Tachi versus katana in horseback fighting

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, Mamluks were originally brought from the Central Asia and the Caucasus... Must have kept their Chingiz Khan-ian traditions

Well you're right about that, but also, remember that the mamluks had far better mounts than the mongols did.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

Well you're right about that, but also, remember that the mamluks had far better mounts than the mongols did.

I would contest that. By memory and not pretending to know the truth: First of all cilician armenians were allies of Il-Khanids and it is a very big question how many of Il-Khanids fighting in Syria were mongols per se and how many were armenians and so on. Second the "pony" story mostly comes from Marco Polo and one does not really know whether Il-Khanids used ponies or not. There are questions about mamluk horses as well - did they used as mongols many horser per rider or just one? It seems that mamluks had supply train with "horse food", while mongols relied on local grass - the reason why first things mamluks always did was to burn the grass.

Every book I have read on mamluk-Il-Khanid was is an example of how little is known about it. If mamluks were elite fighters and mongols were average soldiers amassed without any selection, why mamluks were so respectful and to some extent scared of them. If mongols were superior fighters, why the war was quite decisevely going the way of mamluks? What was the difference and similarity in arms and tactics ? All of these is usually answered using observations on authors (Marco Polo, Bar-Hebraus etc.) that were done in a completely different place, in a different time but also on "mongols". Timur's army imho is far better researched - western diplomats accomanying the horde and even Ibn-Khaldan himself.