War Tactics of the Mongols
Leon Harmon
Period 3
APWH Mongols
A brute, a cannibal, a hooligan, a monster, a rascal, and a barbarian all describe a savage person in a primitive state or a person without culture, refinement or education. Barbarians have always been seen as uncivilized, wild, savage, crude, and uneducated. So is it just to describe the Mongols as such? The answer is no. The Mongols were not barbaric. As the documents discussed in this essay demonstrate, they had highly sophisticated military tactics; they lived by a code of conduct, and actually helped improved life for a conquered people. The Mongols grouped their warriors in armies of 10,000. These in turn were organized into 1,000-man brigades, 100-man companies, and 10-man squads. Their strategy was to attack the enemy head-on and far right & left to surround them. The Mongols could be outnumbered, but they brought women and children on horses so it would appear they had many more soldiers. They positioned themselves to surround the fortress so that no one can enter of leave. They divided their up their forces and take turns fighting so they did not get too tired. John of Plano Carpini, the person who saw them fight, most likely did not see all of the Mongol’s war strategies or he might have not have described it in the exact way. He could have left out a valuable note to winnings of the entire Mongol’s battle. With their warmongering maneuvers, they killed over 6 million people. These are reported deaths from varied sources. That is like slaughtering everyone in Chicago twice. They conquered 4,860,000 square miles of land, more than the United States. They controlled more land in 40 years than any “non-barbarians”. More than Alexander the Great and Tamerlane combined. To achieve such feats the Mongols had to be educated to gain an empire larger than the United States. (Documents 1-4) Barbarians have no code of conduct. They could not care less what happened to there conquered people. The
Period 3
APWH Mongols
A brute, a cannibal, a hooligan, a monster, a rascal, and a barbarian all describe a savage person in a primitive state or a person without culture, refinement or education. Barbarians have always been seen as uncivilized, wild, savage, crude, and uneducated. So is it just to describe the Mongols as such? The answer is no. The Mongols were not barbaric. As the documents discussed in this essay demonstrate, they had highly sophisticated military tactics; they lived by a code of conduct, and actually helped improved life for a conquered people. The Mongols grouped their warriors in armies of 10,000. These in turn were organized into 1,000-man brigades, 100-man companies, and 10-man squads. Their strategy was to attack the enemy head-on and far right & left to surround them. The Mongols could be outnumbered, but they brought women and children on horses so it would appear they had many more soldiers. They positioned themselves to surround the fortress so that no one can enter of leave. They divided their up their forces and take turns fighting so they did not get too tired. John of Plano Carpini, the person who saw them fight, most likely did not see all of the Mongol’s war strategies or he might have not have described it in the exact way. He could have left out a valuable note to winnings of the entire Mongol’s battle. With their warmongering maneuvers, they killed over 6 million people. These are reported deaths from varied sources. That is like slaughtering everyone in Chicago twice. They conquered 4,860,000 square miles of land, more than the United States. They controlled more land in 40 years than any “non-barbarians”. More than Alexander the Great and Tamerlane combined. To achieve such feats the Mongols had to be educated to gain an empire larger than the United States. (Documents 1-4) Barbarians have no code of conduct. They could not care less what happened to there conquered people. The