For a long time,

has been circulating in the English and Chinese world about the so-called 120000 Egyptian troops defeating the Mongolian army in ain Jaru, which has produced a strange impression on the combat effectiveness of Mamluk and the Mongols. Let’s analyze the production and spread of this statement. (this statement is far from exclusive to the Chinese world. A few days ago, after reading the book war in the Medievalworld by pen & sword publishing house in the UK, I found that even European and American experts have committed the same problem because they rely too much on English materials.) in fact, in Arab and Persian historical books, the record of timid troops is less controversial, which is believed to be between 10000 and 20000, At present, the only record about the number of Egyptians in this war comes from the historical book wassaf of the Ilkhanate (there is no such record in the historical materials of Mamluk seen by Reuven Amitai Preiss), but what is the number? It’s only 12000. Of course, based on the principle of independent evidence, this figure naturally needs to be used carefully, but considering the situation in the last years of the Ayyubid Dynasty and the early years of the Mamluk Dynasty, this figure still has a certain basis. Then, where does this astronomical figure of 120000 come from? The modern western scholar who first quoted this figure from the Persian historical book vashav history is d’ohsson from Sweden, His book, histoires Mongols, states that “after the generals swear their allegiance, Hu Tusi will set out from the mountain castle. His army is about 12000 people. In addition to the Egyptian army, there are Arabi and Turkic barbarians who came from silia.” (page 118 of the second volume of the 36 year business edition of dosan Mongol History), so far there is no problem. However, in the book history of the Mongols written by Sir Henry Hoyle Howorth, an Englishman from 1876 to 1888, he copied one more zero and mistook it for 120000 (Volume III, page 167). Howorth’s book has a wide influence, and the fallacy has spread so far, Uncontrollable note: most of the Middle East historical records recorded in Chinese books are translated from Europe and the United States. During this period, there are many mistakes made by European and American people and Chinese translators, so we need to be careful with the description. Taking figures as an example, the ten fold expansion of mistranslation is not such an example. The main source: the book Mongols and Mamluks of Reuven Amitai Preiss of Jerusalem University, the source of which is unknown, I read this just to ask. See if anyone knows this better. Thank you.

was invited. Thank you for your invitation first – although it was a layman XD with a little knowledge.

studying ancient data is a very interesting and painful thing, which needs a lot of research by professionals. Generally speaking, the most likely deviation in the statistics of the number of people is that one party counts the “war soldiers” (professional soldiers), while the other party counts the total number of participants (including the strong men with low logistics, civilian men, armed forces and training. Before the birth of the modern army, these people basically could not form combat effectiveness). The best example is probably Chen Qingzhi’s 7000 elite’s 1.1 million war cases in the North (of course, this part of the history books may be a little too much).

goes back to the battle of AIN Jaru. This battle was called the decisive battle to save Islamic culture, but from the analysis of the historical background at that time, the focus of Mongolia was still internal struggle (competing for the position of Khan with a sex, and the commander in chief in charge of this aspect took people back to help Kublai Khan at that time). The invasion against Mamluk was more an inertia of a proud and powerful general. The Islamic world cannot regard it as a children’s play – Mamluk is the last armed group of Islam. If they are also annihilated by Mongolia, Islam will be completely swept out of the Middle East.

the above briefly introduces my understanding of the battle, and the rest is to explain my views on historical materials.

,

,

and

are still discussed on the Internet, but I’m not a history major. I’m not sure whether the industry has confirmed that it was a transcription error. From the development of Mamluk and the records of wars in the Middle East before that time, I tend to write an extra 0 when 12W is shaking. Although the Muslim world was afraid of the invasion of Mongolia at that time, it was quite difficult for Mamluk to assemble more than 10W troops (the number of Mamluk core troops did not seem to exceed 5W at its peak, and the number was less at that time). In fact, there should not be all Mamluk cavalry in 1W and 2. Many data believe that the number of Mamluk troops was about 5000 at that time, The rest are Rangers and soldiers recruited from all over North Africa. Of course, many Syrian soldiers should also be accommodated along the way, and the actual number of soldiers on the battlefield should not be less than 20000.

on the other hand, we should also discuss the number of Mongols participating in the war. When discussing this battle, many people refuted the version of “12W Mamluk” on the one hand, and continued to follow the record of “two 10000 troops” about the Mongolian army in this version, recording the number of Mongolian troops as 2w5 (including the troops of Armenia and other nationalities). However, according to the “1w2 Mamluk” version, the number of Mongolian troops is basically the same as that of Mamluk, that is, 5000 Mongolian cavalry + a large number of affiliated armies of other nationalities. In terms of the number of people participating in the war, the Mongolian army will not have a quantitative advantage, and the number of core troops on both sides should be the same.

The reason for analyzing the number of Mongolian troops is to discuss the real question, that is, the combat effectiveness of Mamluk and Mongols.

,

,

and

have always held two extremes about the combat effectiveness of Mongols. Fans believe that the Mongolian army is invincible in the world, while Mongolian black believes that the so-called Mongolian army can only bully some military underdeveloped areas and is vulnerable to real military groups (such as Mamluk and Bohemia). On the one hand, the reason for this phenomenon is that there are too many subjective “historians” like me. They like to look for materials blindly from the Internet and lack a systematic view. They only look for the history in line with their “Hope” (for example, they believe it when they see someone say that the Teutonic Knights were completely destroyed, or look at it