All the shores and islands of this sea were occupied by the states and the cities of Greece.
The population of the whole region, both on the European and Asiatic shores, spoke the same language, and possessed the same vigorous, intellectual, and elevated character.
Those on the Asiatic side had been conquered by Cyrus, and their countries had been annexed to the Persian empire.
https://www.facebook.com/erinjanus/?tn-str=k*F
Darius had wished very strongly, at the commencement of his reign, to go on in this work of annexation, and had sent his party of commissioners to explore the ground, as is related in a preceding chapter.
He had, however, postponed the execution of his plans, in order first to conquer the Scythian countries north of Greece, thinking, probably, that this would make the subsequent conquest of Greece itself more easy.
By getting a firm foothold in Scythia, he would, as it were, turn the flank of the Grecian territories, which would tend to make his final descent upon them more effectual and sure.
This plan, however, failed; and yet, on his retreat from Scythia, Darius did not withdraw his armies wholly from the European side of the water.
He kept a large force in Thrace, and his generals there were gradually extending and strengthening their power, and preparing for still greater conquests.
They attempted to extend their dominion, sometimes by negotiations, and sometimes by force, and they were successful and unsuccessful by turns, whichever mode they employed.
https://scottmanning.com/content/i-have-knelt-before-the-tomb-of-the-athenians-at-marathon/
One very extraordinary story is told of an attempted negotiation with Macedon, made with a view of bringing that kingdom, if possible, under the Persian dominion, without the necessity of a resort to force.
The commanding general of Darius's armies in Thrace, whose name, as was stated in the last chapter, was Megabyzus, sent seven Persian officers into Macedon, not exactly to summon the Macedonians, in a peremptory manner, to surrender to the Persians, nor, on the other hand, to propose a voluntary alliance, but for something between the two...
The Ionian rebellion postponed, for a time, Darius's designs on Greece, but the effect of it was to make the invasion more certain and more terrible in the end; for Athens, which was at that time one of the most important and powerful of the Grecian cities, took a part in that rebellion against the Persians.
The Athenians sent forces to aid those of Aristagoras and Histiaeus, and, in the course of the war, the combined army took and burned the city of Sardis.
When this news reached Darius, he was excited to a perfect phrensy of resentment and indignation against the Athenians for coming thus into his own dominions to assist rebels, and there destroying one of his most important capitals.
https://sarahsparkles218press.blogspot.com
He uttered the most violent and terrible threats against them, and, to prevent his anger from getting cool before the preparations should be completed for vindicating it, he made an arrangement, it was said, for having a slave call out to him every day at table, "Remember the Athenians!"
Legendary Runner of Marathon - Pheidippides
It was a circumstance favorable to Darius's designs against the states of Greece that they were not united among themselves.
There was no general government under which the whole naval and military force of that country could be efficiently combined, so as to be directed, in a concentrated and energetic form, against a common enemy.
On the other hand, the several cities formed, with the territories adjoining them, so many separate states, more or less connected, it is true, by confederations and alliances, but still virtually independent, and often hostile to each other.
Then, besides these external and international quarrels, there was a great deal of internal dissension. The monarchical and the democratic principle were all the time struggling for the mastery.
Military despots were continually rising to power in the various cities, and after they had ruled, for a time, over their subjects with a rod of iron, the people would rise in rebellion and expel them from their thrones.
These revolutions were continually taking place, attended, often, by the strangest and most romantic incidents, which evinced, on the part of the actors in them, that extraordinary combination of mental sagacity and acumen with childish and senseless superstition so characteristic of the times.
It is not surprising that the populace often rebelled against the power of these royal despots, for they seem to have exercised their power, when their interests or their passions excited them to do it, in the most tyrannical and cruel manner.
One of them, it was said, a king of Corinth, whose name was Periander, sent a messenger, on one occasion, to a neighboring potentate -- with whom he had gradually come to entertain very friendly relations -- to inquire by what means he could most certainly and permanently secure the continuance of his power.
In Ancient Greece athletes competed naked
The king thus applied to gave no direct reply, but took the messenger out into his garden, talking with him by the way about the incidents of his journey, and other indifferent topics.
He came, at length, to a field where grain was growing, and as he walked along, he occupied himself in cutting off, with his sword, every head of the grain which raised itself above the level of the rest.
After a short time he returned to the house, and finally dismissed the messenger without giving him any answer whatever to the application that he had made.
The messenger returned to Periander, and related what had occurred. "I understand his meaning," said Periander. "I must contrive some way to remove all those who, by their talents, their influence, or their power, rise above the general level of the citizens." Periander began immediately to act on this recommendation.
Whoever, among the people of Corinth, distinguished himself above the rest, was marked for destruction.
Some were banished, some were slain, and some were deprived of their influence, and so reduced to the ordinary level, by the confiscation of their property, the lives and fortunes of all the citizens of the state being wholly in the despot's hands.
Artwork by unknown ancient greek
This same Periander had a wife whose name was Melissa. A very extraordinary tale is related respecting her, which, though mainly fictitious, had a foundation, doubtless, in fact, and illustrates very remarkably the despotic tyranny and the dark superstition of the times.
Melissa died and was buried; but her garments, for some reason or other, were not burned, as was usual in such cases. Now, among the other oracles of Greece, there was one where departed spirits could be consulted.
It was called the oracle of the dead. Periander, having occasion to consult an oracle in order to find the means of recovering a certain article of value which was lost, sent to this place to call up and consult the ghost of Melissa.
The ghost appeared, but refused to answer the question put to her, saying, with frightful solemnity,
"I am cold; I am cold; I am naked and cold. My clothes were not burned; I am naked and cold."
When this answer was reported to Periander, he determined to make a great sacrifice and offering, such as should at once appease the restless spirit.
He invited, therefore, a general assembly of the women of Corinth to witness some spectacle in a temple, and when they were convened, he surrounded them with his guards, seized them, stripped them of most of their clothing, and then let them go free. The clothes thus taken were then all solemnly burned, as an expiatory offering, with invocations to the shade of Melissa.
The account adds, that when this was done, a second messenger was dispatched to the oracle of the dead, and the spirit, now clothed and comfortable in its grave, answered the inquiry, informing Periander where the lost article might be found.
The rude violence which Periander resorted to in this case seems not to have been dictated by any particular desire to insult or injure the women of Corinth, but was resorted to simply as the easiest and most convenient way of obtaining what he needed.
He wanted a supply of valuable and costly female apparel, and the readiest mode of obtaining it was to bring together an assembly of females dressed for a public occasion, and then disrobe them.
The case only shows to what an extreme and absolute supremacy the lofty and domineering spirit of ancient despotism attained.
It ought, however, to be related, in justice to these abominable tyrants, that they often evinced feelings of commiseration and kindness; sometimes, in fact, in very singular ways.
There was, for example, in one of the cities, a certain family that had obtained the ascendency over the rest of the people, and had held it for some time as an established aristocracy, taking care to preserve their rank and power from generation to generation, by intermarrying only with one another.
At length, in one branch of the family, there grew up a young girl named Labda, who had been a cripple from her birth, and, on account of her deformity, none of the nobles would marry her.
A man of obscure birth, however, one of the common people, at length took her for his wife. His name was Eetion.
One day, Eetion went to Delphi to consult an oracle, and as he was entering the temple, the Pythian[J] called out to him, saying that a stone should proceed from Labda which should overwhelm tyrants and usurpers, and free the state.
The nobles, when they heard of this, understood the prediction to mean that the destruction of their power was, in some way or other, to be effected by means of Labda's child, and they determined to prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy by destroying the baby itself so soon as it should be born.
[Footnote J: For a full account of these oracles, see the history of Cyrus the Great.]
They accordingly appointed ten of their number to go to the place where Eetion lived and kill the child. The method which they were to adopt was this: They were to ask to see the infant on their arrival at the house, and then it was agreed that whichever of the ten it was to whom the baby was handed, he should dash it down upon the stone floor with all his force, by which means it would, as they supposed, certainly be killed. This plan being arranged, the men went to the house, inquired, with hypocritical civility, after the health of the mother, and desired to see the child. It was accordingly brought to them.
In Greek Mythology, Nike was the Goddess of speed, strength and victory. Also known as Winged Goddess, Nike is most often pictured as having wings. She was the child of Pallas (Titan) and Styx In most beliefs, Styx is the name of the river that separates Planet Earth from the Gates of Hell (Hades). The River Styx was named for Nike’s grandfather Tethys. Nike and her three sisters, Zelus (Zeal/power), Bic(Force) and Kralas (Strength) were brought by Styx to Zeus to assist him in the great Titan battle whose ultimate goal was to gain control of Mount Olympus. In Roman Mythology, Nike was known as Victoria, after Greece fell to the Roman Empire. She appears with Zeus on statues in places such as the Temple of Zeus in Attica and on the west portico of the Temple of Athena in Athens.
https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/goddesses/nike/
The mother put it into the hands of one of the conspirators, and the baby looked up into his face and smiled. This mute expression of defenseless and confiding innocence touched the murderer's heart.
He could not be such a monster as to dash such an image of trusting and happy helplessness upon the stones.
He looked upon the child, and then gave it into the hands of the one next to him, and he gave it to the next, and thus it passed through the hands of all the ten.
No one was found stern and determined enough to murder it, and at last they gave the baby back to its mother and went away.
The sequel of this story was, that the conspirators, when they reached the gate, stopped to consult together, and after many mutual criminations and recriminations, each impugning the courage and resolution of the rest, and all joining in special condemnation of the man to whom the child had at first been given, they went back again, determined, in some way or other, to accomplish their purpose.
But Labda had, in the mean time, been alarmed at their extraordinary behavior, and had listened, when they stopped at the gate, to hear their conversation.
She hastily hid the baby in a corn measure; and the conspirators, after looking in every part of the house in vain, gave up the search, supposing that their intended victim had been hastily sent away.
They went home, and not being willing to acknowledge that their resolution had failed at the time of trial, they agreed to say that their undertaking had succeeded, and that the child had been destroyed.
The baby lived, however, and grew up to manhood, and then, in fulfillment of the prediction announced by the oracle, he headed a rebellion against the nobles, deposed them from their power, and reigned in their stead.
One of the worst and most reckless of the Greek tyrants of whom we have been speaking was Hippias of Athens. His father, Pisistratus, had been hated all his life for his cruelties and his crimes; and when he died, leaving two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus, a conspiracy was formed to kill the sons, and thus put an end to the dynasty. Hipparchus was killed, but Hippias escaped the danger, and seized the government himself alone.
He began to exercise his power in the most cruel and wanton manner, partly under the influence of resentment and passion, and partly because he thought his proper policy was to strike terror into the hearts of the people as a means of retaining his dominion.
One of the conspirators by whom his brother had been slain, accused Hippias's warmest and best friends as his accomplices in that deed, in order to revenge himself on Hippias by inducing him to destroy his own adherents and supporters.
Hippias fell into the snare; he condemned to death all whom the conspirator accused, and his reckless soldiers executed his friends and foes together.
When any protested their innocence, he put them to the torture to make them confess their guilt. Such indiscriminate cruelty only had the effect to league the whole population of Athens against the perpetrator of it.
There was at length a general insurrection against him, and he was dethroned. He made his escape to Sardis, and there tendered his services to Artaphernes, offering to conduct the Persian armies to Greece, and aid them in getting possession of the country, on condition that, if they succeeded, the Persians would make him the governor of Athens.
Artaphernes made known these offers to Darius, and they were eagerly accepted. It was, however, very impolitic to accept them.
The aid which the invaders could derive from the services of such a guide, were far more than counterbalanced by the influence which his defection and the espousal of his cause by the Persians would produce in Greece.
It banded the Athenians and their allies together in the most enthusiastic and determined spirit of resistance, against a man who had now added the baseness of treason to the wanton wickedness of tyranny.
Besides these internal dissensions between the people of the several Grecian states and their kings, there were contests between one state and another, which Darius proposed to take advantage of in his attempts to conquer the country.
There was one such war in particular, between Athens and the island of AEgina, on the effects of which, in aiding him in his operations against the Athenians, Darius placed great reliance.
http://musee.louvre.fr/oal/victoiredesamothrace/victoiredesamothrace_acc_en.html
AEgina was a large and populous island not far from Athens. In accounting for the origin of the quarrel between the two states, the Greek historians relate the following marvelous story:
On the other side of the bay, opposite from Athens, there was a city, near the shore, called Epidaurus.
It happened that the people of Epidaurus were at one time suffering from famine, and they sent a messenger to the oracle at Delphi to inquire what they should do to obtain relief.
The Pythian answered that they must erect two statues to certain goddesses, named Damia and Auxesia, and that then the famine would abate. They asked whether they were to make the statues of brass or of marble.
The priestess replied, "Of neither, but of wood." They were, she said, to use for the purpose the wood of the garden olive.
This species of olive was a sacred tree, and it happened that, at this time, there were no trees of the kind that were of sufficient size for the purpose intended except at Athens; and the Epidaurians, accordingly, sent to Athens to obtain leave to supply themselves with wood for the sculptor by cutting down one of the trees from the sacred grove.
The Athenians consented to this, on condition that the Epidaurians would offer a certain yearly sacrifice at two temples in Athens, which they named. This sacrifice, they seemed to imagine, would make good to the city whatever of injury their religious interests might suffer from the loss of the sacred tree.
The Epidaurians agreed to the condition; the tree was felled; blocks from it, of proper size, were taken to Epidaurus, and the statues were carved. They were set up in the city with the usual solemnities, and the famine soon after disappeared.
Not many years after this, a war, for some cause or other, broke out between Epidaurus and AEgina. The people of AEgina crossed the water in a fleet of galleys, landed at Epidaurus, and, after committing various ravages, they seized these images, and bore them away in triumph as trophies of their victory.
They set them up in a public place in the middle of their own island, and instituted games and spectacles around them, which they celebrated with great festivity and parade.
The Epidaurians, having thus lost their statues, ceased to make the annual offering at Athens which they had stipulated for, in return for receiving the wood from which the statues were carved.
The Athenians complained. The Epidaurians replied that they had continued to make the offering as long as they had kept the statues; but that now, the statues being in other hands, they were absolved from the obligation. The Athenians next demanded the statues themselves of the people of AEgina.
They refused to surrender them. The Athenians then invaded the island, and proceeded to the spot where the statues had been erected. They had been set up on massive and heavy pedestals.
The Athenians attempted to get them down, but could not separate them from their fastenings. They then changed their plan, and undertook to move the pedestals too, by dragging them with ropes. They were arrested in this undertaking by an earthquake, accompanied by a solemn and terrible sound of thunder, which warned them that they were provoking the anger of Heaven.
The statues, too, miraculously fell on their knees, and remained fixed in that posture!
The Athenians, terrified at these portentous signs, abandoned their undertaking and fled toward the shore.
They were, however, intercepted by the people of AEgina, and some allies whom they had hastily summoned to their aid, and the whole party was destroyed except one single man. He escaped. This single fugitive, however, met with a worse fate than that of his comrades.
He went to Athens, and there the wives and sisters of the men who had been killed thronged around him to hear his story. They were incensed that he alone had escaped, as if his flight had been a sort of betrayal and desertion of his companions. They fell upon him, therefore, with one accord, and pierced and wounded him on all sides with a sort of pin, or clasp, which they used as a fastening for their dress. They finally killed him.
The Athenian magistrates were unable to bring any of the perpetrators of this crime to conviction and punishment; but a law was made, in consequence of the occurrence, forbidding the use of that sort of fastening for the dress to all the Athenian women forever after.
The people of AEgina, on the other hand, rejoiced and gloried in the deed of the Athenian women, and they made the clasps which were worn upon their island of double size, in honor of it.
The war, thus commenced between Athens and AEgina, went on for a long time, increasing in bitterness and cruelty as the injuries increased in number and magnitude which the belligerent parties inflicted on each other.
Such was the state of things in Greece when Darius organized his great expedition for the invasion of the country. He assembled an immense armament, though he did not go forth himself to command it.
He placed the whole force under the charge of a Persian general named Datis. A considerable part of the army which Datis was to command was raised in Persia; but orders had been sent on that large accessions to the army, consisting of cavalry, foot soldiers, ships, and seamen, and every other species of military force, should be raised in all the provinces of Asia Minor, and be ready to join it at various places of rendezvous.
Darius commenced his march at Susa with the troops which had been collected there, and proceeded westward till he reached the Mediterranean at Cilicia, which is at the northeast corner of that sea.
Here large re-enforcements joined him; and there was also assembled at this point an immense fleet of galleys, which had been provided to convey the troops to the Grecian seas.
The troops embarked, and the fleet advanced along the southern shores of Asia Minor to the AEgean Sea, where they turned to the northward toward the island of Samos, which had been appointed as a rendezvous.
At Samos they were joined by still greater numbers coming from Ionia, and the various provinces and islands on that coast that were already under the Persian dominion.
When they were ready for their final departure, the immense fleet, probably one of the greatest and most powerful which had then ever been assembled, set sail, and steered their course to the northwest, among the islands of the AEgean Sea.
As they moved slowly on, they stopped to take possession of such islands as came in their way.
The islanders, in some cases, submitted to them without a struggle.
In others, they made vigorous but perfectly futile attempts to resist.
In others still, the terrified inhabitants abandoned their homes, and fled in dismay to the fastnesses of the mountains.
The Persians destroyed the cities and towns whose inhabitants they could not conquer, and took the children from the most influential families of the islands which they did subdue, as hostages to hold their parents to their promises when their conquerors should have gone.
The mighty fleet advanced thus, by slow degrees, from conquest to conquest, toward the Athenian shores.
The vast multitude of galleys covered the whole surface of the water, and as they advanced, propelled each by a triple row of oars, they exhibited to the fugitives who had gained the summits of the mountains the appearance of an immense swarm of insects, creeping, by an almost imperceptible advance, over the smooth expanse of the sea.
The fleet, guided all the time by Hippias, passed on, and finally entered the strait between the island of Euboea and the main land to the northward of Athens.
Here, after some operations on the island, the Persians finally brought their ships into a port on the Athenian side, and landed. Hippias made all the arrangements, and superintended the disembarkation.
In the mean time, all was confusion and dismay in the city of Athens.
The government, as soon as they heard of the approach of this terrible danger, had sent an express to the city of Sparta, asking for aid. The aid had been promised, but it had not yet arrived.
The Athenians gathered together all the forces at their command on the northern side of the city, and were debating the question, with great anxiety and earnestness, whether they should shut themselves up within the walls, and await the onset of their enemies there, or go forth to meet them on the way.
The whole force which the Greeks could muster consisted of but about ten thousand men, while the Persian host contained over a hundred thousand.
It seemed madness to engage in a contest on an open field against such an overwhelming disparity of numbers.
A majority of voices were, accordingly, in favor of remaining within the fortifications of the city, and awaiting an attack.
The command of the army had been intrusted, not to one man, but to a commission of three generals, a sort of triumvirate, on whose joint action the decision of such a question devolved.
Two of the three were in favor of taking a defensive position; but the third, the celebrated Miltiades, was so earnest and so decided in favor of attacking the enemy themselves, instead of waiting to be attacked, that his opinion finally carried the day, and the other generals resigned their portion of authority into his hands, consenting that he should lead the Greek army into battle, if he dared to take the responsibility of doing so.
The two armies were at this time encamped in sight of each other on the plain of Marathon, between the mountain and the sea.
They were nearly a mile apart. The countless multitude of the Persians extended as far as the eye could reach, with long lines of tents in the distance, and thousands of horsemen on the plain, all ready for the charge.
The Greeks, on the other hand, occupied a small and isolated spot, in a compact form, without cavalry, without archers, without, in fact, any weapons suitable either for attack or defense, except in a close encounter hand to hand.
Their only hope of success depended on the desperate violence of the onset they were to make upon the vast masses of men spread out before them.
On the one side were immense numbers, whose force, vast as it was, must necessarily be more or less impeded in its operations, and slow.
It was to be overpowered, therefore, if overpowered at all, by the utmost fierceness and rapidity of action -- by sudden onsets, unexpected and furious assaults, and heavy, vigorous, and rapid blows.
Miltiades, therefore, made all his arrangements with reference to that mode of warfare.
Such soldiers as the Greeks, too, were admirably adapted to execute such designs, and the immense and heterogeneous mass of Asiatic nations which covered the plain before them was exactly the body for such an experiment to be made upon.
Glorying in their numbers and confident of victory, they were slowly advancing, without the least idea that the little band before them could possibly do them any serious harm.
They had actually brought with them, in the train of the army, some blocks of marble, with which they were going to erect a monument of their victory, on the field of battle, as soon as the conflict was over!
At length the Greeks began to put themselves in motion. As they advanced, they accelerated their march more and more, until just before reaching the Persian lines, when they began to run.
The astonishment of the Persians at this unexpected and daring onset soon gave place, first to the excitement of personal conflict, and then to universal terror and dismay; for the headlong impetuosity of the Greeks bore down all opposition, and the desperate swordsmen cut their way through the vast masses of the enemy with a fierce and desperate fury that nothing could withstand.
Something like a contest continued for some hours; but, at the end of that time, the Persians were flying in all directions, every one endeavoring, by the track which he found most practicable for himself, to make his way to the ships on the shore.
Vast multitudes were killed in this headlong flight; others became entangled in the morasses and fens, and others still strayed away, and sought, in their terror, a hopeless refuge in the defiles of the mountains.
Those who escaped crowded in confusion on board their ships, and pushed off from the shore, leaving the whole plain covered with their dead and dying companions.
The Greeks captured an immense amount of stores and baggage, which were of great cost and value.
They took possession, too, of the marble blocks which the Persians had brought to immortalize their victory, and built with them a monument, instead, to commemorate their defeat. They counted the dead.
Six thousand Persians, and only two hundred Greeks, were found. The bodies of the Greeks were collected together, and buried on the field, and an immense mound was raised over the grave. This mound has continued to stand at Marathon to the present day.
The battle of Marathon was one of those great events in the history of the human race which continue to attract, from age to age, the admiration of mankind.
They who look upon war, in all its forms, as only the perpetration of an unnatural and atrocious crime, which rises to dignity and grandeur only by the very enormity of its guilt, can not but respect the courage, the energy, and the cool and determined resolution with which the little band of Greeks went forth to stop the torrent of foes which all the nations of a whole continent had combined to pour upon them.
The field has been visited in every age by thousands of travelers, who have upon the spot offered their tribute of admiration to the ancient heroes that triumphed there.
The plain is found now, as of old, overlooking the sea, and the mountains inland, towering above the plain. The mound, too, still remains, which was reared to consecrate the memory of the Greeks who fell.
They who visit it stand and survey the now silent and solitary scene, and derive from the influence and spirit of the spot new strength and energy to meet the great difficulties and dangers of life which they themselves have to encounter.
The Greeks themselves, of the present day, notwithstanding the many sources of discouragement and depression with which they have to contend, must feel at Marathon some rising spirit of emulation in contemplating the lofty mental powers and the undaunted spirit of their sires. Byron makes one of them sing,
"The mountains look on Marathon,
And Marathon looks on the sea;
And musing there an hour alone,
I dreamed that Greece might still be free;
For, standing on the Persians' grave,
I could not deem myself a slave."
https://biblehub.com/library/abbott/darius_the_great/chapter_xi_the_invasion_of.htm
https://scottmanning.com/content/i-have-knelt-before-the-tomb-of-the-athenians-at-marathon/
As it evolved over time, the shapes of the Corinthian helmet varied: the cheeks became longer, the ear and nose holes increased; and the size varied over time facilitating its adaptation to the cranium. The Corinthian helmet displayed an inner lining padded in leather or linen to prevent the material from harming the Hoplite. This inner padding could be fixed to the helmet using small backstitches which were sewn to the metal through small holes or glued to it thanks to elements such as resin.
This
specific helmet (ROM no.926.19.3) was purchased by the ROM in 1926 from
T. Sutton of 2 Albemarle St., London, England, via Sotheby's (auction
of 22 July 1926, lot 160). A skull (ROM No. 926.19.5) was said at one
stage to be inside it, and in this condition was excavated by George
Nugent-Grenville, 2nd Baron Nugent of Carlanstown, on the Plain of
Marathon in 1834, according to letters from Sutton dated to 2 & 20
August 1826.
Also a part of this lot, which sold for 80 pounds, was a helmet of "Spartan type" found by Nugent at Thermopylae in 1834 (ROM no. 926.19.4). Nugent (1788-1850) was High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands from 1832-5, but died without issue, and the Sutton letters state that the finds "came by descent in the family into the possession of the Boileau family, and remained with them until they were sold to me (Sutton) by Lt. Col.R.F. Boileau of Ketteringham Park, Norfolk".
The Battle of Marathon of 490 BC is thought to be one of the most pivotal battles in history, as it was in this battle that the Greeks defeated the invading Persians, thereby enabling the development of the Greek Classical civilisation.
Thermopylae, being a narrow pass, was the site of a number of battles, but Nugent would probably have been interested in finds from the battle of 480 BC,the battle in which the 300 Spartans (plus some other Greeks that people tend not to talk about so much) held the pass against the invading Persians.
How reliable this attribution is we cannot be entirely sure, but Nugent would have been in Greece very shortly after its freedom following the Greek War of Independence (1821-1832) during which the British Navy had been very influential, so it is conceivable that a British antiquarian digging around these sites could indeed find these helmets at these important sites, and they are indeed of the types that would be used on these dates.
As for the skull, it is difficult to be certain of the association. Since Marathon was a victory for the Greeks they would have been in a position to not leave any body parts or any useful equipment on the field, and the only damage to the helmet seems to be from age.
So it is conceivable that it is just as unlikely that a helmet would be lost as much as the head that may have worn it, and we certainly have the helmet.
I do not have any problem with the general idea of a helmet being found with a head still in it, as such things are found on battlefields, although typically not those of the victors.
The alleged discovery of the object in 1834 seems sound, and Nugent may have been a romantic, but nothing in his biography would necessarily indicate a tale-spinner.
However, 100 years passed between the finding of the object and our records, and we do not know how reliable may have been the transmission of information over that 100 years, perhaps especially since Nugent's house and contents were not inherited by his own children.
Really, we cannot be certain that the skull belonged to the owner of the helmet, but really we cannot discount it, either.
A DNA and radiocarbon study could tell us that it was a Greek of the time, but that is not presently planned.
The
Greek dead at Marathon were heroes. They were venerated every year in a
speech given by the principle politician in Athens. Pericles funeral
oration for the dead at Marathon at the start of the Peloponnesian War
is probably the most famous in all of ancient history, even if it wasn't
his speech.
It does seem unlikely that the helmet would have been interred with the body though. Helmets, especially bronze Corinthian helmets, were not cheap and were passed down from generation to generation often.
The
Athenians did need to hurry away from the battle to get back to Athens
to defend it from the rest of the Persians who had reembarked to sail
around and then attack Athens that had its hoplites away.
So they would not have been able to police the battle completely at the time, but they certainly would have been back later.
Incidentally the distance between the beach at Marathon and Athens is 26.3 miles. A runner announcing the victory at the battle ran that and died, allegedly, and that is where we get the name from today.
So they would not have been able to police the battle completely at the time, but they certainly would have been back later.
Incidentally the distance between the beach at Marathon and Athens is 26.3 miles. A runner announcing the victory at the battle ran that and died, allegedly, and that is where we get the name from today.
Nitpicky
academic things: Pericles' funeral oration was in honour of those who
had died in the first year of the Peloponnesian War and he does not
refer to Marathon specifically. I'm not aware of a tradition of giving
speeches specifically honouring the dead from Marathon on an annual
basis.
Your last point is entirely untrue: Even by longer paths the distance is less than 26.3 miles. The length of marathons was in flux for years until 1924 when they standardized the length from the 1908 olympics in London
Your last point is entirely untrue: Even by longer paths the distance is less than 26.3 miles. The length of marathons was in flux for years until 1924 when they standardized the length from the 1908 olympics in London
The '0.2' is purportedly so the finish line would end up at the Royal Box.
Dunno;
could have been that they started out at the 'traditional' starting
line in the stadium, and worked on from there. The road configurations
may have not allowed that distance to be taken out of the middle so the
end would be in the 'right' spot.
If
I can put down a pencil and not find it again for three years in my
room I don't think it's so unlikely for a decapitated head to get lost
on a battlefield. Buried under a body or thrown into a grave or covered
in dirt or something. Especially if the owner is dead it's not like
anyone is specifically looking for it.
As the story goes he "threw his hands in the air and shouted Nike" which is apparently Greek for victory. I love history. Edit: And then promptly died of a heart attack due to running 26 miles at a dead sprint. Weren't very few hoplites lost at marathon? I thought that was one of the aspects of the Persian rout that was so impressive.
Items
like these are usually "invaluable" meaning you can't effectively
determine it's worth because how do you price and ancient helmet with a
skull in it, really? It's worth as much as the museum/whatever is
willing to pay for it.
Actually
helmets with skulls inside are pretty commonplace to find, there have
been hundreds of findings located in storage, usually they pick the best
looking ones/ best survived to put in the museums.
was purchased by the ROM in 1926 from T. Sutton of 2 Albemarle St., London, England, via Sotheby's (auction of 22 July 1926, lot 160)
Guess
you only read my first sentence when you decided to reply. No worries
I'll repeat myself for your sake. It's worth as much as whoever buys it
is willing to pay; there is no set "worth".
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/355rzl/corinthian_helmet_from_the_battle_of_marathon_490/
A Corinthian helmet was discovered in a 5th century BC grave in the Taman Peninsula, southwest Russia, according to RIA Novosti news agency. Made of bronze, Corinthian helmets covered the entire head and neck, with slits for the eyes and mouth, protruding cheek covers (paragnathides in Greek) as well as a curved protrusion in the back to protect the nape of the neck.
The helmet has a padded interior made of fabric or leather to protect the warrior’s skull. These helmets were indispensable for the Greek hoplites, the famous foot soldiers of the phalanxes, as they were highly protective because they completely covered the head. Often their crest was surmounted by a crest (lophos) with a horsehair plume.
The one found is corroded and highly fragmented, but its discovery is extremely significant for historical purposes. The Corinthian helmet is the only one of its kind discovered north of the Black Sea.
Corinthian helmets appeared in Greece around the 6th century BC and constitute one of the symbols of ancient Greece. Goddess Athena and Pericles, are frequently depicted wearing them. When a warrior died, his helmet would be buried next to him.
According to Roman Mimohod, director of the expedition of the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IA RAS), “the helmet of the Taman peninsula belongs to the Corinthian Hermione-type and would date back to the first quarter of the fifth century BC,” an Archaeology News Network report notes.
For two years now, Russian archaeologists study a necropolis of 600 burial mounds where many Greek warriors of the Bosporus kingdom are buried.
Several Greek colonies were established in the region and their settlement extends from the end of the 7th century BC until the second quarter of the 4th century BC.
The Greeks founded large cities on the northern coast of the Black Sea. The major ones were Olbia, at the mouth of the Dnieper; Panticapaion, today’s Kerch, in the extreme west of the Crimea, and Chersonese (Sevastopol); on the Russian bank, one found Phanagoria (Taman), also the name given to the peninsula on which the Corinthian helmet was discovered.
Close contact with the Scythian inhabitants of the steppe
According to the Archaeology News Network report, the Kingdom of the Bosporus was established in 480 BC around the Kerch Strait and the Taman Peninsula, west of the Bosporus.
“These settlements were in very close contact with the Scythian inhabitants of the steppe,” points out historian Iraoslav Lebedynsky, specialist of these ancient Eurasian cultures.
From the 6th century BC, the Greeks founded large cities on the northern coast of the Black Sea.
The main ones were Olbia, at the mouth of the Dnieper; Panticapaion, today’s Kerch, in the extreme west of the Crimea, and Chersonese (Sevastopol); on the Russian bank, one found Phanagoria (Taman), also the name given to the peninsula on which the Corinthian helmet was found.
The kingdom, with Panticapaion as its capital, lasted nearly a millennium, the last written traces going back to the 5th century AD.
It was a place where the Greek culture merged with the successive nomadic cultures of the steppe, be it the Scythians or the Sarmatians.
Between the 6th and 3rd centuries BC, Greeks and Scythians maintained extremely close cultural as well as commercial ties.
Read more at etavenir.fr
http://www.tornosnews.gr/en/greek-news/culture/31431-first-ancient-corinthian-helmet-discovered-in-southwest-russia.html
https://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/corinthian-helmet-greek.htm
The
battle of Marathon is an example of truth being greater than fiction.
The Greek Warriors had romanticized a long gone culture where they found
inspiration to do something greater than all of the Heroes of Homer
combined. The 203 Greek warriors that died at the Battle of Marathon
were more than Heroes.
They were more than the heroes of Homer they had
idealized since they were young children. They were saviors. But not
just saviors of a great city, they were saviors of all Western
Civilization.
It could be argued that democracy required the fiercely independent mentality fostered in the Greek World. If the Greeks would have been subdued by the Persians at Marathon we may, to this day, still live in mental slavery. The Battle of Marathon is the greatest battle in human civilization.
It could be argued that democracy required the fiercely independent mentality fostered in the Greek World. If the Greeks would have been subdued by the Persians at Marathon we may, to this day, still live in mental slavery. The Battle of Marathon is the greatest battle in human civilization.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/355rzl/corinthian_helmet_from_the_battle_of_marathon_490/
Sculpture of Pericles with Corinthian helmet dating from the V century B. P.
A Corinthian helmet was discovered in a 5th century BC grave in the Taman Peninsula, southwest Russia, according to RIA Novosti news agency. Made of bronze, Corinthian helmets covered the entire head and neck, with slits for the eyes and mouth, protruding cheek covers (paragnathides in Greek) as well as a curved protrusion in the back to protect the nape of the neck.
The helmet has a padded interior made of fabric or leather to protect the warrior’s skull. These helmets were indispensable for the Greek hoplites, the famous foot soldiers of the phalanxes, as they were highly protective because they completely covered the head. Often their crest was surmounted by a crest (lophos) with a horsehair plume.
The one found is corroded and highly fragmented, but its discovery is extremely significant for historical purposes. The Corinthian helmet is the only one of its kind discovered north of the Black Sea.
Symbols of ancient Greece
Corinthian helmets appeared in Greece around the 6th century BC and constitute one of the symbols of ancient Greece. Goddess Athena and Pericles, are frequently depicted wearing them. When a warrior died, his helmet would be buried next to him.
According to Roman Mimohod, director of the expedition of the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IA RAS), “the helmet of the Taman peninsula belongs to the Corinthian Hermione-type and would date back to the first quarter of the fifth century BC,” an Archaeology News Network report notes.
For two years now, Russian archaeologists study a necropolis of 600 burial mounds where many Greek warriors of the Bosporus kingdom are buried.
Several Greek colonies were established in the region and their settlement extends from the end of the 7th century BC until the second quarter of the 4th century BC.
The Greeks founded large cities on the northern coast of the Black Sea. The major ones were Olbia, at the mouth of the Dnieper; Panticapaion, today’s Kerch, in the extreme west of the Crimea, and Chersonese (Sevastopol); on the Russian bank, one found Phanagoria (Taman), also the name given to the peninsula on which the Corinthian helmet was discovered.
Close contact with the Scythian inhabitants of the steppe
According to the Archaeology News Network report, the Kingdom of the Bosporus was established in 480 BC around the Kerch Strait and the Taman Peninsula, west of the Bosporus.
“These settlements were in very close contact with the Scythian inhabitants of the steppe,” points out historian Iraoslav Lebedynsky, specialist of these ancient Eurasian cultures.
From the 6th century BC, the Greeks founded large cities on the northern coast of the Black Sea.
The main ones were Olbia, at the mouth of the Dnieper; Panticapaion, today’s Kerch, in the extreme west of the Crimea, and Chersonese (Sevastopol); on the Russian bank, one found Phanagoria (Taman), also the name given to the peninsula on which the Corinthian helmet was found.
The kingdom, with Panticapaion as its capital, lasted nearly a millennium, the last written traces going back to the 5th century AD.
It was a place where the Greek culture merged with the successive nomadic cultures of the steppe, be it the Scythians or the Sarmatians.
Between the 6th and 3rd centuries BC, Greeks and Scythians maintained extremely close cultural as well as commercial ties.
Read more at etavenir.fr
http://www.tornosnews.gr/en/greek-news/culture/31431-first-ancient-corinthian-helmet-discovered-in-southwest-russia.html
https://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/corinthian-helmet-greek.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgyue9JVeug
My friend, look what the Egyptians devised and developed mathematically and then look what the ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ did on their part. Then you will see if and what they might have taken.
i love it =D
In an age when opposing armies were little more than feudal levies around a nucleus of well-armed and well-trained, but relatively immobile and inflexible, knights, the Mongol armies were the dominant force on the battlefields of Asia and Europe.
Roman fresco
wall painting portrait of a baker, Terentius, and his wife in the pose
of intellectuals , Pompeii VII 2,6 , inv 9058 , Naples Museum
Mongol forces, made up of skilled warriors well trained in marksmanship and horsemanship, were characterized by absolute discipline, a well-understood chain of command, an excellent communications system, superior mobility, and a unified and extremely effective tactical doctrine and organization. [Source: Library of Congress, June 1989]
The Mongol army was the dominant military force of the 13th century. Never very large, it relied on superior tactics and speed, and was like one massive well-disciplined cavalry which moved rapidly, adapted quickly to changing situations and followed complex battle strategies.
The core of Genghis Khan's army consisted of only 23,000 horsemen who fought with composite bows and hand axes and protected themselves with waterproof leather armor. Chinese and Middle Eastern engineers, experienced with catapults and other siege devises, were hired to attack fortified cities.
Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great had similar-sized armies. The Mongol army was divided into units of 10-man squads ( arvan), 100-man companies ( zuun), 1,000-man battalions and 10,000 men divisions ( tumens), with an imperial guard of 10,000 soldiers protecting the khan and important generals. An entire army might consist of 100,000 fighting men, which traveled in a massive city-size caravan with family members and support animals.
There was no such thing as a civilian population in Mongolia. War was a full job and either you were a soldier and somehow supported a soldier. Members of rival tribes were separated and spread among different divisions. Discipline was established by the merciless enforcement of Mongol customs. Adulters were killed and the kidnapping of women was discouraged (eliminating quarrels over women).
Booty was divided equally among all the men, and any man who abandoned the battlefield was killed. Mongol soldiers were rigoursly trained. To sharpen their fighting skills and get meat for a huge feast, the Mongols held an annual great hunt called a gorugen in which thousands of horsemen encircled all the game in a large area and closed in. Each man was allotted only one arrow; failure to kill an animal was met with ridicule.
Most of the warriors in the Mongol armies were Turks. Some Mongol armies were made up mainly of non-Mongols. The Mongols also recruited soldiers from the cities and kingdoms that came under their power. The Mongol army that besieged Baghdad, for example, included Georgians, Armenians and Persians. The Mongols were leaders.
Christopher Berg of Sam Houston State University wrote: “Acts of bravery and skill were rewarded. In one particular battle, an enemy warrior killed the horse that Genghis Khan was riding. When he was apprehended, he “admitted this and was pardoned and taken into the khan's service with the nickname ‘Jebe," or ‘arrow." Jebe rose to become one of Temujin's greatest generals." [Sources: “Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia 500BC to 1700AD” by Erik Hildinger (Da Capo Press, 1997); Christopher Berg, Sam Houston State University deremilitari.org /^\]
The Mongols improved on Persian and Chinese weapons. Mongol cavalrymen carried maces, lances with a hook and snare, sabers, three-quivered arrows and a composite bow made of wood, sinew and horn. Strapped to their left arms solder carried daggers used in close range fighting. The front guard was made up of lancers who rode high in the saddle with short stirrups which gave leverage for powerful thrusts.
Mongol bows had a range of 250 meters, twice that of English longbows. The Mongols could fire up to six arrows a minute, and utilized several arrow and arrowhead designs, including longe-range ones, short-rage ones and ones that could pierce armor.
In addition to those made strictly for killing, they used arrows that left terrible wounds, ones that whistled to scare the enemy, ones that whistled and wounded the enemy and ones that were dipped in naphtha and set on fire.
Towards the end of the Mongol era both soldiers and horses were protected in leather armor made from horsehide soaked in urine. Leather armor was lighter and more flexible than the chain-mail favored by Europeans. To protect their faces, Mongol cavalrymen carried small leather shields in their left arm. Under a loose robe they wore a tunic of tightly woven silk that blunted the impact of enemy arrows. Their boots were lined with sewn-in metal plates that protected the warrior's calves.
The Mongols were the first to use gunpowder in battle. They used it as an explosive not as a propellant to hurl bullets orcannon fodder. During sieges the Mongols used mangonels, giant catapults, to hurl stones and other objects.
The Mongols pioneered the use of feigned flight, surprise attacks, hostage taking, psychological warfare and human shields. The Mongol cavalry, situated around the around the outside of the tumen, could swiftly advance to the front with little warning, and attack the enemy with a hail of arrows. A screen of outer riders acted as an early warning system. The size of the Mongol army was exaggerated by placing dummies on the backs of horses and lighting strings of bonfires at night.
In a review of Erik Hildinger's “Warriors of the Steppe”, Christopher Berg wrote: In China, Genghis discovered the art of siege. Chinese engineers would prove to be Genghis’ secret weapon against all who lived in fortified cities. Furthermore, Genghis would use another tactic repeatedly with great effect: terror. Sieges were used to take fortified positions while the “calculated use of terror” was used to demoralize any who thought to defy the Mongols. [Sources: “Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia 500BC to 1700AD” by Erik Hildinger (Da Capo Press, 1997); Christopher Berg, Sam Houston State University deremilitari.org /^\]
In field battles the Mongols typically showered their enemy with armor-piercing arrows paving the way for a cavalry charge in which swift-moving horsemen hacked down survivors with hooked lances. A favorite military ploy was feigning retreat and luring the enemy into a prepared position and surrounding them with mounted archers or suddenly turning on the pursing army and raining them with arrows, with a concerted effort made at going after their leader. Mongol tactics and mobility were so superior to that of their rivals, that often easily defeated armies that were several times larger than theirs.
When attacking a large powerful city, the Mongols advanced on a broad front. They employed this tactic effectively in the assault on Samarkand where the force coming from the desert north was more than 1,300 kilometers northwest of a force coming in over the Pamir mountains. When the Mongols attacked Europe they formed an even broader front, one that stretched from the Baltics to Transylvania.
Such tactics only worked if there was good communication. Mongol scouts could travel at a rate of up to a hundred miles a day to gather intelligence at speeds unrivaled in its time. Messages for these scouts as well news from a large network of spies was relayed back to the khan and between commanders and officers by swift-riding Pony-Express-like messengers and an elaborate system of flag signals (the Mongols invented semaphores).
When advancing on a city, the Mongols formed several columns that were able to overwhelm anything thrown at them because of their superior mobility and firepower. Historians say the the modern armies used planes and tanks the same way the Mongols used their horses. Germany's Heinz Guderian, the father of the blitzkrieg, carefully studied Mongol tactics.
Before a Mongol battle, divinations a displays of prowess by champions were held and during the fighting, huge kettledrums mounted on the backs of camels were used to herald every Mongol charge.
The Mongol cavalry often attacked as a huge swarm and did much o fthe heavy fighting. Describing a Mongol cavalry charge, the Persian historian and Mongol civil servant Ala-ad-Din-Ata-Malik wrote, thy were "more numerous than ants and locusts," more than "the sand of the desert or drops of rain."
The Mongols army was so powerful it could attach tow large cities at the same time and fight a war on two fronts. To count the dead piles of stones set down before a battle---one stone for each soldier. After battle the stones were taken, again one for each soldier. The number that remained represented the number of dead or seriously wounded. Borrowing technology from the Arabs, Persians and Chinese, the Mongols refined sieges to an art form.
During the sieges of walled cities and fortified compounds, the Mongols shot flaming arrows, hurled vessels of oil and fired animals, 100-pound rocks, human corpses and fiery naphtha bombs (probably made from long-burning mixture of sulfur, niter and petroleum) from mangonels, a kind of catapult powered by plunging weights.
Chinese and Middle Eastern engineers that operated the catapults were quite good shots. One chronicler wrote: "Mangonel-men...with a stone missile would convert they eye of a needle into passage for a camel."
In the siege of cities in wooded areas Mongols sometimes built stockades for protection against enemy arrows and bombarded the city several days with catapults until the walls were breached. Moats and rivers were crossed with pontoon bridges and strings of boats tied together. Gates were battered with huge logs and ladders were used to surmount the walls.
The Mongols were so proficient at plundering cities, terrorizing populations, killing soldiers and civilians and seizingterritory they made Attila the Hun seem like a petty warlord. They massacred hundreds of thousands if not millions, if the accounts of some historians are to be believed, and created pyramids of skulls of their victims. The Mongol cry "feed the horses" was a signal to rape, murder and plunder the defenseless population.
Mongols took few prisoner and made few distinctions between combatants and non-combatants. The killing was often done in a very methodical way. The victims were not tortured they were killed as swiftly as possible. Soldiers were given quotas for the numbers of people they were expected to kill. In military campaigns, captured civilians, thousands of them, were put to use as human shields.
After capturing a city, the Mongols would pretend to withdraw to determine if the surrender was genuine, If the Mongol representatives left behind were killed, Mongol soldiers would return to massacre the entire population. Enemy rulers were often wrapped in carpets and suffocated or trample to death by horses. Some officials were choked by having stones shoved down their throat. One Russian prince who didn't pay his taxes was kicked to death and beheaded. Revenge was often the motivating force behind the Mongol raids.
Their first campaign began as a response to the killing of an envoy for group and an insult from another leader. Describing the revenge extracted by Genghis Khan for the killing of several Mongol traders, Juini wrote: "in retribution for every hair on their heads it seemed that a hundred thousand heads rolled in the dust."
The Mongols sacked Merv (Turkmenistan), Nishapur (Iran), Urgench (Uzbekistan), Herat and Balkh (Afghanistan). Genghis Khan sacked Balkh (west of Mazar-i-Sharifm Afghanistan) and massacred thousands in one of his most brutal raids. Chroniclers reported the massacred of 1.6 million people at Herat, 1.7 million and Nishapur and 800,000 at Baghdad.
Under the Seljuk Turks, Merv became a city full of palaces, libraries, observatories, and canals that nourished parks and lush gardens.
All this came to an end when messengers of Genghis Khan in 1218 appeared, demanding tribute and the pick of the city's most beautiful women. The Seljuks refused and killed the messengers.
The Mongol arrived three years later and demanded that city surrender. The Seljuks complied and the Mongols responded by massacring all the city's inhabitants. According to some accounts each Mongol soldiers was ordered to decapitate 300 to 400 civilians and set the city aflame. After the Mongols left, Merv remained uninhabited for more than a century.
The Mongol arrived in Herat, Afghanistan in 1221 and captured the city. The inhabitants were initially spared. But when they rose in revolt Genghis Khan told one his generals, "Since the dead have come to life, I command you to strike their heads from their body." Reportedly only 40 of the city's 16,000 inhabitants survived.
Most historians believe these figures were greatly exaggerated. These cities as important as they were didn't have that many people and there was little incentive to slaughter that many people. "I can't believe they would have wasted time doing that," historian Larry Moses said. "The Mongols pretty much annihilated the armies they came against and a lot of civilians were marched in front of the army as cannon fodder, but I don't think a lot of citizens were wiped out. The Mongols needed people to move their packtrains and siege weapons."
Kingdoms that resisted risked having their entire populations massacred. Those that surrendered and offered a tribute were spared. The Mongols typically captured a city, killed as many of the people, saved the craftsmen and sent them to their cites, and spared some local officials to help them run the city.
The Arab chronicler Ibn Al-Athir wrote: “In the countries that have not yet been overrun by them, everyone spends the night afraid that they may appear there too."
Although the Mongols were unequaled in their brutality, rumors and stories of their atrocities was often much worse than the reality. One 13th-century illustrated English manuscript showed a pair of Mongols roasting a skewered victim and the legs of another. The Mongols sometimes ate the livers and hearts of their slain soldiers in hopes of obtaining their spirit and strength but as far as we know people were not a source of meat.
Historian Morris Rossabi said, "There's no question that there was a great deal of destruction. Not all the cities were butchered, but some became examples to sow terror in others. It was psychological warfare. Cities that offered resistance were often spared, escaping violence by offering tributes and letting Mongol soldiers loot unimpeded."
As large as the Mongol army it fought armies in China, the Middle East and Europe that were considerable larger but were efficiently and routinely defeated.
How was such a small army able to conquer most of the known world at that time? First of all Genghis Khan was a good organizer. He set up a chain of command based on sections, squadrons and regiments often made up of conquered people that formed an army that eventually grew to include almost 100,000 men.
Leaders were selected on merit and soldiers were paid in booty. Second of all his ruthless and cruel tactics terrified the people in the cities and fortress he was approaching. Genghis gave his conquered people a choice: capitulation or death by strangulation with a string. Many cities and fortress capitulated before his army even showed itself on the horizon. [Source: "History of Warfare" by John Keegan, Vintage Books]
Scientists believe that a sudden but sustained period of warm, wet weather spanning several decades allowed the Mongols to invade such a huge area with great success. Steve Connor wrote in The Independent, “Genghis Khan owes his place in history to a sudden shift in the Asiatic climate from the cold, arid period that immediately preceded his ascent as leader of the Mongol empire, to the warmer, wetter weather that allowed his horsemen to expand out from Central Asia. [Source: Steve Connor, The Independent, March 20, 2014 *=*]
“Scientists studying ancient Siberia pine trees in central Mongolia that date back nearly 2,000 years believe that Khan's rise to power coincided precisely with a period of unusually heavy rainfall over a couple of decades which allowed the arid grasslands of the Asian Steppe to flourish. Richer, more productive pastures for the herds of war horses on which the Mongols depended for their nomadic lifestyle helped Khan's invading armies to take territory as far east as China, as far south as Afghanistan and as far west as Russia and Hungary, the researchers said. *=*
“Tree rings, which record periods of good and bad plant growth, show that the years from about 1180 to 1190, which immediately preceded Genghis Khan's rule, suffered an intense drought that probably stoked the political turbulence that helped him to come to power. After this period, the tree rings show a period between 1211 and 1225 of sustained rainfall and mild weather which coincided precisely with the meteoric rise of Khan's empire, said Amy Hessl a tree ring expert at West Virginia University." *=*
“The transition from extreme drought to extreme moisture right then strongly suggests that climate played a role in human events. It wasn't the only thing, but it must have created the ideal conditions for a charismatic leader to emerge out of the chaos, develop an army and concentrate power," Dr Hessl said. “Where it's arid, unusual moisture creates unusual plant productivity, and that translates into horsepower. Genghis was literally able to ride that wave," she said.
“The tree rings show that the normally cold, arid steppes of central Asia experienced their mildest, wettest weather in more than 1,000 years at the time when Genghis rose to power and established his enormous land empire with the help of his sons. A study of the rings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the climate soon reverted to its cold, dry state, which led to droughts and lower grassland productivity.
Each Mongolian horseman in Genghis's army is said to have had up to five horses, which provided a supply of meat as well as transport. Higher grass yields would have also caused a boom in camels, yaks, cattle, sheep and other livestock, Dr Pederson said. “The weather may literally have supplied the Mongols with the horsepower they needed to do what they did… Before fossil fuels, grass and ingenuity were the fuels for the Mongols and the cultures around them," he said. “Energy flows from the bottom of an ecosystem, up the ladder to human society. Even today, many people in Mongolia live just like their ancestors did. But in the future, they may face serious conditions," he added.
A 13th-century Persian historian wrote of the Mongol campaigns: "With one stroke a world which billowed with fertility was laid desolate, and the regions thereof became a desert, and the greater part of the living, dead, and their skin and bones crumbling dust, and the mighty were humbled and immersed in the calamities of perdition."
According to Columbia University's Asia for Educators: “There has been considerable speculation about the reasons for the Mongol eruption from Mongolia, and though there is no scholarly consensus on specific reasons, many have pointed to the causes of ecology, trade disruptions, and the figure of Genghis (Genghis) Khan. [Source: Asia for Educators, Columbia University afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols <|>]
“Ecology: In the period from 1180-1220, Mongolia experienced a drop in the mean annual temperature, which meant that the growing season for grass was cut short. Less grass meant a real danger to the Mongols' animals, and, since the animals were truly the basis of the Mongols' pastoral-nomadic life, this ecological threat may have prompted them to move out of Mongolia.<|>
“Trade Disruptions: A second reason often mentioned is the attempt by Mongolia's neighbors in north and northwest China to reduce the amount of trade with the Mongols.
Since the Mongols depended on trade for goods that they desperately needed — such as grain, craft, and manufactured articles — cessation of trade, or at least the diminution of trade, could have been catastrophic for them.
The attempts by the Jin dynasty, which controlled North China, and the Xia dynasty, which controlled Northwest China, to reduce the level of trade that the Mongols could expect, created a crisis for the Mongols. Unable to obtain goods that they so desperately needed, the Mongols' response was to initiate raids, attacks, and finally invasions against these two dynasties. <|>
Genghis Khan's Personal Mission: A third explanation has to do with Genghis Khan himself, in particular his shamanic beliefs.
It is said that Tenggeri, the sky god of the Mongols, gave Genghis the mission of bringing the rest of the world under one sword — that is, bringing the rest of the world under the shamanic umbrella — a mission that may have motivated Genghis to begin his conquests. Whatever the explanations, they all gravitate around the figure of Genghis himself. Thus it is important to see what Genghis' policies led to and to analyze his life and career." <|>
According to Columbia University's Asia for Educators: “The major lessons that Genghis Khan learned from the hardships of his early years (his father's untimely death forced his mother to eke out a survival for the family in the harsh desert lands of Mongolia) convinced him that no one could survive in the daunting landscape of Mongolia without maintaining good relations and seeking help on occasion from one's allies. Genghis's earliest experiences thus convince him of the importance of forging alliances.
One's anda (blood brother) pricked his finger and mixed blood with one to forge a blood brotherhood. Genghis found many andas, and his blood brothers, realizing his superior abilities and his charisma, would often join under his banner.
“Early in his rise to power, Genghis attempted immediately to break down the tribal groups that joined him, because he felt that loyalty in the tribal group would belong to the tribal leader rather than to himself. He wanted to eliminate any feeling of tribal identity and convert it to a Mongol identity — a unit that would be much larger, greater than that of the tribe, wherein the loyalty would remain with him, rather than with a tribal leader. Thus, when a tribe did join him, he quickly dispersed its members through the various units that he controlled. <|>
“Genghis Khan's organized units were based on the principle of ten. He organized his people into units of ten, a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand, and the head of a unit of ten thousand would have a strong personal relationship with Genghis himself. That kind of loyalty was to be extremely important in Genghis's rise to power and in his ability to maintain authority over all the various segments of his domain. <|>
“Genghis's military tactics showcased his superiority in warfare. One particularly effective tactic Genghis liked to use was the feigned withdrawal: Deep in the throes of a battle his troops would withdraw, pretending to have been defeated. As the enemy forces pursued the troops that seemed to be fleeing, they would quickly realize that they'd fallen into a trap, as whole detachments of men in armor or cavalries would suddenly appear and overwhelm them.
How did such a small group succeed? According to Columbia University's Asia for Educators: “One answer to this question is that the Mongols were adept at incorporating the groups they conquered into their empire. As they defeated other peoples, they incorporated some of the more loyal subjugated people into their military forces. This was especially true of the Turks.
The Uyghur Turks, along with others, joined the Mongol armies and were instrumental in the Mongols' successes.
“A second explanation is that the rest of Asia was declining at this point. China at this time was not a unified country — in fact, it was divided into at least three different sections, all of which were at war with one another.
Central Asia was fragmented, and there was no single leader there. As for Russia, it was only a series of fragmented city-states. And after four centuries of success, the Abbasid dynasty in Western Asia had by this time lost much of its land.
“By 1241, Mongol troops had reached all the way to Hungary but had to withdraw that very year because of the death of Ögödei, the Great Khan.
The Mongol elite returned to Mongolia to select a new Great Khan, but they were unsuccessful in their efforts to form a consensus on the matter.
For the next 19 years, there would be a variety of disputes over who was the most meritorious of Genghis Khan's descendants and who ought to be the next Great Khan."
Morris Rossabi wrote in Natural History: ““Genghis Khan and his descendents could not have conquered and ruled the largest land empire in world history without their diminutive but extremely hardy steeds...
Nhắc về mảnh đất Tây Bắc, người ta thường nhớ tới vùng núi cao kỳ vĩ với những sản vật tự nhiên độc đáo, nức tiếng du khách gần xa. Trong số đó, có một loại quả đặc biệt khiến người thưởng thức nó đã ăn một lần là nhớ mãi: mận Bắc Hà. Dường như tạo hoá đã chỉ đích danh mảnh đất này là quê hương của giống mận tam hoa Bắc Hà, bởi dù cho đem trồng ở đâu, thức quả ấy cũng chẳng thể thơm ngọt, thanh mát như nơi đây. Mận ra trái vào khoảng tháng 4, thơm ngon nhất vào thời điểm chính vụ tháng 5 đến tháng 7. Trái mận tươi mới hái cuống còn xanh nguyên, vỏ trái không bóng nhẫy mà phủ mờ một lớp phấn tinh khôi trên lớp vỏ xanh ngả tím. Thưởng thức đầy đủ hương vị của mận, phải ăn vào lúc trái bắt đầu chín, thịt quả cắn vào giòn tan mọng nước, đỏ rực rỡ như rượu vang, nhấm nháp hương vị chua dịu tan nơi đầu lưỡi chẳng men mà cũng say đắm lòng người.Mận Bắc Hà ăn tươi đã ngon, mận làm ô mai lại càng khiến người ăn phải ghiền. Mận nguyên trái được tẩm ướp chút gia vị cho thêm đậm đà, sấy ở nhiệt độ thấp nhằm giữ nguyên hương vị chua đặc trưng và các vitamin của quả. Mận thành phẩm thịt quả tím đen, nhìn kỹ thấy ánh lên sắc đỏ thẫm, dai dẻo, cuốn hút vị giác không ngừng. Nhẩn nha để vị quả tan nơi đầu lưỡi, tưởng như hít vào hơi sương có mùi lá rừng, hương suối trong vắt mát lành, sảng khoái vô cùng. Cảm nhận hương vị tinh tuý nơi thức quả tuyệt hảo ấy, MnS quyết tìm bằng được những trái mận chính vụ thơm ngon nhất làm nguyên liệu cho món ô mai mận. Qua khâu chế biến tỉ mỉ, công phu, mận sấy dẻo MnS ra đời, trở thành món quà mà ai đi xa, về gần cũng ưa thích, cũng nhớ, cũng mê say. http://moonnsun.com/tin-tuc-su-kien/hon-nui-rung-tay-bac-gui-tron-vao-day-man-bac-ha
A Chinese chronicler recognized the horse's value to the Mongols, observing that “by nature they [the Mongols] are good at riding and shooting. Therefore they took possession of the world through this advantage of bow and horse."
“The Mongols prized their horses primarily for the advantages they offered in warfare. In combat, the horses were fast and flexible, and Genghis Khan was the first leader to capitalize fully on these strengths.
Du lịch Châu Đốc, du khách dễ bị “mê hoặc” bởi những trái me Thái chín ngọt lịm, thơm lừng bày bán khắp nơi. Thỉng thoảng, du khách cũng sẽ bắt gặp những sạp hàng bán quả mây gai (hay còn gọi là mây Thái, mây sa lắc), một loại quả hiếm và chỉ phổ biến ở An Giang. Hãy cùng theo chân công ty du lịch Viet Fun Travel tìm về vùng đất Châu Đốc để nếm thử hai loại đặc sản là quả mây gai và me Thái. Dọc theo các tuyến đường về thành phố Châu Đốc, tỉnh An Giang có rất nhiều sạp hàng bày bán quả mây gai. Được biết, đây là loại quả có xuất xứ từ Thái Lan, được nhập về An Giang qua đường biên giới Campuchia. Theo như tìm hiểu của Viet Fun Travel, quả mây gai thuộc họ Dừa. Cây mây gai là loài cây mọc hoang thành bụi trong rừng, gai nhiều, thậm chí ở lá cũng có gai. Mây gai thường mọc hoang dưới những tán rừng rậm, rừng thưa duyên hải… Qủa mây gai có hình bầu dục, hai đầu nhọn, vỏ có màu nâu đỏ, nhiều gai xù xì. Một chùm mây gai có khoảng 14 – 15 trái, lớn nhỏ xen kẽ nhau. Qủa mây gai chín, bóc đi lớp vỏ, phía bên trong dần lộ ra lớp thịt màu vàng kem, cắn vào cảm giác chua chua, ngọt ngọt, rất ngon miệng. Nếu ăn đúng quả mây gai còn xanh sẽ có vị ngọt rất lạ, đúng chất với mùi vị trái cây rừng. Qủa mây gai có thể ăn không hoặc chấm cùng muối ớt để vị thêm đậm đà. Thoạt nhìn thì tưởng như rất khó khăn để có thể bóc được quả mây gai nhưng nhìn kỹ thì rất dễ dàng. Qủa mây gai có vỏ rất mỏng, chỉ cần dùng tay hoặc dao ngắt phần đỉnh nhọn phía đầu quả là có thể bóc ra. Khi tách vỏ mây gai để lộ phần thịt chia nhánh giống nhánh tỏi, lớp thịt chắc nịch, nhìn rất bắt mắt. Thịt quả mây gai ăn khá bổ dưỡng vì chứa nhiều nguyên tố vi lượng, giúp thanh nhiệt, giải độc và đặc biệt là bổ sung nước rất tốt. Mây gai chỉ có thể bảo quản được vài ngày, vì vậy du khách nên ăn trong ngày. Nếu muốn mua về làm quà thì du khách nên chọn những quả chín vừa để khi về mây gai sẽ chín tới, không bị xây xát, bầm dập. Đặc sản Châu Đốc – Qủa mây gai sẽ là món quà ý nghĩa cho người thân, bạn bè của nhiều du khách khi du lịch An Giang. Đến Châu Đốc, hình ảnh mà du khách sẽ bắt gặp nhiều nhất là những xe hàng bán me Thái dọc hai bên đường. Me Thái ở đây có nhiều loại với chất lượng khác nhau nhưng đều có vị ngọt thanh, ăn rất ngon miệng. Được biết, các loại me ở Châu Đốc có nguồn gốc từ Thái Lan và Campuchia. Tuy nhiên, me Thái vẫn được người dân địa phương và du khách ưa thích hơn loại me nhập từ Campuchia. Me Thái có vỏ giòn, dễ bóc, ăn ngọt không có vị chua như me bình thường. Du lịch Châu Đốc, du khách đừng quên mua về một vài ký me Thái tươi để dành làm các món ngon như mứt me, me ngào đường…Qủa mây gai và me Thái là đặc sản ngon, lạ của xứ Châu Đốc. Rất nhiều du khách đi du lịch Châu Đốc chọn mua quả mây gai và me Thái về làm quà cho người thân, bạn bè. Ngoài ra, Châu Đốc còn nhiều đặc sản nổi tiếng như bánh bò thốt nốt, bún cá Châu Đốc, các loại mắm, các loại khô, tung lò mò, cà na đập, v.v… Qúy khách có thể đăng ký tham gia Tour du lịch An Giang hoặc các Tour miền Tây có hành trình về An Giang của Viet Fun Travel để có cơ hội tìm tòi, khám phá và thưởng thức nhiều món ngon mà mình chưa được nếm thử lần nào. https://www.vietfuntravel.com.vn/blog/dac-san-chau-doc-qua-may-gai-va-me-thai.html
After hit-and-run raids, for example, his horsemen could race back and quickly disappear into their native steppes. Enemy armies from the sedentary agricultural societies to the south frequently had to abandon their pursuit because they were not accustomed to long rides on horseback and thus could not move as quickly. Nor could these farmer-soldiers leave their fields for extended periods to chase after the Mongols. =|=
“The Mongols had developed a composite bow made out of sinew and horn and were skilled at shooting it while riding, which gave them the upper hand against ordinary foot soldiers. With a range of more than 350 yards, the bow was superior to the contemporaneous English longbow, whose range was only 250 yards.
“Genghis Khan understood the importance of horses and insisted that his troops be solicitous of their steeds. A cavalryman normally had three or four, so that each was, at one time or another, given a respite from bearing the weight of the rider during a lengthy journey.
Before combat, leather coverings were placed on the head of each horse and its body was covered with armor. After combat, Mongol horses could traverse the most rugged terrain and survive on little fodder.
http://factsanddetails.com/asian/cat65/sub423/item2696.html
In an age when opposing armies were little more than feudal levies around a nucleus of well-armed and well-trained, but relatively immobile and inflexible, knights, the Mongol armies were the dominant force on the battlefields of Asia and Europe.
Mongol forces, made up of skilled warriors well trained in marksmanship and horsemanship, were characterized by absolute discipline, a well-understood chain of command, an excellent communications system, superior mobility, and a unified and extremely effective tactical doctrine and organization. [Source: Library of Congress, June 1989]
The Mongol army was the dominant military force of the 13th century. Never very large, it relied on superior tactics and speed, and was like one massive well-disciplined cavalry which moved rapidly, adapted quickly to changing situations and followed complex battle strategies.
The core of Genghis Khan's army consisted of only 23,000 horsemen who fought with composite bows and hand axes and protected themselves with waterproof leather armor. Chinese and Middle Eastern engineers, experienced with catapults and other siege devises, were hired to attack fortified cities.
Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great had similar-sized armies. The Mongol army was divided into units of 10-man squads ( arvan), 100-man companies ( zuun), 1,000-man battalions and 10,000 men divisions ( tumens), with an imperial guard of 10,000 soldiers protecting the khan and important generals. An entire army might consist of 100,000 fighting men, which traveled in a massive city-size caravan with family members and support animals.
There was no such thing as a civilian population in Mongolia. War was a full job and either you were a soldier and somehow supported a soldier. Members of rival tribes were separated and spread among different divisions. Discipline was established by the merciless enforcement of Mongol customs. Adulters were killed and the kidnapping of women was discouraged (eliminating quarrels over women).
Booty was divided equally among all the men, and any man who abandoned the battlefield was killed. Mongol soldiers were rigoursly trained. To sharpen their fighting skills and get meat for a huge feast, the Mongols held an annual great hunt called a gorugen in which thousands of horsemen encircled all the game in a large area and closed in. Each man was allotted only one arrow; failure to kill an animal was met with ridicule.
Most of the warriors in the Mongol armies were Turks. Some Mongol armies were made up mainly of non-Mongols. The Mongols also recruited soldiers from the cities and kingdoms that came under their power. The Mongol army that besieged Baghdad, for example, included Georgians, Armenians and Persians. The Mongols were leaders.
Christopher Berg of Sam Houston State University wrote: “Acts of bravery and skill were rewarded. In one particular battle, an enemy warrior killed the horse that Genghis Khan was riding. When he was apprehended, he “admitted this and was pardoned and taken into the khan's service with the nickname ‘Jebe," or ‘arrow." Jebe rose to become one of Temujin's greatest generals." [Sources: “Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia 500BC to 1700AD” by Erik Hildinger (Da Capo Press, 1997); Christopher Berg, Sam Houston State University deremilitari.org /^\]
The Mongols improved on Persian and Chinese weapons. Mongol cavalrymen carried maces, lances with a hook and snare, sabers, three-quivered arrows and a composite bow made of wood, sinew and horn. Strapped to their left arms solder carried daggers used in close range fighting. The front guard was made up of lancers who rode high in the saddle with short stirrups which gave leverage for powerful thrusts.
Mongol bows had a range of 250 meters, twice that of English longbows. The Mongols could fire up to six arrows a minute, and utilized several arrow and arrowhead designs, including longe-range ones, short-rage ones and ones that could pierce armor.
In addition to those made strictly for killing, they used arrows that left terrible wounds, ones that whistled to scare the enemy, ones that whistled and wounded the enemy and ones that were dipped in naphtha and set on fire.
Towards the end of the Mongol era both soldiers and horses were protected in leather armor made from horsehide soaked in urine. Leather armor was lighter and more flexible than the chain-mail favored by Europeans. To protect their faces, Mongol cavalrymen carried small leather shields in their left arm. Under a loose robe they wore a tunic of tightly woven silk that blunted the impact of enemy arrows. Their boots were lined with sewn-in metal plates that protected the warrior's calves.
The Mongols were the first to use gunpowder in battle. They used it as an explosive not as a propellant to hurl bullets orcannon fodder. During sieges the Mongols used mangonels, giant catapults, to hurl stones and other objects.
The Mongols pioneered the use of feigned flight, surprise attacks, hostage taking, psychological warfare and human shields. The Mongol cavalry, situated around the around the outside of the tumen, could swiftly advance to the front with little warning, and attack the enemy with a hail of arrows. A screen of outer riders acted as an early warning system. The size of the Mongol army was exaggerated by placing dummies on the backs of horses and lighting strings of bonfires at night.
In a review of Erik Hildinger's “Warriors of the Steppe”, Christopher Berg wrote: In China, Genghis discovered the art of siege. Chinese engineers would prove to be Genghis’ secret weapon against all who lived in fortified cities. Furthermore, Genghis would use another tactic repeatedly with great effect: terror. Sieges were used to take fortified positions while the “calculated use of terror” was used to demoralize any who thought to defy the Mongols. [Sources: “Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia 500BC to 1700AD” by Erik Hildinger (Da Capo Press, 1997); Christopher Berg, Sam Houston State University deremilitari.org /^\]
In field battles the Mongols typically showered their enemy with armor-piercing arrows paving the way for a cavalry charge in which swift-moving horsemen hacked down survivors with hooked lances. A favorite military ploy was feigning retreat and luring the enemy into a prepared position and surrounding them with mounted archers or suddenly turning on the pursing army and raining them with arrows, with a concerted effort made at going after their leader. Mongol tactics and mobility were so superior to that of their rivals, that often easily defeated armies that were several times larger than theirs.
When attacking a large powerful city, the Mongols advanced on a broad front. They employed this tactic effectively in the assault on Samarkand where the force coming from the desert north was more than 1,300 kilometers northwest of a force coming in over the Pamir mountains. When the Mongols attacked Europe they formed an even broader front, one that stretched from the Baltics to Transylvania.
Such tactics only worked if there was good communication. Mongol scouts could travel at a rate of up to a hundred miles a day to gather intelligence at speeds unrivaled in its time. Messages for these scouts as well news from a large network of spies was relayed back to the khan and between commanders and officers by swift-riding Pony-Express-like messengers and an elaborate system of flag signals (the Mongols invented semaphores).
When advancing on a city, the Mongols formed several columns that were able to overwhelm anything thrown at them because of their superior mobility and firepower. Historians say the the modern armies used planes and tanks the same way the Mongols used their horses. Germany's Heinz Guderian, the father of the blitzkrieg, carefully studied Mongol tactics.
Before a Mongol battle, divinations a displays of prowess by champions were held and during the fighting, huge kettledrums mounted on the backs of camels were used to herald every Mongol charge.
The Mongol cavalry often attacked as a huge swarm and did much o fthe heavy fighting. Describing a Mongol cavalry charge, the Persian historian and Mongol civil servant Ala-ad-Din-Ata-Malik wrote, thy were "more numerous than ants and locusts," more than "the sand of the desert or drops of rain."
The Mongols army was so powerful it could attach tow large cities at the same time and fight a war on two fronts. To count the dead piles of stones set down before a battle---one stone for each soldier. After battle the stones were taken, again one for each soldier. The number that remained represented the number of dead or seriously wounded. Borrowing technology from the Arabs, Persians and Chinese, the Mongols refined sieges to an art form.
During the sieges of walled cities and fortified compounds, the Mongols shot flaming arrows, hurled vessels of oil and fired animals, 100-pound rocks, human corpses and fiery naphtha bombs (probably made from long-burning mixture of sulfur, niter and petroleum) from mangonels, a kind of catapult powered by plunging weights.
Chinese and Middle Eastern engineers that operated the catapults were quite good shots. One chronicler wrote: "Mangonel-men...with a stone missile would convert they eye of a needle into passage for a camel."
In the siege of cities in wooded areas Mongols sometimes built stockades for protection against enemy arrows and bombarded the city several days with catapults until the walls were breached. Moats and rivers were crossed with pontoon bridges and strings of boats tied together. Gates were battered with huge logs and ladders were used to surmount the walls.
The Mongols were so proficient at plundering cities, terrorizing populations, killing soldiers and civilians and seizingterritory they made Attila the Hun seem like a petty warlord. They massacred hundreds of thousands if not millions, if the accounts of some historians are to be believed, and created pyramids of skulls of their victims. The Mongol cry "feed the horses" was a signal to rape, murder and plunder the defenseless population.
Mongols took few prisoner and made few distinctions between combatants and non-combatants. The killing was often done in a very methodical way. The victims were not tortured they were killed as swiftly as possible. Soldiers were given quotas for the numbers of people they were expected to kill. In military campaigns, captured civilians, thousands of them, were put to use as human shields.
After capturing a city, the Mongols would pretend to withdraw to determine if the surrender was genuine, If the Mongol representatives left behind were killed, Mongol soldiers would return to massacre the entire population. Enemy rulers were often wrapped in carpets and suffocated or trample to death by horses. Some officials were choked by having stones shoved down their throat. One Russian prince who didn't pay his taxes was kicked to death and beheaded. Revenge was often the motivating force behind the Mongol raids.
Their first campaign began as a response to the killing of an envoy for group and an insult from another leader. Describing the revenge extracted by Genghis Khan for the killing of several Mongol traders, Juini wrote: "in retribution for every hair on their heads it seemed that a hundred thousand heads rolled in the dust."
The Mongols sacked Merv (Turkmenistan), Nishapur (Iran), Urgench (Uzbekistan), Herat and Balkh (Afghanistan). Genghis Khan sacked Balkh (west of Mazar-i-Sharifm Afghanistan) and massacred thousands in one of his most brutal raids. Chroniclers reported the massacred of 1.6 million people at Herat, 1.7 million and Nishapur and 800,000 at Baghdad.
Under the Seljuk Turks, Merv became a city full of palaces, libraries, observatories, and canals that nourished parks and lush gardens.
Royal Dux figural group depicting two Grecian lovers sweetly wrapped in an embrace
All this came to an end when messengers of Genghis Khan in 1218 appeared, demanding tribute and the pick of the city's most beautiful women. The Seljuks refused and killed the messengers.
The Mongol arrived three years later and demanded that city surrender. The Seljuks complied and the Mongols responded by massacring all the city's inhabitants. According to some accounts each Mongol soldiers was ordered to decapitate 300 to 400 civilians and set the city aflame. After the Mongols left, Merv remained uninhabited for more than a century.
The Mongol arrived in Herat, Afghanistan in 1221 and captured the city. The inhabitants were initially spared. But when they rose in revolt Genghis Khan told one his generals, "Since the dead have come to life, I command you to strike their heads from their body." Reportedly only 40 of the city's 16,000 inhabitants survived.
Most historians believe these figures were greatly exaggerated. These cities as important as they were didn't have that many people and there was little incentive to slaughter that many people. "I can't believe they would have wasted time doing that," historian Larry Moses said. "The Mongols pretty much annihilated the armies they came against and a lot of civilians were marched in front of the army as cannon fodder, but I don't think a lot of citizens were wiped out. The Mongols needed people to move their packtrains and siege weapons."
Kingdoms that resisted risked having their entire populations massacred. Those that surrendered and offered a tribute were spared. The Mongols typically captured a city, killed as many of the people, saved the craftsmen and sent them to their cites, and spared some local officials to help them run the city.
The Arab chronicler Ibn Al-Athir wrote: “In the countries that have not yet been overrun by them, everyone spends the night afraid that they may appear there too."
Although the Mongols were unequaled in their brutality, rumors and stories of their atrocities was often much worse than the reality. One 13th-century illustrated English manuscript showed a pair of Mongols roasting a skewered victim and the legs of another. The Mongols sometimes ate the livers and hearts of their slain soldiers in hopes of obtaining their spirit and strength but as far as we know people were not a source of meat.
Historian Morris Rossabi said, "There's no question that there was a great deal of destruction. Not all the cities were butchered, but some became examples to sow terror in others. It was psychological warfare. Cities that offered resistance were often spared, escaping violence by offering tributes and letting Mongol soldiers loot unimpeded."
As large as the Mongol army it fought armies in China, the Middle East and Europe that were considerable larger but were efficiently and routinely defeated.
How was such a small army able to conquer most of the known world at that time? First of all Genghis Khan was a good organizer. He set up a chain of command based on sections, squadrons and regiments often made up of conquered people that formed an army that eventually grew to include almost 100,000 men.
Leaders were selected on merit and soldiers were paid in booty. Second of all his ruthless and cruel tactics terrified the people in the cities and fortress he was approaching. Genghis gave his conquered people a choice: capitulation or death by strangulation with a string. Many cities and fortress capitulated before his army even showed itself on the horizon. [Source: "History of Warfare" by John Keegan, Vintage Books]
Scientists believe that a sudden but sustained period of warm, wet weather spanning several decades allowed the Mongols to invade such a huge area with great success. Steve Connor wrote in The Independent, “Genghis Khan owes his place in history to a sudden shift in the Asiatic climate from the cold, arid period that immediately preceded his ascent as leader of the Mongol empire, to the warmer, wetter weather that allowed his horsemen to expand out from Central Asia. [Source: Steve Connor, The Independent, March 20, 2014 *=*]
“Scientists studying ancient Siberia pine trees in central Mongolia that date back nearly 2,000 years believe that Khan's rise to power coincided precisely with a period of unusually heavy rainfall over a couple of decades which allowed the arid grasslands of the Asian Steppe to flourish. Richer, more productive pastures for the herds of war horses on which the Mongols depended for their nomadic lifestyle helped Khan's invading armies to take territory as far east as China, as far south as Afghanistan and as far west as Russia and Hungary, the researchers said. *=*
“Tree rings, which record periods of good and bad plant growth, show that the years from about 1180 to 1190, which immediately preceded Genghis Khan's rule, suffered an intense drought that probably stoked the political turbulence that helped him to come to power. After this period, the tree rings show a period between 1211 and 1225 of sustained rainfall and mild weather which coincided precisely with the meteoric rise of Khan's empire, said Amy Hessl a tree ring expert at West Virginia University." *=*
“The transition from extreme drought to extreme moisture right then strongly suggests that climate played a role in human events. It wasn't the only thing, but it must have created the ideal conditions for a charismatic leader to emerge out of the chaos, develop an army and concentrate power," Dr Hessl said. “Where it's arid, unusual moisture creates unusual plant productivity, and that translates into horsepower. Genghis was literally able to ride that wave," she said.
“The tree rings show that the normally cold, arid steppes of central Asia experienced their mildest, wettest weather in more than 1,000 years at the time when Genghis rose to power and established his enormous land empire with the help of his sons. A study of the rings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the climate soon reverted to its cold, dry state, which led to droughts and lower grassland productivity.
Each Mongolian horseman in Genghis's army is said to have had up to five horses, which provided a supply of meat as well as transport. Higher grass yields would have also caused a boom in camels, yaks, cattle, sheep and other livestock, Dr Pederson said. “The weather may literally have supplied the Mongols with the horsepower they needed to do what they did… Before fossil fuels, grass and ingenuity were the fuels for the Mongols and the cultures around them," he said. “Energy flows from the bottom of an ecosystem, up the ladder to human society. Even today, many people in Mongolia live just like their ancestors did. But in the future, they may face serious conditions," he added.
A 13th-century Persian historian wrote of the Mongol campaigns: "With one stroke a world which billowed with fertility was laid desolate, and the regions thereof became a desert, and the greater part of the living, dead, and their skin and bones crumbling dust, and the mighty were humbled and immersed in the calamities of perdition."
According to Columbia University's Asia for Educators: “There has been considerable speculation about the reasons for the Mongol eruption from Mongolia, and though there is no scholarly consensus on specific reasons, many have pointed to the causes of ecology, trade disruptions, and the figure of Genghis (Genghis) Khan. [Source: Asia for Educators, Columbia University afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols <|>]
“Ecology: In the period from 1180-1220, Mongolia experienced a drop in the mean annual temperature, which meant that the growing season for grass was cut short. Less grass meant a real danger to the Mongols' animals, and, since the animals were truly the basis of the Mongols' pastoral-nomadic life, this ecological threat may have prompted them to move out of Mongolia.<|>
“Trade Disruptions: A second reason often mentioned is the attempt by Mongolia's neighbors in north and northwest China to reduce the amount of trade with the Mongols.
Since the Mongols depended on trade for goods that they desperately needed — such as grain, craft, and manufactured articles — cessation of trade, or at least the diminution of trade, could have been catastrophic for them.
The attempts by the Jin dynasty, which controlled North China, and the Xia dynasty, which controlled Northwest China, to reduce the level of trade that the Mongols could expect, created a crisis for the Mongols. Unable to obtain goods that they so desperately needed, the Mongols' response was to initiate raids, attacks, and finally invasions against these two dynasties. <|>
Genghis Khan's Personal Mission: A third explanation has to do with Genghis Khan himself, in particular his shamanic beliefs.
It is said that Tenggeri, the sky god of the Mongols, gave Genghis the mission of bringing the rest of the world under one sword — that is, bringing the rest of the world under the shamanic umbrella — a mission that may have motivated Genghis to begin his conquests. Whatever the explanations, they all gravitate around the figure of Genghis himself. Thus it is important to see what Genghis' policies led to and to analyze his life and career." <|>
According to Columbia University's Asia for Educators: “The major lessons that Genghis Khan learned from the hardships of his early years (his father's untimely death forced his mother to eke out a survival for the family in the harsh desert lands of Mongolia) convinced him that no one could survive in the daunting landscape of Mongolia without maintaining good relations and seeking help on occasion from one's allies. Genghis's earliest experiences thus convince him of the importance of forging alliances.
One's anda (blood brother) pricked his finger and mixed blood with one to forge a blood brotherhood. Genghis found many andas, and his blood brothers, realizing his superior abilities and his charisma, would often join under his banner.
“Early in his rise to power, Genghis attempted immediately to break down the tribal groups that joined him, because he felt that loyalty in the tribal group would belong to the tribal leader rather than to himself. He wanted to eliminate any feeling of tribal identity and convert it to a Mongol identity — a unit that would be much larger, greater than that of the tribe, wherein the loyalty would remain with him, rather than with a tribal leader. Thus, when a tribe did join him, he quickly dispersed its members through the various units that he controlled. <|>
“Genghis Khan's organized units were based on the principle of ten. He organized his people into units of ten, a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand, and the head of a unit of ten thousand would have a strong personal relationship with Genghis himself. That kind of loyalty was to be extremely important in Genghis's rise to power and in his ability to maintain authority over all the various segments of his domain. <|>
“Genghis's military tactics showcased his superiority in warfare. One particularly effective tactic Genghis liked to use was the feigned withdrawal: Deep in the throes of a battle his troops would withdraw, pretending to have been defeated. As the enemy forces pursued the troops that seemed to be fleeing, they would quickly realize that they'd fallen into a trap, as whole detachments of men in armor or cavalries would suddenly appear and overwhelm them.
How did such a small group succeed? According to Columbia University's Asia for Educators: “One answer to this question is that the Mongols were adept at incorporating the groups they conquered into their empire. As they defeated other peoples, they incorporated some of the more loyal subjugated people into their military forces. This was especially true of the Turks.
The Uyghur Turks, along with others, joined the Mongol armies and were instrumental in the Mongols' successes.
“A second explanation is that the rest of Asia was declining at this point. China at this time was not a unified country — in fact, it was divided into at least three different sections, all of which were at war with one another.
Central Asia was fragmented, and there was no single leader there. As for Russia, it was only a series of fragmented city-states. And after four centuries of success, the Abbasid dynasty in Western Asia had by this time lost much of its land.
“By 1241, Mongol troops had reached all the way to Hungary but had to withdraw that very year because of the death of Ögödei, the Great Khan.
The Mongol elite returned to Mongolia to select a new Great Khan, but they were unsuccessful in their efforts to form a consensus on the matter.
Mận - Đặc Sản Tây Bắc
For the next 19 years, there would be a variety of disputes over who was the most meritorious of Genghis Khan's descendants and who ought to be the next Great Khan."
Morris Rossabi wrote in Natural History: ““Genghis Khan and his descendents could not have conquered and ruled the largest land empire in world history without their diminutive but extremely hardy steeds...
A Chinese chronicler recognized the horse's value to the Mongols, observing that “by nature they [the Mongols] are good at riding and shooting. Therefore they took possession of the world through this advantage of bow and horse."
“The Mongols prized their horses primarily for the advantages they offered in warfare. In combat, the horses were fast and flexible, and Genghis Khan was the first leader to capitalize fully on these strengths.
After hit-and-run raids, for example, his horsemen could race back and quickly disappear into their native steppes. Enemy armies from the sedentary agricultural societies to the south frequently had to abandon their pursuit because they were not accustomed to long rides on horseback and thus could not move as quickly. Nor could these farmer-soldiers leave their fields for extended periods to chase after the Mongols. =|=
“The Mongols had developed a composite bow made out of sinew and horn and were skilled at shooting it while riding, which gave them the upper hand against ordinary foot soldiers. With a range of more than 350 yards, the bow was superior to the contemporaneous English longbow, whose range was only 250 yards.
“Genghis Khan understood the importance of horses and insisted that his troops be solicitous of their steeds. A cavalryman normally had three or four, so that each was, at one time or another, given a respite from bearing the weight of the rider during a lengthy journey.
Ở đô thị cây mận còn được trồng chậu để làm cảnh, trồng vườn lấy bóng râm vì cây có tán lá xum xuê, xanh mướt quanh năm.
Before combat, leather coverings were placed on the head of each horse and its body was covered with armor. After combat, Mongol horses could traverse the most rugged terrain and survive on little fodder.
http://factsanddetails.com/asian/cat65/sub423/item2696.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.