|
I agree with everything about the Mongol's tactical prowess except for their individual weapons' superiority. The composite bow had been used in the stepp for centuries, yet no other nomad remotely approached the magnititude of Mongol suscess. Futhermore few if any primary or secondary resources suggest that their bows penetrated armor well. Instead the accounts that I have read suggest hand to hand fighting still account for the majority of the casualties and arrors were used in a fire superiority role.
The success of the Mongol bow is not my object of dispute; it is the precise detail that it could penetrate armor that is. Projectile weapons don't need to penetrate armor in order to be successful; even the heavy infantry is very exposed to dense arrow fire because a large part of his body is uncovered. For example, his face, arms and legs. The Roman account during the Battle of Carhae in my opinion actually proves that arrows don't need to penetrate armor to be effective, since it focused on how arrows could wound the unarmored part of the legionaire's body. While a heavy cavalry soldier is extremely well protected in his person, futhermore, the arrow could kill his horse, which means he both loses his mobility takes a fall from a height.
BTW I can almost recall a source about the battle between the Teutonic Knights and the Mongols, in which it states that the Mongols shot up the knights by focuses fire on their horses. Surely if the arrows could penetrate armor as advertised the other more lethal target could've been choosed.
|