MONGOL ARMIES AND INDIAN CAMPAIGNS
John
Masson Smith, Jr.
University
of California, Berkeley
Abstract
The
Mongol campaigns into Northwestern India were decisively shaped by the
region’s climate. The nomads who supplied the manpower and logistic
support for the Mongol cavalry armies depended on pastoral animals adapted to
cold and temperate conditions adjusted by migration in Inner Asia. Northwestern
India provided suitable conditions in winter, but not in summer. Juvaini
remarks on the withdrawal of Chinggis Khan’s Punjab garrison as the
summer heat set in, and Ibn Battuta discusses the high mortality of steppe
horses exported by the Golden Horde to India. The Mongols could campaign in
India only in winter.
Because
of this constraint on sustained operations, the purposes of the Mongol
invasions appear to have been limited. The attacks at least yielded booty, and
the accompanying devastation of the frontier zone kept Delhi’s forces
away from Mongol Afghanistan. They may also have enabled use of the frontier
lowlands by the Mongol nomads as winter pastures, qishlaqs. Finally, the Mongols probably hoped that enough
pressure would compel the Delhi Sultanate, like the Seljuk Sultanate and
Armenian Kingdom in the Middle East, to accept vassal status.
But
the force applied by the Mongols was insufficient to cow the Delhi Sultanate.
The sources claim invasions by hundreds of thousands of Mongols, numbers
approximating (and probably based on) the size of the entire cavalry armies of
the Mongol realms of Central Asia or the Middle East: about 150,000 men. A
count of the Mongol commanders named in the sources as participating in the
various invasions might give a better indication of the numbers involves, as
these commanders probably led tumens,
units nominally of 10,000 men. The small numbers of named commanders mentioned
in J. L. Mehta’s work, and the fact that most of these were only
generals, not the rulers of the adjacent Mongol realms, seems to suggest that
the attacks involved at most a few tens of thousands.
The
climatic constraint on sustained operations explains the Mongols’ failure
to consolidate their occasional gains in India: Lahore, for instance was
repeatedly taken and then abandoned. The hypothesis of small Mongol forces
would account for their frequent defeats by the Delhi armies. The 30,000-man
cavalry army of Balban (reg. 1266-86) would have been as large as, or larger
than, most of the invading Mongol contingents. And finally, the Delhi cavalry
was probably better mounted than the Mongols, probably better armed, and
possibly better trained. The few horses to survive the climate of Delhi had to
be carefully tended and well fed, and consequently could grow larger than the
Mongols’ steppe-grazed ponies. And the cream of the Delhi army were
slave-soldiers, whom we know from other cases (the mamluks of the Abbasids and of Egypt) could be trained to
extraordinary skills with arms.
________________________________________________________
MONGOL
ARMIES AND INDIAN CAMPAIGNS
John
Masson Smith, Jr.
University
of California, Berkeley
The
Mongols’ attacks on India attempted to prepare for one part of their
program of world-conquest. From the outset of their expansionist activities,
they sent relatively small forces to frontier zones to reconnoiter and
devastate adjacent powers to encourage submission or in preparation for a
large-scale invasion. We see this pattern in the raids preliminary to the
invasions of northern China, and in the small-scale war kept up in northern
China while the main Mongol army conquered Central Asia-—and came,
briefly, to India. We see it from ca. 1230 until the coming of Hulegu in the
Middle East, where three or four Mongol tumens, military units nominally of 10,000 men each, established themselves
on the fine pastures of Azerbaijan and thence campaigned into surrounding
regions, obtaining the submission of the overawed Cilician Armenians and the
defeated Anatolian Seljuqs, and harassing the Caliphate in Iraq.
The
Mongols likewise established a military presence on the northwestern frontier
of India, and intermittently applied some military pressure on the adjacent
Indian powers, primarily the Sultanate of Delhi. They conducted something like
14 incursions between 1221 and 1326. But no large-scale invasion was
undertaken—for reasons I shall suggest in a moment. And as time passed
without a follow-up to these attacks, the local Mongol strategy seems to have
become less a preparatory than a holding operation. The raids laid waste from
time to time the region between Delhi and the Khyber Pass, preventing the
establishment by Delhi of forward bases from which to threaten the Mongols in
Afghanistan or on winter pastures in the “grass scrub and steppe”
below the frontier ranges; the raiders who were not defeated by the
Sultanate’s forces, as happened with increasing frequency as time went
on, also returned home with booty, which helped finance, and inspire enthusiasm
for, the campaigns. But the Delhi sultans could not be overawed by the Mongols’
threats, and their armies could not be demolished by the Mongol assaults. Why
should the Delhi Sultans have succeeded where the Caliph, the Khwarezmshah, and
the Jin and Sung emperors failed? How did India escape the fate of Iran and
Iraq, Russia and China?
Three texts, it seems to me,
nicely suggest the obstacles that prevented the Mongols from campaigning
effectively in—much less conquering—India. The first, from the
Persian historian, Juvaini, reads as follows (in J.A. Boyle’s translation):
[After the battle, 1221, by the
Indus River,]
[w]hen Chaghatai returned without
having
found
the Sultan [Jalaluddin b. Muhammad
Khwarezmshah], Chingiz-Khan deputed Torbei
Toqshin, together with two tumen of Mongol troops,
to cross the Indus in his pursuit.
Torbei Toqshin advanced …..
[and] took
the fortress of Nandana [in Jhelum
District, Punjab]
and wrought great slaughter. Then he
turned against
Multan …. [T]he town was on
the point of surrendering.
However, the great heat of the
climate prevented his
remaining longer; so having
plundered and massacred
throughout the province of Multan
and Lahore, he
returned from thence and recrossed
the Indus; and
arriving in Ghazna followed in the
wake of Chingiz-
Khan [who was returning via
Afghanistan and Central
Asia to Mongolia].
Climate created the main
impediment to Mongol campaigning in India. The Mongols’ livestock-raising
economy depended on climatic—especially temperature--adjustments through
nomadism to maintain the health and productivity of the animals, and the Mongol
army, reliant on its horses, similarly depended on seasonally-adapted
campaigning. The Central Asian campaign of which the first incursion into India
was a part exemplifies this adaptation: the army operated in cooler highland
regions in summer, and in warmer lowland desert and semi-desert terrain in
winter. The Mongol wars with the Egyptian Mamluks over Syria exhibited the same
procedure.
The extreme heat of summer constituted the Mongols’ problem in India, as
the quotation from Juvaini indicates. Their incursions seem to have been brief,
even when not defeated by the forces of Delhi, and to have taken place in
winter, because only then was it cool enough for the comfort of the
Mongols’ horses (as, by the way, for modern tourists from temperate
regions). The average temperature in the zone including Lahore and Delhi is
65-70 degrees F in November, and drops gradually to 60-65 at Delhi and below 60
at Lahore by February; thereafter it rises by May to over 90 degrees F. The
Mongols did not want to jeopardize their horses’ health—and their
own safety—by exposing them to this debilitating heat (you New Yorkers
will recall that the carriage-horses in Central Park must not work when the
temperature goes over __________).
The second suggestive text comes
from the work of the Muslim traveller, Ibn Batuta:
Horses are exported [from the Golden
Horde] to India (in droves), each
one numbering six
thousand or more or less ….
When they reach the
land of Sind with their horses, they
feed them with
forage, because the vegetation of
the land of Sind
does not take the place of barley,
and the greater part
of the horses die or are stolen.
The
basic Mongol force was an all-cavalry, high-horsepower army. The normal
requirement of horses was five per soldier, although higher numbers, perhaps
reached by counting animals brought along for food together with the military
mounts. The ration requirements of these animals were enormous. Although the
individual horses—which were only ponies, weighing perhaps 600 lbs (cf
ordinary modern horses at about 1000 lbs)—needed only about 10 lbs of hay
or the equivalent, and some 5 (U.S.) gallons of water, the collective daily
equine demands of the (nominal) 50,000 horses of a Mongol tumen (nominally) of 10,000 men, amounted to 250 tons of
hay-equivalent and 250,000 gallons of water. Mongol armies entering India could
count on obtaining enough water from the Indus and its affluents, but the
sufficiency of grazing, judging by Ibn Batuta’s remark—“the
vegetation of the land of Sind does not take the place of
barley”—seems to have been problematic (although the grazing in the
zone of “semi-desert grasses and shrubs” arcing from the Khybar Pass
to Lahore and Delhi, and turning, to Jaipur and Kathiawar, may have been
adequate in season. I do no have information about the productivity of these
semi-desert grasslands, but pastures with similar description in Central Asia
produce 500 kg/ha (or 445 lbs/acre),
which means that a Mongol tumen would have needed access to around 1124
acres—1.75 sq. mi.--a day to obtain 10 lbs of (dry) grass for each of its
50,000 ponies. This does not seem an impossible requirement, until the tumen
attempts to halt for a time, to conduct a siege, for instance. Collecting and
transporting fodder for a tumen’s horses instead of grazing them, as Ibn
Batuta says was done for imported horses, would have been difficult. The
nutritional equivalent of grass in barley and straw, at 5 lbs of barley and 5
more of straw, is also 250 tons, meaning 1250 camel-loads of 400 lbs each, and
enough barley modestly to feed 83,000 humans.
Before
proceeding to the third text, some discussion of the sizes of the Mongol forces
that attacked India is necessary. The sources—as far as I can tell from
the secondary literature—tend to claim immense numbers in the Mongol
invading forces. The armies of 10, 15 and 20 tumens must correspond, not to any
actual campaigning force, but to the total (nominal) strength of the Chaghataid
realm. The armies of the regional khanates seem each to have numbered 15 to 17
tumens, a size-limit probably set so as not to exceed the army of Mongolia
proper.
The Chaghataids could have counted more after some tumens in Afghanistan
shifted allegiance to them from the Ilkhans; but they would not have brought
them all to India, leaving their homeland open to their Ilkhanid and Qubilaid
enemies.[1]
(Note that 20 tumens is 200,000 men, more than the entire manpower of
Mongolia, plus a million horses!) Prisoners under interrogation may have given
these figures to daunt their enemies, as Ket-Buqa, the Mongol commander at
‘Ayn Jalut allegedly did to his Mamluk captors, and the Delhi officers,
to magnify their successes, may have accepted them.
Most of the identifiable expedition
leaders—Tayir of the 1241-42 incursion, Sali in 1246-47 and 1257-58,
Abdullah in 1292, and Qutluq Khwaja in 1299-1300—seem to have been only
tumen commanders based on or near the frontier. Tayir was connected with
Badghis, a yaylaq, summer-pasture, along
with Juvain, complementing the qishlaq, winter-pastures, of Herat.
Sali’s unit was based on Baghlan (yaylaq) and Qunduz (qishlaq). Abdullah was the son of Mochi
(b. Baiju b. Chaghatai), commander of the “cherig of Qarauna” in the Ghazni region. And Qutluq Khwaja (b.
Du’a) likewise—presumably in replacement of
Abdullah—commanded the Qaraunas of Ghazni, who “have constantly to
do battle with the Sultan of Delhi.”
The accounts of some campaigns mention the involvement of more than one Mongol
commander, each presumably the leader of a tumen. Tayir, “and other noyans [generals]” campaigned in 1241-42. Two, “Targhi” as
well as Qutluq Khwaja, participated in 1299-1300, and three,
“Targhi” again, “Tartaq” (or “Tash,”) and
“Ali Beg,” in 1305. Only three commanders seem to have been in
positions to mobilize larger armies. Monggetei, commanding a corps of two
tumens (or perhaps three: his own, and those of Atsiz and Qaracha, with whom he
campaigned in 1221),
“Kubak,” who may be Du’a’s generalissimo, the Suldus,
Kobek,;and the Chaghataid ruler, Tarmashirin, and even Tarmashirin seems to
have led only four tumens, apparently the largest force on record (unless the
names of other commanders have been omitted in the primary or secondary
sources). Although the regular Mongol units were doubtless accompanied by
volunteer irregulars and conscript “arrow-fodder” who enhanced the
size if not the quality of the armies, the attacks on India were never
delivered in overwhelming force.
With the invading Mongol forces
cut down to size, we are ready for the third quotation, another from Ibn
Batuta:
… [T]here remains a handsome
profit for the traders
in
these horses [from the Golden Horde], for they
sell
the cheapest of them in the land of India for a
hundred
silver dinars … and often for … twice or
three times as much. The good horses
are worth five
hundred dinars or more. The people
of India do not
buy them for running or racing,
because they them-
selves wear coats of mail in battle
and they cover their
horses with armour, and what they
prize in these horses
is strength and length of pace.
This passage points to another
reason why the Mongols could not cope with the Sultanate of Delhi: the Delhi
troops were better equipped. At the outset of their expansionist activity, the
Mongol cavalry relied on hit-and-run archery tactics, envelopment and ambush;
hand-to-hand fighting was avoided, since only the wealthy could afford armor
and sophisticated shock weaponry (all soldiers were expected to carry an axe or
club) and the Mongols’ ponies could not very effectively bear heavily-armed
riders. As long as the Mongol cavalry could achieve superior numbers and
mobility on the battlefield, as they did during their campaigns in North China
and Central Asia, Russia and Hungary, these tactics and weapons sufficed. But
in some places the Mongols could not bring their superior numbers to bear. In
Syria, for instance, summer water-shortages precluded establishment of a large
army of occupation: only one tumen seems to have been sustainable, and the
Egyptian Mamluks could field as many, and as time went on, more troops. And
these troops were better equipped (and, as we shall see, better trained). They
wore armor, carried lances and swords in addition to bows and arrows, and rode
fodder-fed horses that were bigger than the Mongols’ grazed ponies. They
won most of their battles with the Mongols, and won the war.
The conditions and outcome of the
Mongol attacks on India were similar. The inadequacy of grazing and hazard of
high temperatures in India already discussed limited the numbers and staying
power of the Mongol invaders. The Mongols do not seem to have used more than
four tumens in any incursion, and usually rather fewer, and the Delhi Sultanate
soon managed to match these numbers. Sultan Balaban (1266-86) maintained 30,000
cavalry at Delhi, in addition to other troops in other parts of the Sultanate,
forces sufficient to met the Mongols in equal if not superior numbers.
Moreover, as Ibn Batuta tells us, the Delhi cavalry was heavy cavalry, armored
(men and horses both) and armed for either missile or shock combat, riding
grain-fed horses larger than the Mongol ponies.
Finally, the Delhi cavalrymen may
have been better soldiers than the Mongols. Some of the elite troops of the
Delhi Sultanate, like the sultans themselves who emerged from this elite, were
of slave origin, and a—perhaps the—purpose of recruiting slaves as
soldiers was to create the conditions necessary for an extraordinary course in
discipline and training. Anecdotal and archaeological information from the time
of the ninth-century Abbasid dynasty, and later, training manuals of the
Egyptian Mamluks and others reveal the methods that could produce the
remarkable skills of slave-soldiers—mamluks. Let me give two useful examples of these skills. The Egyptian
mamluks were expected, in normal practice, to be able to shoot three arrows in
one and a half seconds; and to strike with the sword, while galloping, three
times a second.
The slave-soldiers of Delhi may well have attained such skills, and the other,
more numerous cavalrymen in the sultans’ service may have approximated
them—at least to the point of outshooting the galloping Mongols. As Amir
Khusrau put it, “Although each year the Mongols come from Khurasan
… [they] yield up their ghosts wherever the Turks send the showers of their
fatal arrows.”