Podcasts de historia

¿Por qué los rusos tenían armas hacia el final del yugo mongol, pero no los mongoles?

¿Por qué los rusos tenían armas hacia el final del yugo mongol, pero no los mongoles?

Los soldados rusos usaron armas de fuego por primera vez en 1382, contra los mongoles (no se menciona en el artículo si los mongoles también tenían armas). Esto demostraría ser una ventaja insuficiente en ese momento, pero un siglo después las armas de fuego ayudaron a asegurar la victoria y romper el poder de los mongoles en Occidente; según las crónicas moscovitas, los mongoles no tenían armas durante la Gran Resistencia, lo que contribuyó a su retirada.

Sin embargo, según esta respuesta, la pólvora llegó a Europa a través de los mongoles, oa través de la Ruta de la Seda (de la cual los mongoles controlaban grandes secciones), originaria de China (que controlaban los mongoles). Los mongoles incluso utilizaron armas de pólvora en su invasión de Corea y utilizaron cohetes contra los magiares en 1241.

¿Por qué entonces, muchos años después, los mongoles perdieron el acceso a armas de fuego y armas de pólvora, mientras que sus súbditos los rusos las obtuvieron?


Pregunta: ¿Por qué entonces, muchos años después (durante la gran batalla de 1480), los mongoles perdieron el acceso a armas de fuego y armas de pólvora, mientras que sus súbditos los rusos las ganaron?

No creo que perder el acceso sea la forma correcta de pensarlo. Los mongoles utilizaron la pólvora de forma creativa durante mucho tiempo antes del Gran Stand. Tenían experiencia en la lucha con él y contra las armas de pólvora que se remontaba a las décadas de guerra del siglo XIII con China. Pero esta experiencia no fue necesariamente con armas de fuego. Utilizaron bombas de flecha, lanzallamas, cohetes, bombas de raspado de metal dispersas por catapulta e incluso artillería tosca. Usaron más armas de asedio que podrían usarse junto con su paquete básico, que era el caballo y el arco.

Entonces, ¿por qué los mongoles (tártaros) no desarrollaron / experimentaron más con armas de fuego?

  1. Los mongoles se dieron cuenta rápidamente de las ventajas de la tecnología de otros y la copiaron; sin embargo, no fueron ellos los que innovaron en nuevas tecnologías. En la guerra con China fueron los chinos quienes innovaron y los mongoles quienes copiaron. Tecnología de la dinastía Song en China

  2. El ejército de los mongoles / tártaros se basaba en arqueros y a caballo. Según los informes, un arco mongol tenía un alcance de 500 metros (548 yardas o 0,3 millas). 15th Century Firearms tuvo problemas para disparar 50-75 yardas. Y el arco podía usarse a caballo con una cadencia de fuego mucho más alta que las armas de fuego primitivas, también con mucha más precisión. Incluso si los mongoles hubieran visto armas de fuego primitivas, sería fácil imaginar que las descartarían por ser inferiores al Arco. El Arco estaba arraigado en su cultura, por lo que sería fácil entender su parcialidad dadas todas las ventajas del Arco.

  3. No fue solo el brazo de fuego en el Stand lo que atrapó a los mongoles / tártaros. Era fuego masivo, todos disparando al mismo objetivo de movimiento lento. Esa es la única forma en que las cerraduras de pedernal tempranas no estriadas fueron efectivas. Fuego de volea. Los rusos utilizaron el río para frenar a los tártaros. Esta masa de infantería defendiendo con armas de fuego habría sido una especie de punto ciego para los mongoles, cuyo ataque a caballo se basó en la velocidad y no se organizó en torno a la infantería masiva que normalmente devastaban.

  4. Las armas de fuego primitivas no se podían usar a caballo. No se pudo disparar con mucha precisión a caballo. No se pudo volver a cargar desde Horseback. Las tropas a caballo no pudieron concentrar el fuego.

Quizás otra forma de ver esta pregunta sería por qué los rusos no usaron arcos en el Stand en 1480. Esto se debe probablemente a que los arqueros eran mucho más difíciles de entrenar. Se necesitaba toda una vida para entrenar a un arquero. Esto no fue un problema para los mongoles, quienes enseñaron habilidades con el arco desde el nacimiento, tanto a niños como a niñas mongoles. Para los rusos, no tendrían tiempo para entrenar arqueros para un enfrentamiento inminente.

También diría que el Stand, con la línea defensiva rusa a lo largo del río Ugra, fue hecho a medida para armas de fuego. La infantería con las armas de fuego podría agruparse en una orilla sin temor a que el calvario mongol de rápido movimiento cayera sobre ellos. Los mongoles tenían que cruzar el río, estarían agrupados y ralentizados. Movimiento lento cerca de los objetivos a los que disparan las tropas defensivas que tenían la capacidad de atrincherarse. 4 días de eso. Los rusos tenían un buen plan y eligieron el arma perfecta para ello.

En cuanto a mongoles vs tártaros. Los tártaros eran esencialmente mongoles. Es lo que los europeos llamaban a los mongoles. Los mismos grupos de personas nómadas que conocemos como los tártaros lucharon con el ejército de Genghis Khan en China en el siglo XIII. Sí, los tártaros en el Stand estaban a dos siglos y miles de millas de distancia de Genghis Khan, pero aún estaban liderados por un Khan, todavía organizado en una Horda, todavía usaban las formaciones de arco de caballos y mongoles; y lo más importante, descendían directamente de los pueblos combinados que lucharon contra China en el siglo XIII.

La horda de oro
A medida que varios grupos nómadas se convirtieron en parte del ejército de Genghis Khan a principios del siglo XIII, se produjo una fusión de elementos mongoles y turcos, y los invasores de Rus y la cuenca de Panonia llegaron a ser conocidos por los europeos como tártaros o tártaros (ver yugo tártaro). Después de la desintegración del Imperio mongol, los tártaros se identificaron especialmente con la parte occidental del imperio, conocida como la Horda Dorada.

Fuentes primarias:
Tecnología de la dinastía Song en China
El arco mongol
Wiki: Gran puesto en el río Ugra
El Stand Off
Wiki: Los tártaros.
Wiki: Alas de la Horda Dorada
Armas de fuego tempranas
Wiki: Fuego de volea


En primer lugar, estoy de acuerdo con el primer comentario de Semaphore: es poco probable que en 1480 las armas de fuego pudieran hacer mucha diferencia. En segundo lugar, el adversario de los rusos en 1480 no eran mongoles. Se llamaban tártaros y eran descendientes remotos del imperio mongol original. La tecnología de los mongoles en el siglo XIII se basó en la tecnología china. En el siglo XV, los tártaros que lucharon con los rusos tenían poca conexión con China, y si existe alguna conexión entre ellos y los mongoles originales, es principalmente histórica. ¿Y quién puede decir con certeza que los tártaros no tenían armas de fuego en 1480?

Con todo esto queda una pregunta más amplia. Es una opinión común de los historiadores que la pólvora, las armas de fuego y los cohetes se inventaron en China. ¿Dónde desapareció todo esto? Cuando los europeos entraron en contacto directo con China y otros países del Lejano Oriente, apenas mencionaron artillería y cohetes chinos. Probablemente no fueran demasiado impresionantes, incluso si existieran.

Lo que existió en los tiempos antiguos probablemente no fue muy efectivo y no se desarrolló. Uno puede preguntarse por qué no se desarrolló, pero quizás una pregunta más razonable sería por qué todo se desarrolló tan rápido en Europa.

EDITAR. La regresión en tecnología ocurre realmente, y hay muchos ejemplos. El "fuego griego" era un arma aterradora si creemos en las descripciones contemporáneas, pero no escuchamos nada de él cuando los turcos asedian Constantinopla. Está perdido y ni siquiera sabemos qué fue. Permítanme mencionar también la enorme regresión de la tecnología que ocurrió en Europa a finales de la Antigüedad. La artillería medieval (primavera) era inferior a la artillería helenística. Los buques de guerra romanos eran (probablemente) inferiores a los buques de guerra helenísticos (si creemos en sus descripciones contemporáneas). Pero también sucedió en otras épocas y lugares.


El problema no es que las "armas" rusas les dieran ventaja sobre los mongoles (o tártaros). El problema es que las armas rusas ecualizado ellos con arqueros mongoles.

Los mongoles (e ingleses) pudieron desplegar ejércitos con un 60% de arqueros porque estos arqueros fueron sometidos a una práctica "continua" durante un período de tiempo. años. Ningún otro ejército medieval entrenó porcentajes tan grandes, ni siquiera un gran número absoluto de hombres que pudieran usar armas de misiles.

Las armas, a diferencia de los arcos, eran algo que los soldados "promedio" podían aprender a disparar en cuestión de días o semanas. Ahora los rusos también podrían armar a sus tropas con armas de "alcance". Esto, a su vez, neutralizó la velocidad de los caballos mongoles.

Debido a que estaban peleando en su propio terreno y disfrutaban de números más grandes, los rusos disfrutaron de "probabilidades de empate" (un empate cuenta como una victoria).

Dicho de otra manera, las "pistolas" representaban a lo sumo una pequeña mejora sobre el armamento mongola existente, pero representaba una gran mejora sobre las espadas y lanzas rusas, dándoles la "igualdad" que necesitaban para vencer a los mongoles, dado un número superior.


La respuesta a esta pregunta radica en una combinación de dos cosas: un cierto nivel de especificidad (es decir, detalles) y, por simple casualidad, por qué los Rus tenían armas mientras que (Sarro) -Los mongoles no lo hicieron.

Sobre los detalles: Específicamente, la pregunta está en pistolas (no bombas incendiarias, lanzas incendiarias, etc.) y Gran horda (no la Horda Dorada).

En el momento oportuno: el enfrentamiento en el río Ugra en 1480.

Intentaré responder esto: "¿Por qué entonces, muchos años después, los mongoles perdieron el acceso a armas de fuego y armas de pólvora, mientras que sus súbditos los rusos las obtuvieron?"(última frase de OP).


Desarrollo de la pistola moderna

Primero, el arma moderna se desarrolló específicamente alrededor de este período, a finales del siglo XV:

El arma de fuego de mano clásica surgió en Europa al mismo tiempo que lo hizo la artillería clásica, en las últimas décadas del siglo XV. En las crónicas ilustradas de la década de 1480, los soldados disparan armas que se ven reconociblemente modernas (Figura 12.1). Tienen barriles largos y delgados, y se mantienen cerca de la mejilla, con un ojo mirando hacia abajo para apuntar.. Aunque no está claro en la Figura 12.1, estas armas de fuego tenían un mecanismo de palanca que permitía bajar una mecha encendida dentro de la bandeja del flash mediante un simple movimiento del dedo. Este mecanismo, conocido como mecha, fue un avance significativo porque permitió a un soldado sostener el arma al nivel de los ojos. Con la culata apoyada en su hombro, podía estabilizar el arma con una mano y disparar con la otra. En las décadas siguientes, los mecanismos de disparo ganaron resortes y otros refinamientos, y las armas se volvieron aún más convenientes.

Habiendo logrado esta forma clásica, las armas de fuego comenzaron a aparecer con mayor regularidad en los campos de batalla europeos.. En la década de 1480, los arqueros, espadachines y piqueros todavía superaban en número a los artilleros, pero su número crecía constantemente. Los registros españoles muestran que la proporción de unidades de mecha a unidades de ballesta y arco y flecha aumentó significativamente a finales de la década de 1480 y principios de la de 1490, un proceso impulsado por la constante experimentación de las Guerras de Granada (1481-1492). Los artilleros españoles llevaron sus nuevas técnicas a Italia durante las devastadoras guerras que comenzaron en 1494, con un efecto decisivo, como en la famosa Batalla de Cerignola de 1503. A partir de entonces, los arcabuceros se hicieron cada vez más prominentes en Europa, de modo que a fines del siglo XVI se habían convertido en un componente central de los ejércitos europeos, alcanzando proporciones del 40 por ciento de las fuerzas de infantería.

Fuente: Andrade, Tonio (2016), La era de la pólvora: China, la innovación militar y el ascenso de Occidente en la historia mundial, Prensa de la Universidad de Princeton, p. 167.

Una forma más sencilla de decir esto, Cronología de Wikipedia sobre la era de la pólvora dice claramente: "(en) 1480… Las armas alcanzan su forma clásica en Europa". A partir de aquí, podemos suponer Ivan el grande los importó para su ejército.


Permítanme hacer una digresión y señalar, con especial atención a los enemigos de Iván en el río Ugra en 1480, el llamado Mongoles... de nuevo los detalles importan. El término correcto debe ser Tártaro-mongoles (también conocido como el Gran horda, y no confundir con Horda Dorada de los Jochids). La importancia de esta distinción se explicará en un momento.


Mediados del siglo XV: armas de Europa, no de China

En segundo lugar, un elemento clave de la pregunta "… (¿Por qué) los tártaros-mongoles perdieron el acceso a las armas de fuego…?" La respuesta corta es que nunca lo tuvieron en primer lugar., porque las armas (el instrumento en sí, no la pólvora) se desarrollaron en China y Europa, y se mejoraron drásticamente en esta última (Europa) a mediados del siglo XV (unas pocas décadas antes del enfrentamiento en el río Ugra):

De hecho, las armas en China se estaban desarrollando siguiendo una tendencia similar a las de Europa, creciendo más en relación con el calibre de la boca. Pero el desarrollo se ralentizó en China aproximadamente una generación antes del desarrollo en Europa del cañón clásico. ¿Por qué? La razón probablemente tenga menos que ver con el supuesto ingenio cultural de los europeos que con la frecuencia de las guerras. Después de 1449, China entró en un período de relativa paz, mientras que Europa entró en un período de guerra existencial sostenida e intensa. Por guerra existencial me refiero al conflicto que amenaza la existencia misma de los estados involucrados. Las armas chinas habían evolucionado rápidamente entre finales del siglo XIII, cuando parecen haber surgido las primeras armas verdaderas, y principios del siglo XV, un período durante el cual China se vio sacudida por una guerra existencial. El siglo desde 1350 hasta 1449 fue especialmente turbulento, ya que los Ming se esforzaron por establecer y consolidar su imperio, y durante este tiempo la evolución de las armas, hacia cañones más largos, parece haber estado avanzando por líneas bastante similares en China y Occidente. . A mediados de la década de 1400, esta evolución se detuvo en China y se aceleró en Europa, precisamente cuando la guerra disminuyó en China aumentó en Europa..

Fuente: ibídem., pág.105.


Gran Horda (no Chinggisid, por lo tanto, no hay apoyo de otros mongoles)

Finalmente, la distinción importante de la Gran Horda, en oposición a la Horda Dorada, se reduce a esto, la Gran Horda fue simplemente una de muchas diferentes 'hordas'después de la desintegración de la Horda de Oro a finales del siglo XIV. Lo más importante, fueron no relacionado a Genghis Khan (p. ej. no Chinggisid).

Un breve párrafo sobre las muchas hordas (o kanatos) posteriores, posteriores a la Horda Dorada:

Con Toqtamishderrocamiento en 1395, un nuevo clan, el Manghit (ver cita a continuación), bajo la comandante no Chinggisid en jefe Edigü (m. 1420), emergió entre el Volga y el Emba. Edigü mantuvo algo de la unidad de la Horda hasta 1411, pero en 1425 los regímenes independientes estaban instalados en todo el territorio de la Horda Dorada. Los kanatos de origen de la Horda Azul se proclamaron formalmente en Crimea (1449), Kazan '(o Bulghar al-Jedid "New Bulghar", 1445) y Kasimov (1453). El kanato de Crimea finalmente dispersó la "Gran Horda" (Ulugh Orda), compuesta por el clan Sanchi'ud (turco Sijuvut) de la mano derecha, en 1503.

Fuente: Christopher P. Atwood, "Enciclopedia de Mongolia y el Imperio Mongol"NY: Facts On File, Inc, 2004, p.208.

los Mangghud, Manghud (Mongol: Мангуд, Mangud) eran una tribu mongol de la federación Urud-Manghud. Establecieron la Horda Nogai en el siglo XIV y la Dinastía Manghit para gobernar el Emirato de Bukhara en 1785. Tomaron el título islámico de Emir en lugar del título de Khan, ya que no eran descendientes de Genghis Khan y más bien basaron su legitimidad para gobernar en el Islam..

Fuente: Wikipedia

Para terminar, incluso si los mongoles de Asia oriental quisieran ayudar a proporcionar armas a la Gran Horda, habría sido un tramo simplemente porque, en esta etapa, China ya no estaba bajo la dinastía Yuan, se había cambiado a la Ming (1368-1644).


Aquí hay una respuesta basada en tecnología. Admito que no conozco la razón histórica por la que los rusos usaron armas y los tártaros no, sin embargo, puedo proporcionar razones por las que tendría mucho más sentido que los rusos las usaran que los tártaros.

Las armas, antes de la adopción generalizada del fusil de chispa a finales del siglo XVII, eran casi inútiles en manos de la caballería.

Las armas anteriores a los siglos XVI-XVII no podían sacarse simplemente de una funda o alforja y disparar contra el enemigo. No tenían mecanismo de cebado. Tenías que encenderlos con un trozo de cuerda en llamas llamado cordón de fósforo. Eche un vistazo a los mosquetes de mecha: incluso si el arma ya estaba cargada, tenía que insertar el cable de la cerilla en la serpentina, ajustar la posición de la cerilla encendida para que golpeara la sartén (a medida que se quemaba se acortaba, por lo que tenía que para seguir reajustando), luego abra la sartén, luego sople el cordón de fósforo humeante para que se encienda, y solo entonces podrá apretar el gatillo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KTS8PQ06Qo

Y si hablamos de épocas incluso anteriores, como los siglos XIV y XV, fue aún peor, porque ni siquiera tenías un gatillo: tenías el arma en una mano, el cordón de cerilla en la otra mano, y tocabas el coincidir con el orificio de encendido manualmente. ¡Buena suerte haciéndolo mientras monta a caballo! (Incluso a pie era casi imposible apuntar mientras se sostenía el arma en una mano y el cordón en la otra, por lo que a menudo se usaban dos hombres, uno para apuntar y el otro para encender el arma) Incluso recargar sería problemático, en ¿Dónde pondrías ese trozo de cuerda ardiendo mientras recargas? Además, encender un fuego no era fácil en ese entonces, especialmente mientras galopaba. A menudo, ambos extremos del cable del fósforo estaban en llamas, porque disparar el arma podría extinguir el extremo que usaste.

La infantería no tenía tales problemas, incluso podían apoyar el mosquete sobre soportes.

Nota: había cañones optimizados para la caballería, el Wheellock. Sin embargo, era un equipo muy complicado, costoso y que requería un mantenimiento intensivo, adecuado para caballeros, no tanto para nómadas esteparios. Y aún no se inventó en nuestro período de tiempo.

Entonces, para resumirlo: las armas en ese período de tiempo solo eran adecuadas para la infantería, no para la caballería. Los tártaros utilizaron casi exclusivamente caballería. Es mucho más fácil para un ejército que ya está compuesto principalmente por infantería adoptar un arma adecuada para la infantería, que para un ejército y una cultura compuestos principalmente por jinetes abandonar los caballos y convertirse en infantería.


El saqueo de Bagdad por Hulagu Khan (y sus aliados) llevó a los mongoles en 1258, lo que llevó al virtual final del califato abasí.

Esta publicación trata sobre un evento enormemente trágico en el califato abasí que condujo a su virtual final. Siento que es importante compartir información. al respecto, para mejorar la comprensión de la historia de Asia.

Pero esta publicación no debe verse como anti-Islam. Me gustaría afirmar que creo en la enseñanza de Shirdi Sai Baba de "Sabka Maalik Ek" (El maestro de todo es UNO). En otras palabras, creo en UN DIOS con varias religiones, incluido el Islam, que son varios caminos / formas de adorar y fusionarse en ese UN SOLO DIOS. Específicamente, no estoy en contra del Islam, y de hecho lo apoyo, siempre que no interfiera en el derecho de otros (como yo, un hindú) a practicar sus creencias que son diferentes del Islam (por ejemplo, hinduismo, cristianismo, sijismo). , Jainismo, budismo, judaísmo),
y tampoco interfiere en el derecho de algunos a no tener fe (ateos / agnósticos). Shirdi Sai Baba solía decir "Allah Maalik" (Allah / Dios es el maestro) muy a menudo reverencia al mismo Shirdi Sai Baba, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi, y trato de seguir Sus enseñanzas.

Los famosos y más importantes califatos islámicos, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate, son
1. Califato de Rashidun, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate, de 632 a 661 EC: Tenga en cuenta que el Profeta Muhammad murió en 632 EC y el Califato de Rashidun surgió en ese momento. Un compañero cercano de Propet Muhammad, Abu Bakr, se convirtió en el primer califa del califato Rashidun. Fue seguido por Umar, Uthman y luego Ali. Fue durante el reinado de Ali que hubo una guerra de sucesión que terminó con el establecimiento del califato omeya. Tenga en cuenta que Ali, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali, era primo y yerno del Profeta Muhammad. Ali fue asesinado en 661 después de lo cual emergió el Califato Omeya como el nuevo califato.

3. Abbasid Caliphate, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate, desde 750 hasta 1258 EC, aunque continuó reclamando autoridad religiosa con base en Egipto desde 1258 hasta 1517.

Ahora para algo de información. sobre el califato abasí como extractos de su página wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate

El califato abasí (/ əˈbæsɪd / o / ˈæbəsɪd / árabe: ٱل & # 1618 خ & # 1616 لاف & # 1614 ة & # 1615 ٱل & # 1618 ع & # 1614 ب & # 1614 & # 1617 اس & # 1616 ي & # 1614 & # 1617 اس & # 1616 ي & # 1614 & # 1617 اس & # 1616 ي & # 1614 & # 1617 اس & # 1616 ي & # 1614 & # 1617 اس & # 1616 ي & # 1614 & # 1614 de los califatos islámicos para suceder al profeta islámico Mahoma. Fue fundada por una dinastía descendiente del tío de Muhammad, Abbas ibn Abdul-Muttalib (566 & # 8211653 EC), de quien la dinastía toma su nombre. [2] Gobernaron como califas durante la mayor parte del califato desde su capital en Bagdad en el actual Irak, después de haber derrocado al Califato Omeya en la Revolución Abbasí de 750 EC (132 AH).

El califato abasí primero centró su gobierno en Kufa, el actual Irak, pero en 762 el califa Al-Mansur fundó la ciudad de Bagdad, cerca de la antigua capital sasánida de Ctesiphon. El período abasí estuvo marcado por la dependencia de los burócratas persas (especialmente la familia Barmakid) para gobernar los territorios, así como por una creciente inclusión de musulmanes no árabes en la ummah (comunidad nacional). Las costumbres de Persianate fueron ampliamente adoptadas por la élite gobernante, y comenzaron el patrocinio de artistas y eruditos. [3] Bagdad se convirtió en un centro de ciencia, cultura, filosofía e invención en lo que se conoció como la Edad de Oro del Islam.
.
El poder político de los califas terminó en gran medida con el ascenso de los Buyids iraníes y los turcos selyúcidas, que capturaron Bagdad en 945 y 1055, respectivamente. Aunque el liderazgo abasí sobre el vasto imperio islámico se redujo gradualmente a una función religiosa ceremonial, la dinastía retuvo el control sobre su dominio mesopotámico. El período de fructificación cultural de los abasíes terminó en 1258 con el saqueo de Bagdad por parte de los mongoles bajo el mando de Hulagu Khan. La línea abasí de gobernantes, y la cultura musulmana en general, se re-centraron en la capital mameluca de El Cairo en 1261. Aunque carecía de poder político (con la breve excepción del califa Al-Musta'in de El Cairo), la dinastía continuó reclamar autoridad religiosa hasta después de la conquista otomana de Egipto en 1517. [6]

[Referencias Wiki:]
2. Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Dinastía abasí". Enciclopedia Británica. I: A-Ak & # 8211 Bayes (15ª ed.). Chicago, IL. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8., Pág. 10.
3. Canfield, Robert L. (2002). Turko-Persia en perspectiva histórica. Prensa de la Universidad de Cambridge. pag. 5. ISBN 9780521522915.

6. Holt, Peter M. (1984). "Algunas observaciones sobre el 'Califato Abbāsid de El Cairo". Boletín de la Escuela de Estudios Orientales y Africanos. Universidad de londres. 47 (3): 501 & # 8211507. doi: 10.1017 / s0041977x00113710.
--- finales de extractos de la página wiki del califato abasí ---

Ahora podemos llegar a la invasión de Bagdad por parte de los mongoles y aliados liderados por Hulagu Khan.

Hulagu Khan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan, era nieto de Genghiz Khan. Hulagu Khan estaba subordinado a su hermano Mongke Khan, que era el Gran Khan (Khagan). Tenga en cuenta que Hulagu Khan no era musulmán y pudo haber estado siguiendo la religión chamán mongola, y que su esposa y su madre eran cristianas nestorianas.

He incluido a continuación información sobre la terrible destrucción de Bagdad por parte de los mongoles (y sus aliados). Creo que es importante conocer este horror que sucedió en el pasado como una forma de evitar tales sucesos en el futuro, sin importar qué país / reino / ciudad / religión esté involucrado.

Las personas que prefieren no leer sobre violencia tan horrible pueden omitir la lectura del resto de esta publicación.

El asedio de Bagdad, que duró desde el 29 de enero hasta el 10 de febrero de 1258, supuso la inversión, captura y saqueo de Bagdad, la capital del califato abasí, por las fuerzas mongoles ilkhanate y las tropas aliadas. Los mongoles estaban bajo el mando de Hulagu Khan (o Hulegu Khan), hermano del khagan Möngke Khan, que tenía la intención de extender aún más su gobierno a Mesopotamia pero no derrocar directamente al Califato. Sin embargo, Möngke había ordenado a Hulagu que atacara Bagdad si el califa Al-Musta'sim rechazaba las demandas mongoles de su continua sumisión al khagan y el pago de tributo en forma de apoyo militar a las fuerzas mongolas en Persia.

Hulagu comenzó su campaña en Persia con varias ofensivas contra los grupos Nizari, incluidos los Asesinos, que perdieron su bastión de Alamut. Luego marchó sobre Bagdad, exigiendo que Al-Musta'sim accediera a los términos impuestos por Möngke a los abasíes. Aunque los abasíes no se habían preparado para la invasión, el califa creía que Bagdad no podía caer ante las fuerzas invasoras y se negó a rendirse. Posteriormente, Hulagu asedió la ciudad, que se rindió después de 12 días. Durante la semana siguiente, los mongoles saquearon Bagdad, cometieron numerosas atrocidades y destruyeron las vastas bibliotecas de los abasíes, incluida la Casa de la Sabiduría. Los mongoles ejecutaron a Al-Musta'sim y masacraron a muchos residentes de la ciudad, que quedó muy despoblada. Se considera que el asedio marca el final de la Edad de Oro islámica, durante la cual los califas extendieron su dominio desde la Península Ibérica hasta Sindh, y que también estuvo marcada por muchos logros culturales. [7]

Muchos relatos históricos detallan las crueldades de los conquistadores mongoles. Bagdad fue una ciudad despoblada y en ruinas durante varios siglos y solo recuperó gradualmente parte de su antigua gloria.

Los mongoles saquearon y luego destruyeron mezquitas, palacios, bibliotecas y hospitales. Libros invaluables de las treinta y seis bibliotecas públicas de Bagdad fueron destrozados y los saqueadores usaron sus cubiertas de cuero como sandalias [28]. Los grandes edificios que habían sido obra de generaciones fueron quemados hasta los cimientos. La Casa de la Sabiduría (la Gran Biblioteca de Bagdad), que contiene innumerables documentos históricos preciosos y libros sobre temas que van desde la medicina hasta la astronomía, fue destruida. Los sobrevivientes dijeron que las aguas del Tigris estaban negras por la tinta de las enormes cantidades de libros arrojados al río y rojas por la sangre de los científicos y filósofos asesinados [29].

Los ciudadanos intentaron huir, pero fueron interceptados por soldados mongoles que mataron en abundancia, sin salvar ni a mujeres ni a niños. Martin Sicker escribe que pueden haber muerto cerca de 90.000 personas [30]. Otras estimaciones son mucho más elevadas. Wassaf afirma que la pérdida de vidas fue de varios cientos de miles. Ian Frazier de The New Yorker dice que las estimaciones del número de muertos han oscilado entre 200.000 y un millón. [31]

El califa Al-Musta'sim fue capturado y obligado a observar cómo asesinaban a sus ciudadanos y saqueaban su tesoro. Según la mayoría de los relatos, el califa murió pisoteado. Los mongoles enrollaron al califa en una alfombra y montaron a caballo sobre él, ya que creían que la tierra se ofendería si la sangre real la tocara. Todos menos uno de los hijos de Al-Musta'sim fueron asesinados, y el único hijo superviviente fue enviado a Mongolia, donde los historiadores mongoles informan que se casó y tuvo hijos, pero que no desempeñó ningún papel en el Islam a partir de entonces (ver El fin de la dinastía abasí).

Hulagu tuvo que trasladar su campamento contra el viento de la ciudad, debido al hedor a descomposición de la ciudad en ruinas.

El historiador David Morgan ha citado a Wassaf describiendo la destrucción: "Ellos barrieron la ciudad como halcones hambrientos atacando un vuelo de palomas, o como lobos furiosos atacando ovejas, con riendas sueltas y rostros desvergonzados, asesinando y sembrando el terror. Camas y cojines hechos de El oro y las joyas con incrustaciones fueron cortados en pedazos con cuchillos y hechos trizas. Los que se escondían detrás de los velos del gran harén fueron arrastrados. por las calles y callejones, cada uno de ellos convirtiéndose en un juguete. mientras la población moría a manos de los invasores ". [32]

[Referencias Wiki]
7. Matthew E. Falagas, Effie A. Zarkadoulia, George Samonis (2006). "La ciencia árabe en la edad de oro (750 & # 82111258 C.E.) y hoy", The FASEB Journal 20, págs. 1581 & # 82111586.
.
28. Murray, S.A.P. (2012). La biblioteca: una historia ilustrada. Nueva York: Skyhorse Publishing, págs.54.
29. Frazier, I., "Invaders: Destroying Baghdad", New Yorker Magazine, [Edición especial: Annals of History], 25 de abril de 2005, número en línea Archivado el 12 de junio de 2018 en Wayback Machine.
30. (Sicker 2000, p. 111)
31. Frazier, Ian (25 de abril de 2005). "Anales de la historia: invasores: destrucción de Bagdad". El neoyorquino. pag. 4. Archivado desde el original el 10 de octubre de 2017. Consultado el 1 de enero de 2012.
32. Marozzi, Justin (29 de mayo de 2014). Bagdad: Ciudad de la Paz, Ciudad de la Sangre. Libros de pingüinos. págs. 176 y # 8211177. ISBN 978-0-14-194804-1.

--- Fin de los extractos de la página wiki de Siege of Baghdad:

Una traducción al inglés de lo que se supone que es la carta de Hulagu Khan al Califa de Bagdad (versión de texto): https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-find-the-translated-letter-that- Hulagu-Khan-escribió-al-califa-de-Bagdad.

Una versión en audio de la misma: Una carta de Hulagu Khan al Califa de Bagdad, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC2q6O4ZVgA, 2 min. 54 segundos

Mis oraciones a Dios para que nunca más suceda una destrucción tan horrible, independientemente del país / reino / ciudad / religión involucrada.

[Agradezco a wikipedia y he asumido que no tendrán ninguna objeción a que comparta los extractos anteriores de su sitio web en esta publicación, que todos pueden ver libremente y no tiene ningún motivo de lucro financiero en absoluto.]


¿Por qué los rusos tenían armas hacia el final del yugo mongol, pero no los mongoles? - Historia

William Weir era un MP dell'esercito e successivamente ha prestato servizio
come corrispondente di combattimento dell'esercito nella 25th Infantería
División durante la guerra coreana. Era un reporter di vari giornali nel
Missouri y Kansas, e redattore militare del Topeka State Journal. Ha scritto
circa 50 articoli, molti di loro su storia militare e sugli armamenti.
Ha scritto altri quattro libri:
Legendarios tiroteos y pistoleros estadounidenses,
Victorias fatales,
A la sombra del drogadicto y una milicia bien regulada:
La batalla por el control de armas.

Ma l'argomento sul quale (possibilmente) discutere è la classifica
che ha stilato nel suo libro che ha come titolo quello in oggetto.
Ovviamente bisogna avere un buona preparazione su tutte le
battaglie combattute sulla faccia della terra :-)))

1. Maratón, 490 a. C.
2. Rebelión de Nika, 532 d. C.
3. Bunker Hill, 1775 d. C.
4. Arbela, 331 a. C.
5. Hattin, 1187 d. C.
6. Diu, 1509 d. C.
7. Gran Bretaña, 1940 d. C.
8. Constantinopla, Parte 1, 1205 d. C.
9. Tsushima, 1905 d. C.
10. Saratoga, 1777 d. C.
11. Valmy, 1782 d. C.
12. Adrianópolis, 378 d. C.
13. Midway, 1942 d.C.
14. Hastings, 1066 d. C.
15. Tenochtitlan, 1520-21 d. C.
16. Stalingrado, 1942-43 d. C.
17. Busta Gallorum, 552 d. C.
18. Lechfeld, 955 d. C.
19. Dublín, 1916 d.C.
20. Emaús, 166 a. C.
21. Yarmuk, 636AD
22. Batte of the Atlantic, 1939-45 d. C.
23. Cannas, 216 a. C.
24. Malplaquet, 1709 DC
25. Carrhae, 53 a. C.
26. Constantinopla, Parte 2, 1453 d. C.
27. La Armada, 1588 dC
28. TheMarne, 1914 dC
29. Rodas, 1522 d. C.
30. Tours, 732 d. C.
31. Tanga, 1914 d. C.
32. Chalons, 451 d. C.
33. Las Navas de Toloso, 1212 dC
34. Gupta, 1180 d. C.
35. Chickamauga, 1863 d. C.
36. Lepanto, 1571 d.C.
37. Nueva Orleans, 1814 d. C.
38. Petrogrado, 1917 d. C.
39. Francia, 1918 d. C.
40. El Álamo, 1836 d. C.
41. Wu-sung, 1862 d. C.
42. Waterloo, 1815 d. C.
43. Kadisiyah, 637 d. C.
44. Kazán, 1552 d. C.
45. Lutzen, 1632 d. C.
46. ​​Bahía de Manila, 1898 d. C.
47. Ofensiva de Tet, 1968 dC
48. Roma, 390 aC
49. Sedán, 1870 d. C.
50. Poltava, 1709 d. C.

Smonto pezzo-pezzo il libro - considerando di essere un fortunato
ad averlo - e che ci sono user che ne vorrebbero sapere di più.
Eccoti la prefazione. Ad altri che hanno chiesto verrà dato nel limi
te delle mie possibilità di tempo.
Cualquier intento de enumerar las 50 batallas más importantes de toda la historia es
necesariamente subjetivo. Enumerarlos en orden de importancia es una
mayor ejercicio de descaro. Sin embargo, la gente ha estado listando
decisive battles since Sir Edward Creasy, a lawyer who taught history, a
century-and-a-half ago.
Other compilers include General J.F.C. Fuller, a professional soldier
Captain B.H. Liddell Hart, who was gassed and injured early in his career
and had to leave the army - he then became a journalist, and Fletcher Pratt,
who was a writer by trade. Each brings a distinctive flavor to the
enterprise.
Fuller is very strong on battles that were fought on land. He's less
interested in sea power and far less interested in air power.
Liddell Hart emphasizes his strategic theory - the superiority of
the indirect approach. He, and to some extent Fuller, preaches the gospel of
small, highly trained armies rather than the mass armies we've had in every
major war since those of the French Revolution.
Pratt's The Battles that Changed History has the distinct tang of
salty air, although most of the early battles it covers were fought on land.
Pratt also has the most openly Occidental orientation.
"[Ojne of the most striking features of Western European culture", he
writes, "has been its ability to achieve decisive results by military means.
It may even be the critical factor, the reason why that culture has
encircled the world. Not that the Far East and Africa have been lacking
in great battles or great victories, but their results have had less
permanent effect on the stream of world history."
It might be hard to convince a Russian that the victories of Genghis Khan
and the consequent subjugation and isolation of his country for three
centuries didn't have much effect on the stream of history.
Considering that the Mongol conquests brought such Chinese innovations
as cheap paper, movable type, the astrolabe, and gunpowder to Europe,
it might be difficult to convince anyone else, either.
In this book, I've attempted to avoid this kind of bias. But it's necessary
to consider who we are and where we are. What's important to this author -
an American living at the juncture of the 20th and 21st centuries - and to
his audience would probably not be important to a Chinese person in the
13th century.
It's been fairly easy to avoid a bias in favor of any particular military
Acercarse. I'm the son of a career U.S. Navy officer and the father of a
career U.S. Air Force officer, but I'm a dedicated civilian. Servicio
as an army combat correspondent and regimental public information
NCO in the Korean War gave me a slightly broader picture
than most GIs get, but the main thing I learned was when to keep my
head down.
Some of the military in my upbringing may have rubbed off, though.
Large proportions of the articles I've written have concerned military
history and weapons.
Of my four previous books, one, Fatal Victories, was entirely military
historia.
Another, Written
With Lead, was about legendary American gunfights, including such military
events as the Battle of Saratoga and Custer's last stand. Still another, A
Bien
Regulated Militia, detailed the history of the American militia.
- Every battle has some effect on history. How do you decide which
had the most?
- The basic criteria for picking the importance of the battles that
changed the world are:
- How big a change did the battle make, and how much does that change
affect us?
One way is to decide what's really important to us and how did we get to
enjoy it. Most people would put freedom and democracy high on any
list of desirable things.
Consequently, Marathon, which preserved the world's first democracy,
holds the number-one spot. Order, not anarchy, is also highly desirable.
Justinian, Narses and Belisarius, by crushing the Nika revolt, made the
world's most widely used code of law possible. Bunker Hill, and to a
slightly l
ess extent, Saratoga, ensured the independence of the United States.
So, in a much less direct way, did Jackson's victory at
New Orleans. The Allied victories in World War II, particularly the Battle
of Britain, were the latest battles to guarantee democracy.
Another approach is to look at the currents of history. The ancient Greeks
saw history, to a large extent, as a record of the conflict between East and
West. That is certainly a viable idea. There are, in a very general sense,
two cultures in the world - Western and Eastern. The former would include
ev erything from the Orthodoxinfluenced
culture of Russia to the secular culture of the United States. The latter
would include the Far Eastern culture of China and Japan, both deeply
non-Western in spite of a Western veneer, and a wide variety of other
cultures, many of them Islamic. Neither the East nor the West has managed
to absorb the other, but it wasn't for want of trying.
This struggle, too, goes back to Marathon. It continues
through Alexander, Crassus and the seemingly interminable conflicts
between Christianity and Islam.
The West has been unable to absorb the East, but it certainly was able
to dominate it. There are a string of decisive battles that helped bring
that about. At Diu on the Indian Ocean, Portuguese sailors destroyed
a Muslim fleet in 1509. That crippled the thriving Arab trade with India
y China. Dar es Islam began to shrink economically.
Ten years later, Hernan Cortes landed in Mexico. Two years
after that, he had conquered - for the first time since Alexander -
a non-European empire, which opened a trade route to the
Far East across the Pacific. Russia's conquest of Kazan in
1552 initiated European expansion overland to the Far East. A generation
later, the defeat of the Spanish Armada energized the English to push west
across the Atlantic and conquer North America.
The latest trend in world history seems to be that the Western political
domination of the world is ending. In 1940, there was only one
independent country in Africa. Europeans owned the rest of the continent.
Today there are no colonies in Africa. Most of Asia and the
Far Eastern islands, except, China, Japan, and Japan's
colony, Korea, were also owned by Westerners. Today none of it is. In a way,
the battles of the American Revolution started the trend. Los Estados Unidos
became the first independent country in the New World. The rest of the
Americas followed.
In 1905, Togo's Japanese showed that non-Caucasians equipped with modern
technology could beat Caucasians equipped with comparable technology. En
1914, von Lettow Vorbeck's black African soldiers proved that, man for man,
they were the equal of Caucasians. But none of the colonial countries could
field the military equipment the Japanese could. It took a European country,
Ireland, to demonstrate how a weak nation could win its independence from a
strong one.
History is full of odd twists like that.

Per così poco non mi tiro indietro: mi piacciono post lunghi:-)))

The crushing defeat of Muslim forces at Tours (see page 170) in 732 was one
of the first of a whole string of disasters for the followers of Mohammed.
Chinese-led Uighur Turks had defeated the Arabs in 730 at Samarkand
and again in 736 at Kashgar. At the same time (731-732), Khazar
Turks invaded Arab lands through the Caucasus and got as far as
Mesopotamia before being pushed back. And in spite of years of trying,
the Muslim Arabs could make no more headway against the
Eastern Roman Empire.
In a century, the Arabs had conquered the largest empire the world had ever
visto. Now, internal stresses as well as external enemies had stopped the
empire's explosive growth.
In spite of what they professed- the brotherhood of all believers - the
empire was an Arab, not a Muslim, empire. Arabs held the highest
positions in both civil and military affairs. In the middle of the eighth
century, descendants of Mohammed's uncle, Abbas, led a revolt in
Central Asia. Mainly ethnic Persians, the rebels overthrew
the Omayyad Caliph, who claimed descent from Mohammed's
son-in-law, Omar. They founded a new, Abbasid, Caliphate.
In Spain and North Africa (west of Egypt), in the area known as el Maghrib
(the West) the natives were also restless. The Libyan Desert separated el
Maghrib from the rest °f Dar es Islam. The Muslims in el Maghrib, mostly
African Berbers, had no more use for the Persians than they had for the
Arabs. They didn't recognize the Abbasid Caliph.
Instead, various Berber chieftains ruled small sections of the
countryside independently, while Arab leaders, who had settled in the
cities, ruled city-states.
Eventually the Berbers found another descendant of Omar and proclaimed
a new Omayyad Caliphate. The Omayyads adopted the Spanish city of
Cordoba as their capital.
The new Caliphs at first attempted to revive the holy war against the
Christians in northern Spain, but soon found other things to interest them.
Spain, long ruled by the Romans, was a more urban - and urbane -
place than Africa. The Arabs had brought their own poetry to the
country, along with the art and architecture they had picked up from
the Persians, and the science and mathematics they learned from
the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, and the Indians. The Visigoths had a
literature of their own and had adopted the old culture of Rome.
Under the Muslims, Christians and Jews had freedom to practice
their religions and were able to engage in the learned professions.
Many Jews came to Spain from less tolerant countries in
northern Europe. Before long, Muslim Spain was a center of
civilization, not only in Europe but in the whole Muslim world as well.
Writing, painting, architecture, science, and philosophy flourished in
Omayyad Spain.
In the other Spain, the tiny principalities of the North, there was less
civilization and a good deal less religious tolerance, especially for
Muslims who had stolen Christian land.

The Muslims had never conquered all of Spain. The northwest corner, Galicia,
was inhabited by dour Celts (called Gallegos by the Spanish), who enjoyed
dour Celtic weather. The climate in foggy, rainy Galicia, on the shore of
los
Bay of Biscay, would have seemed perfectly normal to any Irishman or
Scotsman, but it was not inviting to the sun-baked sons of the desert.
Just east of the dour Gallegos were the dourer Basques. The Basques spoke
the same language their ancestors spoke in the Stone Age.
They had defied any attempts to assimilate them by Gauls, Romans, Visigoths,
and Franks. They were not going to let the Arabs and Berbers be the first to
conquer them.
There has long been a notion in the non-Spanish world that Christians from
France gradually pushed the Muslims back. The notion was probably started
and spread by the Franks. Any reader of Cervantes's masterpiece,
Don Quixote, knows that Charlemagne and his Franks were never pure heroes
to Spanish Christians. The Basques proved it by ambushing and wiping out
the rear guard of Charlemagne's army as it retreated through the pass at
Roncevalles. East of the Basques were the incipient kingdoms of Castile
and Aragon. And everywhere in that Christian fringe were dukes, counts,
and other warlords in more castles than you can count.
For a long time, there was no organized reconquista. There was no organized
anything in Christian Spain. The Spanish lords were not only jealous of each
other, but they contributed to the fragmentation of Christian Spain by
dividing their kingdoms up among their sons.
That situation might have resulted in further Muslim conquests if the Omyyad
Caliphate itself had not quickly fragmented into taifas, independent Berber
tribal states. In 1031, a council of taifa kings formally abolished the
caliphate.
There was a lot of raiding back and forth. Stealing from someone of the
other religion was not considered a sin by either the Christians or the
Muslims.
All warfare in Spain, however, was not Christians versus Muslims. beréber
chiefs attacked by other Berber chiefs enlisted Christians to help them.
Christian lords, in turn, had no qualms about seeking help from Muslims when
facing Christian enemies. The great Spanish hero of this age was Rodrigo
Diaz de Vivar, known as el Cid Campeador. His title is instructive.
"Cid" is a corruption of the Arabic "sidi," meaning lord. "Campeador," is
champion, a tide Christians gave their heroes.
A jealous Castilian king had exiled the Cid, so he offered his sword to the
Muslims.
He deserved his fame as a fighting man, triumphing on field after field. Pero
nevertheless, the Christians were gradually pushing back the increasingly
fragmented Muslims. In 1085, the Castilians took Toledo, the old Visigoth
capital, now a major taifa capital.
Then, the taifa kings did something dangerous. They sought help from Africa,
which lost them the services of the Cid. Even worse from their point of
view, they lost their independence and the good life.

The Maghrib, and a good part of West Africa south of the Sahara, was under
the control of the Almoravids. While the Muslim rulers of Spain were sipping
wine,
watching dancing girls, and discussing philosophy, a Tuareg in the Sahara
was getting religion. Tuaregs are Berber nomads, people whose hardscrabble
life defies comparison.
"Tuareg" is an Arabic name (singular: Targui). It means "the forsaken of
God," as "Berber," which is Arabic from Greek, means "barbarian." Tuaregs
ran the caravans that crossed the desert. One of them, Yana ibn Omar,
saw how different life in the Arab cities was from his own existence, in
which a pool of clear water was an almost unimaginable luxury.
The Muslims of his time, he concluded, were corrupting
Islam. Luxury was turning them from God. To set things right, he led an
army of Tuaregs against the west African oases, then against the cities
of the north. He then founded a dynasty, called the Almoravids.
The Almoravids quickly conquered all the Maghrib and extended their
dominion to the black empires of the Sudan. When the Spanish Muslims
called on it, the Almoravid Empire was the most powerful Muslim state
en el mundo.
These African puritans took one look at what life was like in Spain and
saw that they had a double task: They must not only drive back the
infidels, but they must reform their erring brethren as well. An Almoravid
Spain had no attraction for the Cid, who went back to fight for the
Christians.
With him went thousands of Mozarabs, as Christians in the Muslim
area were called, and Jews. Barbarians, like the Tuaregs, and
later the Turks, had no idea why the Prophet made exceptions for the
"people of the Book."
The Castilian king again exiled the Cid, but this time Rodrigo did not
return to the Muslim lands. He raised a private army of both Christians
and Muslims and carved out a kingdom for himself. For the rest of his life,
he was King of Valencia.
When the Cid died, the Almoravids retook Valencia and quite a bit more.
But the warriors from the Sahara quickly succumbed to the fleshpots of
Al Andulus, as the Muslims called Spain. Once again the back-and-forth
raiding resumed and, thanks to the emigration from Muslim Spain,
Christian Spain gained manpower, civilization, and even an approach to
unity. Reconquista was now a definite Christian aim.
Once again, a Muslim prophet appeared in the backwoods. This time it
was Abu Mohammed ibn Tumari, a lamplighter's son in the Atlas Mountains.
He began preaching against luxury and soon converted a man who had
a natural talent for military leadership, Abd el Mumin. Abd el Mumin
raised an army and took over leadership of the movement.
By 1149, he had made himself Emir of Morocco. He founded a new
dynasty, the Almohades, and when he died in 1163, he was emperor
of a larger territory than the Almoravids held. Aparentemente
unable to learn from experience, once again, a taifa king invited the
African reformers to come to Spain and save his people.
They came they saw they conquered. By 1172, they controlled
all of Al Andulus, and their first order of business was to wipe out the
licentiousness of their co-religionists. The Almohades did not succumb
to the fleshpots. They kept their capital in the Atlas Mountains.
But by 1195 they were ready to take on the infidels.
The Almohades' Emperor Ya'cub gathered an army of Islamic troops
from all over Africa and Spain to march against Castile, the largest
and most aggressive of the Christian Spanish states.

Alfonso the Lucky
At the time Castile was ruled by Alfonso VIII, nicknamed the Lucky.
After his first meeting with Ya'cub's army, he was lucky to be alive.
The Muslims routed the Christians, and Alfonso made a humiliating
peace with Ya'cub. He was lucky to be able to sign a peace treaty.
One lucky break was that the old Almohade emperor knew he was
dying and wanted to go back to his beloved mountains to die.
The other was the result of an earlier stroke of luck, when Alfonso
of Castile was able to marry bis daughter to Alfonso of Aragon.
The King of Aragon died near the time of the battle.
His crown went to his son, Pedro II, grandson of Alfonso of Castile.
Aragon, on the Mediterranean shore, was a relatively powerful
Spanish state, and Pedro was famed as a knight-errant.
Continuing the campaign against both Castile and Aragon
would take more energy that old Ya'cub wanted to expend.
About this time, an idea originating in the Holy Land came to Spain.
The military monks founded in Outremer, the Knights of St. John
and the Knights Templars (see Rhodes and Malta, page 161),
inspired three orders of Spanish monks: the Knights of Calatrava,
the Knights of Alcantara, and the Knights of St. James. Igual que
their crusader counterparts, the Spanish orders were brave,
disciplined, and very professional soldiers.
Spain had not seen a disciplined military force since the Corps of
Slaves, mameluks maintained by the Caliphs, had been disbanded.
Ya'cub finally died in 1199. His son, Mohammed al Nazir, never
liked the peace with the Christians and he saw with apprehension that
Castile was growing stronger.
Alfonso, on his part, felt ready to challenge the Muslims again.
He denounced the treaty, and Mohammed al Nazir declared a holy war.
The Spanish Christians countered with a holy war of their own.
The Archbishop of Toledo persuaded the Pope to declare a crusade
against the Muslims in Spain. Both sides began recruiting wildly.
At that moment the Muslim world was relatively peaceful. Mohammed
al Nazir was able to recruit unemployed soldiers from as far east as
Persia and Turkestan and as far south as Nubia, on the upper Nile.
Alfonso's agents toured the courts of Europe and picked up a horde
of knights and men at arms. Most of both armies were cavalry.
The Christian strength, as always, was heavy cavalry - mailed horsemen
expert with the lance and sword. Muslim strength was in light cavalry -
horse archers and javelin men wearing less armor than their enemies
but more mobile.
Sancho cuts the chain
Al Nazir's plan was to draw his enemies away from their bases and
confront them with a strong position they couldn't break through.
Soon, their supplies would run out.
Logistics were not well developed in the Middle Ages. They'd have
to retreat, which would mean they'd scatter, making them an easy
prey for his agile horsemen.
He fortified the passes of the Sierra Morena Mountains, a little north of
the Guadalquivir River and Cordova, and waited. When Alfonso's allies,
his grandson, King Pedro of Aragon, and King Sancho the Strong of
Navarre, saw the situation, they advised Alfonso to retreat, but Alfonso
wanted to go on.
Then a shepherd appeared and showed the Christians an unguarded path around
the passes. The knights made their way over the path and suddenly appeared
on the heights above the Muslim army. Al Nazir's main body was located on
some small plains in the midst of hills, a geographical feature called
"navas" in Spanish.
Mohammed al Nazir's luring of the Christian army far away from its bases was
a smart strategy, as was confronting it with the fortified passes, but
keeping the bulk of his forces on the navas was not.
The small plains didn't provide enough
room for his light horse to operate effectively. But the navas were perfect
ground for the bonecrushing charges and hand-to-hand melees that were the
Christians' most effective tactics. Even so, the size of the Muslim army was
so great the Christians spent two days in prayer before they even moved.
The Muslim army was a great mass. In the center was Mohammed al Nazir.
The Emperor stood under a large parasol that served as a standard and
behind a stockade of logs bound together with a chain. He held a sword in
one hand and a Koran in the other. Around him on all sides was a bodyguard
of picked troops. El Nazir was no Alexander the Great, riding at the head
of his cavalry striking force. On the other hand, he was in the line of
battle-a position no modern head of state or even commanding general
would ever find himself in.
The Christian army was divided into the customary three "battles." Alfonso
commanded the center Pedro of Aragon commanded the left Sancho the
Strong commanded the right. The Christians charged. It was their kind of
battle: a wild, handto-hand brawl. But there were so many Muslims.
It was the largest Muslim army ever seen in Europe, the largest Muslim
army that would ever be seen in Europe for centuries hence.
The wings commanded by Pedro and Sancho slowly pushed the Muslims
into the rocky, wooded hills behind them, where they would lose all their
mobility. But in the center, the Muslims, fighting under the eye of the
Emperor, drove back the Christians.
The Knights of Calatrava were almost wiped out.
"Archbishop, it is here that we ought to die!" Alfonso yelled to the
Archbishop of Toledo as he rushed forward.
"No, sire, it is here that we should live and conquer," the churchman
replied. He pointed out that the Muslim horsemen had been stopped by
Alfonso's infantry spearmen, and the Knights of St. James were slashing
into their flank.
Alfonso's standard, following the King, pressed forward. The Muslims slowly
fell back. But it was Sancho the Strong, not Alfonso, who reached the
stockade first.
Sancho demonstrated why he had his nickname. He chopped through the chain
stockade and burst into Al Nazir's bodyguard. The royal parasol, sheltering
the Emperor from the sun, went down.
"Shah mat," Persian chess players used to say, the origin of our
"checkmate."
"The king is dead," meaning the game is over. At the Navas of Toloso, the
game was over. The Muslim army panicked and tried to flee. La mayoría de ellos
didn't get far. The slaughter was terrific.
It almost wiped out the warrior aristocracy not only
of Muslim Spain but also of North Africa. The losses hurt Egypt and Arabia
and were felt as far as Central Asia.
The aftermath of such a horrendous battle seemed incongruous. El cristiano
army took a few towns and castles and went home. Pedro of Aragon was killed
in battle the next year, Alfonso of Castile died a year later, and Christian
Spain went back to its intracommunal feuding.
The Muslim threat was over. The Almohade Empire in both Spain and Africa
began to fall apart immediately. It was extinct 50 years after the battle.
The Muslim taifa states paid tribute to the Christian kings.
Most importantly, the Christians held the central plateau of Spain,
containing the headwaters of all the Spanish rivers and
the intersections of all the roads. Geography had always been a strong force
against centralization in Spain. That obstacle was now removed.
The Muslim states slowly were wiped out until only Grenada, in the
far south, remained. Less than three centuries after the fight on the
Navas of Toloso, Isabella of Castile married Ferdinand of Aragon,
and Spanish unity was almost achieved.
Ferdinand and Isabella then invaded Grenada and drove the last Muslim
ruler out of Spain.
That was in 1492. The Spanish then looked for new worlds to conquer.
They found them across the Atlantic.


Visión general

War and History

Can we characterize the strategies that defined war on the Eurasian continent from the steppes of North Asia to the Mediterranean in the south over the long period from the fifth century B.C.E. to the fifteenth century C.E.?

From the fourth century B.C.E. until the eighteenth century C.E., China was always coveted by the nomads on its northern border. Chinese civilization, which developed around the Yellow River during the third millennium B.C.E., was already the object of northern nomadic attacks even before Chinese unification (221 B.C.E.). Under the Han dynasty (206 B.C.E. to 219 C.E.), the focus of Chinese culture was north-central China, with the Yangtze Valley as its southern border. Progressively, China extended south under the Tang dynasty (618–907), but it was only under the Song dynasty (960–1279) that the Yangtze Valley came to dominate China both demographically and economically. China’s southern frontier region was one of expansion, where Chinese colonizers found fertile lands, inhabited by sedentary populations less advanced than themselves. In the north, however, although the steppe could be farmed, nomadic warriors stood ready to attack. As a result, China’s northern frontier was generally a line of defense, as illustrated by the beginning of the Great Wall shortly after unification, which was not completed until the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). Before the nomad Manchu Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Chinese territorial expansion to the north and northwest occurred under the Han and the Tang dynasties. Their goal was to control the northwestern oases of the Silk Road and establish a buffer zone between China and the northern nomads.

Until the Tang period, soldiers retained high prestige in Chinese society. Subsequently, however, the Confucian scholar became the favored role model, particularly after the tenth century, when mandarin competitions were instituted to select bureaucrats according to merit. Soon thereafter, the mandarins, rather than battle-hardened generals, were in control of Chinese military strategy.

From the fourth century on, northern China was constantly harassed and often occupied by nomads. Indeed, the occupation of northern China by nomadic peoples is a recurrent feature of Chinese history. All of China was, in fact, occupied twice by nomad dynasties, both coming from the north: the Mongol Yuan (1279–1368) and the Manchu Qing (1644–1911). The nomad invasions involved relatively small armies, however, which became sinicized within a few generations and were demographically diluted by the immense Chinese population—culture and demography have been China’s great assets throughout its history. Nonetheless, the sinicization of the occupiers did not change the geostrategy of the Chinese Empire or diminish its vulnerability in the north.

In order to rule northern China, the nomads needed to control the Ordos Desert, encircled by the rectangular bend of the Yellow River, which flows for more than four hundred miles into the Mongolian steppe. When well led and facing weak Chinese dynasties, nomads effectively dominated the Ordos for fifteen hundred of the two and a half thousand years of Chinese imperial history. Often the nomads would raid settled regions, and occasionally they would conquer northern China and capture its capital cities, Xian, Chang An, or Lo-Yang. However, whenever a great dynasty arose in China, it would take the offensive again with the goal of controlling the oases in the north and west along the Silk Road as far as the Tien Chan Mountains and Dzungaria (northern Xinjiang). This happened under the Han (202 B.C.E. to 220 C.E.), the Tang (618–902), and at the beginning of the Ming (1368–1644) dynasties. The Chinese attacked in early spring, when the nomads’ horses were still poorly nourished.

The Ming Empire underwent two distinct periods. The first, offensive, aimed at restoring Chinese imperial greatness. During this period, the Chinese imperial fleet reached as far as East Africa, at a time when the Portuguese had barely reached the southern coast of Morocco. However, beginning in the latter half of the Ming era, in the late fifteenth century, the empire isolated itself behind the Great Wall, and China’s coasts were abandoned to Japanese pirates.

After its conquest by the nomad Manchus in 1644, China returned to an expansionist policy. Under the sinicized Kangxi Emperor (1661–1722), the Manchus expanded to the north, crushing the troublesome nomads of Dzungaria. By the end of the eighteenth century the nomad peril had vanished. However, in the nineteenth century, the advance of Russia and the rise of European imperialism would present a far more serious threat to China.

Persia was another favorite target of the Central Asian nomads. In that respect, Persia and China faced similar challenges. The nomadic populations of Central Asia were concentrated around the northern part of the Oxus River—known today as the Amu Dar’ya, which flows fifteen hundred miles northwest from Afghanistan and Tajikistan to the Aral Sea. The first nomads to occupy this area were the Scythians. Herodotus relates that in the fifth century B.C.E., the Persian Great King Darius organized a campaign against them, which failed: the Scythians’ scorched-earth tactics weakened the army of the Achaemenid Empire, forcing Darius to retreat.

Indo-European nomads occupied the northern part of the Oxus from the seventh century B.C.E. to the third century C.E. and spread as far as the Ukrainian steppes. By the sixth century, the Central Asian steppes fell under the domination of Turkic tribes. By the tenth century, in Libro de los Reyes (Shahnameh), the Persian poet Firdawsī identifies the Touran, that is to say, the turcophones, as Persia’s greatest enemies. Meanwhile, in the west, after the fall of the Achaemenid dynasty (550 to 330 B.C.E.), Persia successively confronted the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Finally, the Arabs put an end to the Persian Sassanid dynasty in 642 C.E.

Afghanistan to the east was never powerful enough really to dominate Persia. It was from the north that Persia was most vulnerable to invasions. The most serious threat came from the Turks beginning in the tenth century. Like the Chinese, the Persians had a civilizing influence on the turcophone nomads. From the eleventh to the end of the twelfth century, Persia was ruled by the Seljuk Turks, whose great vizier Nizam Al-Mulk (1018–92) was, however, a Persian.

Although Persia never had a population as huge as China’s, it also culturally assimilated its conquerors. For example, the Arab Abbasid dynasty, which arose in Baghdad after the decline of the Arab Umayyad dynasty centered in Damascus, was gradually influenced by Persian culture. Shiism, which was adopted by the Safavid dynasty at the beginning of the sixteenth century, led Persia further to differentiate itself from the Sunni Arabs and Ottoman Turks.

The French historian René Grousset called Persia the real middle kingdom. Every powerful dynasty that ruled Persia—Achaemenids, Sassanids (224–642 C.E.), Abbasids (750–945), and Safavids (1502–1722)—dominated Central Asia from Samarkand to the Indus. For almost a thousand years before the nineteenth century, Persian was thus the lingua franca of an area extending from Samarkand and Bukhara to Delhi and Agra. Persian influences are also seen in Central Asian architecture, with its emphasis on elegant gardens, and in cooking techniques that are widely shared from Central Asia to the Punjab.

The Indian subcontinent is geographically protected by oceans on two sides and by the Himalayas. Until the early modern European incursions, India was always invaded from the northwest. The history of the Indus Valley’s Harappan civilization goes back to the third millennium B.C.E., as witnessed by the remains of the city of Mohenjo-Daro, in today’s Pakistan. The Aryan invasion (1800–1500 B.C.E.) marked the beginning of a long succession of invasions, including that of the Hephthalite (or White) Huns in the fourth century B.C.E. This was followed by the great indigenous Indian dynasty of the Maurya (325 to 180 B.C.E.), which produced the remarkable emperor Aśoka the Great (273 to 232 B.C.E.). In his youth, Aśoka was a brilliant military commander, but he later became a devout Buddhist and promulgated laws banning hunting and ending forced labor. The Maurya Empire reached its greatest extent during this period, covering the entire Indian subcontinent and extending to the eastern part of present-day Afghanistan. Later, India would be ruled by another great indigenous state, the Gupta Empire (320 to 550 C.E.).

However, India prior to the modern era knew only one period when it was ruled from a single capital city, that of the Maurya Empire under Aśoka. Throughout its history, Indian unity has been less political than cultural. During most of its history, India was divided in multiple kingdoms, except when it fell under a foreign domination, as during the rule of Sultan Alauddin Khilji (1296–1316), the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb (1659–1717), and finally under the British.

As early as the tenth century, northern India and, progressively, all of India except the Tamil extreme south fell under Muslim domination. In 1526, Babur, a turcophone fleeing Samarkand following an attack by Uzbeks, set out to conquer India using his artillery. After crossing the northwestern mountains and deserts, he waged battle on the plain of Delhi like the conquerors before him and won because he had cannons. He was victorious at Panipat despite his smaller army. It is interesting to note that the Delhi plain played the same historical role in India as Adrianople in the history of the Byzantine Empire: it was a place where geography and history met.

Unlike that of China, the political influence of India never extended much beyond its borders. However, the cultural influences of both China and India were widespread. East Asia became sinicized, reflecting the Chinese occupation of Korea until the fourth century, and of Vietnam until the tenth century, as well as the indirect influence of China on Japan through Korea, from the fourth century until the fall of the Tang dynasty (907). Similarly, Buddhism, born in India but gradually expelled by it, exerted a considerable influence on Southeast and East Asia beginning in the second century. Thus, India influenced Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Indonesia, which would later become Muslim, thanks to the peaceful proselytizing of Muslim merchants.

The Buddhist influence also reached Afghanistan (Gandhara), China, Korea, and Japan, and, in the seventh century, Tibet. The Mongol Yuan dynasty (1260–1370) converted to Buddhism, and Buddhism spread to Mongolia in the fourteenth century. Indian influences are also reflected in the magnificent temple architecture of Pagan in Burma, Borobudur in Java, and Angkor in Cambodia. India was twice subjugated by Muslims and then by Europeans. However, rural India entrenched itself in traditional Hinduism. The Islamic influence was felt most strongly in the north—in eastern Bengal and the northwest.

All nomadic invasions of India, like those of the White Huns and those led by sons of the steppe like the Ghaznavids and Babur, had to cross the same northwestern mountain passes, including the Khyber, and the deserts of Baluchistan before reaching the edge of the Indo-Gangetic plain. It is no surprise that the most warlike populations of the subcontinent, Sikhs, Punjabis, Marathis, and Rajasthanis, are concentrated in the northwest of the country, where conquerors came in droves. Bengal, on the other hand, which was better protected geographically, is known as a province of artists and poets. It was conquered from the sea by the British in the second part of the eighteenth century.

The border between Anatolia and Iran has changed little throughout two millennia, except when a single empire dominated the whole of Asia Minor from Central Asia to northern India. The border that separated the Roman Empire and the Parthians, the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanids, and the Ottomans and the Safavids resembles the border that today separates Turkey and Iran. Armenia has long been a buffer state that hangs in the balance between rival powers seeking alliance or allegiance. Because the power that controlled Anatolia was blocked in the east by the Persians, geostrategic logic forced it to advance toward the Balkans. The strategic key to this expansion is Edirne, previously called Adrianople. The other possible area for expansion is the Syrian-Palestinian corridor to the south. If the circumstances were favorable and the Anatolian empire were powerful, it would dominate the totality of these eastern Mediterranean territories, as in the case of the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

Egypt, the gift of the Nile, needs to maintain control of the Upper Nile until the fourth cataract. During the colonial period, the British had wisely linked the fate of Sudan to that of Egypt, and accepting their separation after decolonization was an error on the part of the free officers Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser. In 1953, in his manifesto Falsafat al-thawra (Philosophy of the Revolution), Nasser sketched a very ambitious plan of pan-Arab geopolitics. In practice, his short-lived alliances with Syria and Yemen were poorly conceived, and in the case of Yemen led to a disastrous conflict. It would have been better to have merged with Sudan and underpopulated Libya, whose oil reserves would have been very useful to Egypt.

Egypt is bordered in the west, east, and south by deserts. Thus, during the Old Kingdom and most of the Middle Kingdom—a period of some fifteen hundred years—Egypt was protected by its geography and the absence of powerful neighbors. The threat came from the northwest, where the Sinai Desert serves as a buffer, but was not sufficient to stop the Hyksos invasion. When possible, Egypt has always tried to secure control of the Syrian-Palestinian corridor, ideally as far as the Euphrates. The battles of Megiddo and Kadesh, the most ancient documented battles in history, were fought to control this corridor. Kadesh, fought between the Hittites and the Egyptians, led to a compromise. As for the small states in the Fertile Crescent, they were safe only when a strong power did not rule Asia Minor or Egypt.

The emergence of superior European armament and technology upset the traditional Eurasian balance of power during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Great Britain, an insular power, repeatedly opposed whatever continental power was dominant in Europe (Spain, France twice, and then Germany) by allying itself with other states concerned about the threat of hegemony. Today, the United States, protected by two oceans, faces no serious rivals. However, it was made brutally aware of its vulnerability on September 11, 2001.

WAR AND WEAPONRY IN HISTORY

Sedentarism, the transition from nomadic life to the first urban centers, began some four millennia B.C.E. in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, and China in the vicinity of the Yellow River. Very early on, Mesopotamia and Egypt became centers of civilization. We know little about the wars of high antiquity, aside from the vestigial archaeological artifacts. The first documented battle in history is that of Megiddo, which occurred in Palestine in 1469 B.C.E.

The weapons of Mesopotamian and Egyptian antiquity were made of bronze. It was only in the second millennium B.C.E. that iron weapons were introduced, with their increased efficiency and durability. Shields and armor made of leather or metal offered little protection. The pike, of variable length, was the classic weapon of antiquity. Swords of varying length were also used, the shortest being the Roman glaive.

The dominant projectile weapon, from China to Europe and throughout Eurasia, was the bow and arrow, though slings and spear-throwers were also used. Nomadic societies developed advanced laminated bows made of multiple woods, with a double curve that provided greater range and more power. The nomads generally used two bows: a short one when mounted, and a long one when on the ground.


Ver el vídeo: Historia de Gengis Kan (Diciembre 2021).