses were also put on armor to protect their chest and sides; leather was also used for this purpose. In the steppes, it was the most accessible material (which cannot be said about iron) and the easiest to process.

In addition to weapons and protective equipment, each warrior also had a felt hat and a sheepskin jacket - no doubt similar to those that Mongol pastoralists still wear today - as well as a lasso and rope, a bag of barley, a cauldron, an ax, salt, needles and tendons for repair equipment and clothes.

Each rider had at least one riding horse, and sometimes their number reached half a dozen.

Mongolian steppe horses were not particularly beautiful or stout, but they were strong and hardy - they could get food from under the snow in winter and exist on the very minimum of food. It is impossible to suspect the Mongols of even a semblance of compassion for any living being, but as a people who used horses extensively, they no doubt carefully looked after their horses, as far as circumstances allowed. Without such a departure, no long-distance cavalry transitions at the speed that the hordes of Genghis Khan developed would have been impossible.

Before the battle, the army lined up in five rows at a considerable distance from one another. Spearmen and archers were combined in such a way as to achieve the maximum effect from shelling and cavalry strikes. The spearmen, who occupied the first two rows, were dressed in full armor, their horses also wore leather protective vestments. The last three rows were occupied by archers. At the beginning of the battle, they moved forward through the gaps in the advanced ranks to shower the enemy with arrows and again take their places behind the spearmen before the attack began.

The strictest discipline reigned in the army. Each warrior had to help his comrades, repulse them if they were tried to be captured, help them if they were wounded, and never turn their backs on the enemy, unless the signal was given to withdraw. Each of the smallest units of ten was thus a closely knit group, formed from people who had lived together for years and fought together, who could always rely on comrades. Contemporaries noted that “if one, or two, or three warriors out of a dozen take flight on the day of battle, all the rest will be executed ... and if two or three out of a group of ten people start off in a feigned flight, and the rest do not follow them, those who stray will also be executed.”

The Muslim chronicler wrote: “So great was the fear that Allah instilled in all hearts that it happened like this - a single Tatar drove into a village in which many people lived and killed them one by one, and not a single person dared to resist ". Humility is not inherent in the people of the West, and it is difficult for a European to imagine the state of people who meekly go to the slaughter.

The captives captured by the Mongols were either sent on a long and difficult journey to their homeland - and they died by the thousands along the way - or were used as human shields when taking the next city. When the Mongols returned to their steppes, they usually killed all those whom they had spared a little earlier in order to serve them.

Such was the policy of the Mongols - the foundations of which were laid by Genghis Khan himself - that no people were allowed to survive to organize any kind of resistance. Cities and villages that could become unifying centers were destroyed, and their irrigation systems, gardens and cultivated fields were methodically destroyed. Often, the inhabitants who worked in the fields were spared until the moment when the harvest ripened, and then they and their families were also destroyed.

During their campaigns of conquest, the Mongols observed this principle of total extermination of inhabitants so carefully that they even suddenly appeared in already depopulated areas, checking to see if their inhabitants had survived and returned to the ruins of their dwellings.

They used the same terror against the rulers of a country or a tribe - those members of the ruling house who tried to resist the wave of the Mongol invasion were persecuted and destroyed. Such a fate befell Mohammed, Shah of the great Khorezm Khanate. One of the pillars of Islam, he was eventually able to take refuge on an island in the Caspian Sea, where he soon died, broken and destitute. It is known about his pursuit that the pursuit of him was so fierce that several Mongols, inflamed by it, chasing his sailing boat on horseback, rode their horses into the water and rushed after it until they drowned.

Other rulers died in battle or during the flight of their adherents. Bela, the king of Hungary, who managed to escape during the fatal battle for him on the Sayo River (the so-called Mohi battle), when his army and his kingdom were destroyed, was forced to constantly hide, changing shelters, and his pursuers chased him all the way to the coast of Dalmatia . When the king tried to hide on one of the coastal islands, the Mongols took out a boat and followed him. The king was still able to break away from them and return to the mainland, but the chase continued there. The driven monarch hid from his pursuers, moving from city to city, and in the end tried again to hide in the archipelago of islands. There is no doubt that the relentless pursuers, in pursuit of him, were ready to search the entire Adriatic, but were ordered to return and join the general withdrawal of the Mongol troops returning to their homeland.

Once lazy nomads, who have already become experienced warriors, have now gained what they previously lacked - discipline and organization. It was not easy for the inhabitants of the free steppes to learn this, but the iron will of their leader dominated them, and their energy multiplied many times over. Against their combined strength no single tribe could resist, and as their power increased, so did the arrogance and ambition of the indomitable man who led them. They were no longer despicable shepherds who gazed with admiration at the Chinese emperors who ruled outside the Great Wall of China and were doomed to be pitted against each other. Now all these tribes - Oirots, Tanguts, Merkits, Tatars - proudly called themselves Mongols. And as the united army went farther and farther, peace reigned in their native steppes, women and children grazed herds of cattle and played among yurts, firmly knowing that when mounted warriors appeared on the horizon, they would be friends, not enemies. As the former warring tribes merged into the great Mongol army, old divisions and blood feuds were now forgotten. And in order to instill confidence that they would not come to life again, their khan proclaimed that all intertribal disputes should be stopped, and the enmity of the Mongol with the Mongol would henceforth be considered a crime.

For a long time, hostile relations existed between the nomads who lived outside the Great Wall of China and the civilized Chinese who took refuge behind it. Now the forces of the nomads were united. The will of one person forged from them a deadly weapon. But, like any such weapon, it was impossible to just swing it endlessly, even to such a person as a khakan. Being naked, it had to be set in motion - and the leader of the nomads did not hesitate to strike them at the mighty Song empire.

Therefore, the tumens turned to the north, and soon the flags with nine tails of white yaks were flying within the Great Wall of China. The task of this wall was to keep out small gangs of marauders, but it was not given to stop an invading army led by a commander like Genghis Khan. The initial invasions were nothing more than raids on a large scale - defeating the armies sent against them and wreaking widespread destruction - but leaving the large, high-walled cities untouched. This, however, could not continue for long. As the Mongols gained experience (they also put to good use captured or defected Chinese soldiers and engineers), they began to successfully lay sieges to many cities. Such sieges became more and more frequent, and the weak ruler who occupied the throne of the Chinese emperor was horrified by them and fled (1214). In the ensuing turmoil, the Mongols again invaded China, and the great Song empire was drowned in blood and fire. Fortunately for the inhabitants of the country, the brave and wise Yelü Chutsai, captured by Genghis Khan, made a deep impression on the Khakan with his courage and loyalty to his fleeing master. This man soon gained great influence over the Mongol ruler (or rather, the rulers, since he also served Ogudai). His restraining influence on the wild and greedy barbarians was able to save millions of lives. As an adviser and, subsequently, a leading minister of the new Mongol Empire, he did a lot for thirty years to mitigate the destructive policy of the khans towards the peoples of the conquered countries. It was thanks to him that the remnants of the Chin empire were preserved and a control system was created in the newly conquered territories. "You can conquer an empire by sitting in the saddle," he told the khaqan, according to legend, "but you cannot govern it in this way." And it was in the traditions of his teachings that Kubla Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, ruled his vast empire, which included all of China, Korea, Mongolia, Tibet and a significant part of Siberia.

The next enterprise of the Khakans (1219) was a campaign against the Khorezm Khanate. Its territory included modern Iran, Afghanistan, Turkestan and part of Northern India. The invading army, estimated at 150,000 strong, advanced in four columns. Shah Mohammed, not taking advantage of his numerical superiority, decided to take up defense along the border along the Syr Darya River.

The famous Mongol commander Jebe Noyon led two tumens across the hilly plain, threatening the Shah's right flank, while the other three columns moved along the northern route. Two of them, under the command of the sons of Khan Jochi and Chagatai, having reached the Syr-Darya, turned south and, taking several border fortresses along the way, connected with Jebe-noyon not far from Samarkand. The Shah barely managed to gather his forces when Genghis Khan appeared in his rear, like a materialized mirage, with four tumens. He crossed the Syr Darya and disappeared into the sands of the vast Kara-Kum desert, appearing in a short time at the very gates of Bukhara. Such a masterfully executed maneuver destroyed all the defensive plans of the Khorezmians to the very foundation. The Shah fled, and Bukhara, one of the strongholds of Islam and the center of Muslim culture, was put on fire and plundered. The same fate befell Samarkand, followed by a number of other cities. Within five months, the main forces of the khanate were defeated, and the cities, numbering hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, were turned into heaps of lifeless ruins. Probably never before or since has a populous country turned into a lifeless desert in such a short time.

Then the most grandiose horse chase in history began, as the khakan ordered Jebe-noyon and the veteran commander Subedei with two tumens to follow the shah and capture him alive or dead. From Samarkand to Balkh, to the foothills of the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, the pursuit of the Shah continued, and from there another five hundred miles to Nishapur. The spring grass was excellent fodder for the horses, and each warrior brought a few more horses with him. This was necessary, for on some days they would travel seventy to eighty miles. The Tumens took Nishapur by storm, but the Shah eluded them, and the Mongols, who did not know fatigue, continued their pursuit. Now they were moving north, taking city after city and defeating the Persian army near what is now Tehran. The Shah rushed to Baghdad, but the Mongols followed on his heels, in one place approaching him within the distance of a bow shot. Then he changed direction and moved north to the Caspian. Here, once again evading almost certain captivity, he took refuge on one of the islands, where he died soon after.

A messenger arrived at the tumens that had stopped after the chase brought their commanders permission from the khakan to move to Western Europe, and the two commanders turned their soldiers to the north, to the mountainous heights of the Caucasus. Passing through the mountains of Georgia, they defeated the Georgian kingdom. Having crossed the Main Caucasian Range, they inflicted a crushing defeat on the army of the Alans, Hyrkanians and Kipchaks. Their movement to the north was blocked by the Russian army under the command of princes Mstislav of Kyiv and Daniil of Galicia, which crossed the Dnieper. On the banks of the Kalka River, this army was defeated - thus ended the first clash between the Mongols and the West. However, the Russian resistance was apparently so stubborn that the Mongol commanders turned their soldiers south to the Crimea, where they won the friendship of the Venetians, taking and ruining the trading posts of their Genoese rivals. And finally, having received the order of the khakan, they headed home. Jebe-noyon died on the way, but Subedei brought his warriors laden with booty to their native steppes. The chase and campaign lasted more than two years, the troops traveled an incredibly long way. In accordance with Mongol customs, they no doubt filled their ranks with the nomadic peoples they met along the way, and also received supplies and new horses from them. Most likely, they returned home even stronger than before the start of the campaign. For the Europeans, this was an ominous omen of the fate that threatened them, since the cunning Subedei was obsessed with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bleading the Mongol conquest of the West.

Meanwhile, the khakan continued to complete his ruthless conquest of Khorezm. The brave Jalal-ad-din, the son of the Shah and his successor, suffered a final defeat in the last battle on the banks of the Indus, managing to escape only thanks to the fact that, together with his horse, he jumped from a ten-meter cliff into the river and swam to the southern bank. The pursuit of him continued to the walls of Delhi, but the heat and disease weakened the army of the Mongols, and, having plundered Lahore and Multan, they returned to the north. The great empire of Khorezm now lay in complete desolation. All centers of resistance, city after city, were systematically destroyed - contemporaries of the events called the number of victims only when Herat was taken at 1,500,000 people.

Apart from the massacre of millions of civilians, the conquest of Khorezm was an outstanding military achievement. The Mongols, having made a bold decision to use widely scattered forces, carried out a strategy of enveloping gigantic proportions, and in the most unfavorable territory for their operations, and demonstrated both skillful planning and audacious execution of military operations, moreover, showing the ability to soberly assess the enemy's capabilities. It seems that the Mongol war machine should have functioned perfectly. Not only the actual military problems, but also the questions of organization and supply were immensely difficult. The distance from the homeland of the Mongols to Bukhara was more than 4,630,000 kilometers in a straight line, and yet the prospect of such a long march of a huge army did not frighten the Mongol commanders. For them, who lived in a wide expanse of the steppe, distances were not an obstacle; nor were they embarrassed by the need to send their tumens beyond 90 degrees of geographic longitude. It was this disregard for distance, this complete independence of the length of communications, that allowed the Mongols to confuse their opponents with the fantastic ability of their armies to appear where they were least expected. This circumstance, plus the incredible speed with which they moved, gave rise to the myth - once widespread - that the Mongol armies reached incredible numbers. In no other way could the historians of those times explain their stunning victories and the speed of their blows. In an era of rumbling feudal armies, slow to mobilize, slow to march, and, because of the disorder of command, even slower to concentrate, the well-oiled Mongol war machine must indeed have been presented as something akin to black magic. And if sometimes the inhabitants of the steppes converged on the battlefield with an army equal in number to them, this was because the speed of their movement and maneuverability allowed their commanders to carry out maneuvers that were completely unimaginable for their opponents.

Mongolian heavily armed mounted warrior

The presence of heavily armed mounted warriors in the Mongol army destroys the stereotypical idea that the Mongol army consisted only of lightly armed mounted archers.

On the rider's head is a metal dulga helmet with a ponytail, a visor and an arrow protecting the nose:

By the way, the helmets on the heads of the Mongol warriors are depicted by all sources. This suggests that the helmet was the second most important component of their defense weapons.

Such a helmet was called a duulga and, like all Central Asian samples, it was riveted from several metal plates connected by rivets.

The helmet had a spherical shape 18-22 cm high, a welt and a low pommel topped with a small sharp spire or tube for a plume.

Specifically Mongolian features were horizontal or vertical curly visors and cruciform visors.

The warrior's neck was covered by a wide strip of iron plates attached to the headband or a chain mail cover for the entire face.

The armor of a warrior consists of metal plates connected with leather straps:

The Mongolian hard shell huyag, according to research, had two variants of the structure:

. lamellar - the plates had an elongated rectangular shape, the upper edge of which was rounded;

. laminar - transverse plates:

The laminar shell was heavier and more inconvenient, but it was faster and easier to manufacture.

Sometimes the shells were of a combined type - lamellar with laminar plates:

Lamellar shells were of two types:

. a kind of "corset" on the straps, with cuts on the sides and less often - in front or on the back, rectangular shoulder pads to the elbows and the same legguards to the middle of the lower leg or to the knees. Weighed 4-5 kg.;

A caftan with slits from the throat to the hem in front and from the sacrum to the hem in the back, with rectangular and less often leaf-shaped mantles to the elbow and below. Weighed up to 16 kg.

Similar was the cut and protective coats made of leather, which was hardened by boiling and glued together in several layers. On top of the strips of leather, the Mongols varnished.

An additional detail of the Tatar-Mongolian shell was wooden overhead shields, the main functional purpose of which was to cover the parts of the warrior’s body that were not protected by the shell: legs - from the ankles to the knees, arms - from the hand to the elbow, as well as chest and shoulders.

Often, Mongolian warriors also wore the so-called soft armor made of multi-layered fabric or thick felt, reinforced with small metal discs, as well as chain mail, which were captured in large quantities from conquered peoples.



On a war horse, horse armor is a mask (mask) and a koyar (shell).

“Koyar” is not a Mongolian word: here we see the Russian translation of the Turkic word yegar “saddle”, “horse covering”.

The lamellar iron and laminar leather horse armor of the Mongols consisted of:

. bib;

. two sidewalls;

. knupnik;

. collar of two parts, hanging on the sides of the neck.

Tatar-Mongolian fighting headpieces of the 13th - first half of the 14th century. is a very difficult subject to study. To the east of the Don, they are very rare and are usually accidental finds. They are more frequent in the Dnieper region, and often in barrow complexes, but dating from the period under consideration - a few. There is still no consensus on the more exact date and ethnicity of most of the rich military burials of this region that are of interest to us, in the inventory of which there are helmets, there is still no consensus: some consider them to be Chernoklobutsky of the 12th - early 13th centuries, others - Polovtsian of the second half of the 13th - first half XIV century, the third - the Golden Horde of the first half of the XIII - the first half of the XIV century. 101 Recently, Ukrainian archaeologists have found several burials, including those with helmets, dated by coins and other dating items from the second half of the 13th - mid-14th centuries. 106 These standard monuments allow us to confidently attribute to the heyday of the Golden Horde era - the middle of the 13th - the first half of the 14th century - a series of remarkable burials with helmets in Porosye, studied by N.V. Pyatysheva and partly by G.A. Fedorov-Davydov 106 . This time includes such a bright monument, which caused many years of controversy, as Tagancha. One of the "Mongolian" signs of it is a spherical mace-scepter on a very long handle, which, as it now turns out, is quite typical for rich burials of the Golden Horde. Exactly the same maces-scepters are held in their hands, leaning on them like canes, by the noble Khitans on the wall paintings of the Khitan royal mausoleum 107 and the "leader of demons" - barbarians (Mongols) in a Chinese painting of the late 13th - early 14th centuries. (see Fig. 6, 1). It is difficult to identify and date early Mongolian archaeological helmets, since there is still no reliable systematization of Chinese, Korean and Central Asian helmets, which are also often random finds and very arbitrarily dated. Therefore, the images of helmets on Iranian miniatures of the first half of the 14th century are the control ones, since they, like the images of armor, usually reflect Mongolian realities 108 .

Judging by the miniatures, Mongolian helmets were extremely diverse, although they had a number of common features. When considering them, it is necessary to examine separately the headband itself and the aventail - the protection of the neck and throat (sometimes the face). A common feature of the overwhelming majority of Mongolian helmets is their sphero-conical shape, represented by a variety of options - from almost hemispherical to strongly elongated (see Fig. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10). The dome could be solid or, much more often, composed of four or more sectors. A crown is attached along the edge in the form of a narrow or wide strip with a flat or cut-out upper edge. The helmet is crowned with a bowl or a rosette-shaped pommel and a pommel in the form of a tube for a sultan, a cone-shaped spire, a pin, a low knob, a ball. Often the tops and tops are longline. Specific, not known in the pre-Mongolian time to the west of Central Asia, are: crowns, recruited from individual small plates (Fig. 10, 5, 8, 10, 28), which existed in Xinjiang in the 7th - 9th centuries, in Manchuria in the 9th-11th centuries and in China XII-XIV centuries. 109 , found in Tuva and Tibet in the late Middle Ages 110 ; tops in the form of a multi-petalled rosette or with carved petals (see Fig. 4, 15, 16; 10, 3, 6, 7, 13, 22, 30, 41, 43), which existed in Sung China 111 ; tops in the form of tall thin twigs with a thickening or figured detail at the end (see fig. 4, 4; 5, 8; 8, 5; 10, 2, 8, 38), previously known only in Xinjiang in the 9th-10th centuries .112; forehead plates with a trident figured cutout of the upper edge (see Fig. 4, 14; 10, 14-16), found in Xinjiang of the 9th-10th centuries. 113

The following features of helmets are actually Mongolian: a conical pommel bent back (see Fig. 5, 10, 14; 8, 1, 7; 9, 2); crown, carved with four, sometimes figured, scallops along the upper edge (see Fig. 4, 4-6.13; 5, 11, 15; 10, 4, 30, 31.40); forehead plate in the form of a narrow horizontal trapezium with a slightly concave upper edge, sometimes notched (see Fig. 4, 2, 3; 5, 1-5, 13; 8, 1, 3, 5-7; 10, 1, 17) ; earmuffs in the form of paired, rarely connected by three disks (see Fig. 4, 6, 12; 5, 4, 10; 8, 8, 9; 9, 2; 10.18, 20); a visor made of two crossed narrow steel strips (see Fig. 5, 3); nasal nose with a lower part in the form of a trefoil, resembling the outline of the nose in front (see Fig. 10, 13, 30). It is difficult to judge from the images whether the nosepiece is a separate piece or was forged together with the crown. Rare, specifically East Asian features of Mongolian helmets in Iranian miniatures are the design of the upper edge of the forehead plate with a “cloudy” pattern (see Fig. 5, 7; 10, 7) and the presence of a horizontal or riveted visor at an angle (see Fig. 10, 32) 117 . Equally rare is the depiction of a forehead plate with superciliary incisions on the lower edge (see Fig. 10, 6). Such plates are found on the Xinjiang monuments of the 8th century. 118 The decoration of the headband with scallops along the upper edge of the crown, from the tops of which straight lines converge to the crown (imitation of a riveted helmet when it is forged from one piece), has become widespread since the 30s. 14th century (see fig. 4, 7, 10, 11.16). Probably, the Middle Eastern craftsmen imitated in a more complex technique the old type of helmet, familiar to the Mongols and which has become traditional in the Middle East. An analogue of helmets from Iranian miniatures is the helmet of the Mamluk Sultan Mohammed Ibn Kala "un 119, who ruled intermittently from 1294 to 1340. On this helmet we first meet a separate movable arrow-nosed, it is quite possible that on the miniatures some of the nosels are of the same type .

Rice. 11. Helmets of the Mongolian period (the second half of the 13th - the middle of the 14th century). 1-Demianovna, Melitopol district, middle of the 13th - beginning of the 14th century; 2 - Holiday, Kuban region, second half of the 13th - mid-14th centuries; 3 - Novoterskoye, Checheno-Ingushetia, first half - middle of the 14th century; 4 - Mirovka, Porosye, second half of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries; 5 - Abaza, Abakan district, second half of the 13th - mid-14th centuries; 6 - chance find, Altai Territory, first half of the 14th century, Biysk Museum of Local Lore. V. V. Bianchi; 7 - Flat, Tiraspol district, kurg. 228/501. the reign of Tokta (1290-1312); 8 - Pawns, Porosie, kurg. 323, middle - second half of the 13th century, 9 - second half of the 13th - first half of the 14th century, Military Museum, Istanbul (the helmet is depicted without later additions - a visor, an alluvial arrow and ear-necks); 10, 11 - Northwestern Iran, second quarter - middle of the 14th century; 12 - “Misyurka of the boyar Golitsin”, North-Western Iran, second quarter - middle of the 14th century, Armory of the Moscow Kremlin; IS - Northwestern Iran, first half of the 14th century, ex. coll. Count G. Vilcek, Hungary; 14 - Tagancha, Porosye, middle - second half of the 13th century; 15 - Burty, Porosye, kurg. 261, mid-XIII - mid-XIV century; 16 - Kovali, Porosye, middle of the XIII - beginning of the XVI century,

Round or approaching in shape to the four-lobed rosettes of the "target" on the dome of the helmets (see Fig. 4, 6, 14; 9, 2; 10, 4, 9, 15, 16, 18-20, 25, 26, 30) are heritage of the pre-Mongol Middle Eastern tradition 117, at the same time they are also characteristic of Chinese and Tangut helmets of the 10th-13th centuries. 118 Brow cuts made on the lower edge of the headband or a forehead plate riveted to it (see Fig. 5, 3, 4; 9, 2; 10, 6) are a phenomenon that is widespread almost everywhere. Such a feature as not very wide horizontal or slightly lowered margins (see Fig. 10, 34, 35) is typical for Byzantine helmets of the 8th and 13th centuries. 119 and especially China in the 6th-17th centuries. 120, they appear in Western Europe from the 13th century. 121

As you can see, the forms of Mongolian helmets, their elements and details on Iranian miniatures of the first half of the 14th century. are extremely diverse, many of them have different origins (as a rule, they are still Central and East Asian), but all of them are variants of the Tatar-Mongol "Horde" helmet. They are immediately recognizable on Mosul and Damascus metal (see Fig. 7, 1-3). There are very few Mongolian helmets among Chinese images, but there is also a Chinese monument of the late 13th - early 14th century. the helmet of the northern "barbarian-demon" (Mongol), riveted from two halves, has a forehead plate with superciliary cutouts and an upper edge, repeating the cutouts, somewhat lowered in relation to the edge of the helmet (see Fig. 6, 1). In Japanese images, all Mongol warriors are wearing helmets with a dome that is solidly forged or riveted from many narrow sectors (see Fig. 6, 3, 7-13). And although, in general, the artist painted the helmets of the Mongols as Japanese in proportions, they depict forehead plates of the same shapes as on the Iranian miniatures, while for Japanese helmets of the XI-XIV centuries. and their images, a specific and constant detail is a wide visor strongly lowered down with a rounded lower edge 122 (besides, Japanese helmets at that time did not have a solid forged dome).

Consider the authentic helmets that have come down to us. The most striking of them is a helmet from mound 228/501 near the village. Flat in the region of Tiraspol (Fig. 11, 7). The dome, riveted from four sectors, overlapped at the joints with narrow stripes, a conical base with a rather long pin-shaped top topped with a conical thickening, a high crown riveted from rectangular vertical plates, a rectangular forehead plate, a horizontal visor - almost all these features were brought by the Mongols to Europe from Central and East Asia. On the bottom of the helmet there is a riveted narrow strip with loops for threading a metal rod, to which the aventail was attached. The helmet is dated by the coins of the Golden Horde Khan Tokta (1290-1312) 123 . The features inherent in the Mongolian helmets of the first half of the 14th century are distinguished by the helmet from Biysk (Fig. 11, 6) - a “trident” forehead plate with superciliary notches, a scalloped upper edge of the crown, and intricately carved edges of the top. Helmets from the Topkapu Museum in Istanbul (Fig. 11, 10, 11) and the “Misyurka of Prince Golitsyn” from the Armory (Fig. 11, 12) have a “crown-shaped” crown, brow cutouts, riveted relief “eyebrows” (preserved in Istanbul copies ), movable arrows-noses. The rounded dome of one of them is riveted from eight sectors, the rest of the domes are solid forged, but the sectors are imitated by convex lines, as on the helmet of Sultan Mohammed Ibn Kala "un. By analogy with images on miniatures, they can be considered Iranian products of the second quarter - the middle of the 14th century. 124 Apparently, a somewhat older helmet from the former collection of Count G. Vilcek in Hungary (Fig. 11, 13) 125. Its dome has the same convex vertical lines imitating sectors, the curved Mongolian pommel is especially characteristic. Another helmet from the Topkapu Museum (Fig. 11, 9) distinguishes another helmet from the Topkapu Museum (Fig. 11, 9), allowing it to be dated to the second half of the 13th - the first half of the 14th century. Much less expressive is the helmet from Abaza (Fig. 11, 5) All of its features are typical for Mongolian helmets, the same helmets were made in Central, Northern and partly East Asia from the 6th to the 18th centuries, so that it dates to the period of interest to us according to the accompanying finds - a cast-iron cauldron and a shell.

Extremely interesting are helmets from Eastern European burials - from the territory of the Golden Horde. As noted above, reliable criteria have now appeared for dating a number of monuments, especially the Dnieper region, to the Mongolian time, which a number of authors still attribute to the previous period. And although not all of them belong to the Mongols themselves, the weapons from these monuments are an integral part of the Golden Horde culture. Some of the helmets from Porosye have clear Mongol features: a helmet from mound 323 near the village. Pawns - a visor (Fig. 11, 8), from the Taganch barrow - a pommel in the form of a long spire (Fig. 11, 14), which was also in a similar armor from barrow 261 near the village. Burts (Fig. 11, 15). A helmet with a solid forged dome and relief brow cutouts from Demyanovka, Melitopol district (Fig. 11, 1), as evidenced by round “targets” on the dome, can be attributed to the early Golden Horde period, while the helmet from Mirovka in Porosye (Fig. 11, 4) with a dome riveted in two parts and a wide, even top is hardly older than the 14th century, since its base has the form of a multi-petalled rosette with long “clawed” petals, which is typical for cut-out details of helmets of the 14th century. On the whole, the helmets of the North Caucasus that are reliably dated are similar to those of the Dnieper (Fig. 11, 2, 3).

Perhaps the most difficult to interpret are two similar helmets with iron masks in the form of a human face from the burial mounds near the villages of Kovali and Lipovets in Porosye (Fig. 11, 16). N.V. Pyatysheva dates them to the second half of the 13th - the first half of the 14th century. 126, which is confirmed by the latest excavations. V. N. Kirpichnikov and N. V. Pyatysheva, in interpreting these helmets, proceeded from the same provisions - the masks are portrait and fit snugly to the face. However, the authors came to opposite conclusions: according to N.V. Pyatysheva, the masks were uncomfortable in combat and were ritual, according to A.N. Kirpichnikov, they were comfortable and were combat 127 . Regarding the function of masks, A. N. Kirpichnikov is undoubtedly right, but the initial assumptions of the authors are completely wrong. Masks, firstly, are not portraits, since they reproduce the generalized features of the hero-hero of the ancient Altai tradition 128 , and secondly, they did not fit to the face, if only because the diameter of the edge of the helmet always significantly exceeds the diameter of the head, since helmets were worn on thick balaclavas. The masks were simply curly visors, spaced 1-1.5 cm from the surface of the face; with a snug fit of the mask, a blow to it could lead to concussion and even injury. We cannot touch on the problem of iron masks here: this topic requires a separate study, since there is a lot of material on them from different regions of Eurasia, but it, at least from Central and East Asia, is still contradictory in terms of the combat use of masks. The products considered here seem to us to be late Polovtsian, made under the influence of visor masks of the Near and Middle East and Byzantium, as well as Rus', where military visor masks made of iron are recorded by written, pictorial and archaeological evidence 129 .

As for the helmets themselves, the genesis of their shape is connected with the Middle East, as suggested by Kirpichnikov 130 (who did not substantiate this assumption in any way). Indeed, a high cylindrical crown, turning into a conical dome at an angle, a rectangular cutout above the forehead, large teardrop-shaped depressions on the dome are found in the Middle Eastern images of helmets of the late 12th - mid-13th centuries. 131, but the pommel in the form of a long spire is a detail characteristic of the Mongolian period. Interestingly, the helmets on a number of Polovtsian "stone women" have the same dome shape 132 . This makes it possible to date them no earlier than the second half of the 13th - early 14th centuries, to speak about the fairly wide distribution of this Middle Eastern helmet form in Eastern Europe and the possibility of manufacturing helmets of this type by Polovtsian craftsmen, including helmets from Lipovets and Koval.

The Mongolian plume, judging by the images, looked like a hair brush or consisted of two feathers. Flags, for which, at first glance, long pin-shaped tops are intended, appear only in the 15th century - in the Middle East, in China, in Rus', and especially spread from the 16th century. along with long finials. The dating Mongolian time element can be movable rings inserted into the end of the pommel of the helmets (Fig. I, 8). They, judging by the North Caucasian counterparts of the 18th-19th centuries, were hung with two leather tongues - the decoration of the top of the helmets. For the first time, such an ornament appears on the images in the Mongol time in the Tabriz miniature of the first half of the 14th century. (see Fig. 4, 8, 13) and on Mosul metal of the late 13th - early 14th centuries. (see Fig. 7, 2). In Rus', such decorations have never been used.

An important part of the helmet is the neck, face, and throat protection system associated with it. Judging by the images, the aventails of the Mongolian helmets of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries. were extremely diverse both in form and structure. Plano Carpini, describing the Mongolian helmet, only reports about the headband that it is made of iron or copper, and writes about the aventail: “That which covers the throat and neck around is made of leather. And all these pieces of skin are composed in the manner indicated above, 133 i.e., laminar. On Iranian images, we see laminar aventails made of hard materials - painted hard leather, metal (see Fig. 4, 5, 15; 5, 16; 10, 7, 22, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 42, 43 ), lamellar (see Fig. 10, 6, 21, 24, 25, 27, 38, 41), as well as aventail from alternating type-setting solid strips (see Fig. 5, 5-7). Popular are aventails made of thick soft leather or felt, often with painting (see Fig. 4, 2, 3, 10; 5, 1-3, 5, 13, 14; 8, 1-3, 5-7; 10, 1 , 9, 11). Less common are aventails made of soft fabric (see Fig. 4, 14; 10, 3-5, 10,12, 28), which was sometimes wrapped, probably for fear of overheating, hard aventails and earmuffs (see Fig. 10, 16, 18-20); for the same reason, a light sleeveless caftan could be worn over the shell (see Fig. 5, 9). We see lamellar aventails on Mongolian warriors in Chinese and Japanese painting (see Fig. 6, 1, 3); especially frequent in the Japanese painting are aventails made of soft materials, sometimes quilted (see Fig. 6, 7-13). Quite widely in the western regions of the Mongol Empire, chain mail aventails were used, known as pictorial ones (see Fig. 4, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16; 5, 9, 11, 15; 7, 3; 10, 2, 13-15, 23, 30, 31, 40), and according to archaeological (see Fig. 11.5, 10-12, 14-16) data. Only in one case can a scaly covering of the nape be assumed with a sufficient degree of certainty (see Fig. 10, 8).

The bulk of the Mongolian aventails can be divided into open, protecting the back of the head and face from the sides, usually cut in the form of a rectangle or trapezoid, often with rounded corners (see Fig. 4, 2-5,7-10, 14; 5, 1, 2 , 5, 12-14, 16; 6, 1; 7, 1, 2, 4; 8, 7-5, 5-7; 10, 1, 3-5, 10-12, 17, 24, 25, 27 -29, 32, 33, 35-38, 42, 43); half-closed, also covering the throat (see Fig. 5, 3, 9, 15; 6, 3, 7-13; 10, 2, 6, 7, 31, 40, 41); closed, also protecting the face up to the eyes or slightly below (see Fig. 4, 15; 5, 7; 7, 3; 10, 13-15, 21-23, 30; 11, 10-12, 14). It was closed aventails that were usually combined with nose guards and visors, and they were also the most reliable - always made of iron or hard multi-layered leather, chain mail, lamellar, laminar.

Sometimes the aventail was a system of ears and a nape (see Fig. 10, 9), but more often it was isolated from the ears or a nape (see Fig. 4, 9, 12; 7, 3; 10, 8).

Open and semi-closed aventails were a pan-Eurasian phenomenon; Byzantium in the 10th century, in Rus' at the end of the 12th-13th centuries. 134 Closed aventails with a smooth upper edge appear only in the Mongol era.

Protective details

up

These include independent parts of the armor that protect parts of the body that are not covered by a shell, necklaces, mirrors, bracers, and leggings.

necklaces

Protective necklaces, judging by the images (unfortunately, they did not reach us in their natural form), were an extremely popular part of the Mongolian armor in the period under review. In the vast majority of cases, Iranian miniatures depict necklaces made of leather, apparently very thick, usually painted, less often one-colored, with metal plaques (see Fig. 4, 2, 3; 5, 1-6, 10, 14; 8 , 1-3, 5-8; 9, 2; 10, 1, 11), chain mail necklaces are not uncommon (see Fig. 4, 7, 10-12; 5, 9; 10, 2), lamellar necklaces are rare (see Fig. 10, 24). On Mosul inlays and Japanese images, the necklaces are apparently made of leather (see Fig. 6, 7; 7, 1, 2).

Protective necklaces made of thick leather and lamellar ones were well known in Xinjiang and Dunhuang in the 8th-10th centuries, Northern and Southern China in the 12th - early 13th centuries. 138, warriors of Iran and Iraq wore leather and chain mail necklaces in the 10th-13th centuries. e. necklaces in Central, Central and East Asia not only protected the shoulders, upper chest and back, but also served to fasten shoulder-bracers 138 . Such a necklace is depicted once on a Baghdad (?) miniature of 1330 (see Fig. 9, 2).

Mirrors

They, as already noted, were usually attached to the Mongolian shell, but in one case it can be assumed that the mirror (for the first time in the Middle Ages, having a rectangular shape) is an independent armor and is worn (or sewn) over a soft shell (see Fig. 9, 1). This is the earliest depiction of mirror armor in the Middle Ages, which would be so popular in the 15th-17th centuries. in the Near and Middle East and in Russia. The fact that its distribution in the west of Eurasia is connected precisely with the Mongols is evidenced by the fact that mirrors (together with purely Mongolian quivers) appeared on icons made in the Crusader states in the Middle East in the middle of the 13th century. 139, Russian miniature of the 20s. 14th century 140, Balkan wall painting of the 14th century. 141 We do not know the Mongolian name for the mirror, but, most likely, it was a term denoting the concept of “mirror”, as in Russian and Persian. Among the Mongols, as well as among other peoples of Central and East Asia, since ancient times, the mirror performed, in addition to everyday life, a magical function - hostile spirits, looking into it, were frightened of their own terrifying appearance and did not touch the bearer of the zerg kala. These ideas were also transferred to the mirror 142 .

Bracers

Only rare archaeological finds testify to the use by the Mongols of bracers-elbow pieces, bivalve, on hinges, known under the Persian name "bazuband" at the time under consideration. Thus, recently in the Kherson region, in a Mongolian burial dated to the second quarter of the 14th century, a pair of well-preserved bazubands* was found.

Bracers from Sakhnovka 143 should be attributed to a somewhat earlier period. Their eastern origin is proved by the fact that in Russian panoply bracers are recorded in all sources only from the 16th century, while variants of the “bazuband” are known in Central and Central Asia in the 7th-8th centuries. 144

Leggings

Leggings-greaves in the form of curved metal or hard leather plates are found on Japanese depictions of Mongol warriors (see Fig. 6, 11, 12). In the same place we see the cover of the foot in the form of a leaf-shaped blade, solid, made of leather or metal, and typesetting - from the oncoming narrow horizontal plates. This kind of leg covering is well known in Central and East Asia from the second half of the 1st millennium 145

Shields

up

Plano Carpini describes the Mongolian shield as follows: “Their shield is made of willow or other rods...” 146 Rashid ad-Din at the beginning of the 14th century. writes to his son in Shiraz to send to the Great Horde, among other weapons, “bamboo shields woven on top with multi-colored silk, 1000 pieces; from an ordinary tree, woven with multi-colored yarn - 2000 pieces ”147. In both cases (in the second - no doubt) shields are described that are very well known from the late - XVI-XVII centuries - Persian and Turkish museum samples 148 . They are round, convex, made of concentrically woven flexible and durable rods, connected by a continuous strapping of multi-colored threads (still in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, “chiy” mats are made this way), which form a pattern. A metal umbon was placed in the center. The diameter of the shield is 50-70 cm. It is this type of shields that we see on Iranian miniatures of the first half of the 14th century. (Fig. 12, 1, 4). In pre-Mongol times, they have not yet been recorded anywhere (with the exception of Asia Minor of the Achaemenid time, that is, VI-IV centuries BC 149). But from the XV-XVI centuries. they spread from Central Europe to East Asia. So the shield of the “chiy” type can be considered purely Mongolian. By the way, the Mongolian term for a shield (any) - "khalkha" - is derived from the Mongolian verb "khalkhasun" - to weave (from rods) 150 . It is not surprising that these shields were widely used - they were highly valued everywhere for their exceptional elasticity when struck with a saber or mace, while a blow with a spear, ax, or chasing was taken on a steel umbon. Lightness and elegance also had to attract attention to them.

Shields of approximately the same diameter and shape as the previous type were made of wood covered with leather or multi-layered hard leather (see Fig. 4, 2; 8, 3; 12, 12, 13). They had rosette-shaped metal umbons and ironing along the edge. The surface was painted with ornaments beloved by the Mongols - a garland with horn-shaped trefoil processes and a horn-shaped cruciform pattern. The latter was often placed on the wrong side of the shield. Shields of this type had the widest distribution in Eurasia in pre-Mongolian times and, according to all data, are associated with the panoply of the Turkic tribes. On the contrary, small, up to 40 cm in diameter, round shields, most likely made of hard multi-layered leather, and sometimes, perhaps, of steel, smooth or decorated with a large heraldic pattern in the form of a lotus flower, borrowed by the Mongols in China and brought by them. to the West (see Fig. 4, 6; 12, 13), most likely, were assimilated by the Mongols in the Middle and Near East 151 . In the Muslim East, the Mongols also borrowed large, over 70 cm in diameter, iron shields that became popular with them, riveted from several sectors, fixed with scalloped fittings along the edge, with a rosette-shaped umbon in the center 152 (see Fig. 5.1; 12, 5, 6,15), as well as rosette-shaped shields of a smaller diameter with a rosette-shaped umbon in the center, most likely made of hard leather on a metal frame 153 (see Fig. 12, 14). A purely Mongolian technique was to reinforce the painted wooden-leather, and also, it is possible, also the "chiny" shield with four cross-shaped iron sectors (see Fig. 5, 1; 12, 9).

In addition to hand-held ones, the Mongols used during sieges and in battle, to create field fortifications, easel shields, known from written sources under the name "chapar" 164 . We see them in the hands of dismounted Mongol warriors in a Japanese painting of the 13th century. (see Fig. 12, 10). These are large, from the ground to the top of the chest, rectangles, which are a wooden frame filled with wickerwork. Pre-Mongolian analogues are not yet known to them.

Regarding the nature and breadth of the use of shields by the Mongols, Plano Carpini reports that “we do not think that they would wear it (shield - M. G.) except in the camp and to protect the emperor and princes, and even then only at night” 155. However, shields are depicted in the miniatures, although by no means always, but quite often, and precisely in scenes of equestrian combat, as well as sieges. The above letter from Rashid ad-Din also speaks of the widespread use of shields in the Mongol army. At the same time, the Mongol horsemen in the Japanese picture are all without shields, although this can be explained by the fact that in medieval Japan there were no hand shields, only easel ones, and this tradition was reflected in the picture. The text of Carpini suggests that he meant "chapar".

horse armor

up

Mongolian horse armor immediately caught the eye of the Europeans, like some kind of curiosity. Many authors of the 13th century write about the leather, strong as iron, horse armor of the Mongols - Western European chroniclers, the Cilician prince Getum (Gai-ton) 156 . In the Hypatiev Chronicle, when describing the Tatar protective weapons of Daniil Galitsky's combatants, horse armor - masks and "koyars" 157 are also noted. The last word should mean shell. If the shells of people in the same text are designated by the common Turkic term "yaryk" 158, then it is logical to look for "koyar" in the same linguistic environment. However, this word is not in the Turkic vocabulary (as well as in the Mongolian). It seems to us that here we have the Russian translation of the Turkic words "eyyar", "ayar", "egar" 159 (in the latter case, the metathesis of "e" and "g" could take place, which is typical, as D. D. Vasiliev explained to us , when borrowing in Slavic from Turkic) - "saddle" (apparently, in a more general sense - a covering for a horse). Plano Carpini describes laminar hard multi-layer leather and lamellar iron horse armor of the Mongols: “They divide the horse cover into five parts: on the one hand (i.e., on one side. - M. G.) one, and on the other hand, the other, which extend from the tail to the head and are tied at the saddle, and behind the saddle on the back and also on the neck; also on the sacrum (croup. - M. G.) they put the other side, where the connections of the two (first. - M. G.) sides are connected; in this piece they make a hole through which they stick out the tail, and they also put one side on the chest. All parts extend to the knees or to the ties of the shins; and in front of the forehead they put an iron strip (plate. - M. G.), which on both sides of the neck is connected with the above-mentioned sides ”160 (Fig. 13, 1). Tabriz, Shiraz and Baghdad miniatures of the first half of the 14th century. give an image of the Mongolian armor, close to that described by Plano Carpini: two lamellar armor exactly match the description (Fig. 13, 2, 5), leather laminar and metal (bronze or gilded iron) lamellar armor do not have a dedicated breastplate (Fig. 13, 3, 4 ); apparently, the line separating the breastplate from the sides is not shown, although it could also be armor of the Khitan type, where the chest and sides formed a single panel. There is also an image of a ringed or even plate-ringed horse shell, similar in cut to the two described above (Fig. 13, 8).

In addition to armor made of hard materials, there were also soft ones - made of multi-layered fabrics, soft leather, and felt. One picture shows a solid blanket in large colors (Fig. 13, 6), the other shows a two-part shell (Fig. 13, 7), consisting of a neck and chest cover, quilted, with figured, “scales”, stitching, and a cover sides and croup; the circles on the latter may be an ornament, but it is possible that this is armored with metal discs. Almost all horse shells have a fabric valance or fringe at the bottom.

A necessary accessory of the horse armor of the Mongols was a headpiece - iron or made of hard multi-layered leather. Judging by the miniatures, it was molded from one piece, but Carpini speaks of a forehead plate, to which segmented cheek pieces, like the Khitan, Chinese and all later headbands that have come down to us, were to be attached on hinges or with the help of rings.

Mongolian horse armor XIII - the first half of the XIV century. from hard materials date back to the Khitan and the type of Sung armor, which is presented on the pages of the encyclopedia "U-bei-shi" of 1621. 161 Soft horse armor was borrowed by the Mongols in the Near and Middle East, where they became popular at the end of the 12 13th century 162, but the cut of the Mongols has undergone changes. Horse armor was used less often than other types of the Mongols' protective complex, apparently only by noble horsemen and selected shock troops, but they were quite numerous.

As you can see, the defensive weapons of the Mongols already from the 9th century, and especially in the 13th - the first half of the 14th century. was both varied and very perfect. Mongolian armor is a continuation of the richest Central and East Asian tradition, quite original and associated primarily with the lands north of the Chinese Plain. It seems that A. N. Kirpichnikov is wrong when he asserts that the Mongols “did not make a coup in military affairs and were not inventors of new military means ... (specially Mongolian weapons are unknown)” 163 . As we have seen from the example of the most seemingly “non-nomadic” type of weapons - armor, this statement does not at all reflect the state of affairs even in the eastern part of the Mongol Empire, as for the West, such an opinion is completely wrong. Thus, Plano Carpini, recommending the use of Mongolian-style weapons to fight the Mongols, mentions “double armor ... weapons to protect ... a horse” 164, which the Europeans did not have. Rashid ad-Din reports that in the state-owned workshops - karkhane - along with local gunsmiths, Mongolian craftsmen also worked (apparently, mentors in the manufacture of weapons of the Mongolian type); explaining the liquidation of the karkhane, he writes: “Before, there were no artisans who could make weapons according to the Mongolian custom (apparently, we are talking about craftsmen in the bazaar who worked outside the karkhane. - M. G.), and now (by the beginning of the 14th century .- M. G.) most of the artisans in the market have learned” 165 . It follows from this that in the huge karkhane for arsenals, weapons were produced precisely “according to the Mongol custom”. The Galician-Volyn chronicler under 1252 describes the squad of Daniil Galitsky: “The Germans marveled at the Tatar weapons: there were horses in masks and koyars, also leather ones, and people in yaryks, there were regiments of his lordship, shining from weapons” 166. Consequently, the horses had iron masks, iron lamellar and leather laminar and lamellar shells, and the warriors wore iron lamellar armor. If we take into account that lamellar armor was known in Europe before the Mongols, then the similarity of the described armor with the Mongol-Tatar ones consisted in the cut. As you can see, contemporaries, unlike later researchers, did not at all doubt the originality of the Mongolian armor.

Having borrowed some elements and details of armor from conquered and unconquered opponents and neighbors, the Mongols had a significant impact on the development of the latter in Eurasia. After the Mongol invasion in Western Europe, a sharp weighting of the armor began due to reinforcing parts made of iron plates, while before that chain mail 167 almost completely dominated there (remember how Carpini recommended “double armor” to Europeans). First, armor of the “reinforced Khatangu de” spruce type was borrowed. From it came the Russian kuyak, European brigandines. Armor of this type in later China was called “Tatar” 168. In Eastern Europe, Western and East Asia, the Mongolian mirror was adopted. Under the Mongols, it was finally formed The Mongols introduced earpieces, visors, long spiers into the helmets, on which flags were later attached.On this basis, a type of helmet appeared that dominated in the 15th-17th centuries in the Near and Middle East and a little later - in Eastern Europe "The same can be said about bracers and rod shields braided with threads. In Europe, before the Mongols appeared there, horse armor was not used, only sometimes a woven blanket. (The existence of horse armor in Russia in pre-Mongolian times, postulated by A. N. Kirpichnikov on the basis of a single fact - finds of an iron horse head in Porose, which he incorrectly analyzed 169, is the fruit of at least a misunderstanding, since this headgear was made in the 15th century. Mamluk masters 170.) Only when faced with the Mongols, Western knights, along with the weighting of their own armor, introduced and began to develop horse armor. If the influence of Mongolian armor on the defensive armament of Western and Eastern Europe was, although strong (in Eastern Europe, of course, more tangible), but relatively indirect, then the development of armor in the Near and especially the Middle East can be considered as a local version of the evolution of Mongolian armor 171. The same can be said about East and, surprisingly, partly South Asia, but this requires a special study.

up

Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - first half of the XIV century) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1987.

IN In 1778, the Russian-Chukotka war finally ended, which lasted more than 140 years.
It ended ... with the defeat of Russia.
Dear readers, stop laughing! Let's take a quick look at the not-so-distant history of the Russian State.
The first mention of people whom the yasak expedition met in Kolyma and who then called themselves "chauchyvat" (reindeer herders) appeared in 1641. After meeting the Russians, realizing that they wanted tribute (yasak) from them, the Chukchi immediately attacked them.
Moreover, the Russians did not even enter their borders, it was a preemptive strike. The first decades of the war, the Chukchi fought openly, but later, due to economic reasons, they switched to partisan actions. And can there be anything more unsuccessful than a war with partisans?

Let's remember what image of the Mongol conqueror the traditional "History of the Russian State" draws for us?
And this is what it is: a short steppe with a stern, weather-beaten face, sitting on a squat, short-legged horse. Beneath a leather saddle is a piece of raw meat, softening from galloping to "ready" to be eaten. The warrior is wearing a metal helmet, a dressing gown, or a khatanga-degel - a leather shell. On the hip, saadak rattles with arrows - a complete set for archery. The Mongolian horse is so unpretentious that it can walk and sleep at the same time. She also feeds on the go. A wagon drawn by mules is trailing behind, on which a camping yurt with wives and children sitting in it is installed.

Somewhere away from the central part of the army, the shepherds, guarded by nukers, drive fat flocks of sheep - the main food of the army. The army consists of three streams: the center, the left and the right wing, so that the cattle and horses have enough pasture. And so several thousand kilometers from the Mongolian steppes to Vladimir-Suzdal and Kievan Rus.

Looking ahead, I would like to say about the size of the Mongolian army. Until recently, historians called the figure of 300 thousand soldiers. Then they reduced it to 100,000. Then it was reduced to 30,000. Then it was raised again to 129,000. Why such “throwing and doubts”?
The thing is that a simple and inaccurate, in the direction of a smaller, mathematical calculation of the Mongol army, speaks of the following.
300 thousand warriors each have 4-5 horses.
300,000 x 4 \u003d 1,200,000 horses, along with clockwork and pack horses. 4 mules in wagons with yurts and family (1,200,000 mules).
About food supplies.
Suppose (although this is not enough) that one family, consisting of 5-7 members, eats only one ram in three days (the meat will most likely spoil longer). And in each family from 3 to 5 warriors.
300,000 warriors divided by five equals 60,000 families eating a ram every three days. That is, the daily ration of the army will be 20,000 animals!

But the campaigns, according to history, were many months. And even though the traditional history “forced” the Mongolian horses to sleep and eat on the run, the mega-flocks of sheep cannot do this. And how to feed several millions of all animals collected at the same time in one place? At the same time, horses and mules and sheep are all herbivores.

All this army needed not only to pass the steppes, where other peoples had already grazed their cattle and devastated part of the pastures, but also to overcome water and mountain barriers. It was possible, of course, to take cattle from the conquered peoples, but after all, Genghis Khan did not look like a pure adventurer, so it was necessary to calculate in advance the fodder and cattle that would be seized along the way. Is it real? And where could such deep intelligence come from at that time, analyzing the economic heritage of the peoples and, importantly, the geographical, landscape and natural state of the areas from the Karakoram to the Carpathian Mountains among the “backward” Mongols? Roughly speaking, it was necessary to have at least three types of maps and be able to navigate them.**

Question. How many years would this army have been moving towards the borders of Rus', and how many soldiers would have reached the theater of operations?
Not the best way is the case with a hundred thousandth army.
As for the Mongol army of 30,000 horsemen, then yes, everything is simpler here, only if they go on a campaign without burdensome families and flocks of sheep, that is, exile. Such a flying army, with sufficient training and coherence, could blitzkrieg through entire countries through and through, which did not have time to put barriers on them. After all, the telegraph and telephone had not yet been invented, and the news of a sudden attack could be very late in remote outskirts and centers. But is it possible to conquer and enslave entire states, with a six million sedentary population, as Vladimir-Suzdal Rus was at that time? Such an army of three tumens is only capable of exercising police supervision already in the conquered, but limited territory.
But back to the issue of "Gingis money".

Armament and armor of the Mongolian warriors.

One of the obscure issues regarding the economic power of the Mongols is the issue of the production of iron armor and weapons. Could an army consisting only of horse archers dressed in leather armor defeat the Jurchen army with its iron army? And how to take the cities and fortresses of Tangut (Xi Xia), China, Jin? You can’t shoot much at the stone fortress walls with bows with bone tips.

The main penetrating force of the Mongols in the field battle was a heavily armed cavalry, consisting of riders, from head to toe, clad in iron armor (khuyag). These warriors were called lancers . The horses of the lancers, for the most part, were also fully dressed in iron armor.
The protective equipment of the Horde included helmets, armor, bracers, greaves, necklaces, and shields. Chain mail was popular in the form of a shirt or an open caftan. Metal strips were richly decorated with engraving, gilding, inlay, leather - with painting and varnish.

What remains is trade and exchange. But trade with whom? With the eternal enemies of the nomads of the great steppe: the Tanguts; Jurchens; the Chinese?
Even so, but what could the nomads trade? Of course, cattle, horses, rough leather. But the Tanguts themselves lived off the livestock trade with China, and livestock was their main asset, and trade was scarce, covered with golden sand mined in Tibet. That is, in China, Tangut cattle were cheap. This indicates an excess of it in China itself.
China itself could not openly supply the Mongols with weapons in exchange for livestock, since it was, in fact, in vassal dependence on the Chzhuzhen state of Jin, and the latter was constantly at war with the Mongols, until its defeat.
And the armor and weapons of the Mongols are by no means of the Chinese type.
So who armed and fed Genghis Khan and his army?

The next part deals with the campaigns and politics of the Mongols.

* The ethnonym "Mongols" was not known in Europe in the 13th century.
** About the reconnaissance campaign of the three dark men of Subudei, Jebe, Tohuchar, in the following parts of the article.

Source - Gorelik M. V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - first half of the XIV century) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1987.

Continuation. - on the ARD.

Mongolian hard shells

The main materials for their manufacture were iron and thick skin, molded and dried after being removed from the carcass, when it acquires the rigidity of wood. Plano Carpini describes the process of its preparation in the following way: “They take belts from a bull or other animal as wide as a hand, fill them with resin in threes or fours ...” (46). These "armor... made of layered leather... almost impenetrable", "stronger than iron" (47). The "Secret Tale" also mentions armor made of bronze (48).

According to the structure, the solid armor of the Mongols, all types of which were called by the Mongolian origin term "khuyag" (49), was lamellar or laminar (from continuous wide strips of material interconnected by straps or cords).

Plano Carpini describes the lamellar iron armor of the Mongols as follows: “They make one thin strip (plate. - M. G.) as wide as a finger and as long as a palm, and in this way they prepare many strips; in each strip they make 8 small holes and insert inside (under. - M. G.) three tight and strong belts, put the strips one on top of the other, as if climbing the ledges (they overlap with long sides. - M. G.), and tie the above strips to the belts with thin straps, which are passed through the holes marked above; in the upper part they sew in one strap, which doubles on both sides and is sewn with another strap so that the above-mentioned strips come together well and firmly, and form from the strips, as it were, one belt (tape of plates. - M. G.), and then they tie everything in pieces as mentioned above (i.e., as in a laminar armor. - M. G.). And they do it both for arming horses and for people. And they make it so shiny that a person can see his own face in them” (50).

(The image of a warrior on a bone plate found under Mount Tepsei. IV-VI centuries, Khakassia - drawing by Yu. Khudyakov; parts of the shell of the V-VI centuries, found in the vicinity of the village of Filimonovo, Krasnoyarsk Territory. Research Institute of Novosibirsk State University (Novosibirsk). Subject scientific and historical reconstruction of the "early" Turkic warrior of the 5th-6th centuries)

Although Plano Carpini describes only iron armor, there is no doubt that leather armor, characteristic of Central and East Asia from the millennium BC, was no less common. e. up to the 19th century (51). There were from 6 to 10 holes for fastening in the plates (see Fig. 3, 16, 21, 22), which brings the Mongolian armor closer to the Tangut and armor that existed on the territory of Xinjiang (see Fig. 3, 4-7, 9- 10), and differs from Jurchen, with a large number of holes (see Fig. 3, 11, 14, 15). The proportions and sizes of the plates also, of course, varied (see Fig. 3, 16, 21).

Interesting archaic for the XIII - the first half of the XIV century. features of the Mongolian lamellar armor. This is a double interweaving of plates over the edge at the upper edge, as in Tocharian leather armor of the 3rd century BC. n. e. (52) (which, however, also took place in the Tibetan armor of the 17th-19th centuries (53), see Fig. 1, 1), and especially their connection into a ribbon based on three belts, as in the Avar Alemannic armor of the 7th century (54) (see Fig. 1, 3) or in the later, but clearly archaic "Nivkh armor (55).

Another archaic feature for Eurasian shells of this period is spherical rivets (see Fig. 3, 16, 21, 22). Similar rivets were typical for the armor of the 8th - 11th centuries, known in the Baikal region (see Fig. 3, 17), Central Asia (wall paintings of the settlement of ancient Penjikent)56, Pecheneg-Oguz monuments of the Volga region (Dzhangala - Bek-bike, 19) , Don (Donetsk settlement) (57), Dnieper (Museum of the History of Kiev) and even in cities as remote from each other as Dvin in Armenia (58) and Novgorod in the north of Russia (59), which this Eastern tradition has reached .

At the same time, Mongolian plates of the XIII - the first half of the XIV century. were relatively elongated, in contrast to previous samples (see Fig. 3, 1, 2, 17), although by the 13th century. in Central Asia and the Amur region, sometimes short and wide plates were used (see Fig. 3, 3, 2, 12).

Rice. 3. Armored plates of Central and East Asia of the pre-Mongolian period and the Eurasian steppes of the 13th - 14th centuries.

1 - Tin III, burial. 1, Baikal region, middle of the 1st millennium;

2 - Sotsal, Baikal region, middle of the 1st millennium;

3-5 - San Pao, Xinjiang, XII - XIII centuries;

6-? - Khara-Khoto, XII - XIII centuries;

8-10 - Tangut burial No. 8, XI - XII centuries;

11 - Shaigin settlement, XII century, Amur region;

12 - Nadezhda burial ground, X - XI centuries, Amur region;

13, 14 - Kuleshovsky burial ground, excavation V and burial. 87, IX - XI centuries, Amur region;

15- Afrasiab, large mosque, XIII century;

16 - Novoterskoye, Checheno-Ingushetia, first half of the 14th century;

17 - Lomy I, burial. 1, middle of the second half of the 1st millennium, Baikal region;

18 - grave near the village. Zugulai, Baikal region, XIV century;

19 - right bank of the Yenisei, Khakassia, IX - X centuries;

20 - Novokumak burial mound. 1, 1971, first half - middle of the 14th century, Orenburg region;

21 - Olelkovo settlement (?), XIII century, Kiev Historical Museum;

22 - Chernova, kurg. 12, first half of the 13th century, Minusinsk depression;

23 - Abaza, Abakan district, second half of the 13th - mid-14th centuries.

Laminar armor is also described by Plano Carpini. Three-four-layer leather ribbons are “tied with straps or ropes; on the upper strap (tape. - M. G.) they put the ropes at the end (i.e., the holes for the cords are located along the lower edge. - M. G.), and on the bottom - in the middle, and so they do to the end; hence, when the lower straps bend, the upper ones stand up and thus double or triple on the body” (60).

The same effect, although weaker due to the greater elasticity of the armor surface, was also observed with lamellar armor bands. The inelasticity of the Mongolian laminar leather armor is emphasized by Rubruk: “I ... saw two ... armed in curved shirts made of hard leather, very ill-fitting and uncomfortable” (61).

Unfortunately, the remains of Mongolian laminar armor have not yet been found. But this armor can be judged by the laminar Japanese shells (“tanko”), known from the middle of the 6th to the 19th century. (see Fig. 1, 2), as well as Chukchi made of hard walrus skin, which existed in the 18th-19th centuries (62) (Fig. 1, 4). Since the ribbons of Japanese shells are forged from iron, it is quite "probable that some of the Mongolian armor also had iron.

Rice. 4. Iranian images of Mongolian hard shells of the “corset-cuirass” cut and helmets.

1 - "Jami at-tavarikh" by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1306-1308, library of Edinburgh University;

2, 3 - “Jami at-tavarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1314, Royal Asiatic Society, London;

4 - "Shah-name" Firdousi, Shiraz, 1331, library of the Topkapu Museum, Istanbul;

5 - "Kitab-i Samak Ayyar" Sadaki Shirazi, Shiraz, 1330 - 1340, Bod-li library, Oxford; 6-8, 10-13, 15, 16 - "Shah-name" Firdousi, Tabriz, 1330s, former, coll. Demott;

14 - “Jami at-tavarih” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1314, library of the Topkapu Museum, Istanbul.

Let's turn to visual sources. On Iranian miniatures of the first half of the 14th century. there are a lot of lamellar images (see Fig. 4, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 16; Fig. 5, 2, 3, 9-14) and laminar (Fig. 4, 5, 6, 9-12, 14, 15; Fig. 5, 4, 15) of armor.

Judging by the Tabriz miniatures, shells of a mixed structure were no less popular, in which lamellar-set ribbons alternated with laminar, solid ones (Fig. 4, 1, 3; Fig. 5, 1, 5-8, 16).

On the Shiraz and Baghdad miniatures, the shells are only of a uniform structure. Lamellar shells in these images usually have the color of metal - they are painted in yellow, less often in gray or gold paint. On the Tabriz miniatures, the lamellar shells are green, red, pink, orange. Most likely, painted leather plates were depicted in this way, which corresponds to the tradition of Central and East Asia, where they were also varnished to protect against dampness (63).

In the Iranian miniature, the “metal” coloring of laminar armor is less common - usually the stripes are painted, often covered with ornaments - geometric, occasionally Muslim pseudepigraphic and especially often vegetable, in the form of a winding vine with a shamrock - a favorite of the Mongols, but extremely widespread (Fig. 4, 5 ). Lamellar armor is often edged with a patterned laminar stripe.

Images of laminar armor, although not often, are found in the monuments of Central and Central Asian monumental painting (64), and armor on figurines from northern Chinese burials of the middle of the 1st millennium AD served as prototypes for them. e. (65), depicting the steppe Xianbei riders.

V. I. Raspopova suggested that the Central Asian and Iranian images show not laminar, but lamellar armor, each strip of which is pasted over with a continuous leather tape (66), but she does not provide any evidence. In fact, this is only found in Japanese armor from about the 10th-11th centuries, but specificity affected here. Japanese lamellar armor: in it, from the indicated time, they tried to make and show, especially on the chest, solid monolithic armor.

This was achieved by extremely dense screeding of the plates and gluing the cords, pasting the ribbons of the set and entire bibs with stripes and pieces of painted leather (67). On the mainland, nothing of the kind has been reliably recorded. The data of Iranian miniatures on the structure of Mongolian shells are confirmed by Chinese and Japanese images of lamellar (Fig. 6, 1, 3) and laminar (Fig. 6, 2, 7) armor.

Rice. Fig. 5. Iranian images of Mongolian hard shells of the “robe” cut and helmets.

1, 2, 5, 6 - “Jami at-tavarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1314, Royal Asiatic Society, London;

3, 13, 14 - "Jami at-tavarikh" by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1306 - 1308, library of Edinburgh University;

4, 10 - "Shah-name" Firdousi, Baghdad (?), 1340, British Museum;

7, 8, 11, 15 - "Shah-name" Firdousi, Tabriz, 1330s, ex. coll. Demott;

9 - “Jami at-tavarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, early 14th century, Prussian cultural heritage, Tübingen;

12 - "Kitab-i Samak Ayyar" Sadaki Shirazi, Shiraz, 1330-1340, Bodley library, Oxford; 16 - sheet from the album, Tabriz, early 14th century, Prussian cultural heritage, Tübingen.

One of the main features of the shell is its cut. Plano Carpini describes in detail the cut of the Mongolian armor of the middle of the 13th century: “The armor ... has ... four parts; one part (bib. - M. G.) extends from the hip to the neck, but it is made according to the location of the human body, as it is compressed in front of the chest (narrower in the upper part of the chest. - M. G.), and from the arms (armpits .- M. G.) and below fits round around the body; behind, to the sacrum, they put another piece (backrest. - M. G.), which extends from the neck to the piece that fits around the body (to the sides. - M. G.); on the shoulders, these two pieces, namely the front and back, are attached with buckles to two iron strips that are on both shoulders; and on both hands on top (on the outside of the arm. - M. G.) they have a piece that extends from the shoulders to - the hands, which are also lower (on the inside of the arm. - M. G.) are open, and on each knee (thigh. - M. G.) they have a piece; all these pieces are connected by buckles” (68).

Before us is a scrupulous description of the armor of the "corset-cuirass" type - the main cut of the shell in Central and East Asia, North America and Oceania, known from the 2nd millennium BC. e. until the 19th century (69) Iranian miniatures quite accurately convey the shells of this type (see Fig. 4), and sometimes down to small details - buckles connecting the chest part with shoulder pads and legguards (see Fig. 4, 1).

Carpini described only one version of the corset-cuirass - laminar leather with shoulder straps and leg guards. The miniatures also depict lamellar (metal and leather), and laminar (metal), and cuirass corsets with a mixed structure. The shoulders reach the elbow or end a little higher, the legguards reach the middle of the femur, or the knee, or the middle of the lower leg. Corsets-cuirasses are not uncommon, consisting only of protection of the torso, without shoulders and gaiters (see Fig. 4, 8, 10, 12, 13) or with gaiters, but without shoulders (see Fig. 4, 5, 11).

The obligatory cuts and fasteners on the sides are not shown in the drawings, but such a detail has almost never been depicted in world art. Often a seam is shown along the axis of the breastplate and backplate, which was made for greater flexibility of the armor (see Fig. 4, 8, 9, 12, 14), its joints are sometimes covered with trapezoid plates (Fig. 4, 15, 16). Such plates have recently been found in a 14th-century armor complex. in Tuva (70).

Notes

47 Matuzova V. I. English medieval sources ... - S. 150, 152,153, 175, 182.

48 Kozin A. N. Secret legend. - § 195.

49 Gorelik M.V. Mongol-Tatar defensive weapons ...-S. 256.

50 Journeys to the Eastern Countries...- S. 50-51.

51 Gorelik M.V. Military affairs...; Gorelik M.V. Armament of peoples ...; Thordeman W. Armour...; Robinson H. R. Oriental Armour.

52 Gorelik M. V. Arming the peoples...

53 Thordeman B. Armour...- Fig. 238.

54 Paulsen A. P. Alamannische Adelsgraber...- Taf. 58 u. a.

55 Medvedev V. E. On the helmet of the medieval Amur warrior // Military business of the ancient tribes of Siberia and Central Asia. - Novosibirsk, 1981. - P. 179.

56 Belenitsky A. M. Monumental art of Penjikent.- M., 1973.- Tab. 23, 25.

57 Medvedev A. F. On the history of plate armor in Rus' // SA.-1959.- No. 2.- Fig. 2, 1, 2.

58 Kalantaryan A. A. Material culture of the Dvin IV-VIII centuries - Yerevan. 1970.-Tab. XXI, 1.

59 Medvedev A.F. To the history...- Pic. 1, 11, 12.

60 Journeys to Eastern Countries...- S. 50.

61 Ibid. - S. 186.

62 Stone G. C. A. Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in all Countries and in all Times.- N. Y., 1961.- Fig. 71.

63 Robinson H. R. Oriental Armour.- Fig. 62, 67, 68.

64 Raspopova V. I. Metal items of early medieval Sogd.-P.. 198J3.- Pic. 60; Gorelik M. V. Armament of peoples...

65 Robinson H. R. Armour...- Fig. 65, W.

66 Raspopova V. I. Metal products ... - S. 83.

67 Robinson H. R. Oriental Armour.- P. 173-178. Her Travels to Oriental Countries...- P. 50.

69 Gorelik M.V. Military affairs...; Stone G. C. A. Glossary...- Fig. 70, 71,.76, 86, 87.

70 Gorelik M.V. Mongol-Tatar defensive weapons ...-Table. IV.