You are asking the leader of the Mongols, a nomadic horse archer society to convert to conventional field armies before a time they were even conceived. .
No, I wasn't saying that. Just illustrating that this was the outcome because training with firing firearms in the initial adoption as lighter weapons required professional soldiers.
The man died in 1227, long before gunpowder was an effective weapon. As I stated before every firearm before the arquebus was worthless compared to the bow. .
95 years passed since the Chinese so effectively used gunpowder weapons against Mongols. One application Chinese had was rockets, which by the year 1045CE, 21 years before William the Conqueror would land on the shores of England, the use of gunpowder and rockets formed an integral aspect of Chinese military tactics. From
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/rocket.htm
For sure the failure of developing gunpowder weapons is not solely Mongol, or Genghis Khan's, but considering he was a military leader of Imperial proportions, and therefore should have had the interest in military technology, his failure to appreciate technology that had existed for two and a half centuries before his birth is very apparent to me. However recognise my European bias for technological development.
The Mongols had no need for siege artillery as storming walls was not their style.
Well, they certainly conducted quite a few sieges
They DID bring Chinese 'artillery' along in their train.
The need to penetrate the armour of the Chivalric knights was the cause for firearms; the Mongols didn't hang around long enough to face this threat for long. .
There was a confluence of development in Europe that did not take place in Asia. As the missile weapons proliferated, greater amounts of armour were worn and more armour-defeating missile weapons were designed, e.g. the crossbow. The crossbows at one time became quite large to enable a larger bolt/range, but at some stage someone had the bright idea that a small cannon ball was just as good as a large arrow head. Probably when a stray cannon ball took some knight's head off.
It is the failure to innovate, but rather retain technology and methods used for centuries that eventually made Mongols ineffective (they are still around).
Their own internal dissension due to Chinese influence is what destroyed them.
For sure! I didn't mean to infer that there were no OTHER reasons for their downfall, but was looking at the issue in the narrow sense of military significance, and more specifically the effect of a lack of insight and foresight by military leaders.
