Very interesting, it's amazing how the Crusaders managed to do so well despite being outnumbered.

@RealCrusadesHistory

8 жыл бұрын

Thank you my friend!

@Assassins6688

6 жыл бұрын

Lol xD

@apvtethic8818

5 жыл бұрын

Nmjjmn they did so well that they only won one and lost all the other 7 lol

@nmjjmn663

5 жыл бұрын

ItalicCross They won more than the First Crusade actually. They also won the Third Crusade, the Venetian Crusade, the Baron's Crusade, and I believe the Sixth Crusade. You could also count the Reconquest of Spain, though it's debatable whether or not that was a Crusade.

@squakrock

4 жыл бұрын

Nmjjmn how wasn’t the reconquista a crusade? It drew the attention of crusaders from all across Europe and also brought knightly orders .

Always look forward to these. Great work J and DR. Donnachie. Love the channel.

Dr. Stephen Donnachie analysis was fantastic, if possible this type of podcast again would be excellent.

It's really interesting how much the Franks influenced Medieval history and European history. They did introduce the knightly class and the feudal system.

I enjoyed this episode. Thank you.

Great podcast, love this series

The early comment about padding under chain mail not being primarily for protection, it was used for protection so a blow wouldn't break your arm as the mail would protect from the blade but there is still a lot of force behind a blow. And also mail would without any gambeson would rub you raw lol. Great podcast, love the channel

@lukemcinerny8220

6 жыл бұрын

and just to add ( a year later lol) some gambesons granted very think ones, have been proven to stop arrows from heavy war bows, in short gambeson was a very effective armor, still is in the case of certain types of stab vests.

@emperorconstantine1.361

5 жыл бұрын

Luke McInerny and why do u think that the Spanish Conquistadors, especially the poorer ones, eventually switched to the cotton armor of the Aztecs and other natives? It was just as effective as European Gambeson armor, especially protection against sword slashes.

@user-uy1rg8td1v

5 жыл бұрын

@@emperorconstantine1.361 Padded armor is underappreciated but I can't help but sweat at the thought of wearing it in the desert or jungle.

@Fluffy52600

5 жыл бұрын

Padded armor has been used throughout all of human history, even in relatively modern wars. Mid-late 1800s, British troops in India would wrap turbans/cloth around their cork-material pith helmets in order to defend from Indian and middle eastern sword users.

@sergarlantyrell7847

3 жыл бұрын

@@lukemcinerny8220 What counts as heavy though? Plus it depends on a host of other factors like what type of arrowhead etc. But in theory if you made anything thick enough, it would stop an arrow. But a gambeson that thick would probably kill you from the desert heat.

Guy's I listen to a lot of this, thank you

Nice video.

Great show, you guys missed out on the Latin infantry and what sort of weapons armour and tactics were deployed for them?

Padding is an essential part of mail armor. Of course it's worn for protection, chainmail doesn't work if you don't have a hefty layer of padded armor underneath.

great history show

What did crusader infantry look like? What sort of armor would an Itallian crossbowman wear? What other forms of infantry were there, and how were they equipped? What kind of infantry did the Muslims have?

Just found this channel. Not shit so far, nice job :)

Could you please do a series on the Byzantine Empire

Hattin is a very good example of the different mind sets. Franks were brave and strong in direct confrontations. While Arabs were more hit and run and using tricks. The franks went direct into Saladin's plan of cutting them off of water. And the use of fire to make the franks even suffer more. Saladin set every bush on fire to let the wind bring the smoke towards the franks. So he used tactical advantages. While if the franks hade enough water who knows how all would have ended.

@RealCrusadesHistory

6 жыл бұрын

Hattin was a lucky break for Saladin, though. Typically the Franks would not fall for that sort of ploy, it's just that Guy of Lusignan was incompetent. Saladin suffered serious defeats from great commanders like Richard the Lionheart and Baldwin IV of Jerusalem because of cautious, effective leadership. Usama ibn Munqidh described the Franks as "above all, the most cautious men in warfare".

@Grim_Azrael

6 жыл бұрын

Real Crusades History Well one can argue about how effective the franks where in the holy land. But the one thing nobody can argue about is who won at hattin. The franks were stupid enough to march towards saladin. And even after Hattin nobody was able to reconquer Jerusalem. If Hattin was a one time lucky thing the franks would have come back and corrected the mistake. But this never happened.

@RealCrusadesHistory

6 жыл бұрын

The Franks were incredibly effective. With tiny numbers they maintained a presence in Syria and Palestine, frequently defeating and out-fighting the Muslims who always enjoyed massive superiority in numbers. Hattin did turn out to be a lucky win for Saladin, but it was not a foregone conclusion. Saladin worried about the outcome of the battle all day because the Franks fought so hard, delivering charge after charge. Only the overwhelming superiority of the Muslim numbers delivered them a victory at Hattin. And of course the Third Crusade reversed many of Saladin's gains at Hattin. Richard's victories over Saladin ensured that the Crusader states survived another hundred years, and shattered Saladin's dream of destroying the Crusader states.

@Grim_Azrael

6 жыл бұрын

Real Crusades History Im sorry but The crusades achieved absolutely nothing. The entire middle east is muslim. The only country not muslim is israel today. So if you look at it who hade a greater impact it was Saladin. Outremer was utterly destroyed. Christianity was degraded and Islam was established. Jerusalem was till 1967 under Islamic rule. Not under frankish rule.

@Grim_Azrael

6 жыл бұрын

Paolo Angelo Anino who sayed this? I never Sayed the crusaders where about to convert all. Why you saying that?

The illustration is amusing no spear head appears to be on his lance so the way his lance is hitting his opponents shield boss makes it look like he is jousting with a mop. His hand also looks rather twisted holding the lance in weird way.

@MC-xd8lp

8 жыл бұрын

I THINK THE SPEAR PIERCE THE SHIELD THATS WHY U CANT SEE ANY SPEARHEADS

@MC-xd8lp

8 жыл бұрын

AND PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT GOOD AT ART BACK IN THE DAY

@neutralfellow9736

8 жыл бұрын

Calm down and stop shouting.

@MC-xd8lp

8 жыл бұрын

+Neutral Fellow WHO SAYS IM SHOUTING I WAS JUST USING ALL CAPS

@RealCrusadesHistory

8 жыл бұрын

Lol! Ever seen the Book of Kells?

It always fascinated me that the Seljuk Turks could be so different in warfare than the Crusaders. Now I have two questions did the Seljuk Turks use straight swords or only scimitars? Could you do a video about how the mongols affected the Muslim world and the crusader states?

@vladdracula8928

8 жыл бұрын

+Crocuta IV okay thank you

@vladdracula8928

8 жыл бұрын

+Duke Sedan thank you

@unemployedautist5054

8 жыл бұрын

The Seljuks usually dual wielded katanas because they are the best swords.

@RealCrusadesHistory

8 жыл бұрын

lol

@JerryJr65

7 жыл бұрын

Crocuta IV, Hey, great name. Did you get a grant to study spotted hyenas in the wild?

47:42 - 60 yards to a 100 meters :)

So "Doctor", were ANY of the Normans called Norman? Did they have quiffs too? Did they look like teddy boys but with armour? And brothel creepers?

Google or type into some search engine "Igor Dzis Crusades". He has amazing paintings depicting arms and armour of the crusades. Realistic.

Sara- Chen/ S are not arachen. Aracheda/ Raceda means (subject is omit) presumed of its details ahead in Korean verbial phrase. Korean vs. Koran( was Goryeo/ all females are even).....their hidden breeding fields. S= sulfur= Jewish= Russian= Chuba= show me You Dance!!

Saracens used light bows that could not penetrate the armors very well of the Crusaders. But later Mongols used strong composite bows on horseback. And this wrecked havoc on the western knights of Poland, Hungarians and some of the French and German expedition forces.

@robertsettle2590

5 жыл бұрын

C Alex you don't know that!!!

@Melodeath00

4 жыл бұрын

Not really. What set the Mongols apart from everybody else, was their combined mastery of logistics, strategic planning, and tactical command during the actual battles, not their type of troops. Their horse archers weren't any "better" than any other horse archers of the period, they were just commanded by some of the best generals in history. And yeah, heavily armoured knights was still the best answer against the Mongols. Despite losing the battles during the inital Mongol attacks on eastern Europe in the 1240s,, the knights in those losing armies infliced heavy casualties against the Mongols. It was also an increased number of knights and heavy armour in general, that allowed the eastern europeans to beat the Mongols when they came back 40 years later.

@cariopuppetmaster

3 жыл бұрын

@@Melodeath00 no the most effective weapon against Mongols were crossbow men.

@Daylon91

3 жыл бұрын

Incorrect sir the Turks used composite bows of 90-120 ibs average with light arrows (30 grams) meanwhile the mongols used bows of average 80 ibs with heavier arrows on slower horses then the Turks. Different philosophies of archery.

@alexanderchenf1

3 жыл бұрын

@@Daylon91 huh

Persia fired the first shot.

Fear the charge of the heavy Norman cavalry

Up until now I thought it was pronounced Saraken.

@darkstar7074

6 жыл бұрын

Surprisingly not, I’m Canadian.

At least, back then, they didn't blow themselves up. Though I am sure they would if they had the technologies...

@assylbekkossov6955

6 жыл бұрын

Don't you not think that was really rude ?

@michaeljensen6205

6 жыл бұрын

They did have people called chages who would be martyred in greater good of Islam. Sometimes set themselves on fire and jump in Christian ranks on orders (cuz they wore lots of cloth on surface). They were once commanded to all die by making living bridge with their bodies so that armored horses can cross the ditch. So in a way you are correct. That is exactly what they would do if they had the technology.

@khurmiful

6 жыл бұрын

Martyrdom and Jihadi zeal is a very good tool to have when fighting. Even Chingiz Khan admired the Muslim spirit of fighting. It is no coincidence that Turks and Tartars Mongols all were attracted to Islam more than Christianity or Buddhism. Crusaders were mere copycats of Islam’s secret weapon. The Jihad. The spirit to fight and kill for your God and be rewarded in heaven if you die while doing it.

@christianstaub9808

6 жыл бұрын

Not wrong

@bruhmcchaddeus413

10 ай бұрын

lmaoo ok relaxx

If the enemy comes at you with cavalry archers, counter with pikemen.....

@misaelfraga8196

Жыл бұрын

Pikemen, and armored standing archers.

I try to uphold the good like a Christian knight. 🙋 🌸 💜

The Normans were superior for the same reason the Batavians were badasses in ancient times. You get some Germanic warriors and you teach them "Roman" techniques. The Normans were some of the last of the un-mixed Germanic warriors, basically Vikings who learned the techniques of the knights. The Germanics of most of the rest of Europe were bred in with the Romans and their slaves to varying degrees. Hence, they had better technology but were not quite so fierce. I know its Un-PC to suggest genetics has anything to do with anything, but science suggests otherwise.

@charliecatesby3346

6 жыл бұрын

Many of the troops that fought at Hastings and elsewhere as Norman's were French... William the Conqueror and his cohort were in essence French with a lot of Viking ancestry.....Just as the Saxons became English and thus not purely Saxon the Vikings Became Norman French and thus not purely Viking... The genetics of all North Western European nations is very similar so there isn't really any difference in intelligence or temperament......I agree genetics plays a huge role in Intelligence and physiology but the great differences are not seen between say the English and Norman's.... Or any other Europeans.... Remember the Saxons were probably just as German as the Norman's.

@lavish_1717

5 жыл бұрын

Big R Finally someone else mentions genetics! For the most part, it all boils down to genetics.

@anarchistalhazen7084

5 жыл бұрын

@@lavish_1717 If than is true. Then, Is that how the Huns(turks) fucked up every Germanic tribe? The Franks, Goths, Vandals, Lombards, along with the Romans.

@arroganceinvictus

4 жыл бұрын

Moayad The sheer number of horses they had was why the Huns were successful.

@AnthonyEvelyn

4 жыл бұрын

bullshit