I've been reading
The Rise of the Mongols: Five Chinese Sources by Christopher Atwood. Of the translated sources he presents, the most useful militarily is A Sketch of the Black Tatars by Peng Daya, based on his observations as an envoy from the Southern Song to the Mongols in 1233. This is the source for a lot of the information about Mongol weaponry and so forth found in many modern works, mostly via H Desmond Martin's
The Rise of Chingis Khan and His Conquest of North China (1950).
Peng Daya says:
Quote"Half of them have circular shields which the vanguard in particular carry on their shoulders as they dismount from their horses and shoot – especially in breaking enemy lines. They also have circular shields made of iron that can substitute for helmets and are convenient when turning around in formation."
(S.40, Atwood p.118.)
Points to note:
- He doesn't mention what the first sort of circular shield is made of; I include the second sentence merely to indicate that they probably weren't made of iron.
- That precisely half of the men carried these round shields is not something that was apparent in previous versions; Atwood has inserted a sentence break before "half", arguing that the version published in previous editions made no sense.
- As to the "vanguard" mentioned, Peng goes on to say "For breaking hardened troops and destroying enemy formations, they rely wholly on the armored vanguard that numbers 30 per cent of the attack force" (S.44). Assuming the two references to "vanguard" are to the same force, a lot of the shield-bearers would seem to have been armoured cavalrymen.
The tactic of dismounting the shield-bearers is mentioned again in S.45 (p.122):
Quote"Apart from that plan (successive cavalry attacks), those with round shoulder shields may dismount and shoot on foot. As soon as they hit a target, the enemies on either side will buckle. Once buckled, they will surely fall into confusion. Once the enemy is in confusion, the Tatars swiftly advance. The enemy may perceive that it is opportune for their cavalry to press those on foot, but then the cavalry units positioned behind the men on foot will gallop out and meet the enemy head on."
I was struck by the match between this description and Desmond Martin's account of Mukhali's Mongol army defeating a rebel Chinese warlord in 1215:
Quote"Noticing that his opponent's infantry lacked body armour, Mukhali ordered a part of his troops to dismount and instructed them to discharge their arrows upon the foot soldiers. He then commanded the rest of his men to deliver a charge and so great was the carnage that Chang Tung-p'ing and 12,600 of his men remained dead on the field of battle."
(Martin (1950) p.214)
Marco Polo's description of Yuan Dynasty Mongol cavalry dismounting to face Burmese elephants in the 1270s is well known, but Polo makes it sound as if this was a one-off tactic improvised to face a new problem. It now looks as if dismounted archery was a standard part of the tactical repertoire from an earlier date. Further, from Peng Daya's suggestion that it was the men with round shields who dismounted, it looks as if specific parts of the army specialised in this dismounted shooting.
Thanks for sharing 8)
Do we know what sort of shields these are? Being carried on the shoulder by men who shoot bows makes me think small bucklers strapped to the arm, is that likely?
One is also curious about the iron shields that can substitute for helmets. Holding a shield above your head doesn't sound like very practical alternative to wearing a helmet, though it's amusing to try and imagine a horseback testudo.
Dismounted archery seems to have been a popular Mongol tactic, one may also think of e.g. Wadi al-Khaznadar in 1299.
Might depend on how literal "on their shoulders" is. Actually strapped to the shoulder (similar to Prokopios' description of C6th Byzantine armoured horse archers) or "over the shoulder" which could be more like the way ghilman/mamalik carried their shields and these are depicted as a fair size, certainly larger than what I'd call a buckler. I don't think you could interpret "on the shoulder" as strapped to the arm personally (which despite the number of wargames figures so modelled is not a common depiction IMO).
As for substituting as a helmet, if it covers the head from weapons arriving roughly horizontal rather than more vertical it could well have a use.
He doesn't mention the iron shields again, so it's a bit vague. But slung high on the back might fit the "convenient for turning around" bit - hunch down when turning your back to the enemy and it might cover your head as well.
Oooh! That is interesting! In DBA/MM terms, that makes Mongol cavalry at once both Light Horse AND mounted archers!
Thank you - that's given me much food for thought.
Apologies for being late to the party (only three months).
I don't think that Heida shilüe 黑韃事略 "Short notes on the Black Tartars" has ever been translated into a Western language. The passage in question might be better translated as 'About half the army dismounted with shields and poured arrows on the enemy'.
By this stage Asiatic cavalry (from China to Persia) were armoured, used a long two handed lance, long straight sword and round shield (mounted), personal sabre and round shield (dismounted). But the bow was the primary weapon. shields are 50-60cm diamiter, central grip (and often forearm strap) they are normaly slung over the back but illustrations also show them hung on the quiver. (Yuan images of imperial huntsmen show smaller shields hung on the pommel but only in peacetime images).
Dismounted archery (often using the horses as protection) was standard practice for ghilman, chinese and asiatic troops.
Tom..