Originally Posted by
Ibn Munqidh
Just finished reading at the monastery. I dont know what you mean BTW, you did not explain anything about that battle. You said that most of the "mongol" armies of the mongol empire were in fact "chinese". Lets see, the contignent under Kitbuqa Noyon at Ain Jalut, fought and destroyed every last stronghold in Persia, destroyed the resisting Ayyubid states in Syria, fighting many, many battles, besieged and sacked Baghdad. I would say that would be a pretty experienced army, and well led regardless of mongol tactics or not, which were used at Ain Jalut BTW.
As for being even or not?! Please dont bring the 125,000 vs. 25,000 figures, those are ridiculous. At Qutuz's time, Cairo composed of 250,000 civilians. Where would he muster such a number, what kind of 21st century logistics did he use to keep that army running, and dont forget the disunity of those Islamic states at that time, so gathering a large army was pretty darn impossible. 25,000 were barely recruited.
It is usual for anyone to underestimate the mamluks, and deny the fact that yes, they did defeat the mongols on an even pitched battle, after suffering great losses themselves. The mongol image in history books is imprinted into people's brain, and their superb martial tactics, where little is known of the mamluks, especially by westerners. The mamluks were defeated only twice in history BTW, only by Selim I at Raydanniya and Marj Dabiq, and by Napoleon at the Nile, not because of their tactics or martial skills, but because their enemies on both encounters used firearms on a very large scale, muskets and cannons, whereas mamluks refused to use those ever.
Bookmarks