Podcasts de história

Por que os russos tinham armas no final do Mongol Yoke, mas não os mongóis?

Por que os russos tinham armas no final do Mongol Yoke, mas não os mongóis?

Os soldados russos usaram armas de fogo pela primeira vez em 1382, contra os mongóis (não é mencionado no artigo se os mongóis também tinham armas). Isso provaria ser uma vantagem insuficiente na época, mas um século depois as armas de fogo ajudaram a garantir a vitória e quebrar o poder mongol no Ocidente - de acordo com as crônicas moscovitas, os mongóis não tinham armas durante a Grande Resistência, o que contribuiu para sua retiro.

Porém, de acordo com essa resposta, a pólvora chegou à Europa pelos mongóis, ou pela Rota da Seda (da qual os mongóis controlavam grandes seções), proveniente da China (que os mongóis controlavam). Os mongóis até usaram armas de pólvora em sua invasão da Coréia e usaram foguetes contra os magiares em 1241.

Por que então, muitos anos depois, os mongóis perderam o acesso a armas de fogo e pólvora, enquanto seus súditos russos as ganharam?


Pergunta: Por que então, muitos anos depois (durante a grande resistência de 1480), os mongóis perderam o acesso às armas de fogo e pólvora, enquanto seus súditos russos as ganharam?

Não acho que perder o acesso seja a maneira certa de pensar a respeito. Os mongóis usaram pólvora de forma criativa por muito tempo antes da Grande Resistência. Eles tinham experiência em lutar com ela e contra armas de pólvora, desde a longa guerra das décadas do século 13 com a China. Mas essa experiência não foi necessariamente com armas de fogo. Eles usaram bombas de flecha, lança-chamas, foguetes, bombas de metal de raspagem dispersas de catapulta e até mesmo artilharia crua. Eles usaram mais armas de cerco que poderiam ser usadas em conjunto com seu pacote básico que era o cavalo e o arco.

Então, por que os mongóis (tártaros) não desenvolveram / experimentaram mais armas de fogo?

  1. Os mongóis foram rápidos em ver as vantagens de outras tecnologias e copiá-las; no entanto, não foram eles que inovaram em novas tecnologias. Na guerra com a China, foram os chineses que inovaram e os mongóis que copiaram. Tecnologia da Dinastia Song na China

  2. O exército mongóis / tártaros era baseado em arqueiros e cavalos. Um arco mongol teria um alcance de 500 metros (548 jardas ou 0,3 milhas). As armas de fogo do século 15 lutaram para atirar de 50 a 75 jardas. E o arco podia ser usado a cavalo com uma cadência de tiro muito maior do que armas de fogo primitivas também com muito mais precisão. Mesmo que os mongóis tivessem visto armas de fogo primitivas, seria fácil imaginar que as rejeitariam como inferiores ao Arco. O Arco estava enraizado em sua cultura, então seria fácil entender seu preconceito, dadas todas as vantagens do Arco.

  3. Não foi apenas a arma de fogo no Stand que pegou os mongóis / tártaros. Era fogo concentrado, todos disparando contra o mesmo alvo em movimento lento. Essa é a única maneira de as fechaduras de sílex iniciais não estriadas serem eficazes. Raio de fogo. Os russos usaram o rio para desacelerar os tártaros. Essa concentração de infantaria defendendo com armas de fogo teria sido uma espécie de ponto cego para os mongóis, cujo ataque a cavalo era baseado na velocidade e não organizado em torno da infantaria em massa que eles normalmente devastavam.

  4. As armas de fogo primitivas não podiam ser usadas a cavalo. Não foi possível disparar com muita precisão de um cavalo. Não foi possível recarregar do Horseback. O fogo não pôde ser concentrado por tropas a cavalo.

Talvez outra maneira de ver essa questão seria por que os russos não usaram arcos no Stand em 1480. Isso provavelmente ocorre porque os arqueiros eram muito mais difíceis de treinar. Demorou uma vida inteira para treinar um arqueiro. Isso não era um problema para os mongóis, que ensinavam habilidades com arco desde o nascimento, meninos e meninas para crianças mongóis. Para os russos, eles não teriam tempo de treinar arqueiros para um confronto iminente.

Também eu argumentaria que o Stand, com a linha defensiva russa ao longo do rio Ugra foi feita sob medida para armas de fogo. A infantaria com armas de fogo poderia se concentrar em uma margem sem medo de que o calvário mongol em movimento rápido caísse sobre eles. Os mongóis tinham que cruzar o rio, seriam agrupados e retardados. Movimento lento perto de alvos sendo alvejados por tropas defensivas que tinham a capacidade de se entrincheirar. 4 dias disso. Os russos tinham um bom plano e escolheram a arma perfeita para ele.

Quanto aos mongóis vs tártaros. Os tártaros eram essencialmente mongóis. É apenas o que os europeus chamam de mongóis. Os mesmos grupos de nômades que conhecemos como tártaros lutaram com o exército de Genghis Khan na China no século 13. Sim, os tártaros no Stand estavam a dois séculos e milhares de quilômetros de distância de Genghis Khan, mas ainda eram liderados por um Khan, ainda organizado em uma Horda, ainda usava o Cavalo e as formações de arco mongóis; e o mais importante eram descendentes diretos dos povos combinados que lutaram contra a China no século XIII.

A horda de ouro
Conforme vários grupos nômades se tornaram parte do exército de Genghis Khan no início do século 13, uma fusão de elementos mongóis e turcos ocorreu, e os invasores de Rus 'e da Bacia da Panônia tornaram-se conhecidos pelos europeus como tártaros ou tártaros (ver jugo tártaro). Após a dissolução do Império Mongol, os tártaros tornaram-se especialmente identificados com a parte ocidental do império, conhecida como Horda de Ouro.

Fontes primárias:
Tecnologia da Dinastia Song na China
O arco mongol
Wiki: Grande posição no rio Ugra
The Stand Off
Wiki: Os tártaros.
Wiki: Asas da Horda de Ouro
Early FireArms
Wiki: Tiro de Vôlei


Em primeiro lugar, concordo com o primeiro comentário de Semaphore: é improvável que em 1480 as armas de fogo pudessem fazer muita diferença. Em segundo lugar, o adversário dos russos em 1480 não era mongol. Eles eram chamados de tártaros e eram descendentes remotos do império mongol original. A tecnologia dos mongóis no século 13 foi baseada na tecnologia chinesa. No século 15, os tártaros que lutaram com os russos tinham pouca conexão com a China e, se há alguma conexão entre eles e os mongóis originais, é principalmente histórica. E quem pode dizer com certeza que os tártaros não tinham armas de fogo em 1480?

Com tudo isso, uma questão mais ampla permanece. É opinião comum dos historiadores que a pólvora, as armas de fogo e os foguetes foram inventados na China. Onde tudo isso desapareceu? Quando os europeus entraram em contato direto com a China e outros países do Extremo Oriente, quase não mencionaram a artilharia e os foguetes chineses. Provavelmente eles não eram muito impressionantes, mesmo que existissem.

O que existia desde os tempos antigos provavelmente não era muito eficaz e não se desenvolveu. Pode-se perguntar por que não se desenvolveu, mas talvez uma questão mais razoável seria por que tudo se desenvolveu tão rápido na Europa.

EDITAR. A regressão na tecnologia realmente acontece e há muitos exemplos. O "fogo grego" era uma arma terrível, se acreditarmos nas descrições contemporâneas, mas não ouvimos nada sobre isso quando os turcos sitiaram Constantinopla. Está perdido e nem sabemos o que foi. Deixe-me mencionar também a enorme regressão em tecnologia que aconteceu na Europa no final da Antiguidade. A artilharia medieval (primavera) era inferior à artilharia helenística. Os navios de guerra romanos eram (provavelmente) inferiores aos navios de guerra helenísticos (se acreditarmos em suas descrições contemporâneas). Mas também aconteceu em outras épocas e lugares.


A questão não é que as "armas" russas deram a eles vantagem sobre os mongóis (ou tártaros). O problema é que as armas russas igualado eles com arqueiros mongóis.

Os mongóis (e ingleses) conseguiram colocar exércitos com 60% de arqueiros porque esses arqueiros foram submetidos à prática "contínua" durante um período de anos. Nenhum outro exército medieval treinou uma porcentagem tão grande, ou mesmo um grande número absoluto de homens que podiam usar armas de mísseis.

As armas, ao contrário dos arcos, eram algo que os soldados "normais" podiam aprender a disparar em questão de dias ou semanas. Agora os russos também podiam armar suas tropas com armas de "alcance". Isso, por sua vez, neutralizou a velocidade dos cavalos mongóis.

Como lutavam em casa e tinham números maiores, os russos tinham "chances de empate" (empate conta como vitória).

Colocando de outra forma, "armas" representavam no máximo uma pequena atualização em relação ao armamento mongol existente, mas representava uma vasta atualização em relação às espadas e lanças russas, dando-lhes a "igualdade" de que precisavam para derrotar os mongóis, devido ao número superior.


A resposta a esta pergunta reside em uma combinação de duas coisas: um certo nível de especificidade (ou seja, detalhes) e, por simples casualidade, por que o Rus 'tinha armas enquanto o (tártaro) -Mongóis, não.

Sobre detalhes: Especificamente, a questão é sobre armas (não bombas de fogo, lança de fogo, etc.) e Grande Horda (não a Horda de Ouro).

Sobre o tempo: o impasse no rio Ugra em 1480.

Vou tentar responder a isto: "Por que então, muitos anos depois, os mongóis perderam o acesso a armas de fogo e pólvora, enquanto seus súditos russos as ganharam?"(última frase de OP).


Desenvolvimento da arma moderna

Primeiro, o arma moderna foi desenvolvido especificamente em torno deste período, final do século 15:

A clássica arma de fogo portátil surgiu na Europa ao mesmo tempo que a artilharia clássica - nas últimas décadas do século XV. Em crônicas ilustradas da década de 1480, os soldados disparam armas que parecem reconhecidamente modernas (Figura 12.1). Eles têm canos longos e finos e são mantidos perto da bochecha, um olho olhando para baixo do cano para mirar. Embora não esteja claro na Figura 12.1, essas armas de fogo tinham um mecanismo de alavanca que permitia que um fusível aceso fosse abaixado na panela de fogo por meio de um simples movimento do dedo. Esse mecanismo, conhecido como matchlock, foi um avanço significativo porque permitia que um soldado segurasse a arma na altura dos olhos. Com a coronha apoiada em seu ombro, ele poderia firmar a arma com uma mão e atirar com a outra. Nas décadas seguintes, os mecanismos de gatilho ganharam molas e outros refinamentos, e as armas tornaram-se ainda mais convenientes.

Tendo alcançado esta forma clássica, as armas de fogo começaram a aparecer com mais regularidade nos campos de batalha europeus. Na década de 1480, os artilheiros ainda eram muito superados em número por arqueiros, espadachins e piqueiros, mas seu número crescia constantemente. Registros espanhóis mostram que a proporção de unidades de matchlock para unidades de besta e arco e flecha aumentou significativamente no final da década de 1480 e início da década de 1490, um processo impulsionado pela experimentação constante das Guerras de Granada (1481-1492). Os artilheiros espanhóis trouxeram suas novas técnicas para a Itália durante as guerras devastadoras iniciadas em 1494, com efeitos decisivos, como na famosa Batalha de Cerignola de 1503. Daí em diante, os arcabuzeiros tornaram-se cada vez mais proeminentes na Europa, de modo que no final dos anos 1500 eles se tornaram um componente central dos exércitos europeus, atingindo proporções de 40 por cento das forças de infantaria.

Fonte: Andrade, Tonio (2016), A Era da Pólvora: China, Inovação Militar e a Ascensão do Ocidente na História Mundial, Princeton University Press, p.167.

Uma maneira mais simples de colocar isso, Linha do tempo da Wikipedia sobre a idade da pólvora afirma claramente, "(em) 1480… As armas alcançam sua forma clássica na Europa". A partir daqui, podemos presumir Ivan o grande importou-os para seu exército.


Permita-me fazer uma digressão e apontar, com particular destaque para os inimigos de Ivan no rio Ugra em 1480, os chamados Mongóis… Mais uma vez, os detalhes são importantes. O termo correto deve ser Tártaro-mongóis (também conhecido como o Grande Horda, e não deve ser confundido com Horda de Ouro dos Jochids) A importância desta distinção será explicada em um momento.


Meados do século 15: armas da Europa, não da China

Em segundo lugar, um elemento-chave da questão "… (Por que) os tártaros mongóis perderam o acesso às armas de fogo…?" A resposta curta é, eles nunca tiveram isso em primeiro lugar, porque as armas (o instrumento em si, não a pólvora) foram desenvolvidas na China e na Europa, e foram melhoradas dramaticamente nesta última (Europa) durante meados do século 15 (algumas décadas antes do impasse no rio Ugra):

Na verdade, as armas na China estavam se desenvolvendo de acordo com uma tendência semelhante às da Europa, crescendo mais em relação ao cano da boca. Mas o desenvolvimento desacelerou na China cerca de uma geração antes do desenvolvimento do canhão clássico na Europa. Porque? A razão provavelmente tem menos a ver com qualquer suposta engenhosidade cultural por parte dos europeus do que com a frequência da guerra. Depois de 1449, a China entrou em um período de relativa paz, enquanto a Europa entrou em um período de guerra existencial intensa e contínua. Por guerra existencial, entendo o conflito que ameaçava a própria existência dos estados envolvidos. As armas chinesas evoluíram rapidamente entre o final dos anos 1200, quando as primeiras armas verdadeiras parecem ter surgido, e o início dos anos 1400, um período durante o qual a China foi devastada pela guerra existencial. O século de 1350 a 1449 foi especialmente turbulento, à medida que os Ming se esforçavam para estabelecer e consolidar seu império e, durante esse tempo, a evolução das armas, em direção a canos mais longos, parece ter ocorrido em linhas bastante semelhantes na China e no Ocidente . Em meados da década de 1400, essa evolução parou na China e se acelerou na Europa, justamente quando a guerra diminuiu na China e aumentou na Europa.

Fonte: ibid., p.105.


Grande Horda (não-Chinggisid, portanto, sem suporte de outros mongóis)

Finalmente, a importante distinção da Grande Horda, em oposição à Horda de Ouro, se resume a isso, a Grande Horda foi apenas uma das muitas diferentes 'hordas'após a desintegração da Horda de Ouro no final do século 14. Mais importante, eles eram não relacionado para Genghis Khan (ou seja, não-Chinggisid).

Um curto parágrafo sobre as muitas hordas subsequentes (ou canatos), pós-Horda de Ouro:

Com Toqtamishderrubada em 1395, um novo clã, o Manghit (veja a citação abaixo), debaixo de comandante não Chinggisid em chefe Edigü (falecido em 1420), surgiu entre o Volga e o Emba. Edigü manteve algo da unidade da Horda até 1411, mas por volta de 1425 regimes independentes foram instalados em todo o território da Horda Dourada. Os canatos originários da Horda Azul se proclamaram formalmente na Crimeia (1449), Kazan '(ou Bulghar al-Jedid “Novo Bulghar,” 1445) e Kasimov (1453). O canato da Crimeia finalmente dispersou a “Grande Horda” (Ulugh Orda), composta pelo clã Sanchi'ud (Sijuvut turco) do braço direito, em 1503.

Fonte: Christopher P. Atwood, "Enciclopédia da Mongólia e do Império Mongol"NY: Facts On File, Inc, 2004, p.208.

o Mangghud, Manghud (Mongol: Мангуд, Mangud) eram uma tribo mongol da federação Urud-Manghud. Eles estabeleceram a Horda Nogai no século 14 e a Dinastia Manghit para governar o Emirado de Bukhara em 1785. Eles tomaram o título islâmico de Emir em vez do título de Khan, uma vez que não eram descendentes de Genghis Khan e basearam sua legitimidade para governar no Islã.

Fonte: Wikipedia

Para terminar, mesmo que os mongóis do Leste Asiático quisessem ajudar a fornecer armas para a Grande Horda, seria um exagero simplesmente porque, neste estágio, a China não estava mais sob a dinastia Yuan, ela havia mudado para o Ming (1368-1644).


Aqui está uma resposta baseada em tecnologia. Admito que não sei a razão histórica pela qual os russos usaram armas e os tártaros não, no entanto, posso fornecer razões pelas quais faria muito mais sentido para os russos usá-las do que os tártaros.

As armas, antes da adoção generalizada do pederneira no final do século 17, eram quase inúteis nas mãos da cavalaria.

As armas anteriores aos séculos 16 e 17 não podiam ser simplesmente tiradas de um coldre ou bolsa de sela e disparadas contra o inimigo. Eles não tinham mecanismo de escorvamento. Você tinha que acendê-los com um pedaço de corda em chamas chamado cordão de fósforo. Dê uma olhada nos mosquetes de fósforo: Mesmo que a arma já estivesse carregada, você tinha que inserir o cordão do fósforo na serpentina, ajustar a posição do fósforo aceso para que atingisse a frigideira (pois queimou ficou mais curto, então você teve para continuar reajustando-o), abra a frigideira, sopre o fósforo fumegante para acendê-lo e só então você poderá puxar o gatilho.

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

E se estamos falando de tempos ainda mais antigos, como os séculos 14 e 15, era ainda pior, porque você nem tinha um gatilho: você tinha a arma em uma das mãos, queimando um fósforo na outra, e tocava no coincidir com o orifício de ignição manualmente. Boa sorte fazendo isso enquanto anda a cavalo! (Mesmo a pé, era quase impossível mirar enquanto segurava a arma em uma mão e o cordão de fósforo na outra, tão freqüentemente dois homens eram usados, um para mirar e o outro para acender a arma). Mesmo recarregar seria problemático, em a cavalo, onde você colocaria aquele pedaço de corda em chamas enquanto recarregava? Também acender uma fogueira não era fácil naquela época, especialmente enquanto galopava. Freqüentemente, as duas pontas do cabo do fósforo estavam pegando fogo, porque o disparo da arma poderia extinguir a ponta usada.

A infantaria não tinha esses problemas, eles podiam até apoiar o mosquete em suportes.

Nota: havia canhões otimizados para cavalaria, o wheellock. No entanto, era um equipamento muito complicado, caro e de manutenção intensiva, adequado para cavaleiros, mas não para nômades das estepes. E ainda não foi inventado em nosso período de tempo.

Então, para resumir: as armas naquele período eram adequadas apenas para infantaria, não para cavalaria. Os tártaros usavam quase exclusivamente cavalaria. É muito mais fácil para um exército já composto principalmente de infantaria adotar uma arma adequada para a infantaria, do que para um exército e uma cultura composta principalmente de cavaleiros abandonar os cavalos e se tornar infantaria.


O saque de Bagdá por Hulagu Khan (e aliados) levou os mongóis em 1258, levando ao fim virtual do califado abássida

Esta postagem é sobre um evento extremamente trágico no califado abássida que levou ao seu fim virtual. Eu sinto que é importante compartilhar informações. sobre isso, para melhorar a compreensão da história da Ásia.

Mas esta postagem não deve ser vista como anti-islã. Eu gostaria de afirmar que acredito no ensinamento de Shirdi Sai Baba de "Sabka Maalik Ek" (O mestre de tudo é UM). Em outras palavras, eu acredito em UM DEUS com várias religiões, incluindo o Islã, sendo vários caminhos / formas de adorar e se fundir naquele DEUS ÚNICO. Especificamente, não sou contra o Islã, e na verdade o apóio, contanto que não interfira no direito de outras pessoas (como eu, um hindu) de praticar suas religiões que são diferentes do Islã (por exemplo, hinduísmo, cristianismo, siquismo , Jainismo, Budismo, Judaísmo),
e também não interfere no direito de alguns de não terem fé (ateus / agnósticos). Shirdi Sai Baba costumava dizer "Allah Maalik" (Allah / Deus é o mestre) muitas vezes eu reverencio o mesmo Shirdi Sai Baba, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi, e tento seguir Seus ensinamentos.

Os famosos e principais califados islâmicos, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate, são
1. Rashidun Califado, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate, de 632 a 661 dC: Observe que o profeta Muhammad morreu em 632 dC e o califado Rashidun surgiu naquela época. Um companheiro próximo do profeta Muhammad, Abu Bakr, tornou-se o primeiro califa do califado Rashidun. Ele foi seguido por Umar, Uthman e então Ali. Foi durante o reinado de Ali que houve uma guerra de sucessão que terminou com o estabelecimento do Califado Ummayad. Observe que Ali, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali, era primo e genro do Profeta Muhammad. Ali foi assassinado em 661, após o qual Ummayad Califado emergiu como o novo califado.

3. Abbasid Califado, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate, de 750 a 1258 EC, embora continuasse a reivindicar autoridade religiosa com base no Egito de 1258 a 1517.

Agora, para algumas informações. sobre o califado abássida, conforme extratos de sua página wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate

O califado abássida (/ əˈbæsɪd / ou / ˈæbəsɪd / árabe: ٱل & # 1618 خ & # 1616 لاف & # 1614 ة & # 1615 ٱل & # 1618 ع & # 1614 ب & # 1614 & # 1617 Khسāfة & # 1616 لاف & # 1614 ة & # 1615 ٱل & # 1618 ع & # 1614 ب & # 1614 & # 1617 Khسāfة & # 1616 ي & # 1614-albiya albatu & # 1614-albiya 617 e # 1614). dos califados islâmicos para suceder ao profeta islâmico Maomé. Foi fundada por uma dinastia descendente do tio de Muhammad, Abbas ibn Abdul-Muttalib (566 & # 8211653 DC), de quem a dinastia leva o seu nome. [2] Eles governaram como califas para a maior parte do califado de sua capital em Bagdá, no atual Iraque, após terem derrubado o califado omíada na Revolução Abássida de 750 EC (132 AH).

O califado abássida primeiro centrou seu governo em Kufa, o atual Iraque, mas em 762 o califa Al-Mansur fundou a cidade de Bagdá, perto da antiga capital sassânida de Ctesifonte. O período abássida foi marcado pela dependência de burocratas persas (notadamente a família Barmakid) para governar os territórios, bem como uma crescente inclusão de muçulmanos não árabes na ummah (comunidade nacional). Os costumes persas foram amplamente adotados pela elite governante, e eles começaram a patrocinar artistas e estudiosos. [3] Bagdá se tornou um centro de ciência, cultura, filosofia e invenção no que ficou conhecido como a Idade de Ouro do Islã.
.
O poder político dos califas acabou em grande parte com a ascensão dos Buyids iranianos e dos turcos seljúcidas, que capturaram Bagdá em 945 e 1055, respectivamente. Embora a liderança abássida sobre o vasto império islâmico tenha sido gradualmente reduzida a uma função religiosa cerimonial, a dinastia manteve o controle sobre seu domínio mesopotâmico. O período de fruição cultural dos abássidas terminou em 1258 com o saque de Bagdá pelos mongóis sob o comando de Hulagu Khan. A linha de governantes abássidas e a cultura muçulmana em geral se centraram novamente na capital mameluca do Cairo em 1261. Embora sem poder político (com a breve exceção do califa Al-Musta'in do Cairo), a dinastia continuou a reivindicar autoridade religiosa até depois da conquista otomana do Egito em 1517. [6]

[Referências Wiki:]
2. Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Dinastia Abássida". Encyclopedia Britannica. I: A-Ak & # 8211 Bayes (15ª ed.). Chicago, IL. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8., P. 10
3. Canfield, Robert L. (2002). Turko-Pérsia em perspectiva histórica. Cambridge University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780521522915.

6. Holt, Peter M. (1984). "Algumas observações sobre o 'Abbāsid Califado do Cairo". Boletim da Escola de Estudos Orientais e Africanos. Universidade de Londres. 47 (3): 501 e # 8211507. doi: 10.1017 / s0041977x00113710.
--- extratos finais da página wiki do califado Abbasid ---

Agora podemos chegar à invasão de Bagdá por Hulagu Khan liderada por mongóis e aliados amp.

Hulagu Khan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan, era neto de Genghiz Khan. Hulagu Khan era subordinado a seu irmão Mongke Khan, que era o Grande Khan (Khagan). Observe que Hulagu Khan não era muçulmano e pode ter seguido a religião xamã mongol, e sua esposa e mãe eram cristãs nestorianas.

Incluí abaixo informações sobre a terrível destruição de Bagdá pelos mongóis (e seus aliados). Acho importante conhecer esse horror que aconteceu no passado como forma de evitar tais ocorrências no futuro, seja qual for o país / reino / cidade / religião que esteja envolvido.

As pessoas que preferem não ler sobre essa violência horrível podem pular a leitura do restante deste post.

O Cerco de Bagdá, que durou de 29 de janeiro até 10 de fevereiro de 1258, envolveu o investimento, captura e saque de Bagdá, capital do Califado Abássida, pelas forças mongóis Ilkhanate e tropas aliadas. Os mongóis estavam sob o comando de Hulagu Khan (ou Hulegu Khan), irmão do khagan Möngke Khan, que pretendia estender ainda mais seu governo à Mesopotâmia, mas não derrubar diretamente o califado. Möngke, no entanto, instruiu Hulagu a atacar Bagdá se o califa Al-Musta'sim recusasse as exigências mongóis de sua submissão contínua ao khagan e do pagamento de tributo na forma de apoio militar às forças mongóis na Pérsia.

Hulagu começou sua campanha na Pérsia com várias ofensivas contra grupos nizaris, incluindo os assassinos, que perderam seu reduto de Alamut. Ele então marchou sobre Bagdá, exigindo que Al-Musta'sim acesse os termos impostos por Möngke aos Abássidas. Embora os abássidas não tivessem se preparado para a invasão, o califa acreditava que Bagdá não poderia cair nas forças invasoras e se recusou a se render. Hulagu posteriormente sitiou a cidade, que se rendeu após 12 dias. Durante a semana seguinte, os mongóis saquearam Bagdá, cometendo inúmeras atrocidades e destruindo as vastas bibliotecas dos abássidas, incluindo a Casa da Sabedoria. Os mongóis executaram Al-Musta'sim e massacraram muitos residentes da cidade, que ficou bastante despovoada. O cerco é considerado um marco do fim da Idade de Ouro islâmica, durante a qual os califas estenderam seu domínio da Península Ibérica a Sindh, e que também foi marcada por muitas conquistas culturais. [7]

Muitos relatos históricos detalhavam as crueldades dos conquistadores mongóis. Bagdá foi uma cidade despovoada e em ruínas por vários séculos e só gradualmente recuperou parte de sua antiga glória.

Os mongóis saquearam e destruíram mesquitas, palácios, bibliotecas e hospitais. Livros inestimáveis ​​das 36 bibliotecas públicas de Bagdá foram despedaçados, os saqueadores usando suas capas de couro como sandálias. [28] Grandes edifícios que haviam sido obra de gerações foram totalmente queimados. A Casa da Sabedoria (a Grande Biblioteca de Bagdá), contendo incontáveis ​​documentos históricos preciosos e livros sobre assuntos que vão da medicina à astronomia, foi destruída. Sobreviventes disseram que as águas do Tigre ficaram pretas com a tinta das enormes quantidades de livros jogados no rio e vermelhas com o sangue dos cientistas e filósofos mortos. [29]

Os cidadãos tentaram fugir, mas foram interceptados por soldados mongóis que mataram em abundância, sem poupar mulheres nem crianças. Martin Sicker escreve que cerca de 90.000 pessoas podem ter morrido. [30] Outras estimativas vão muito mais altas. Wassaf afirma que a perda de vidas foi de várias centenas de milhares. Ian Frazier, do The New Yorker, diz que as estimativas do número de mortos variam de 200.000 a um milhão. [31]

O califa Al-Musta'sim foi capturado e forçado a assistir enquanto seus cidadãos eram assassinados e seu tesouro saqueado. De acordo com a maioria dos relatos, o califa foi morto por atropelamento. Os mongóis enrolaram o califa em um tapete e montaram seus cavalos sobre ele, pois acreditavam que a terra ficaria ofendida se fosse tocada por sangue real. Todos os filhos de Al-Musta'sim, exceto um, foram mortos, e o único filho sobrevivente foi enviado para a Mongólia, onde historiadores mongóis relatam que ele se casou e teve filhos, mas não desempenhou nenhum papel no Islã depois disso (ver O fim da dinastia abássida).

Hulagu teve que mover seu acampamento contra o vento da cidade, devido ao fedor da decadência da cidade em ruínas.

O historiador David Morgan citou Wassaf descrevendo a destruição: "Eles varreram a cidade como falcões famintos atacando uma revoada de pombas, ou como lobos furiosos atacando ovelhas, com rédeas soltas e rostos sem vergonha, assassinando e espalhando terror. Camas e almofadas feitas de ouro e incrustados de joias foram cortados em pedaços com facas e feitos em pedaços. Aqueles que se escondiam atrás dos véus do grande Harém foram arrastados. pelas ruas e becos, cada um deles se tornando um brinquedo. conforme a população morria nas mãos dos invasores. "[32]

[Referências Wiki]
7. Matthew E. Falagas, Effie A. Zarkadoulia, George Samonis (2006). "A ciência árabe na era de ouro (750 & # 82111258 C.E.) e hoje", The FASEB Journal 20, pp. 1581 & # 82111586.
.
28. Murray, S.A.P. (2012). A biblioteca: uma história ilustrada. Nova York: Skyhorse Publishing, pp. 54.
29. Frazier, I., "Invaders: Destroying Baghdad", New Yorker Magazine, [Edição especial: Annals of History], 25 de abril de 2005, Online Issue Archived 2018-06-12 at the Wayback Machine
30. (Sicker 2000, p. 111)
31. Frazier, Ian (25 de abril de 2005). "Anais da história: Invasores: Destruindo Bagdá". O Nova-iorquino. p. 4. Arquivado do original em 10/10/2017. Recuperado em 01/01/2012.
32. Marozzi, Justin (29 de maio de 2014). Bagdá: Cidade da Paz, Cidade do Sangue. Penguin Books. pp. 176 e # 8211177. ISBN 978-0-14-194804-1.

--- finalizar trechos da página wiki de Siege of Baghdad:

Uma tradução em inglês do que deveria ser a carta de Hulagu Khan ao califa de Bagdá (versão em texto): https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-find-the-translated-letter-that- Hulagu-Khan-escreveu-ao-califa-de-Bagdá.

Uma versão em áudio do mesmo: Uma carta de Hulagu Khan ao califa de Bagdá, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC2q6O4ZVgA, 2 min. 54 s.

Minhas orações a Deus para que nunca mais tal destruição horrível aconteça, independentemente do país / reino / cidade / religião envolvida.

[Agradeço a Wikipedia e presumi que eles não terão qualquer objeção a que eu compartilhe o (s) extrato (s) acima de seu site neste post, que pode ser visualizado gratuitamente por todos e não tem qualquer objetivo de lucro financeiro.]


Por que os russos tinham armas no final do jugo mongol, mas não os mongóis? - História

William Weir era um MP dell'esercito e successivamente ha prestato servizio
venha corrispondente di combattimento dell'esercito nella 25th Infantaria
Divisão durante a guerra coreana. Era um repórter di vari giornali nel
Missouri e Kansas, e redator militar do Topeka State Journal. Ha scritto
cerca de 50 articoli, molti di loro su storia militare e sugli armamenti.
Ha scritto altri quattro libri:
Lendários tiroteios e pistoleiros americanos,
Vitórias fatais,
Na Sombra do Demônio da Droga e de uma Milícia Bem Regulada:
A batalha pelo controle de armas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Visão geral

War and History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WAR AND WEAPONRY IN HISTORY

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

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

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


Assista o vídeo: Os Mongois: A Expansão do Império - Parte 2 - Grandes Civilizações da História - Foca na História (Outubro 2021).