Here is our first part looking at Jebe and Subutai's famous expedition. This video looks at the pursuit of Shah Muhammad, their time in the Caucasus, and confrontation with Alans and Qipchaqs after passing Derbent. It should be noted that the sources are pretty contradictory for this episode particularly, in regards to fates of cities, order of events etc. Their movements over 1221 for instance, I found so inconsistent that I had to leave it basically just a list of cities. I was surprised by how much telling of their interactions with Georgia were so inconsistent as well, which made much of that section surprisingly difficult to research. This is not the end of our discussion on Georgia though, as the Golden Age of Georgia from David the builder to Queen Tamar, a period wherein the Kingdom dominated the Caucasus, gives way to the beginning of some dark years for them (here's looking at your, Temur!) As always, my sources are listed in the description, links included when possible. Patreon: www.patreon.com/jackmeister Qara-Khitai Part 3: The Mongol Conquest: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hImTsbOTg5y6cqg.html Mongol Conquest of Siberia and First Battle with the Khwarezmians: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y3p-ttB8c6XJo6g.html The Mongol Invasion of the Khwarezmian Empire: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oXaV3LlqZa-TdpM.html

@Flow86767

5 жыл бұрын

Ty for sources!

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

Much obliged. I hope to incorporate more primary sources into my work in the future.

@bosbanon3452

5 жыл бұрын

What is the soundtrack at 6:40

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

@@bosbanon3452 I believe that track is called 'desert caravan' which is free to download through KZread's audiolibrary

@bosbanon3452

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory thabk you from 2021😂🏅

You put great effort to say their names in Mongol : Zev, Chinggis etc. Pleasant to hear. Overall i enjoyed it.

Subotai - Greatest general in history of entire human warfare. Commanding over 700 hundred battles. Never actually defeated, couple of retreat and regroup then fight back and win. Jebe - Subotai Mentor

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

It is a very interesting thing: the sources strongly imply that Jebe was the commanding officer to Subutai, and we see a number of times that Jebe held independent command long before Subutai did. It is easy to imagine that Subutai learned much from Jebe, and when Jebe died around the Battle of the Kalka River (a recent argument which I will include in the video on the battle is that he died a few days before, and anyways disappears from the sources around it anyways) must have been a strong incentive for the Mongols to return west later and avenge him.

@wahnfriedvonmannteufel1574

4 жыл бұрын

700 battles is a ridiculously high number. The most closely examination of the primary sources on this issue was done by Carl Sverdrup who could identify 35 battles Sube'etai was involved with (some of them might have been under the command of Jebe or Genghis' son Jochi). He lost most likely at least 2 of those battles, one against the Volga-Bulghars in 1223, one in China (Jin) in the early 1230s. Also: SubOtai is not the name of a mongol general but of a charakter in the "Conan the Barbarian" movie.

@ichkaodko7020

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Indeed, Jebe and Mukhulai were considered as a better commander by Genghis Khan himself. Mukhulai was best of all, at least that's how Genghis Khan sees it and that's why Mukhulai was appointed as chief general for warfare in the China (China was most important priorty for Genghis khan because it posed an immiediate treat to Genghis Khan's ruling) while Gengkhis khan and rest went to conquer Khwarazmian Empire. Nevertheless, Subutei became the most versatile one, since he was mentored by Genghis khan himself from early age and eventually by Mukhulai and Jebe. PS: it is called Subeedei and Zev and baatar is word for hero so it must be also Jebe baatar too. Noyon is like word for lord of tribe. Jebe wasn't lord of tribe but baatar or hero.

@cruelmael4178

3 жыл бұрын

Khaled Ibn Al Walid is the greatest of all time , he brought down two strong empires ((sassanid empire ad Byzantine empire)) and never lost a battle , without forget to mention that his armies were to 20 000 to 30 000 ...

@yaqubleis6311

3 жыл бұрын

@@cruelmael4178 Cyrus the Great the best ever he conquered and destroyed the biggest and most powerful empires of is time with ease the Median Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire and others

One thing I find interesting about the Mongols and their successor states, is the diverse cast of enemies they fought in their career. In a span of approximately 200 years, they fought against the Southern Song Dynasty, various Kiven Rus principalities, the Khwarezmid Empire, the Pagan Kingdom, the Kamakura shogunate, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Goryeo Kingdom, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Delhi Sultanate, the Jin Dynasty, the Vulgar Bulgars, the Trần Dynasty, the Majapahit Empire, the Alans and other rival steppe nomadic tribes, the Mameluke Sultanate, the Kingdom of Poland, the Western Xia Dynasty, etc. As a quick question, which of the many enemies of the Mongols and their successor states were the most difficult to fight against?

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

One of my favourite facts about the Mongols has always been that they fought Samurai in Japan only a few years after fighting Knights in Europe. Neither the Samurai or the Knights had any idea the other existed, connected indirectly only by Mongol incursions. It's entirely possible that Mongol veterans from the European campaign in the 1240s took part in the invasions of Japan! As to the greatest difficulty, there could be a few answers to choose from. While their seaborne invasions or campaigns against the Vietnamese and in Burma and noted defeats, I think the list for the greatest challenge could be shortened to the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, the Song Dynasty, the Mamluks of Egypt and the Delhi Sultanate (in no particular order). These states fought the Mongols over decades, rather than a singular inconclusive or disastrous campaign as in the other possible examples. While the Jin and Song were overcome, they fell only after decades of war (though the length of time was not continuous conflict, as the main Mongol armies withdrew for considerable periods at times). Even in the closing years of the Jin Dynasty, they inflicted a few defeats on the Mongols, while the Song defensive systems were difficult and costly to overcome for the Mongols, though offensively the Song performance was lackluster. Both of these states though were up against the full might of the Mongol armies: while the Jin suffered grievous losses from 1211-1223, the fact they managed to survive the initial devastating years and even send armies against the Song Dynasty in that time stands to an often overlooked tenacity. The Mamluk Sultanate and Delhi Sultanate are a bit different, but still worthy of note. While the Mamluks are famous for their victory at Ayn Jalut in 1260, they actually inflicted defeats on Mongol armies routinely over the following decades. But it is debatable over how many of those were full invasions or just smaller armies: certainly, Ayn Jalut was only possible as most of the Mongol army had withdrawn. Still, there is a reason the Mamluks are associated as bulwarks against the Mongols. The Delhi Sultanate had mostly amicable relations with the Mongols under the mid 13th century, when raids occured which resulted in the loss of cities. While the Mongols are able to penetrate Delhi's defenses, the climate and internal instability prevented these from being any meaningful conquests. There were more significant invasion in the 1290s, and while the Delhi sultans defeated most of them, there were some very close run battles and things were on the knife's edge at times. However, by then the Mongols were past the best of the military efficiency, and it is debated to what extent these were actual invasion or just efforts to pillage India. Still, the Delhi Sultans succeeded in repelling the Mongol attacks, so I think they deserve mention for being often forgotten.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

The famous invasion in the 1240s was undertaken on the orders of the Great Khan Ogedai, and we classify as part of the campaigns of the united Mongol Empire. Some historians might date the emergence of the Golden Horde to before this campaign, but as an actual political entity a better argument can be made for the Golden Horde starting afterwards, particularly as the cracks in the empire became more significant in the 1250s. So it would hardly be impossible for a Mongol soldier who had fought in Europe in the 1240s to have been sent back east to fight in China in the 1250s, ended up on Kublai Khan's side in the civil war of the 1260s and in the 1270s was an officer or some such in the first invasion of Japan. Age would not have been much of an issue, as Mongols considered males between ~15-60 eligible for military service. As long as he could still ride a horse and fire a bow, he could potentially still see fighting. Not until the early 1260s when the Civil Wars break out do the Mongols really form into regional Khanates, so a Mongol who fought for Kublai against the Song in the 1270s was highly unlikely to ever be sent west to help the Ilkhanate (ruled by descendants of Kublai's brother Hulegu) in Persia. The Mongols who did make these journeys tended to do so in government or envoy roles rather than as part of armies. The Golden Horde and Yuan Dynasty would have quite poor relationships for most of the thirteenth century. While the Ilkhanate (eventually) sided with Kublai during his war against his other brother Ariq Boke from 1260-64, the Golden Horde almost immediately went to war with the Ilkhanate. Often this is attributed to the Golden Horde's Khan Berke being a Muslim and fighting the Ilkhans as punishment for Baghdad's destruction, but territorial concerns over the Caucasus region are more likely. This essentially made the Golden Horde antagonist to Kublai's claims Great Khan, and while they would eventually recognize Kublai as Khaan, it was more of a nominal recognition, the Golden Horde Khan's effectively independent. The Golden Horde did take part in the Mongol peace talks in the early 1300s establishing peace between all the Khanates, but past that date it isn't easy to say much about contacts between the Khanates except when war broke out. Economic relations were maintained though, as in the mid 14th century when the overland trade routes broke down with the collapse of the Ilkhanate and Yuan Dynasty and the Chagatai Khanate's fragmentation and internal strife, coupled with the trade collapse brought on by the Black Death, the Golden Horde suffered significantly. It was when this overland trade broke down the Golden Horde Khans turned to the Rus principalities and actually tried to use them as a source of cash (which proved difficult, as the Golden Horde itself fell into a twenty year period of anarchy and civil war capped off with Temur's devastating invasion). If I understand your final question., it is asking if Mongols who fought in China prior to 1240 took part in the western invasion? Then yes, a great percentage of the army would have. The early 1230s saw the final push against the Jin Dynasty and early conflict with the Song, all before the army under Subutai was sent west in 1235/36. Certainly there were veterans from the initial wars against the Jin launched under Chinggis Khan, generals like Subutai among them. That was part of what made that force so effective, was that it was a highly experienced army and leadership, many of whom had already fought in China, Central Asia, Iran and the Caucasus. Such a wealth of experience would have made them a match for most foes. Timothy May's book "The Mongol Art of War," and his "the Mongol Conquests in World History," would have much information on that topic, although only a few diagrams and images within it. Generally though, due to the breadth of the conquests most historians only focus on a regional aspect of the empire (i.e Persia or China) rather than try and deal with the scale of covering an empire wide topic like that. I too, would love such a resource, but it would be quite a project to undertake!

@subutai999

5 жыл бұрын

Dzurdzuketia, under Georgian rule

Great work, Master Jack!

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

Many thanks!

Awesome information! This is a great resource! Thanks a lot!

Excellent work !

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

Many thanks, I am glad you enjoyed it!

Great summary, Great story telling....bravo

I didn't know many of the details. Thank you for making this video.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

You're very welcome my friend. I am very happy to be able to share and illuminate on this fascinating period.

@bosbanon3452

3 жыл бұрын

Who is the girl on your profile picture ,

good video

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you kindly!

Nice

Brain as well as brawn was needed for Subedei and Jebe's famous expedition. Where they couldn't force, they used guile instead. :)

Jebe is guo jing's teacher in the condor hero novel , they can shoot down big.bird.in the novel

Question for history buff strategy and tactic affectionate: who would come up with winner if they fought each other Genghis Khan, Subutei, Jebe or Mukhulai given they all have same resources?

You have very nice Mongolian pronunciation, I hope I am not gonna seem stupid if you are accidentally mongol

where were the main Mongol army when Subutai went into the caucasus and did Subutai inform Djingis khan about their decision to move forward rather than returning after the Khwarazmian shah death?

Is there text or version in Russian?

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

Hi, in regards to this video there is not a Russian version. However, if you want I can try to add english captions, or even send you my script that I use, if it would help.

@IngenerVu

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I would appreciate it! ingener.vu@gmail.com

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

@@IngenerVu I just sent an email: please let me know if you don't receive it, have trouble opening the file or if you have any questions!

@IngenerVu

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I got it)) Thanks!

correction: Kirakos Ganjaketsi is not Georgian but Armenian. 7:25

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

4 жыл бұрын

Damn, how'd I miss that? Good on you for catching that, noone else has brought that up. I even had the correct citation in the description. There's always some error that sneaks through, despite my best efforts. I guess I was thinking too much on the Georgian Kingdom.

@Kortik

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Hazarapet and Iwan Zakarian are all Armenians.

Letting you know the tribe where subutai was born the uriankhai was a Turkic like tribe which still today's exist as a ethnic group in Mongolia.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

I'll quote below my sources for this section. Until recently, I had also thought he was Uriankhai, and many people have repeated that he was, but Stephen Pow and Jingjing Liao showed in their article "Subutai: Sorting Fact From Fiction Surrounding the Mongol Empire's Greatest General," that the biographies of Subutai in the Yuan Shih (history of Yuan) demonstrate he was from the Uriyangqat. "It also frequently appears in secondary literature that Subutai was of the Reindeer People, since there was a forest-dwelling group of people in the northwest of Mongolia who had the exonym of Uriyangqai, irrespective of whether they were Turkic or Mongolic speakers... However, as Rashiduddin [Rashid al-Din] notes elsewhere, the group to which Subutai belonged was “separate and distinct” from the forest people. In fact, the clan to which he belonged was the Uriyangqat. The very slight difference in the form of the name, and the fact that there exists an obvious etymological connection, has led to much confusion for later scholars. However, the group to which Subutai belonged was situated among the Mongols in the Onon-Kherlen region of northeast Mongolia, closely affiliated with Chinggis Khan’s own tribal grouping, and had the practices of steppe nomads." Pow and Liao, 43-44. In support of the evidence, Pow shows that the Chinese characters to represent Mongolian 'qai,' and 'qat' are distinct, and continually use qat. Below is a part of the translation of Subutai's biography: "Sübe’etei was a man of the Mongol Uriyangqat people. His ancestor [named Nerbi] met Emperor Tumbinai [Tumbinai Sechen, Chinggis' great-great grandfather] when he was hunting by the Onon River. They established a strong friendship with each other; by the time of Chinggis Khan, the two families had been in contact for five generations." Pow and Liao, 50. The biography then goes on to list the ancestors between Nerbi and Subutai. Because it provides this genealogy and consistency in use of Uriyangqat, who lived close to the Kiyat Borjigon, I find this most convincing that Subutai was Uriyangqat.

thank to a collapse bridge yes it was think

The turk hold.the spear with two hand, similiar to the chinese

@Orgil.

Жыл бұрын

turk hold lmao if you grab spear with two hand and that is turk hold wtf ???

this guy ran into afghan and north west India

became the first mughol

you are pronouncing Jebe the wrong way. It should be Jebæ

@arsenalofdemocracy9985

5 жыл бұрын

in mongolian its more like jev

@theeternalempire7235

3 жыл бұрын

@@arsenalofdemocracy9985 lmfao how do you know? your name is chinese

@Orgil.

Жыл бұрын

@@arsenalofdemocracy9985 as a mongolian yes but that is modern mongolian in secret history of the Mongols it is called Jebe.

subutai tuvan türk

@curiosityimagination8118

5 жыл бұрын

Shut the fuck off. He is from eastern Uriyangkhai Mongol clan. Tuvans are western Uriyangkhai.

@lkhagwadorj

4 жыл бұрын

Turkic people are Central Asians !!! don't mix them with Half Greek Half Arabs !!! You half arabian !!!

@muhammetbektas1002

4 жыл бұрын

@@curiosityimagination8118 I'm looking, Genghis Khan has left much to your poor country, man. ım sory man :D

@muhammetbektas1002

4 жыл бұрын

@@lkhagwadorj stop dreaming man come back to the truth you won the victory thanks to the turks in central asia

@Orgil.

Жыл бұрын

@@muhammetbektas1002 you stop dreaming arab turks licked Mongol boot that is it

I hate timur he killed his own pepole i dont hate him because he lost Georgia's war hahahahahahahahahaha:)

@absolutepatriot

3 жыл бұрын

Or killed many pepole

subutai is not mongol he is a tuwa people its a mix of turkish and mongol or a other ethnic groub but tuwa spoke a dialect of turkish

@Orgil.

Жыл бұрын

do you know tuvans are Mongols only turkic thing they have is language and that is it culture,tradition is Mongolian they were part of Mongolia until USSR anexed them.btw turkish(anatolian arabs /greeks) and turkic(central asians/Mongols) is two very different thing

Very interesting, but as you have clearly "demon strated" there is nothing! Absolutely NOTHING that was below the Mongols. So why do you continue to insult the sources and historians? The historian's clearly didn't have to invent anything against the Mongols! The Mongols tactic was terror, absolute terror. I don't understand why you are still finding what they did to be - too horrific to be true - seriously!?

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

Most of the critiques I mention of the medieval writers are ones noted by other historians (or in some cases, even other medieval writers: Nasawi critiques ibn al-Athir for writing about things he never saw himself, though Nasawi does do some of this himself). The authors are all human, and have their own bias and intentions, and are just as subject to being misled as people today can be. It is the historian's job to take in the background and bias of the medieval authors, when they were writing, for whom they were writing and why they were writing. For instance, Juvaini and Rashid al-Din, despite both working for the Mongols, provide different interpretations of the same events, exaggerating some aspects while minimizing others. The political situations they were writing in, and why they were writing, are important to understand. We just can't take a work by itself without context. The corpse ramp at Shamakhi, which I took aim at here, I think unlikely because I don't think it would be effective, in addition to me sounding like hyperbole from ibn al-Athir. But I want to be clear here: I don't discount the horrors or massacres in general, and I don't disagree with you in regards to terror. There was clearly genuine dread and fear towards the Mongols, and many authors portray the invasion in apocalyptic terms. I've generally not spent as much time talking about massacres and the use of terror in these videos, as I intend to do a separate video wholly on that topic. There were genuinely times that while reading Juvaini, my skin was crawling at some of the things he describes the Mongols doing, and was doing so in enough detail that I don't doubt it at all. Because those are rather serious discussions though, i would prefer to discuss them more directly. When I did my undergraduate degree, I had a class with a noted genocide scholar here in Canada who had spent some time in the Middle East. I am hoping to contact him and get his thoughts on some of the tactics of terror the Mongols used. I appreciate your comment though, as you have me reflecting on how I present some things. I wonder, if my family background was from one of those countries affected by the conquests, would I be as easily dismissive? Or if rather than study from the period from a Mongol perspective, as I have done, if I had instead focused on the Islamic world? It is a fine line I think: just like the medieval writers, I have my own biases to consider.

@FirstLast_Nba

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the response and clarification, I think you are doing a fine job and I don't dismiss the clearly great effort you are putting into the work you do, even the personal touch you inject into your work with the hand drawn illustrations is appreciated. I therefore will only comment on the human bridge/mountain story: I watched one of ISIS videos after they had caught almost an entire Iraqi division and watched with amazement as they lined up only a few hundred of them over the Euphrates and began shooting them and then throwing the bodies over the bridge into the river, only half way through and the bodies had already reached the surface of the water from the riverbed, so they had to relocate along the bridge to continue! that's only 100s, so imagine when the count is in the thousands and with some huge cattle bodies thrown in as well? it wouldn't even have been difficult. Its like the 40 days of total slaughter in Baghdad! the mongols only ordered a stop because all the bodies had bloated and started to burst and a plague was imminent - which happened anyway and killed more mongols than battle did - and they had to flee the entire area. In short: the mongols had convinced themselves that they were doing Gods work by cleansing the world of useless people! that was the message they sent with all their envoys and after every massacre only keeping alive or sending home the engineers artists administrators ....etc, therefore none of what they did was even wrong in their minds, its exactly like America justifying Hiroshima Dresden Vietnam Iraq ...... etc, its not even wrong in their books because they are doing their gods - Democracy - work. You clearly don't have a problem understanding what happened but you are clearly struggling with accepting it, humans can justify ANYTHING. So beware of your sources!!! I think you mentioned a Zionist from an Israeli university as one of your sources! its safe to say they will have a skewed and biased view of muslim scholars and historians which is not helping your research. Keep up the good work and know that I always look forward to your next video, but please be careful who you get your history from, peace.

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

@@FirstLast_Nba I really appreciate your comments on this, and I always welcome people to challenge me on matters: I am well read on this period, but I am not an expert, and I intend these videos to improve my knowledge of the topics and arguments as well as that of others peoples. So I very much welcome when we can have a respectful, intelligent discussion of these things, because by doing so we can open our minds to new arguments and information, reaching a better level of understanding. One of my hopes for this channel is that it can be a place for intelligent discussion, unlike how much of the internet tends to be. You bring such a horrific example, and I spent much of the day thinking about it, and I think it is very appropriate. It has been mentioned by a number of authors how the Mongols tended to see of sedentary enemies as 'cattle,' or less than human, and in my own videos I've discussed the hashar/ armed levy the Mongols raised, whose bodies would be used to fill in moats and absorb the arrows of defenders. It seems part of why I, and perhaps other historians, doubt the veracity of some claims is who describes them. Juvaini, the most detailed source for the Khwarezm campaign and the Persian source I am most familiar with, worked for the Mongols and is often presented as 'pro-Mongol.' Thus, when he describes a massacre as taking place, I have tended to see as more reliable than if someone who hated them, like ibn al-Athir. While Juvaini worked for the Mongols, he repeatedly laments the suffering of regions of Transoxania and Khurasan, and makes it clear that he saw Chinggis Khan as the punishment from God. The undertone in his work is "things were terrible, but under Ogedai and the later Hulegu things have improved." (Juvaini stops writing just before the destruction of Baghdad, so it would be curious as to how true he still thought that after 1258. Juvaini became governor of Baghdad for the Mongols, while his brother served as the Ilkhanid vizier). With our 'pro-Mongol sources' writing with sorrow at the destruction, it is curious why the 'anti-Mongol sources' who describe the same events I am more likely to see as exaggerating? It may be a weakness of mine as a historian, and I think it is good you bring this to my attention. I think many times we don't notice our biases until someone points them out for us. My interest in this period is as a historian, not as a KZreadr, so such feedback is very important for my efforts. In regards to authors I use: all authors today have their own biases, which is part of why I try to make use of as many sources as possible for these videos, and increasingly, try to use as many primary sources as I can access. Again, I always welcome the discussion. Cheers!

Nice

@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you sir!