Warfare

Russian warriors at the beginning of the 13th century were a match for surrounding powers both in equipment and tactics. More lightly armored than Western European knights, soldiers in the East relied upon mobility for success in battle. During the 1200s the Rus' battled virtually all their neighbors. During the period of Novgorodian independence it is estimated that the people of that city fought the Lithuanians 14 times, the Teutonic Knights 11 times, the Swedes 26 times, and the Norwegians 5 times. Rus' also fought Rus' as the Princes vied for control of the cities.

The Rus' wore chainmail shirts falling to between the waist and knee, with sleeves to the elbow. Soldiers also wore shirts with wired or riveted iron plates. A conical helm with a nose guard and sometimes a mail coif was typical of the period. The conical helm is common throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. It offers high visibility and is particularly effective at deflecting sword blows. A fine example from an earlier century is the helm of Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, one the oldest objects in the Kremlin treasury.(1) Period icons also depict characteristic long shields, round on top, tapering to a point below. Illuminations in The Primary Chronicle also show round and heater-type shields.(2)

The prince's retinue, the druzhina, a highly trained and well-equipped cavalry, formed the core of his army. This force could be enlarged by citizen militia drawn from all able males in a city. Militiamen were fair horsemen, but poorly armed, and dependent on equipment from the prince. Auxiliary forces of experienced cavalry were hired from Turkish nomads, including on occasion the Kumans as well as bands of Viking and Norse warriors.(3)

Manuscripts and illuminations depict mounted troops armed with lances, swords, sabers, and an occasional flail, with banners floating above. Foot soldiers, called chernets, are mentioned in The Song of Prince Igor. The same poem depicts groups of archers shooting on the battlefield. They were evidently important, as this passage suggests:

"From early morn unto eve
And from eve unto dawn
Tempered arrows fly..."(4)

Archaeologists have excavated swords, knives, battle-axes, maces, and throwing and thrusting spears. Specialized looped-weight maces strung on leather thongs were also found. These were apparently used for street fights as ancient black jacks. A 190 centimeter composite bow, made of juniper and birch lashed with sinew, was unearthed at Novgorod. Crossbows were used as early as the 1100s. Axes were common weapons, and probably resulted in a high incidence of traumatic injury. Period illumination is littered with severed heads and limbs, blood gushing from dismembered torsos.

The 1200s saw an increase in the weight of armor and weaponry.(5) Warfare early in the century was vicious, but limited. For example, Novgorod and Suzdal battled in 1200 and again in 1216 over control of trade routes to the Moslem Middle East. Wars were fought for princely succession; to defend frontiers; and for slaves, hostages, and booty. Shifting alliances were common. In the year 1200, a Galician army routed the nomad Kumans. Three years later, another Russian prince allied with the same Kumans and looted Kiev.

The Song of Prince Igor describes success in warfare in terms of low prices on slaves in the market. In battles of this period, one year's enemies might be the next year's allies. Prisoners who were to be ransomed were often treated as guests. The Kumans, who fought bitterly against the Rus', also allied with one prince against another, and fought side by side with the Russians against the Mongols.

Russians skills at siege warfare were apparently limited. Towns were fortified, often with an outer wall and an inner citadel, or Kremlin. Novgorod had three concentric rings of fortifications with stone monasteries as strong points. Many fortifications were of wood, but stone was used where possible. Novgorodians also knew enough of local hydrology to thwart invasion by flooding the low areas surrounding the city. According to period descriptions, most towns were captured by frontal assault. When the Rus' besieged the Byzantine town of Cherson, they attempted to capture it by building an earthen ramp, only to have it thwarted by countermining. The town was taken only when its water source was cut off. The Russian assault on Byzantium failed, not only for the lack of such siege engines as rams and catapults on the Russian part, but also because of the use of Greek fire, a kind of medieval napalm, on the Byzantine part.(6)

The Mongols changed the nature of warfare. Perhaps, one-to-one, the Russian and Mongol warrior would have been an even match. However the Mongols were both tactically and strategically superior to any power on earth at the time. The Mongol army essentially consisted of cavalry accompanied by engineers. Their mounted troops were extremely mobile, hardened to privation and carnage, and highly disciplined. The mounted warriors were self-sufficient. Each carried a panoply of weapons including a composite bow with a 150 pound draw weight, saber, lance, battle axe, and lasso. They wore leather or iron helmets and leather or mail cuirasses.(7) Mongol horsemen could fire arrows rapidly while at a gallop, and they had a formidable choice of arrows at their disposal: armor piercing, incendiary, explosive, and even arrows designed to whistle in flight.(8) The level of organization of the Mongol army is not seen elsewhere in the Middle Ages and stands in marked contrast to that of the feuding Russian Princes. Mongol units in the field used drums, pennants, and lanterns to communicate, and sent message riders to coordinate armies separated by hundreds of miles.

Mongol attacks began with light cavalry firing arrows at a distance, retreating as required, until the enemy was encircled. Then, heavy cavalry attacked at close quarters. A principle of Mongol warfare was to eradicate opponents entirely, often invading new countries in the process of pursuit. The Asian horsemen were also masters of psychological warfare. They had an extensive spy and propaganda network that moved well in advance of troops. The Mongols also used mass murder and terror to their advantage. Countless people were tortured and slaughtered, cities leveled, and atrocities committed. In some cases, the Mongols used captive civilians as shock troops. The Tale of the Destruction of Riazan vividly describes the fall of one Russian city:

"...On dawn of the sixth day the pagan warriors began to storm the city, some with firebrands, some with battering rams, and others with countless scaling ladders for ascending the walls of the city. And they took the city of Riazan on the 21st day of December...And the Tartars cut down many people, including women and children...And they killed without exception all monks and priests. And churches of God were destroyed, and much blood was spilled on the holy altars. And not one man remained alive in the city. All were dead. All had drunk the same bitter cup to the dregs..."(9)

Yet Novgorod never fell. The Mongols destroyed the cities of Northeast Russia during the winter 1237-38. They approached Novgorod in the spring, but turned away, perhaps stopped by the thaw of the swampland. After that, Novgorod paid tribute and remained untaken.

Russians under the Golden Horde were quick to learn from their conquerors. Daniel of Galicia was reported to have reorganized his cavalry along Mongol lines by 1246, using traditional nomadic armor and arms.(10) Part of the Mongol tax was a draft of Russians to fight in the Horde. Russian soldiers went to fight in the Caucasus, China, and Egypt.(11) Perhaps only a few draftees ever saw their native land again, yet the lessons were learned. Within a hundred years, the Russians won victories using Mongol tactics. By then the complexion of war was changing: infantry tactics that could stand up to cavalry were devised, and the first cannon and hand guns began to arrive on the scene.

NOTES

(1)Wallace, p. 30.

(2)Ibid, p. 21-29.

(3)Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, p. 192.

(4)Nabokov trans. p. 43.

(5)Thompson, pp. 77-82.

(6)Cross, Primary Chronicle, p. 72 (941), 111-112 (988).

(7)Vernadsky, Russia and the Mongols, p. 112.

(8)Neville, p. 14.

(9)Zenkovsky, p. 179.

(10)Vernadsky, Russia and the Mongols, p. 146.

(11)Ibid, p. 87-89.