Here's a breakdown of the two types of horses and why a direct comparison is tricky:
Mamluk Horses:
* Bred for: Primarily war, known for their strength, stamina, and ability to carry heavy armor.
* Strengths:
* Could withstand the harsh desert conditions of Egypt.
* Ideal for charging and fighting in close combat.
* Could carry heavy loads for long distances.
* Weaknesses:
* Not as maneuverable as Mongol horses on open terrain.
* Less suited for rapid, long-distance raids.
* Required more specialized care.
Mongol Horses:
* Bred for: Primarily speed, agility, and hardiness.
* Strengths:
* Exceptionally fast and agile, ideal for raids and open-field battles.
* Extremely hardy, able to survive on minimal forage and in harsh climates.
* Could travel long distances without tiring.
* Weaknesses:
* Not as strong as Mamluk horses, less suited for carrying heavy armor.
* Less resilient to close combat and heavier charges.
The Bottom Line:
* It's difficult to say definitively which horse was "better." Each breed excelled in different areas, and their strengths and weaknesses were dependent on the terrain and the type of warfare.
* In open terrain, Mongol horses had the advantage in speed and maneuverability. They were ideal for swift raids and flanking maneuvers.
* In close combat or on rough terrain, Mamluk horses were superior. Their strength and endurance allowed them to withstand heavy charges and carry heavy armor.
The Mongols' success, however, came not just from their horses, but also from their tactics, military organization, and superior leadership.
Therefore, while Mamluk horses may have held advantages in certain scenarios, the Mongols' overall strategy and tactics likely played a greater role in their military achievements.