Home A Comparative Study of the Military Tactics of the Mongol Empire and Goguryeo Kingdom (Goryeo)
Article Open Access

A Comparative Study of the Military Tactics of the Mongol Empire and Goguryeo Kingdom (Goryeo)

  • Jaehyuk Jang and Kisun Kim EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: August 23, 2023

Abstract

The study is conducted as a comparative study of military tactics of the powers representing different regions and time periods throughout human history. Despite the differences in circumstance and time, common success factors are identified in the military tactics of the two great powers. Based on these success factors, it is possible to compare the military tactics of these armies using the following common criteria: basic tactical unit system, strategic flexibility, tactical mobility, and strategic planning. The Mongol Empire and Goguryeo Kingdom had long been the dominant military powers in their regions. Also, during the Goryeo Dynasty, which succeeded Goguryeo, the Mongolian army invaded Goryeo and used there creative military tactics. Especially, the Mongol army was one of the greatest in human history, and through its power and military skill, led to the magnificent growth of the Mongol Empire. Thus, this study identifies the success factors of the Mongol military tactics through comparison with Goguryeo military tactics.

1 Introduction

It is no exaggeration to say that the history of mankind is the history of warfare. Military tactics are the science and art of organizing a military force and the techniques for combining and using weapons and military units to engage and defeat an enemy in battle. Military tactics have played a very important role in the history of military power. For the comparative study of military tactics of the two armies located in different regions and existing during different time period, two issues could be raised. First, as the two armies existed at different time periods in human history, there is the gap in comparing the military tactics of each. However, the two armies largely followed a similar pattern of warfare, which was conducted by hand infantry, archaic archery techniques, and cavalry, using conventional weapons and equipment. Thus, this study provides some insight into various ideas and resourcefulness regarding conventional military tactics used in warfare throughout human history.

Second, an issue about different geographical features might be raised. However, this difference can be considered simply as environmental characteristics of each region, because in warfare, the two armies used the local terrain to their advantage, regardless of distinct characteristics of their local area.

2 An Analysis on Military Tactics of the Mongol Empire and Goguryeo Kingdom

2.1 Mongol Military Tactics

Of paramount interest in a study of the Mongol army are the strategy and tactics which played so large a part in its success.[1] The Mongol military’s role in their success is undeniable, both in terms of conquest and then retaining control.[2] The Mongol army was divided into clan-based fighting units using a decimal system (10, 100, 1000). A man who left his group risked his life. After he was selected as supreme chief by the Kurultai, or great assembly of the Mongols, Genghis Khan was concerned with eliminating the tribal divisions that had traditionally weakened the Mongols. He therefore created intertribal fighting units meant to loosen tribal allegiance.[3] He also used the decimal system, which he had developed earlier, for organizing his army. A tümen represented 10,000 soldiers, a minghan was 1000, a jaghun was 100, and an arban was 10 soldiers.[4] The ‘Secret History of the Mongols’ recorded the following about Genghis Khan’s army:

Chinggis Qahan approved Belgütei-noyan’s words. After returning from the hunt, he moved from Abjiqa-köteger and set up camp at Keltegei Cliffs at ör-nu’u on the Qalqa [River]. There, he counted [his soldiers] and formed them into thousands. He appointed the leaders of thousands, the leaders of hundreds, the leaders of tens, and the six cherbis.[5]

Also, the composition of the Mongol army was entirely cavalry based.[6] They could take advantage of various tactics by adapting to the circumstances, which is reflected in most of their textbook tactics.[7]

2.1.1 Arrow Storm Tactics

The arrow storm was the most common tactic practiced by the Mongols. During the course of an arrow storm, the Mongol forces simply kept their distance from the enemy and showered them with arrows; archers did not aim at specific targets, but released their arrows at a high trajectory into a predetermined killing zone or target area. The aim of this tactic was to break up the enemy formation enough to allow the Mongolian lancers to finish the job. The range of attack varied; at 200 or 300 yards, their shooting was still accurate enough to disrupt an enemy formation, and once it broke, the Mongol army charged.[8]

Our chief source of information is the Chinese general Mêng Hung. According to him as soon as the scouting screen of an advancing Mongol army made contact with the enemy, the main body extended its front over as great a distance as possible. This was done to outflank the hostile force. Accounts of the battle formation of the Mongol army are very imperfect, but probably it resembled that of the Jürchät (Chin) in their early days, and consisted of five ranks, two clad in iron scale armor and three in lacquered hide armor. A jaghun (100 men) of these, with the heavy armored ranks in front and the light armored behind, were arranged so as to allow intervals between them. Throughout the action all maneuvers were directed from the station taken up by the senior commander, who rarely if ever participated in the mêlíe. His orders were transmitted by flag signals and bugle calls or at night by lamp and fire signals.

Battle begun, bodies of the light troops, one in support of another, advanced through the jaghun intervals and poured volleys of arrows into the opposing ranks. Simultaneously one or both the wings began an enveloping movement to take the enemy on the flanks and rear. If the first storm of arrows succeeded in disordering his array the shock troops received the command to charge. At times the whole army supported the assault when, says Mêng Hung, even if the enemy numbered 100,000 it was almost impossible to escape defeat. Should the light troops be repulsed by a charge they retired shooting backwards from the saddle, which they could do with deadly effect, and other detachments took their place and repeated the arrow storm.

At Huan-êrh-Tsui (late September or early October, 1211) Genghis Khan, employing this combination of fire and shock action, defeated the most powerful army in the Chin empire. Apparently, the Mongol arrow storm completely disordered the Chin cavalry early in the day, for it was hurled pell-mell back on to its own infantry and involved these in such rout that by noon the Mongols were driving before them a broken and flying enemy.[9]

Also, this tactic was used by the Mongols in the Goryeo Dynasty, which succeeded Goguryeo. In 1231, the Mongols attacked Goryeo, and at this time, the three armies of Goryeo started fighting the Mongols. At that time, the Mongol army all dismounted and built a large formation, and out of nowhere cavalry rushed and charged the right army of Goryeo. The arrows of the Mongols rained down like rain.[10] The record in The History of Goryeo (高麗史) can be said to be a case in which the Mongol army invaded Goryeo during the Goryeo Dynasty, which succeeded Goguryeo, and used the arrow storm tactics.

2.1.2 Caracole Tactics

Another tactic employed by the Mongols on the battlefield was the caracole tactic, also called the charge and shoot tactic. Approximately 80 men in each jaghun, or company, participated; the remaining 20 acted as heavy cavalry. Each jaghun sent 20 men per wave of attackers, and each wave fired several arrows as they charged. They released their final shots roughly 40–50 m from the enemy lines before circling back to their own lines. This distance was close enough to pierce armor, yet distant enough to evade a counter charge. Furthermore, on the way back to their line, the Mongols used the Parthian shot, a light horse military tactic, to keep up the barrage. When they reached their own lines, the next wave would move forward and continue the process. Also, they changed horses frequently to keep their mounts fresh. Since each man was equipped with 60 arrows, the Mongols could maintain this barrage for almost an hour, perhaps longer. Marco Polo reported the following concerning the Mongol army’s advance:

When they come to an engagement with the enemy, they will gain the victory in this fashion. [They never let themselves get into a regular medley, but keep perpetually riding round and shooting into the enemy. And] as they do not count it any shame to run away in battle, they will [sometimes pretend to] do so, and in running away they turn in the saddle and shoot hard and strong at the foe, and in this way make great havoc.[11]

2.1.3 Feigned Retreat Tactics

The feigned retreat was a classic tactic of Mongol steppe warfare. A token force charged the enemy and then retreated in order to attract them. The retreat might extend a great distance in order to stretch the enemy’s ranks and formations. Then, at a prearranged location, other Mongol forces ambushed and attacked the enemy force from the flanks, while the initial force turned around and attacked the enemy’s front.[12] The ‘Secret History of the Mongols’ described this form of attack in the following passage:

After that, in the Year of the Sheep, Chinggis Qahan rode out against the Kitad people. Taking Wujiu, he crossed the Fox Pass and seized Söndeiwu, sending Jebe and Güyigünek-ba’atur [ahead] as vanguards. On arriving at Chabchiyal, [Jebe and Güyigünek-ba’atur found] that guards had been posted on the Chabchiyal Pass. Then Jebe said: ‘We shall lure them into moving. When they come [after us], we shall fight them.’ He then turned back. The Kitad soldiers decided to pursue him. As they drew nigh, they choked the valleys and mountains. On reaching the provincial capital, Söndeiwu, Jebe reined in [his horses] and turned back. He attacked the advancing enemy, which was growing [ever] bigger, and overcame them.[13]

2.1.4 Fabian Tactics

Another important tactic utilized by the Mongols was the Fabian tactic. At times the Mongols avoided combat with the enemy until they found an ideal location for battle or had regrouped far-flung forces to confront their opponent. When the Mongols were confronted by an enemy who, for instance, planted spears in the ground to prevent cavalry charges, they responded by withdrawing the bulk of their forces and leaving behind a few detachments to harass the enemy. Eventually, as the enemy emerged from their defenses, the main Mongol force would return to destroy them. The ‘Secret History of the Mongols’ described the Fabian tactic as follows:

After receiving this message, Chinggis Qahan issued a decree: ‘[They] are many and will lose many, [we] are few and will lose few.’ Facing them, he rode out and routed their watchmen. He [and his captains] decided to attack and to [re]organize the soldiers to march in ‘bushclump’ formation, stand in ‘lake array’, and attack with the ‘chisel’. Chinggis Qahan himself [joined] the vanguard. He put Qasar in charge of the main army and Otchigin-noyan in charge of the reserve horses.[14] The ‘bush clump’ formation entailed dividing the soldiers into numerous small groups that kept contact with each other but maintained a low profile as they advanced. The ‘lake array’ entailed sending waves of men to surround and attack the enemy on all sides. The ‘chisel attack’ entailed direct hand-to-hand combat by a line of soldiers that drives straight through the middle of the enemy ranks.[15]

Even when the Mongol Empire invaded Goryeo, records of the Mongol army using Fabian tactics can be found. According to the record of December 16, 1232 in the History of Goryeo, the Goryeo army fought against the Mongols in a small castle in Bugok, Cheoin, and shot and killed their enemy general Salyetop. It seems that from this point on, their energy was weakened and they could not comfortably stay in a certain place, so they withdrew their troops. However, it is recorded that they did not gather all at once, or they went first, or they fell behind, and since they are flashing in the east and in the west, it is not known until what day they all disappeared or where they went.[16]

2.1.5 Open-The-End Tactics

When using open-the-end tactics, the Mongol army sought to encircle their enemies, especially if their flanks and rear were exposed. In this case, the Mongols sometimes confused their enemy by feinting at the front and then unleashing the main attack on their rear. By attacking from several directions, the Mongols gave the enemy the impression that they were surrounded. However, the Mongols opened a gap in their encirclement, encouraging the enemy forces to attempt to flee. In reality, the gap served as a trap. Other Mongol forces appeared on both sides, rode alongside, and attacked them. In their panic and desire to get away, the enemy rarely maintained discipline and often discarded their weapons to flee faster. The escaping troops found themselves hunted down and without the protection of their weapons.

During the Mongolian invasion of Europe, Batu Khan and General Subedei inflicted a crushing defeat on King Béla IV’s Hungarian army, which was renowned for having the best cavalry in Europe. The Mongols burned the city of Pest and seized control of the Hungarian plain. Mongol general Subedei planned an invasion of Europe in which a three-pronged assault on Hungary was supported by a campaign in Poland. The main invasion force destroyed Hungarian defenses in the Carpathians and swept across Hungary, stopping on the banks of the River Sajo. King Béla IV encamped on the opposite bank, his army of 100,000 outnumbering the Mongols by at least 20,000.

On 10 April, Batu Khan attacked: he and his brother, Prince Shiban, led a frontal assault across the river while Subedei rode northward in search of a ford by which his troops could cross and attack the Hungarians from behind. Batu and Shiban struggled to make headway, but then unleashed catapult-fired explosives that drove the Hungarians back. Once across, they wheeled around and turned the Hungarian position so it would be vulnerable to Subedei when he arrived; then Batu ordered his men to retreat and line up in single file.

Subedei’s troops arrived and deployed in the same way behind the Hungarians, who-realizing they were about to be encircled by archers—charged out to regain their camp. Subedei pursued them and bombarded the camp with explosives, finally sending in his heavy cavalry. A column of Hungarians fled back toward Pest but was pursued and shot down by the mounted Mongol archers.[17]

2.2 Goguryeo Military Tactics

The Goguryeo Kingdom (37 B.C.–A.D. 668) was one of the ancient Korean kingdoms and was renowned for its military power and influence. This kingdom used to occupy Manchuria, now called Northeast China. Most Koreans are extremely proud of the Goguryeo Dynasty because it had a strong military and controlled massive territory. But those aren’t the only reasons. Goguryeo is where much of Korean culture and tradition comes from. The origins of the famous grilled meat dish called bulgogi, the traditional Korean wrestling style called ssireum, and even taekwondo, all go back to the Goguryeo.

The relationships between Northeast Asian polities has always been complex. It’s not as simple as “war or peace,” or “ally or enemy.” Certainly, ancient Korean kingdoms voluntarily adopted Chinese legal and other institutions, Buddhist and Confucian ideologies, and the Chinese written language. There were also close cultural contacts and peaceful diplomatic ties between the ancient kingdoms of today’s China and today’s Korea. By the fourth century BC, the Korean Peninsula tribes had consolidated into three kingdoms – Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla. The founding of China’s Sui Dynasty in 581 was bad news for Goguryeo.

By the late 500s, a major political change had occurred on the Korean Peninsula. After seizing the Hangang River basin by betraying its former ally, Silla had gained land in the central part of the peninsula and had earned the enmity of Baekje and Goguryeo. Silla now stood alone against those two foreign countries, and this new Baekje-Goguryeo alliance was baying for blood. It moved quickly against Silla, specifically targeting the Silla communications link with the recently formed Sui.

These intra-peninsula wars, however, overflowed. Korean countries have always had an over-amplified influence on their Han Chinese neighbors, perhaps because Korea has almost always been China’s strongest and closest immediate neighbor. Similarly, these tensions between Korean kingdoms in the late 500s affected mainland China. In the 580s, the Sui had succeeded in uniting most of the Han Chinese under their new rule.

The Sui, which had unified China after a prolonged division of over 350 years, threatened Goguryeo that it would be in their best interest to serve Sui. Goguryeo, however, sought an alliance with the tribe of Dolgweol (Turks) northwest of Sui. Sensing an attack from the Sui, Goguryeo made a bold advance assault on the Liaoxi region, which could serve as the military base for Sui (598).

The Sui emperor, Wen Ti (581–604), who had unified China, launched a retaliatory attack on Goguryeo, with a force of 300,000. The army crossed over the Liao River and attacked the boundaries of Goguryeo, while the naval forces crossed the ocean and closed in against the capital of Goguryeo. Goguryeo, however, easily defeated the invading force and the Sui Dynasty, which suffered a calamitous defeat, faced great difficulties both at home and abroad.

Yang Ti, the next Sui emperor, who ascended the throne after killing his father, proceeded to mount an invasion of unprecedented magnitude against Goguryeo, putting the fate of the nation on the line. The emperor himself commanded the battle, leading a huge force of 1.13 million (in 612).

Goguryeo, whose population stood at a mere 3 million, defeated the Sui forces thanks to the brilliant tactics of Ulji Mundeok, a famed Goguryeo commander (in what is known as the “Battle of Salsu”).

Another assault by Sui to bring down Goguryeo occurred in 614 A.D., but this, too, ended in defeat. What crumbled was not Goguryeo, but the war-weakened Sui empire.

The Tang dynasty (618–907) succeeded the fallen Sui. Immediately following its establishment, Tang called for Goguryeo’s surrender and made frequent military threats. Goguryeo tried its best to avoid war. However, war with Tang was inevitable as Tang attempted to conquer Goguryeo and incorporate the nation into Tang’s territory (known as the Goguryeo-Tang War).

The seeds of the war between Goguryeo and Tang had its origins in the greed of Tang to vindicate its honor for the defeat of Sui and to build a world empire. In 645, Emperor Tai Tsung himself led the army and invaded Goguryeo. However, Goguryeo defeated the huge Tang forces thanks to the meticulous tactics of General Yang Man-chun at Ansi Fortress in southwestern Manchuria, as well as cooperation from the civilian population. In one battle, Emperor Tai Tsung was hit with an arrow by the Goguryeo army. He suffered massive defeats in all three attempts at invasion.

Goguryeo was able to resist the repeated aggressions of Sui and Tang thanks to the solidarity and outstanding strategies of the Korean people. The war eventually led to the downfall of the Sui empire. The national strength of Goguryeo was also seriously weakened by the continuing wars. The victory of Goguryeo represents the historic triumph of Korea over China, one that safeguarded the territories of Baekje and Silla as well.

The Goguryeo Kingdom, noted for its military prowess and expansive territory, was understood to have primarily occupied what is today North Korea and parts of China and Manchuria during its 700-years-run. Even though the Goguryeo army had a traditional military structure, they did not deploy their forces using a basic tactical unit or formation, in opposition to the Mongol army.

2.2.1 Iron Armored Cavalry Assault Tactics

Goguryeo craftsmen made weapons as well as agricultural tools using various iron-carbon alloys such as nearly pure iron (with a carbon content of less than 0.02 percent), cast iron (with a carbon content greater than 2 percent), and steel (with a carbon content somewhere between the two). They were fluent enough to freely choose among them. For instance, to make an ax they made only the tip out of steel and the rest of pure iron.[18]

The Goguryeo army created the iron armored cavalry in the 2nd century to overcome the weakness of light cavalry and to ensure strong protective equipment for the soldiers.[19] Both soldier and horse wore iron armor and helmets, and fought the enemy with long iron spears.[20] This tactic spearheaded the iron armored cavalry as the attacking force. In battle, the cavalry broke through the opponent’s line of defense by short, fast, and powerful attacks, and then dislocated the enemy defenders. Their assault was the dominant shock attack.[21] When the iron armored cavalry broke the enemy’s front line, the infantry and light cavalry immediately reinforced them in their attack.

For example, in the case of the so-called Achasan Fort in Korea, there was a furnace, but no cauldron was left behind and only a few weapons were found. Archaeologists did, however, discover an iron helmet of a Goguryeo soldier inside the furnace-the first of its kind to be found in South Korea. This is a rare artefact, particularly when in all of Korea, only five Goguryeo helmets have been uncovered. The Achasan Fort helmet is what is known as a scale helmet, and is made by connecting many tiny pieces of metal with leather strings. A research team found 52 pieces of metal less than a 10th of an inch thick that would have made up the helmet, as well as 280 pieces that may possibly have been used for scale body armor. This type of flexible armor made it easier for soldiers to move while still being protected. In Goguryeo murals, there are depictions of a soldier, along with his horse, wearing a magnificently intricate scale helmet and armor that covered him from neck to ankle. But so far only two sets of Goguryeo-era scale armor have been found in South Korea, the first in 2011 in Yeoncheon and the second in 2014 in Yangju, both in Gyeonggi Province.

While discoveries of Goguryeo armaments are rare, on Mount Acha a total of 1757 pieces of Goguryeo weapons have been found, which South Korean archaeologists say is a higher number than the total reported to have been found in North Korea and China. Of those, iron arrowheads make up the largest portion, followed by metal pieces of scale armor.

These finds provide an important window into Goguryeo iron-making technology, which is known to have been the most advanced among the Three Kingdoms, and one of the factors that made the Goguryeo military so powerful. A study of Goguryeo-era iron discovered on Mount Acha found that Goguryeo artisans employed the same sophisticated ironworking technologies that were in use in China and the west at the time. Goguryeo openly accepted technologies from Europe, Persia, and China, and this attests to the broad-minded and unrestrained spirit and nature of the dynasty’s people that even contemporary Koreans often admire.[22]

2.2.2 Ambush Tactics

The terrain of the Goguryeo kingdom was mostly mountainous, and the Goguryeo army took advantage of this rugged terrain. They would use the ambush tactic in rough mountainous areas or valleys. In battle, if the enemy force impatiently pursued the Goguryeo army, they often retreated to a river, passing through a valley. When half of the enemy forces had crossed the river, the Goguryeo army would ambush and make a surprise attack from the riverbanks. Meanwhile, the other Goguryeo force would hide in the valley to prepare for a secondary ambush. The enemy forces who had been attacked at the river retreated to the valley where the other Goguryeo force lay in ambush ahead. Meanwhile, the Goguryeo light cavalry pursued the retreating enemy. Finally, when the enemy passed through the valley, the Goguryeo force cut off the retreat and ambushed them.[23]

Korean countries have always had an over-amplified influence on their Han Chinese neighbors, perhaps because Korea has almost always been China’s strongest and closest immediate neighbor. Similarly, these tensions between Korean kingdoms in the late 500s affected mainland China. In the 580s, the Sui had succeeded in uniting most of the Han Chinese under their new rule. At the same time, however, a new power was rising in the northern steppes of Siberia, the Gokturks (돌궐, 突厥), who would eventually become the Khitan people (거란, 契丹). They posed a direct threat to the newly-arrived Sui, and they created a great opportunity for Goguryeo.

With its vast kingdom stretching over today’s South Korea, all of North Korea, most of Manchuria, all of Liaoning Province, all of Jilin Province, most of Heilongjiang Province, many parts of eastern Inner Mongolia, and most of Primorsky Krai, Goguryeo saw this as an opportunity. It reached northward to forge ties with the Gokturks, just as its ally, Baekje, reached southward to forge ties across the sea with Wa (왜, 倭), a broad collection of Kofun/Asuka kingdoms (고훈 시대, 古墳時代/아스카 시대, 飛鳥時代).

Thus, a great north–south axis was formed: the Gokturk-Goguryeo-Baekje-Wa (Siberia-Manchuria-Korea-Kyushu). To counter this, Silla teamed up with Sui to form an east-west axis: the Silla-Sui (Korean Peninsula-Mainland China). It is here that we lay our scene.

The final decisive test of strength between these two axes was between Goguryeo and Sui in A.D. 612, and Eulji Mundeok was the Goguryeo general in charge. Goguryeo Army Commander Eulji Mundeok mixed head-on attack with guerrilla tactics, when it suited him, and strategic retreat and deception, when the odds were harsh.[24]

Goguryeo was the first to open hostilities. In 598, it launched a lightning assault across the Liao River (랴오허, 遼河) in southern Manchuria, just north of the Liaodong Peninsula (랴오둥 반도, 遼東半島). The Sui monarch, Wen (수 문황제 양견, 隋 文皇帝 楊堅) (r. 581–604), launched a retaliatory attack against Goguryeo. He was unsuccessful and had to turn back.

In 612, the next Sui monarch, Yang (수 명황제 양광, 隋 明皇帝 楊廣) (r. 604–618), launched another retaliatory attack. This time, Sui was better prepared. Yang had gathered an unprecedentedly large army to send into Goguryeo-Manchuria. The texts estimate that it involved 1,000,000 soldiers.

The anchor of Goguryeo’s first line of defense was the fortress at the modern-day city of Liaoyang (랴오양시, 遼陽市) in today’s Liaoning Province (랴오닝성, 遼寧省). Splitting his forces and lightening the siege, Yang decisively ordered about a third of his force – say, 300,000 men – to break off southward and to head directly for the Goguryeo heart in Pyeongyang.

Just north of Pyeongyang is where Eulji Mundeok laid his trap. Eulji Mundeok used a strategy similar to that used by the USSR against the Nazi invasion of 1941. Eulji retreated and retreated, strategically, drawing the invading army further and further from its supply lines. Tactically, he used weather to his advantage, in this case the rainy season and a river. Also tactically, he laid ambushes and chose the time and place of his battles.

The Cheongcheongang River (청천강, 淸川江) flows westward into the Seohan man of Korea Bay, through today’s town of Anju-si in Pyeongannam-do Province. In older forms of Romanization, it’s sometimes called the “Salsu River.” The battle is sometimes called the Battle of Salsu (살수대첩, 薩水大捷).

This is where Eulji Mundeok sprung his trap. He made grand feints and thrusts, and made use of his knowledge of the terrain. The story goes that he had dammed the river, swollen with the rainy season, and then at the crucial moment broke the dams to release the raging water, washing away the Sui soldiers. Texts tell us that only 2700 of the 300,000 Sui soldiers survived to find their way back home. The battle was decisive. Yang lifted his siege of the Goguryeo fortress at Liaoyang, packed up his forces, and headed back to mainland China. Yang continued to send smaller armies against Goguryeo-Liaoyang, but to no avail. These losses led directly to the Sui collapse in 618, allowing for the rise of the Tang (당, 唐). Ignoring, or perhaps even fearing, Goguryeo and other Korean kingdoms, the Tang focused their energies elsewhere and managed to reign quite successfully for just under 300 years.[25]

2.2.3 Defense First and Offense Later Tactics

When the enemy force was strong, the Goguryeo army was stuck inside and defended the fortress first. However, when the enemy force exposed their weakness, the Goguryeo army immediately opened the gate and sent the cavalry outside to attack the enemy. If the enemy forces fled, the Goguryeo cavalry kept up their pursuit, while other Goguryeo forces waited and ambushed them.

Since 2000, a number of fortresses, villages, and Goguryeo tombs have been found in South Korea, supporting the theory that the southern part of the peninsula was, in fact, important to the kingdom. Mount Acha is now understood by scholars to be the largest Goguryeo site in South Korea. During the Three Kingdoms Period (57 B.C.–A.D. 668), the Goguryeo, Silla, and Baekje Kingdoms fought one another fiercely to gain sovereignty over the area, a contest that played out on Mount Acha as it did across the peninsula. For example, the murals show that, after the fourth century, a Goguryeo soldier’s main weapon was a spear. Researchers posit that because 10 spear points were found at the Guui-dong Fort, 10 soldiers were stationed there. Further, based on the size of this fort, they have concluded that the biggest Goguryeo fort on Mount Acha could have accommodated up to 100 soldiers. Arrowheads make up the largest number of the nearly 2000 remnants of weapons found at Mount Ahca. Researchers believe that each Goguryeo soldier was armed with at least 300 arrows.[26]

3 Conclusions

An analysis of the tactics discussed in previous Chapter reveals some surprisingly common success factors, such as a basic tactical unit system, strategic flexibility, tactical mobility, and strategic planning. Despite the differences in circumstance and time, common success factors are identified in the military tactics of the two great powers.

The first success factor of Mongol military tactics is the basic tactical unit system. The Mongol army used the decimal system to organize the tactical units into a tumen, a minghan, a jaghun, and an arban, which formed the basic tactical unit.[27] This decimal system was so efficient for speedy command and control that the Mongol army could freely conduct their given mission.

The second success factor is strategic flexibility, which the Mongol army used to carry out the art of war in various ways. They were capable of adjusting rapidly to changing situations, through implementing the feigned retreat tactic, which was augmented with the hit-and-run tactic and ambushes. The Fabian tactic was augmented by dividing and regrouping, and launching surprise attacks. The open-the-end tactic was augmented by encirclement of the enemy, making a trap, and also launching surprise attacks. This strategic flexibility ensured that the Mongols did not require superior numbers to gain victory.[28]

The third success factor is tactical mobility, which is found in the entirely cavalry-based Mongol military.[29] Everything they did, from their most basic tactics to their grand strategies was only possible because of their mobility. The flow of a battle could not change so drastically to fit their plans without their horses and tactical mobility.[30]

The fourth success factor is strategic planning. Mongol military tactics were highly planned, with a clear set of operational procedures for engagement with the enemy. In the caracole tactic, for example, each jaghun sent 20 men per wave of attackers. The waves fired several arrows as they charged and then circled back to the Mongols’ lines. When they reached their own lines, the next wave would move forward and continue the process. In the feigned retreat tactic, a Mongol force pretended to retreat from the battlefield. But then at a prearranged location, another Mongol force ambushed the enemy force. In the Fabian tactic, the Mongol army divided into small groups to avoid being surrounded. But then they regrouped and launched a surprise attack on the enemy at a more opportune time. In the open-the-end tactic, the Mongol army would encircle the enemy, but intentionally leave a gap in the encirclement. However, this was a trap, and other Mongol forces appeared on both sides and attacked the enemy. Such strategic planning enabled the Mongol army to mobilize military resources more efficiently than earlier nomads.[31]

The common success factors also appear in Goguryeo’s military tactics. The first success factor of Goguryeo military tactics is strategic flexibility. In the defense first and offense later tactic, the Goguryeo army made full use of defensive and offensive tactical flexibility, being capable of adjusting rapidly to changing situations. When the enemy force was strong, the Goguryeo army was stuck inside and defended the fortress. But when the enemy force exposed their weakness, Goguryeo cavalry immediately opened the gate and attacked the enemy.

The second success factor is tactical mobility. The type of flexible armor made it easier for soldiers to move while still being protected. In Goguryeo murals, there are depictions of a soldier, along with his horse, wearing a magnificently intricate scale helmet and armor that covered him from neck to ankle. The main tactical force of the Goguryeo army was the cavalry force, which was divided into two groups: the light cavalry and the iron armored cavalry. The Goguryeo army was able to operate tactically based on the mutual cooperation system of iron armored cavalry and light cavalry. This cavalry cooperation system was a direct factor in the many victories of the Goguryeo army.

The third success factor is strategic planning. Goguryeo military tactics were highly planned with a clear set of operational procedures for engagement with the enemy. In employing the ambush tactic, the Goguryeo army ambushed and launched a surprise attack when half of the enemy forces crossed a river. When the retreating enemy subsequently passed through the valley, another Goguryeo force ambushed the enemy forces again. In the defense first and offense later tactic, the Goguryeo army strategically planned to defend the fortress. If the enemy force exposed their weakness, they sent the cavalry outside the fortress and attacked the enemy.[32]

However, the basic tactical unit system is not found among Goguryeo military tactics. Even though the Goguryeo army had a traditional military organizational structure, they did not deploy their forces with a basic tactical unit or formation. In the Goguryeo military system, the ‘daemodal’ (commander-in-chief) served at the top of the central army, while ‘malgaek’ (commanders) served below him, each leading a force of 1000 men.[33] But this military structure was just a form of provincial military organization itself, rather than a basic tactical unit system.


Corresponding author: Kisun Kim, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Korea, E-mail:

  1. Research ethics: Not applicable.

  2. Author contributions: The author(s) have (has) accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: The author(s) state(s) no conflict of interest.

  4. Research funding: This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund (of 2023), the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2023S1A6A3A04064633)].

  5. Data availability: Not applicable.

References

Barfield, T. J. 1992. The Perilous Frontier. Nomadic Empires and China, 221 B.C. to A.D. 1757. Cambridge: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Barnes, M. 2009. The Mongol War Machine: How Were the Mongols Able to Forge the Largest Contiguous Land Empire in History? Israel: Contemporary Affairs (PiCA).Search in Google Scholar

Biran, M. 2007. Makers of the Muslim World, Chinggis Khan. Israel: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Search in Google Scholar

Gérard, C., M. Mangin-woods, D. Woods, and Foreword by Wong, R. B. 2014. A Global History of War: From Assyria to the Twenty-First Century, 141. California: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hyung-eun, K. 2017. “Fortress above the City.” Archaeology 70 (6): 58.Search in Google Scholar

Jung, I. The History of Goryeo (高麗史).Search in Google Scholar

Marco, P. (translated by Henry Yule, edited by Henri Cordier). 1993. The Travels of Marco Polo, Vol. 1. New York: Dover Publications.Search in Google Scholar

McCreight, R. D. 1983. The Mongol Warrior Epic: Masters of Thirteenth Century Maneuver Warfare. Washington: Master of Military Art and Science, Washington State University.Search in Google Scholar

Northeast Asian History Foundation. 2007. Koguryo: A Glorious Ancient Korean Kingdom in Northeast Asia. Seoul: Northeast Asian History Foundation.Search in Google Scholar

Ramirez, J. R. 2000. Genghis Khan and Maneuver Warfare. Pennsylvania: U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks.10.21236/ADA378208Search in Google Scholar

Timothy, M. 2007. “Genghis Khan: Secrets of Success.” Military History 24 (5).Search in Google Scholar

Timothy, M. 2019. The Mongols, 55. UK: Arc Humanities Press.Search in Google Scholar

Urgunge, O. 2001. The Secret History of the Mongols. London: RoutledgeCurzon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Yi, H.-D. 2011. “Cavalry Battles in the Early Koguryo Dynasty.” The Journal of History and Practical Thought Studies 44: 5–32.Search in Google Scholar

Yi, H.-D. 2012. “Goguryeo’s Occupation of the South and Cavalry Battles – Focusing on the Occupation of the Mouth of Ganghwa Bay.” Military History 85: 1–27.Search in Google Scholar

Yi, H.-D. 2014. “Armed of Cavalry and Cavalry Tactics in Korea.” The Journal of History and Practical Thought Studies 53: 87–114.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-05-20
Accepted: 2023-06-15
Published Online: 2023-08-23

© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter on behalf of the Eurasian-Mongolian Research Center

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 19.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/modi-2023-2001/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button