11th century Hungary: "Whelp time to drop the nomad lifestyle." 13th century Hungary:"Oh shit..."

@Cyricist001

3 жыл бұрын

Good thing they did, or else they would be speaking German right now.

@AVKnecht

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cyricist001 Well, a lot of them so speak German since they work in Germany or Austria because communism fucked up their country.

@2bingtim

3 жыл бұрын

Yet they fought the Mongols to a standstill & saved the rest of Europe in the process..

@me67galaxylife

3 жыл бұрын

@@2bingtim not really. I doubt The mongol would've got past the hre, let alone France

@hakonnordas3147

3 жыл бұрын

@@me67galaxylife to get to France they would have had to go through most of europe anyways

This Is all nonsense, We all know why mongols are very strong, their armies are all full stack of 20 or more units and all their generals have 10 stars in comando, and 10 skulls in dread....;)

@jsiasoyco9281

4 жыл бұрын

Crusader Knight *flashbacks in Turkish*

@johnrohmiller1851

4 жыл бұрын

C’mon ballista towers hurry up and finish!

@limbicbrain3748

4 жыл бұрын

The Trebuchet was a Chinese invention, contrary to what most people think. Torsion catapults, scorpions and ballistas belong to the west, gravity assisted siege equipment was invented in the East.

@matthewneuendorf5763

4 жыл бұрын

@@limbicbrain3748 The Chinese had traction trebuchets, sure, but it was Alexios I Komnenos during the First Crusade who most likely invented the counterweight trebuchet.

@tanthedreamer

4 жыл бұрын

LimbicBrain the Byzantine (Roman) invented the Trebuchet

Seems like a hot topic in the comment section is whether or not the effectiveness/number of castles in Europe the further west you go wouldbe a problem for the invading Mongol force in their prime. Thumbs up if you'd like Metatron to talk about this specifically, along with contrasting the Castles from the fortified cities in China, and the castles/fortifications in Persia etc etc.

@anonymussicarius8899

4 жыл бұрын

As Metatron mentioned the chinese engeneers in regards to the russian cities, the difference between western european castles and chinese fortifications is definitley worth a deeper investigation.

@stephenpelletier8947

4 жыл бұрын

@@anonymussicarius8899 Yep. The Song fortified cities delayed the Mongol conquest of what became south China until Kublai Khan defeated them in protracted siege warfare campaigns. One great characteristic of the Mongols was their adaptability; while I don't doubt Batu's invasion would have been slowed down by the end of the steppe in Hungary, logistics, and improved fortifications, I'm sure the Mongols would have eventually adapted their siegecraft as necessary. They did so vs the formidable Song fortifications, which were certainly stone and masonry too. The real issue was overextension: even with their marvelous "Pony Express" virtual telegraphy, the empire's growth was probably limited by it's size, leading to it's fragmentation. That's what saved Western Europe.

@stephenpelletier8947

4 жыл бұрын

I might add that the Mongol operational art was indeed exceptional; not until the advent of radios were their large scale coordination feats equaled by other armies.

@positroll7870

4 жыл бұрын

It wouldnt just have been the stone castles (and fortified cities). Central/Western Europe also had lots of woods, swamps and hilly areas. Sure, Eastern Europe had swamps and woods too. But the many German stone castles were strategically placed to block most passages from one open terrain to another, including river fords. There were also hedge systems, grown over centuries. All of that together would have delayed and channeled the Mongols in certain directions where they would have been vulnerable both to charges by armored knights or to longbowmen shooting from prepared positions. Guerilla warfare in the woods and hills would have been even worse from the Mongol pov. Add the lack of fodder for tens of thousands of horses in many areas and the fact that even poor European stone walled towns were much harder to conquer than rich mudbrick walled Middle Eastern ones, and retreating from central Europe was a no brainer for the Mongols. Could they still have done it with lots of preparation? Maybe. But the expenses in blood and treasure would have been a lot bigger than any potential material gain. Even a "successful" Mongolian general might have been killed by the Khan for losing 2/3 of his army in such a campain. P.S. Those tens of thousands of castels in Germany were the results of a similar threat three hundred years earlier. Heinrich I of Eastern Franconia and Otto I the Great went for a huge fortification campaign to finally stop the Magyar invaders. Led to the battle of Lechfeld which is considered, rightly, the birthplace of the German nation. The Magyar invaders had been able to move freely within the HRE for quite a while. The Mongols wouldnt have. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe#After_the_conquest_of_Hungary_(10th_century) de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgenordnung

@Stickyrolls123

4 жыл бұрын

@@positroll7870 I think what you say is true to an extent. I think, in your scenario, the mongols facing unified forces would have been in trouble. The mongols would have divided the European nations against each other using fear, greed, and old and existing rivalries.

When you compare armor from Europe in the 13th century to Roman armor, you realize how advanced Rome really was for it's time.

@lancehandy6648

2 жыл бұрын

The vast trade that the Romans had achieved was not matched until the 17th or 18th century in Europe, art and literature was not matched until about the renaissance as well. Renaissance means rebirth in French. This occured because of all of the Latin and Greek scholars that had come to Italy from Greece when the Ottoman Empire had taken over the Byzantine Empire. Italians began to see what the Romans were achieving between the arts, sculpting and literautre and began to be inspired through this and recreate and improve on it and that caught fire through the rest of Europe. Even after its fall.... Rome was the catalyst for the development of Europe, and as westernization continues to spread around the world.... Rome's impact is truly becoming global. Perhaps no Empire has had a bigger impact over culture and war in its era and past its era than Rome to the point that's its impact is still felt today. The "Repulica" was written by Plato, which the Romans would eventually adopt into their system of government (during the early republic days). Democracy was essentially a product of Athens. Both of which were adopted into the US, France eventually and many others would adopt these concepts into their government or revisions of governments and are still used today. Romanization is, almost basically, Modernization.

@anzusmaga8352

2 жыл бұрын

Celts created chain mail

@fedorpride6397

2 жыл бұрын

@@lancehandy6648 what are you people smoking. book printing was invented in 1440 in germany enabling the mass production of books and gun powder based weapons were spread althrougout europe long before 17th century. claiming that roman armors could keep up with hardened steel platemail is also ridicilous. if someone would shot a heavy crossbow or a english longbow at a legionairs armor it would go right throug Period.

@lancehandy6648

2 жыл бұрын

@@fedorpride6397 literature was for sure not matched until far later. The printing press literally was for the bible. Is that what your comparing to roman art and literature? Lmfao printing of the bible. Jesus.....

@lancehandy6648

2 жыл бұрын

@@fedorpride6397 and no one brought up guns at all. Thats like an additional point you brought for no reason. Even though guns were almost as dangerous for the user as the target until it developed into flintlocks like the arquebus. Guns werent even reliable until about the renaissance era.

When do we see the Metatron playing Bannerlord ?

@lardilordi6662

4 жыл бұрын

He could wait for full release though.

@carlorado82

4 жыл бұрын

@@lardilordi6662 yes that might be better.

@carlorado82

4 жыл бұрын

@@topaz173 lol maybe.

@gronkiusmaximus

4 жыл бұрын

@@topaz173 That game is damn addictive making me do all-nighters, especially with mods!

@Oppetsismiimsitsitc

4 жыл бұрын

He's too busy playing Deus Ex, it seems.

Mongols:* stand before castle* Frenchman on wall:" Ello you horse loving basteurds."

@2bingtim

3 жыл бұрын

Mongols: "Good, assemble the siege weapons from our baggage train & get our Chinese & Persian engineers to work breaking them walls!"

@thisisaloserwithnolife8836

3 жыл бұрын

Mongols : lets yeet some dead bodies who died from sicknesses

@farmdude2020

3 жыл бұрын

Mongols: say hello to my little friend...the trebuchet

@roicandaule9268

3 жыл бұрын

@@farmdude2020 You think a mongol can teach a 14th century french what a trebuchet is? Cute

@farmdude2020

3 жыл бұрын

@@roicandaule9268 you do realize the Mongols leveraged siege engineers from China, Persia, and other Muslim nations throughout their conquest right?

Funny how the Mongols today seem like really nice chill people.

@caniblmolstr4503

3 жыл бұрын

The Vikings are so chill too nowadays

@anandgan2494

3 жыл бұрын

The Spartans nowadays also seem pretty chill

@bobdillon2642

3 жыл бұрын

@@caniblmolstr4503 because they all moved out of Scandinavia only leaving beta males behind

@gambapuirida6216

2 жыл бұрын

History proves exactly the contrary: all these ppl who didn’t put two cents in writing and culture were assimilated in the end. Do Chinese speak mongol? Didn’t Athenes win, by far in the end? How many OldNorse words in modern English?

@mrhops1616

2 жыл бұрын

@@gambapuirida6216 Actually English was influenced by Olde Norse. And I don't know for sure but Chinese and many Asian languages are probably influenced by Mongolian.

Yeah, the battle of Mohi. I am a Hungarian. In our schools, we always hear about how much of a loser we were. It was great to hear we actually stood quite well against the horde. And yes. After the Mongolians pulled back our King (who survived the invasion) preparation was to require his lords to build on fortified castles and the portion of the knights increased in the armies. Almost everybody knew that was the Achilles heel for the Mongolians and the second invasion was failed.

@mishkosimonovski23

Жыл бұрын

Second invasion didn't had the genius generals of Genghis Khan, who built The Mongol Empire.

@koreancowboy42

Жыл бұрын

Even then..... the mongol horde literally adopted siege warfare and also scorched earth. Even if your held up in the forts and castles you'll starve while the mongol army raids and pillaged.

@dixoncider3933

8 ай бұрын

Your king ran after the mongols destroyed the Hungarian army

@Voidicusoffical

7 ай бұрын

eh that depends though. Because while your sieging ONE fortress or castle, I know have months and months to organize help, resources, and a larger force to resist you. Also, you are a foreign force. You will probably become a unifying factor for Hungary and Poland. Also keep in mind the Poles and Hungarians DID have ties to the Holy Roman Empire. Giving them ANY time to prepare could have also meant the involvement of Germany, Bohemia, and Switzerland. And if we couple the horrendous reputation the Mongols gained during their first invasion there is no telling if the pope would've gotten involved. Popes had called whole ass crusades for less. Also, you have also gained the attention of the Templar knights. That's also not a great thing for you if you aren't a Christian nation. @@koreancowboy42

@WhoeverThisManIs20.14

6 ай бұрын

@@mishkosimonovski23 Even Subutei would be a good general, but if he only had cavalrymen but has no artillery, he will have to starve the occupants, but by then, the Hungarians already had crossbowmen that can outrange the horse archers.

Empire gets too big, empire gets split into administrative districts, imperial districts try to outcompete each other. Where have I seen that before.....

@tafad5138

4 жыл бұрын

HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul in every big empire, rome, ummayad, mongol, etc

@loserpooper

3 жыл бұрын

Great Macedon too

@thomasgregory6975

3 жыл бұрын

Yes . True governors or regents and small contingents. Just like the military. Companies, brigades, regiments battalions and so forth

@full-timepog6844

3 жыл бұрын

🎵RRRROOOOOMMAA!🎵

@drollyrancher7020

3 жыл бұрын

Seeing this in America today are we not?

How many boards would the Mongol hordes horde if they were bored

@88fibonaccisequence

4 жыл бұрын

A bored Mongol horde would hoard as many boards as a Mongol horde could hoard if a Mongol horde could hoard boards. But they're nomadic, so they can't hoard that many boards.

@chuweihang585

4 жыл бұрын

@@88fibonaccisequence even better good job!

@blakedennison8876

4 жыл бұрын

I hadto read this twice lol

@kebman

4 жыл бұрын

Millions, but only if they were under quarantine lockdown.

@darthplagueis13

4 жыл бұрын

All of the boards

The Knights would have defeated the Mongols by using the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. ;)

@spooky5787X

3 жыл бұрын

...and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and ...

@mattianardini4388

3 жыл бұрын

Battle of legniz mongolian best of all time

@Khayde

3 жыл бұрын

SKIP A BIT, BROTHER!

@wulfyhowls1678

3 жыл бұрын

The number thou shalt count to is three...no more ....no less....five is right out

@aslof1069

3 жыл бұрын

Grenade or any gun powder weapon was 1st created in China in which all of it was conquered in the 13th Century. So I think, the Mongols had better equipment xD

To put this in perspective: The Mongols invaded Russia in winter and won

@celdur4635

3 жыл бұрын

A disunited Russia, still impressive nonetheless.

@LOFIGSD

3 жыл бұрын

Still people perpetuate myths like, Composite Bows dont like the heat, cold, rain or humidity etc, they knew how to look after them, from Russia to China, the Middle East and Europe!

@SzalonyKucharz

3 жыл бұрын

To correct your perspective: Russia did not come into existence yet at the time of the Mongol invasion of Europe. The so-called Kievan Rus' that the Mongols largely dismantled was a the time more or less fragmented federation of sovereign Ruthenian principalities: Kiev, Volhyn, Halych, Polotsk, Smolensk, Chernigov, Pereyeslav, Novogrod, Rostov and Ryazan. It was actually after the Mongol Invasion that the forefather of Russia was born - the Grand Duchy of Moscow, re-established as a sovereign state in 1263 and successfully liberating other Ruthenian lands from the Mongol yoke, to become Tsardom of Russia in 1547 and finally, the Russian Empire in 1721.

@LOFIGSD

3 жыл бұрын

@@SzalonyKucharz fair comment, but unless you have studied Russian history since the 10th Century, its easier to conceptualise Russia.

@user-js4uq9xh7y

3 жыл бұрын

The people called themselves"Russian" and even though the disjointed Kievan Rus had a centre in Kiev, Novgorod was also very important. In that respect our history is a little bit like China's - we are all Russian even though there were all these separate principalities that could fight each other, or make alliances against other principalities, but share the same cultural, linguistic and ethnic root. The unification of of Russia happened once before the Mongols, during the pagan times (the times where the Vikings and the Eastern Slavs would raid Constantinople together - Slavic prince Oleg once nailed his shield over the gates of the Czargrad (old russian name for Constantinople) , and then it happened again after Moscow started to unify the other principalities around it, culminating in Ivan IV proclaiming himself the first Czar of all of Russia - a title that we borrowed from Byzantium (as well as the religion and the double headed eagle).

Metatron: Great Courses Plus. Captions: Great horses plus Mongols: Helo

@olavc.oevele1902

4 жыл бұрын

He clearly says Great Horses Plus in the end of the ad part.

@m.a.t.a.s

4 жыл бұрын

You mean Great korsis plus?

@JasperFromBredaa

4 жыл бұрын

Great Coursers Plus

@bashkillszombies

4 жыл бұрын

Sedimentary farmers approve this message.

Personally, I think that one of the greatest limiting factors to mongol expansion was the inability of its army to adapt to environments that were drastically different from their own. Even though the mongol empire was huge, it mostly expanded across areas that had geography somewhat similar to Mongolia, most importantly an arid climate. Most of the major failed invasions happened when they invaded a place with drastically different geography. To invade Japan they had to perform an amphibious assault, to invade java they had to move by boat and get caught in a guerrilla war, and their invasions of South and Southeast Asia may have been most hampered by the humid climate. Both horses and men were not used to the humidity, their bow strings would become become loose or have to be readjusted. Even South China, which was eventually conquered, took far longer than the North, and it had a warmer and more humid climate. Humidity may have been one of their greatest enemies. However, all these things can also be attributed to other factors, so none of this is definite.

@RafaelValle12

2 жыл бұрын

In their defense, that's pretty much been the case for most civilizations. Rome and the west had trouble in deserts. The US has trouble in Vietnam and has trouble in Afghanistan, and naval invasions are just hard no matter what time period (if disputed). People just thrive in what they know. The mongols thrived best in the plains.

@abdurrahmanqureshi3030

2 жыл бұрын

True but the losses against the Mamelukes, Hungarians and Indians weren't effected by environment.

@pickleballer1729

2 жыл бұрын

This is what I've heard in the past, and I think it is valid. As Metatron says,the factors are many and varied. I've learned more about the Mongols yesterday and today than in all of my previous 66 years of life. God, I LOVE KZread!

@karentiger5117

Жыл бұрын

I think mongol could conquer Europe but because of drama and khanate death they keep having to vote and forfeit their comapaign

@chaost4544

Жыл бұрын

One of the best analysis in the comment section.

"Bela, the king of hungary i have heard that you accepted the refuge of my enemies kypchaks. Now i am coming to hungary, kypchaks may take their tents and flee, but what will you do?" - Batu Khan

@petercselik5674

2 жыл бұрын

@Pico Rico He knew whats comming and did his best to deffend his kingdom but that time he was a weak King. With his reform (knights + castles) the second invasion failed and we stopped the Mongols.

One of the Chinese historians says best. When you have a hunter fighting a farmer, the hunter will always win.

@cristianvillanueva8782

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a good proverb

@melikshah6381

3 жыл бұрын

Unless the farmer is the main character

@DctrBread

3 жыл бұрын

this is quite a proverb. This was even true in 20th century wars.

@amilcarebassanelli8920

3 жыл бұрын

Luke Skywalker was a farm boy 😁

@conservative_Redskin

3 жыл бұрын

Tell that to the countless dead samurais that underestimated the ninja...PS real ninja were farmers, merchants, and common folks with training

Me: *looks at picture of knight* My brain: ghost horse

@juancapurro7499

4 жыл бұрын

wouldn’t that be the KKK

@fckstreetshitters4294

4 жыл бұрын

the mongols made the indian pajeets their bittch,and created mughal empire and ruled indians for 700 years

@nicholasgutierrez9940

4 жыл бұрын

Green Knight from Warhammer. Ghost pony.

No one: Not a single Mongolian: Not even Genghis Khan: Metatron: *PONIES*

@Intranetusa

4 жыл бұрын

The Mongol horse is small but isn't from one of the pony breeds....so idk if it can actually be called a pony.

@maxmuller8633

4 жыл бұрын

Ponies were the strongest of small animals

@bilalbadar1438

4 жыл бұрын

That's what the Mongol horses are classified as. Dimunitive, hardy and evasive animals that would run circles around the larger horse breeds of Europe.

@szarekhthesilent2047

4 жыл бұрын

@@cypres538 ehm, sorry but what? Stone Age Ethiopia conquered Italy? When?

@shorewall

4 жыл бұрын

@@cypres538 It sounds like you're projecting your butthurt.

As a European, the castles argument is an Eurocentric one because the Mongols did conquer fortified stone castles, as they took Austria in the initial advancement then parts of Germany by the fragmented Golden Horde. Also, the Mongols were able to besiege Baghdad, arguably the most fortified city at the time with a massive population to back it up. And the reason the Mongols didn't venture into western Europe further was that the Mongol army that went into Europe was a 20 tumens(?) expedition party in which the majority of their military was committed to taking China. I believe the Mongols could have conquered the entirety of Europe if they committed around 10-15% of the forces in the East. Lastly, I think the maces and other weaponry utilized by the Mongols were considerable counters to the armors of knights.

Regarding your last remark about Western Europe, they did encounter fortified castles in the East already. They encountered them in Chin/Jin lands, as early as Xi Xia Empire. I believe they also did in Kwarezmia (Samarkand amongst many others)

@albertocruz5032

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah China was easily more of a challenge militarily than any European nation at the time. Plus not to mention the Mongols were excellent at sowing division amongst their enemies and considering how divided medieval Europe was at the time I have no doubt some of the European kingdoms would have came over to the mongols just like they did in China and the Middle East.

@georgethompson1460

3 жыл бұрын

@@albertocruz5032 cough second invasion of hungary cough

@TheLoki7281

2 жыл бұрын

@@albertocruz5032 if you have no doubt they would, why didnt they, when the mongols tried to sow diversion, tried to bribe kingdoms to thier cause?

@mrbrightside473

2 жыл бұрын

This I was wondering, the Mongols would have seen similar or more advanced infrastructure in china and the middle east. It didnt stop them much either.

@xKinjax

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrbrightside473 Yet they didn't. They never advanced into Europe again and they got stomped by the Mamluks in the Middle-East. If you look at their encounters in Europe the vast majority of their victories were achieved vs unfortified/lightly fortified settlements and usually against armies which they either outnumbered or managed to trick in some way. If they had actually engaged in a straight up field battle with the larger European powers they would have lost the same way they lost almost all major battles vs the Mamluks.

plus the Mongols chose their military commanders (on every level) based on skills and merit. that helped a lot

Hey Meta,! I think you meant to say that the Han were Sedentary Farmers, rather than Sedimentary Farmers. Unless they truly loved growing rocks. I like the hat by the way.

@seneca983

4 жыл бұрын

Where were the igneous and metamorphic farmers?

@crusaderkun304

4 жыл бұрын

@@seneca983 igneous farmers are the people that make obsidian generators in minecraft

@theguyfromsaturn

4 жыл бұрын

It's an obvious troll. He's a linguist. There is now way he doesn't know the difference between sedimentary and sedentary.

@AdobadoFantastico

4 жыл бұрын

Rock Gardens, bruh.

Why does everyone always forget that the Hungarians actually beat the Mongols and chased them out of their country and went as far as raiding deep into Mongol lands????

@deece1482

Жыл бұрын

I was about to bring this up. Good work Hungarians.

@crusaderforchrist8430

Жыл бұрын

Hungarians lost Battle of Mohi before.

@NubiansNapata

Жыл бұрын

Hungarians never invaded any mongols land ... subatai and batu literally destroyed the Hungarian army and king Bela ran out of Hungary

The Mongol strategy versus a lot of castles would probably be similar to their strategy in the Korean campaign. Koreans built a lot of mountain fortresses, which can definitely be compared to castles. When Koreans retreated to them and adopted a defensive strategy, the Mongols razed the countryside and tried to starve the Koreans out. Granted, it took a long time, but the Mongols did win the war of attrition.

@Voidicusoffical

7 ай бұрын

Europeans though also have a better understanding of siege warfare since they had been waging it practically non-stop the whole time since the fall of the roman Empire. And looking at Korean castles, they don't seem to have some of the design choices that European castles tend to have to deter battering rams, troop movements, trebuchets, etc. Some of these being machicolations, a winding walled walkway, that tends to turn very tightly, assault towers, etc. European castles were not just defensive structures. Often times they were designed to give the defenders every possibility to inflict as much death upon an attacking force as possible. Such is the case with the siege of Stirling castle in 1304 just over 50 years after the Mongol invasion. Castles were built with a lot of similar concepts well before the 14th century (they have to be since 1304 is close to the turn of the century and they didn't shit out a well designed castle in 4 years lol). This siege saw 30 defenders hold off 5-10k for 4 whole months. And now lets talk about the literal thousands of castles in western Europe. This isn't a matter of a long time as in 4-12 years. This is a matter of literal generations of slow and bloody warfare. And even then, there's no telling how far the Mongols could realistically take this without incurring massive losses on their own economy, since winters will be brutal and the Europeans have zero issue with torching their own lands if an enemy has solid control over it just so that way you starve. Especially since European sieges that saw a healthy number of defenders (so a few hundred if not more in a larger siege) could also sally out with heavy shock troops, strike your camps or supply lines in the cover of night, and retreat before you can mount effective resistance. And if you get caught with an enemy field army attacking your siege camps along with the defenders themselves you can easily go from a deadly siege force to minced meat (siege of Vienna by the ottomans?) And since sieges will take AGES to do, your a sitting duck while sieging, which makes that whole army available for other operations and you also have to plan around the siege until it either drops or is successful. But then you have to go about replenishing that force of it's lost manpower due to casualties. And you will have to do this for every. single. siege. There is a reason why western Europe never saw a major empire taking over western Europe after Charlemagne.

@slXD100

6 ай бұрын

@@Voidicusoffical i think the second mongol invasion of hungary shows what would've happened, west european forces would've certainly crushed the mongols, no doubt.

@Voidicusoffical

6 ай бұрын

exactly. and even at that point in history you could still call Hungary "western Europe Lite"@@slXD100

@DEANISME_

4 ай бұрын

Nope the one who defeat Mongol many time was mamluk sultanate of Egypt

@Voidicusoffical

4 ай бұрын

well yeah, multiple nations defeated the Mongols on multiple occasions. Hungary and the Mamluks defeated the Mongols simultaneously. The second Mongol invasion was kind of a bloodbath that didn't sway in the Mongol's favor. @@DEANISME_

Mongols: *Looking at german castle* German engineer: Let me show you it's features! Mongols: I think we better go choose new khan instead...

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

A slingshot fan I see ;)

@Stefan140

4 жыл бұрын

*hearty laughter coming from inside the castle*

@warwickthekingmaker7281

4 жыл бұрын

'if the ancestors of Joergsprave built the castle, can you blame the mongols for turning the other way? It probably had hundreds of deathtraps and automated machine crossbow nests

@parisulki729

4 жыл бұрын

-Here you have place for archeres, where they can shoot safely, and there is hole where we pour boiling oil at you, and here.... -Nah, not interested

@darthplagueis13

4 жыл бұрын

​@Plamen Stoev The issue with castles is a strategical one. They take really long to take, even if you are proficient at besieging. That gives the enemy time to prepare for you. If you just ignore the castle, you'll run into an issue with your supply lines getting attacked from there.

1:42 imagine, a Chinese farmer made of rock

@darthpalpalzang7914

4 жыл бұрын

He's a rock farmer.

@rhysjonsmusic

4 жыл бұрын

Or a farmer that grew rocks

To be honest, I’d love to see you do an episode on Subutai. The man is literally one of the greatest military leaders of all time, conquering more territory than any individual man and pulling off feats of army coordination and communication that seem absolutely insane even today, yet he’s basically a footnote in most discussions if he’s lucky.

@Rishi123456789

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Subutai is criminally underrated.

@sebastianparker7300

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rishi123456789 Agreed I wonder why?

@skeletorlikespotatoes7846

11 ай бұрын

Yeah a bunch of land barely organized or populated but sure

@Jeyeyeyey

11 ай бұрын

@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 you mean 90% of the british "empire"?

@skeletorlikespotatoes7846

11 ай бұрын

@@Jeyeyeyey what does that have to do with anything? 😂 The British at least conquered entire religions with tiny forces. That's way more impressive

20:39 “The mongols had never encountered fortified castles.” 1. China 2. The Nizari Ismaili castles

@yonathanrakau1783

3 жыл бұрын

*southern china but at that point they are overextended so much from their center i think they can just wouldnt bother to do it since its so far and harder to do

@titytitmk2738

3 жыл бұрын

There are significant differences between European and Chinese fortifications. European fortifications usually had multiple levels of mutually supporting defences, all of which were designed less around mass troop movement and more around efficiency of defence. In short, European defences were designed to be able to stall/inconvenience/bog down as many enemy troops as possible whilst using the least amount of men possible. Some castles in Britain, for example, were capable of holding up armies in the thousands despite only having garrisons comprised of a couple dozen men. Chinese defences were much more open plan, less efficient and more reliant on large troop numbers. Due to the state of China when the Mongols attacked, the Chinese nations werent able to mount effective defence against the Mongol horde because of this and were subsequently defeated.

@ihavenomouthandimusttype9729

3 жыл бұрын

@@titytitmk2738 Interesting. What about the Nizari Ismaili? And the other castles in the middle east?

@titytitmk2738

3 жыл бұрын

@@ihavenomouthandimusttype9729 The Middle East has fortifications similar to European fortifications, but much more spread out. One of the strengths of Europe is that medieval rulers placed castles very densely, and also shaped the landscape to aide in the defence of the land such as tall, dense hedgerows, river diversions, placing castles to block travel over 'safe' paths through marshes and bogs etc, blockiing paths through dense forests etc. The Europeans would have had significant advantages both in the field and in defence as in both the inherent strength of the Mongols, their speed and agility (both tactical and strategic) would have been crippled. Due to the terrain of the middle east (desert or rocky mountains) this couldnt be done. And so the Mongols could utilise their speed to easily surround and cut off the middle eastern fortifications, eventually sieging them down one by one. In Europe, the Mongols couldnt do this due to terrain blockages allowing European troops to defeat Mongol forces and/or reinforcements never being that far away.

@vladii82

3 жыл бұрын

@@titytitmk2738 I think the sparse vegetation and settlements in the Middle East would not have supported such a large army as well. In mainland Europe the horde had easy access to grasslands and hunting in order to support troops and their animals. While in the Middle East they would have needed to split in smaller armies. Or they would follow predictable paths for invasion - e.g. following rivers and coastal lines. Then again why would they need to venture into desert areas if there aren't any large settlements to raid? I am not familiar with this part of history, just thinking.

I think you meant "sedentary" rather the "sedimentary" farmers in your reference to the Han.

@D_R757

4 жыл бұрын

Dirt farmers

@joshpullman1690

4 жыл бұрын

Those farms man, they were deep. Many layers.

@StarRider253

4 жыл бұрын

Good Crusader Good one lol

@anarchogarfieldist1652

4 жыл бұрын

I have a very vivid memory of being wrong about this in class and I still ache from embarrassment

@rhysjonsmusic

4 жыл бұрын

Damn rock farmers

Ok, I'm casually investigating about Mongolian history...and then this video appears in my notifications.... ARE YOU SPYING ME????!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣👍 I hope you make someday a video about music in ancient Rome*

@speedy01247

4 жыл бұрын

Well it's Google does the question even need to be asked.

@HVLLOWS1999

4 жыл бұрын

ALGORITHMIC TARGETING DEIDARA-KUN

@tahahadada1936

4 жыл бұрын

You like art I can see from you picture

@lukesullivan3218

4 жыл бұрын

SAME😂😂

@zoazede2098

4 жыл бұрын

@@tahahadada1936 obviously* I see you are a man of culture too~

this was the most meaningfully spent half an hour in the last week, thank you

One of the details I really like in Ghost of Tsushima is how it represents the Mongol Horde as these distinct but subjugated and unified tribes, always under the leadership of a uniform mongolian armoured noble. They have different insignias, different uniforms and even different weapons of choice and ways of fighting. It's a fantastic way of visually distinguishing the different types of enemies, adding enemy variety and also reflecting a part of mongolian history that is often not mentioned.

They were defeated at the battle of Stary Sącz and at the Battle of Łagów in 1288. The Hungarians picked them apart during the second invasion of Hungary. The country was fortified in just a short time. Also, the king focused on military revolutions with heavy cavalry with plate armour like CoP etc. and corssbowmen and horse archers recruited from the Székelys. Hit and run tactics with all the food stored in castles did wonders. Denying the enemy and meat them with their own weapons and tactics in concentration against small raiding parties. They also lost the battle of Blue Waters 1362. The mongols weren't invincible

@jozefpotacki3413

4 жыл бұрын

Exacly. They had the element of suprise the first time around. They weren't the only ones to adapt quickly.

@eirikronaldfossheim

4 жыл бұрын

@@peepooo8337 The first invasion was in 1241. The second was in 1285-86. That's 44 years after, not a century. I'm talking about what Metatron is aiming at if you can read between the lines of what he is saying.

@jozefpotacki3413

4 жыл бұрын

@@peepooo8337 Where, in Hungary?

@FilipCordas

4 жыл бұрын

But also people forget that Hungarians used similar tactics to Mongols. Hit and run horse archery has a long tradition in Hungary centuries before the Mongols. The reason they lost was just that they didn't expect such an attack and didn't mobilize in time.

@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874

4 жыл бұрын

@@FilipCordas Hungarians at the time already abandoned those tactics. They changed at the end of the 10th century, so much earlier. The only troops keeping the old traditions were the allies of hungarians, the székelys.

Man, this is actually really great!! The Mongol Invasion and their occupation of Russia is a major topic that could appear in my exams this year (hopefully they'll still be held despite the virus), and this video provides a favorite topic of mine spoken by one of my favorite youtubers!! And this is much better than hearing this stuff from a teacher in Russia or reading it from a textbook. Thank you Metatron!

@S41t4r4

4 жыл бұрын

You are literally the first person that I have seen on the web that want to be examined. :)

@andreystudenikin8441

4 жыл бұрын

@@S41t4r4 lol. I do want to get into uni after all, and I wouldn't want to waste another year if exams are going to be cancelled

@adorabell4253

4 жыл бұрын

Мне понравились лекции Клима Жукова на эту тему. Очень интересные. И лекции с The Great Course Plus, которые были упомянуты в начале тоже очень хорошие.

@andreystudenikin8441

4 жыл бұрын

@@adorabell4253 Спасибо!! Обязательно посмотрю!

@andreystudenikin8441

4 жыл бұрын

@MTF Unit Foxtrot-6 Commander Yes, but they are also called Russian when talked about informally

I've watched your videos for years and I've enjoyed your latest editing and presentation style. I'm guessing here but it looks like you're enjoying playing with it all. Keep up the great work mate. I'm excited to see how many minds out there love to soak this stuff up as much as I do. 👍

2:30 Am I the only one who thought that he looked like Italian Burger King?

Glad to see you post, Metatron! And the Mongols were the "Ghost Division" of their day.

@piotrekmajewski4867

4 жыл бұрын

Metal-tron should use Sabaton as soundtracks. Change my mind.

@piotrekmajewski4867

4 жыл бұрын

For this specifically The Hu, but otherwise Sabaton

@seneca983

4 жыл бұрын

Ghost Tumen

@finiteenergy7155

4 жыл бұрын

Piotrek Majewski yes absolutely yes

@derdingsreturnsnochmal5177

4 жыл бұрын

They are the Great Khan's elite Born to compete Feign their retreat - horse division -

Actually, Kiev had stone walls at the moment, along with some other Rus large cities. Of course, those were not castles, but still - Mongols were perfectly able to breach stone walls, provided they had time and materials.

@2bingtim

3 жыл бұрын

Yes they had siege engines flat-packed for accompanying their armies & even used them as field artilliary. People should read a bit of the actual history before trying to educate us with their guess work & preconceptions.

@neutronalchemist3241

3 жыл бұрын

the problem was time and materials. It was a completely different warfare, and a very expensive one. Even having European engineers, to conquest even small fortresses could keep months. To try to speed things by dividing the army and attacking many of them at once, meant to loose the biggest advantage the Mongols had, their command chain, able to cohordinate tens of thousands men during a battle. It had already been noted in the first invasion that Europeans tended to win small scale engagements, when cohordination was much simpler. And infact, in the subsequent attempts of invasion Hungarians and Poles exploited that, dividing the campaing in multiple small scale engagements instead of seeking big pitched battles.

@storagebox1793

3 жыл бұрын

@@neutronalchemist3241 the first invasion was a small 20k expeditionary force. See what they did when they simply went out for a stroll to beat the bushes to see what was out there? You must also remember that there were plague outbreaks in Europe around this time. So yes, they could lock themselves in their fortified cities but they would also lock themselves in with the plague, small pox and coronaviruses etc., A great many things were happening at the time. Also, the Rus and Eastern Europeans had walled cities. As did many of the cities they invaded in the Middle East and china.

@neutronalchemist3241

3 жыл бұрын

@@storagebox1793 No. the first invasion was a massive three-pronged expedition led by the two most renown Mongol generals and a son of the Gran Khan himself. Only at Mohi the Mongols had 70.000 cavalrymen, plus infantry, auxiliaries, chinese engineers, servants, etc. The expeditionary force in Hungary alone easily exceeded the 100.000 men. Then there was the second column, that raided Poland with 10.000 men (one tumen), and the third, that followed the Danube. 20.000 men (two tumens) were only the ones that pursued King Bela in Croatia, and had been defeated in a series of ambushes, because the Dalmatian terrain was not favourable to Mongol tactics. Plagues tend to be lethal for the siegers too.

@mheekkim2901

3 жыл бұрын

People forget Mongols didn't think up of everything, they incorporated the minds of those nearby or those they took over. If Ghengis was alive Western Europe was highly likely to have fallen. They would've taken the European strategists to overcome the castles and knights. Luckily he died before that could happen.

On strategic level, after initial invasions, Mongols choose not to be concerned with Europe conquest not only because European castles were too strong, or European knights prowess and equipment was too great. They abandon conquest because Europe’s terrain was completely unsuited for warfare and pastoral economy of steppes (the more into west, north or south, the worse), and Europe was far too divided by natural barriers and decentralized to be subjugated in short series of campaigns. and to be centrally controlled by Mongol overlords. There wasn’t real Emperor of Europe which have to be beaten only once. There was large number of strong, rich, well equipped and strongly fortified sovereigns, connected by countless alliances, blood ties and fundamentalist religion. Think about it as larger Afghanistan. You can conquer some of it, but you cannot control it. Mongols were biggest fishes in vast steppe ocean. That was their natural habitat. Outside it, they were washed ashore and struggling. Strength of castles and knights was of course important, but not exactly detrimental. Even Europe richness and huge population wasn’t obstacle. Mongols took China. They also had beaten many good European armies in Russia, Poland and Hungary and took many stone fortresses in those countries. Most of important cities of this countries, not only capitals had at this time walls and castles. But… There were open-field fortresses with large civilian population. Using reconnaissance, preparation, experienced, engineers and vastly superior mobility Mongols could surround, cut from reinforcements and destroy almost every city. Time was the key. In mountainous terrain and hills, which are plentiful in Europe, fortresses had more defensive value, they were more difficult to cut from supplies and far more difficult to be approached by Mongol cavalry. In that terrain siege was very costly because there forage to horses were in short supply. Russia at XIII century was located on easy accessible flats with plenty of grass. Poland and Hungary also, but they had also settlements on higher latitudes. Speaking especially of Kingdom of Hungary, it was much larger that today's Republic. Half of Kingdom was located mountainous regions in today’s Slovakia and Romania. There was many strategic defense points untouched by Mongol invasion (and later in similar fashion Turkish), so overwhelming all of Hungary couldn’t be done in 1241. They attack the central point - the king, hoping this is enough (as in China or Central Asia, where was only one powerful central authority to subdue). Mongol had great success in 1241 because rulers of Hungary and Poland decided to defend country on open field, on flat terrain, in heartland of country. That particular mistake wasn’t repeated often, after details of Mongol warfare become widely known. If they simply decided to retreat into mountains and wait for help from other European countries (impossible to stop due of enormously large European coastline), Mongols couldn’t reach their strategic objectives in time. They of course could rape, pillage and plunder, but it will make them unfocused, dispersed and open for counterattacks and guerrilla tactics based on very numerous fortified points and forests. If persistent, they could control local principalities in Poland’s and Hungary flatland for some time (in similar fashion as in XIII-XIV Russia), but that's it. Going through all European mountains (think of Alps) and river systems, capturing all defense points being non-stop harassed all the time by numerous warlike people having really huge (comparing to Asia) quantities of excellent iron and coal (and top-notch metallurgy) - IMPOSSIBLE. There is a reason that nobody ever conquer all of Europe, and „instant soup” empires there were mostly ephemeral (think about longevity of Napoleon or Hitler). There is a reason that Ottoman Empire (Mongolian analogue, world power number 1 at time, having Asian strategy exceptionally well adapted to European warfare, and lot of time) never conquer entire Kingdom of Hungary, only most of it. Or even whole Montenegro. Thinking of conquering Germany, France, Lowlands, Switzerland or Italy together Mongol way, without abandoning nomadic way of life - MADNESS. After two decades of warring in XIII century Mongols won almost most of encounters in Europe. Europeans were totally impressed and stunned by their prowess, but Mongols themselves had realistic assessment of situation, and they know that from strategic point of view, in Central Europe they achieve nothing. In this occasion they collect more knowledge about lands further west, north and south and were disheartened by it’s conclusions. Meanwhile Europeans also learned about Mongols and adapted to them, to outclass them completely in future. And from all European nations Russians proved to be most adapted. They took Mongol system of organization and warfare, implemented it, mixed it with other elements, improved it and beat former overlords thoroughly.

@wingedhussar1453

3 жыл бұрын

13 century europe would fall to mongols but mongols had their main forces occupied in china {china was the biggest emprie at the time fell to mogols main army and so did baghdad and others when mongols put their whole effort} theres no way stopping them in 13 century when they ut their whole power behind it.China was more lucrative to take that then europe,this is not 16th century europe which could wistand mongols but 12 century

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

I mean could they have invaded yes but can they gain anything from the land of the Europeans no in fact they already have the fertile cresent so why bother with Europe.

@aggroalex5470

3 жыл бұрын

And they were taken out by wave in Japan... a wave is just tall water.

@wingedhussar1453

3 жыл бұрын

traps their whole fleet didn't land so them being on water was a problem

@aggroalex5470

3 жыл бұрын

@@wingedhussar1453 it's just water...

Not only am i hooked on your facinating videos, but you truly look like you have stepped out from the pages of history. I love it

The Mongolians had perfected the art of cooking beautifully spiced Meat and vegetables on large, round, solid iron griddles at temperatures of up to 300°C complimented with a selection of dips and oriental sauces! Whereas the Europeans had to make do with over boiled tubers! Just one sniff of the enemy encampments exotic cuisine and all the castle doors west of Krakow would have swung right open. P.S. I think this has already happened ;)

@pepsifrog420

4 жыл бұрын

Didnt the Mongils eat horse meat?

@cahallo5964

4 жыл бұрын

@@pepsifrog420 not only them, salted sundried horse is pretty common around a lot of cultures.

@johnyricco1220

4 жыл бұрын

Mongolian BBQ is a marketing gimmick invented in Taiwan after observing Japanese teppanyaki restaurants experiment with gas griddles during the American occupation. The Taiwanese made the griddle much bigger and cooked Chinese food instead. Japan was hated so they didn't want to call it Japanese BBQ and called it Mongolian BBQ instead. Ironically the Manchus did cook with a giant iron griddle. Perhaps someone in Taiwan mistook Manchurian cuisine for Mongol. If they called it Manchurian BBQ from the start it would have been pretty accurate. Some years ago an American owned Mongolian BBQ chain called "Khans" opened a franchise in Mongolia as a publicity stunt. The Mongolians had never seen anything like it and the restaurant got voted best new restaurant of the year.

@gronkiusmaximus

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnyricco1220 Interesting stuff, where did you learn about all this? Any links?

@RogueDragon-so8pg

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnyricco1220 Very interesting.

Finally, a versus that actually happened in history. You should do more of those.

"Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field."~Robert Baratheon

@TyphoonJig

3 жыл бұрын

That's what I find stupid with the dothrakis as a threat in GoT. Mongols were on par with military tactics and equipment and had a marvelous logistics and administration and those things made them a threat it's not just "We're many and on horses modafacka!".

@AeneasGemini

3 жыл бұрын

@@TyphoonJig Except the Dothraki really don't fight like Mongols, they have horse archers but barely use them, just charge right in and forget that they're not heavy cavalry

@TyphoonJig

3 жыл бұрын

@@AeneasGemini Yeah, but they were made to evoke the mongol horde conquering the world and coming to europe... with none of the advantages that the ongols had except number which is quite reducing the question.

@celdur4635

3 жыл бұрын

@@TyphoonJig Yeah quite ridiculous, also the Mongols were almost always inferior in numbers but moved so fast that they could deploy and redeploy their armies on several fronts making it seem to the people at the time that there were many more mongols than there actually where.

@Likexner

3 жыл бұрын

"Only a fool would send the Dothraki after the undead instead of keeping them in reserve" - Me.

Metatron, thank you for everything you do, I've learned a lot from you

No one can deny that the Mongols were highly effective but people over-attribute that to the inherent power of horse archers as a concept. That's kind of like reducing Napoleon's power entirely to the quality of his muskets. People also forget that horse archers were used by many peoples across history and didn't win every battle. In fact, unlike in video games, heavy cavalry were a fairly effective counter to horse archers. P.S. 2 things to add: "movement speed" is not a simple statistic like in games and coordinating a unit is not that simple. Secondly, there's no such thing as chip damage in real life: an attack either causes a tangible wound or it does nothing.

@Robert399

4 жыл бұрын

@Vvv Yes I know but orderly retreat while shooting against an opponent who's almost as fast as you isn't simple, unlike in video games. "Movement speed" is not that simple and real military units aren't as responsive as in Total War. Yes, if every Mongol just fled as fast as he could, they'd almost all escape but then your unit is broken and every individual's acting on his own initiative; you've essentially routed. On occasion, horse archers have been caught by *infantry* in open battle (look up the Roman victories against Parthia).

@Robert399

4 жыл бұрын

@Arda That's one example I was going to use. Again, the Seljuks were very effective but they lost many battles against the Crusaders too, especially their heavy cavalry charges. Europeans fought many cultures in the centuries before the Mongol invasions who used horse archers and, while many of them were dangerous, they weren't insurmountable (e.g. the Parthians, the Huns, the Avars, the Umayyad Caliphate, the Magyars/Hungarians). And no, not everyone "tried to have their own horse archers" - I don't know where you got that impression. That's actually a pretty good indication that they weren't "OP" or else everybody would have.

@Robert399

4 жыл бұрын

Actually this whole myth of the invincible steppe warrior annoys me. It starts from a truth: "Europe suffered devastating incursions from steppe peoples" but completely ignores equally important facts: a) Europe suffered devastating incursions from non-steppe peoples (e.g. the Germanic tribes) b) Steppe peoples suffered devastating incursions from both steppe and non-steppe peoples (e.g. the Khazar empire was dismantled by the eastern Vikings and the Göktürks by the Chinese). The only valid conclusion here is: "peoples suffered devastating incursions from other peoples". This myth only makes sense through an incredibly narrow Eurocentric lens.

@2bingtim

3 жыл бұрын

Heavy cavalry can't catch horse archers, especially when several re-mounts are available for each horse archer. The main Mongol tactic against hem was to take the heavy cavalry on, give way in (feigned) flight but retreat drawing the exuburant "victorious" heavies into a killing zone far enough from their supporting infantry, with concealed horse archers on either side of the route who close the trap & mow them down with archery.

@2bingtim

3 жыл бұрын

@Arda Mongols would begin riding horses at 2 & given their first bow at 3. I'd guess a lot of kids died young messing about with both but everyone needed to be able to defend against wild animals attacking livestock & against brigands & enemy tribes.

There were Fortified locations within in China - Jin / Song Dynasty - Siege of Yinchuan, Battle of Zhongdu, Battle of Yehuling (Battle of Wusha Fortress), and others. At the most European levels they would be considered a "castle". But the Mongols also had gunpowder. Gunpowder is a game changer.

@jarlnils435

4 жыл бұрын

If you have allone in the holy roman empire 10.000 castles and you have to siege all of them it takes you centuries to conquer all of western europe

@Drewski-hw1yi

4 жыл бұрын

Although they had gunpowder they didn’t use it extensively and wasn’t really effective enough to be that relevant in warfare yet.

@Intranetusa

4 жыл бұрын

The Mongols had barely just started fighting the Song Dynasty at this point. The invasion of Poland happened around 1240. The Mongol-Song War started around the mid 1230s, but dragged on for 45 years. So anything learned during this war would not have been helpful to the campaign in Poland in 1240. The Mongols later fully conquered Persian and were able to recruit Persian engineers to build counterweight trebuchets that could damage the stone and brick fortifications of the Song Empire.

@johnlin3959

4 жыл бұрын

I came here to make this point too. While I think the Mongols have access to siege engineers from Muslim territories and China and gunpowder, castles are still tough to take. I think that they would have been able to take them, but it would be more costly. In fact, the mongols already had to conquer the aforementioned territories that had heavy fortifications. There's also the argument that the Mongols were very good about incorporating conquered peoples into their armies. Despite that, I think Metatron makes a good point that knights put up a good fight against the Mongolian horde. A crusade level call to arms by the Pope would have unified Europe and probably fielded an army rivaling that of the Horde. I think that would be what prevents the Mongolians from conquering Europe quickly. There are a lot of what ifs. One could easily argue that after a couple battles where they see the strength of properly trained and equipped knights, the Mongolian commanders would resort back to their scouting and trade/espionage. They would play politics and try to maneuver a situation where European powers were less unified before attacking. The first crusades were in the 11 century and some Mongolians were Christians (a result of the religious freedom), so surely they would understand the potential for a crusade and thus try to politically maneuver to avoid it. But again, it's a lot of "what if" styled thought. End of the day, I think the Mongols had a reasonable chance of success at European conquest, except for the British isles and possibly the Scandinavian countries.

@joaomarques6109

4 жыл бұрын

Please, in 1273 (Xiangyang) both Mongols and Chinese where using gunpowder, but the technological edge was the counterweight Trebuchet. It was far superior to the gunpowder weapon of that era.

I love your very well researched, and scholarly presentation of all your presentations. Keep up the good work!

Love Great Courses Plus. Love this channel. Keep recommending courses.

As some have already pointed out: The europeans eventually learned how to counter the Mongols by Building castles and strengthening the fortifications of cities. The Mongols' major strength was mobility and with it the ability to pick the battlefields. The castles and improved fortifications negated that. They forced the Mongols into relying more heavily on siege warfare and while they'd learned to be proficient at that the castles made it so that there were just too many sites to besiege. Of course a castle could be bypassed but then, when they'd settle down to besiege a city, their supply lines would inevitably have castles along them from which heavy cavalry could sally out, destroy supply trains and retreat back into the safety of before the Mongols could concentrate their troops. The same thing would happen if they tried to get supplies locally: they'd have to break up into smaller foraging parties which would again be vulnerable to attacks from the castles and guerilla parties.

@mikkopenttila7604

4 жыл бұрын

@ŇøHă Ģ. I don't think Europe was that far away except the first time around. When the empire split up and it was the Golden Horde trying to conquer Hungary the supply lines didn't stretch to Mongolia/China nor did they need to since the conquest of all of Europe wasn't even a prospect anymore. I agree with you that it was the number of forts that counted. Indeed it wasn't like Europe was completely unfortified in 1200 AD but after the first round of Mongol terror the numbers were increased. That was enough to make any attempt at permanent territorial occupation too costly to maintain. When the Steppe raiders contented themselves with making lightning campaigns for slaves and loot they remained extremely formidable for centuries to come as the raids of the Crimean Khanate showed.

@mikkopenttila7604

4 жыл бұрын

@Al Ponce LIving off the land means you need to be moving which by definition you're not doing while besieging a city or some other fort. When nomadic armies are conducting lightning raids into a territory and then retreating back to the Steppe before the enemy can gather their forces they don't need supply trains but when attempting a permanent conquest they do though (probably) not to the extent infantry armies do. The castles made it so that there were just too many places that needed to be besieged at the same time and not enough manpower to do it, even though they certainly were Masters of the art of the siege. They could definitely Still wreak havoc, rape and plunder but eventually they'd have to pull back.

@the_twowheel_turtle934

4 жыл бұрын

If the political drive would have been present they could have pull it off, it would have probably taken decades though. At this point mongols were more concerned with internal power struggles, poorly developed Europe was of no really strategic or basically any other importance.

@mikkopenttila7604

4 жыл бұрын

@@the_twowheel_turtle934 If you look at history - once your empire gets big enough a unified political drive becomes impossible to maintain. And usually the fractures start while expansion is Still going on. Happened to the Mongols, happened during Islamic conquests and happened in the Soviet Union soon after the revolution to name a few examples.

@benedeknagy8497

4 жыл бұрын

@@mikkopenttila7604 That's exatly how Hungary annihilated the second invading Mongol army. The 30000 strong mongol army could enter trough the Carpathian mountain passes, but were halted by the newly built web of castles and forts. Knight sallying out of castles and local militias striking from forrests, marshes and mountain hideouts, ambushing foraging parties and scouts. The mongols dediced to retreat, but all the mountain passes were blocked behind them. King Ladislaus did not even had to face the invaders in open battle, because they were picked apart by the time the main Hungarian army arrived.

I don't think that castles by themselves were a big problem for the mongols. The Russians did have stone castles and walls, not only wood. It's all in the logistics. The number of those castles and a need to constantly control them to gain foot for a next advancement could become a significant factor for complications in supply routes and communication between tumens. They were too far from The Great Steppe to gain support and reinforcements, in a very hostile and largly infamiliar region.

@grimgoreironhide9985

4 жыл бұрын

When the Mongols conquered Southern China they had to rely on hundred of thousands of Chinese auxiliaries. It also helps that they can resupply and reclaim manpower from the North. It took them 30 years to do this! If they were seriously considering conquering the whole of Europe then expect constant supply lines from the Golden Horde and lots of European auxiliaries. It was just impractical to focus on Europe and not cost effective. Also the it's easier to focus on your murderous cousins and brothers than some Europeans a few thousand miles away.

@kred4849

4 жыл бұрын

There weren't a lot of stone castles in the lands of the Rus at the time the Mongols invaded - consider the fact that the Moscow Kremlin was changed from wood to stone at around 1366-1368. That is around the decline of the Mongol yoke, not the time of the invasion.

@valentynyevenko5047

4 жыл бұрын

@@kred4849 Rus' and russia are different countries. Moscow principaliti was a impoverished province at that date . Metatron just doesn`t know history of these lands and makes serious mistakes because of this.Sorry for my bad English.

@KIRILL-fl7cp

4 жыл бұрын

@@valentynyevenko5047 Rus = Russia, Belarus and Ukraine

@chrysostomgratian8991

4 жыл бұрын

@Arda i see you everywhere in the comments section defending the Mongols are you a Mongol or do you have a Mongol step dad ?

When you were going through all the info that is going to be in this video I was getting so stoked. Love the channel bro

I noticed that AoE2 DE mongol theme 😉 Finally yt recommends some good content keep up the great work man!

Me, an intellectual: Khuzait vs Vlandia

@guiltycross

4 жыл бұрын

Too many horse archers on skirmish hahahahaha

@jscott1622

3 жыл бұрын

I think you mean Khergit vs Swadia

@mojmirbezak1422

3 жыл бұрын

Khergit vs Swadia for the veterans

@-GyBer-

3 жыл бұрын

@@mojmirbezak1422 i respect veterans as i'm the one

@adeptusastartes2388

3 жыл бұрын

Swadians vs khergit

I think you're on to something with those castles. But imho there were even more reasons why Mongols didn't move further west. During the first invasion, Poland was not a united kingdom - it was divided into smaller principalities that were still embroiled in local conflicts. The first invasion was spread out and planned in such a way that the feuding lords weren't able to mobilize enough troops in time. In later years, Poland was invaded two more times. However, this time eastern and central Europeans significantally enhanced their fortifications, mobilized their troops and started to cooperate more - especially during the third invasion, where Mongols had to fight with Poles, Bohemians and Hungarians working pretty much together which, at this time, were already familiar with their tactics, weapons, formations and so on.If the Mongols would try to move further west, they wouldn't have the element of suprise.

@adamjan55

4 жыл бұрын

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament_of_Boles%C5%82aw_III_Wrymouth Some context for the people. I was suprised how little is there on the english side of the internet. There was some Game of Thrones stuff.

@Intranetusa

4 жыл бұрын

We should note that the Mongols who invaded the first time weren't remotely the same as the ones who invaded later on. In the first invasion, the more united Mongol Empire was invading Eastern Europe. In the subsequent invasions, the Mongols had split into 4-5 different empires, and one of the smaller Mongol kingdoms - the Golden Horde, was the one invading Eastern Europe. The Golden Horde did not remotely have the same level of resources, manpower, or quality of soldiers & commanders as the united Mongol Empire had in 1240 and certainly not at its height. Nor did the Golden Horden compare to the Ilkhanate or Yuan Empire in power and wealth. The Golden Horde also probably wouldn't have had access to the Persian engineers who were capable of building large counterweight trebuchets that could attack stone and brick fortifications (the Mongols later used extensive resources and siege equipment to take the stone and brick fortresses of nations such as the Assassins and the Song Empire). The Golden Horde was also embroiled in civil wars with the other Mongol factions (the battle of Ain Jalut was the result of the Golden Horde undermining the Ilkhanate - which then became open warfare and prevented the Ilkhanate from expanding further in the Middle East). So the Golden Horde probably wouldn't have made it that far into Europe in the subsequent invasions even if the situation in Europe resembled the first invasion where they hadn't built hundreds of new fortifications.

@jozefpotacki3413

4 жыл бұрын

@@Intranetusa Yes, this is also true.

@mysticonthehill

4 жыл бұрын

The Mongols had taken stone castles built by Tibetans, Afghans, Persians, Armenians, Georgians and other Caucasus peoples. Metatron was wrong on that. Though he was right that they hated besieging them. In Afghanistan they tore down all castles to prevent them from from being reoccupied.

@heretyk_1337

4 жыл бұрын

@@Intranetusa Still the third invasion of Poland was biggest one- i think- 3 or 4 times larger than firt one. I agree that this army, just 40 years after the first one, wasn`t the same. But neither was the Polish one... I am not saying you are one- but very often, when i see similar comments, i see upset Mongol- boys, who can`t stand their best thing not being best thing, if you know what i mean(just like someone would go for my throat, if i were to say that Samurai weren`t best thig evah, when i`d point times they got smashed... Or knights of the Holly Orders... Or something along these lines). So they look around for reasons why Mongols were so ineffective, or effective in earlier times... Truth to be told, i think, if Poland and Ruthenian Principalities were more united- the fight would be quite different or Mongols wouldn`t invade in such way- maybe later, after some more crafty diplomacy, or preparing better? We know they liked to marry into powerful families as well- so who knows, how it would look? I for sure don`t know. What i want to say is: Mongols were as effective, as ineffective were their enemies. That is common thing across the history and it is not unique- about ANY army, that invaded and was successful, was successful in big part, because enemy couldn`t fight back properly. There are hundreds of examples in history, when underdog army beats the shit out of some elite one- "just"(strategy is NEVER "just" a thing) because commanders were really good at making enemy mistakes his undoing- like Flanders did in Franco- Flemish wars for example- they knew fully well, that frontal attack of French calvary is just death to their soldiers. So they made sure, that French calvary couldn`t charge them down. And they had proper tool for a not- so - highly trained soldiers, to make fight with knights more even(godendag and pikes for example) And so on. It is very rare, that we are talking about some uber soldeirs, elite force, which just sweeps accross the enemy ranks like tide and beats the fuck out of them- and even then, i`d argue, it was the question of proper tools in proper hands- so again strategy, morale, traning against people, who really didn`t want to be there. I will sound like a broken record- i use those examples under so many videos... But on the other hand why the Hell not? Hussars-(yes, because i am a Pole and i need morale boost after hearing about Mongols, and i need to quiet down my rage, and i need to stop asking God to put my right there with pick hammer, over Genghis Khan bed, or in front of the Batu, to change history...)- at Kircholm, or at Chocim, or at Hodów, or at Kutyszcze... We talk elite, but still we talk about guys who were completely in their element... Charge and retreat was their thing. But one of the biggest reasons, they have won- was because enemy couldn`t fight back properly, and didn`t really want to be there. At Kircholm proper charges lasted 25 - 30 minutes. After that we talk about slaughter of people, who were running away. Why? 1) Not even commander of Swedish army wanted to be caught in the open by charging Polish calvary. He was baited into doing the thing he should not do. 2) How can pikemen fight back, when the Hussar lancers outreached them, and they charged in and disengaged so quickly that musketeers were copletly redundant? Might as well use fireworks... Or Kutyszcze: Moscow- Cossack army rear guard- 1000 mounted, armored cuirassieurs(more like dragoons, but i go with name given in the sources) and 4000 of light cossack infantry... And two banners, 125 hussars each, of Commonwealth vanguard... so what? Yeah it sound badass as Hell, and i would never dream of taking anything from those guy personally- that charge had to be done by men with balls so huge, that horses were probably barely troting. Still- Enemy was retreating from MAIN Polish- Lithuanian army. They did not want to be there- who knows, when main forces will come? You`d really want to be in front ranks, fighting against enemy you were RETREATING from? So yeah, it is comical, when one reads how those 1000 Moscovites ran away from 250 hussars, how those hussars chased them THROUGH the 4000 of infantry, and retreated only, when they saw proper earthworks and cannons aiming at them, but couldn`t help themselves, and ran through that poor infantry once again... But as i said- i wonder, how would it look, if Moscovites and Cossacks knew, that there is only 250 of those Hussars, and that for reinfrocments, it would take a while to appear??? The best modern example i can think of- do you really want to fight boxer in a boixng match, when you are traning wrestling? Or do you want the fight to be on your terms, so you can use your advantages? Will you fight to the best of your abilities, if you think about not fighting, while the other guy is already made up his mind? While i agree that 3rd Invasion of Poland was prepared by different commander, still Nogai was competent one and he won quite a bit battles- he still had mounted archers and heavy lancers, despite also having lots of infantry, which of course slowed him down. But by that time Poland was capable of fielding bigger army, and it was led by competent commander, not to mention, by that time many castles were built and many cities were reinforced by stone walls... And this time European armies weren`t as scared, knowing, what they might expect Sorry for a Word Wall- but i hope to discuss :)

loved this format. Now I want to see your videos even more. Nice beard by the way XD

A great video! I know the Mongols were formidable archers put would like to know something more about their swordsmanship? Keep up the good work!

Just an addition. Wenceslas I., the king of Bohemia was cousin of Silesia duke Henry and he was marching to reinforce him. The battle of Legnica happened when his army was about 1-2 days of marching away. So, the king reinforced border and Moravia. He was a smart guy and he employed surprisingly effective tactic against Mongols (fortified outposts, ambushes, spread formation of heavy cavalry), they were able to massacre smaller Mongolian envoys which should establish connection between Silesian and Hungarian wing of Mongol army through Moravia. There is a rumor that his knights knew the tactic from their fathers who fought Turks in Barbarossa's army marching to Holy land.

@EagleSix52

4 жыл бұрын

That's probable Before 14th century and rise of ottomans, Seljuks relied far more on horse archery/steppe tactics similar to Mongols and somewhat Persians (not exactly same but similar) Ottomans preferred centralized armies with relying more on mixed and bigger (thanks to recruiting policies) army compositions

@beganfish

4 жыл бұрын

@@EagleSix52 The Turks were a nomadic people long before they become the ottomans.

@olorin7940

4 жыл бұрын

@@beganfish inst that something everyone knows? the ottoman empire still had centralized armies, and didn't rely on nomadic tactics anymore.

@HauptmannGallenstein

4 жыл бұрын

@@beganfish the turks are not a ethnicity they are a huge mashed together nation of many different middle Eastern races and with some Mongol and caucasian admixture

@HauptmannGallenstein

4 жыл бұрын

And Mongols were always at least 2 to 1 and relied on the most disgusting fighting tactics the world ever saw it if wasn't for their stupid hide and seek game the Europeans and the Samurai and the Persians even the Indians would destroy them

I remember when i was learning German in Bavaria. You can ask about their history against the hunnic expansion. My professor brought up a point in history when Bavarians paid for a 10 truce with the huns, but spent that entire 10 years fortifying their towns. So as soon as the truce was up, the huns tried again raiding the Bavarians and lost many of their troops to the Burgs. This was at a time when the huns were still horse archers, before their culture adapted to European tactics.

@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874

4 жыл бұрын

Huns never adopted to european tactics, they disassembled.

@farmdude2020

4 жыл бұрын

They also didnt adopt siege technology from the Chinese, Persians, and other groups throughout the middle east as the Mongols did

@martinivers489

4 жыл бұрын

In the 9th century the Magyars raided Bavaria. The Huns plundered Rome five centuries earlier.

@maxmustermann369

4 жыл бұрын

@@martinivers489 yeah but its the same with all peoples. defining races is difficult, things usally blur, and in 955 at the battle of the lechfeld they are called the huns again. lets just be glad that hungary changed quite a bit since than...

@nkl7345

4 жыл бұрын

@@maxmustermann369 and then in WWI the bavarians were called huns lul

Philadelphia museum of art has an extensive armory with surviving armor. I haven’t been there in years. Your channel makes me want to see the real stuff again. Thank you for sharing your knowledge on the subject. I have to question how much we really know about life back then.

I love your explanation of European medieval armor throughout the years.

This video was like a breath of fresh air to Medieval history! I especially appreciated your selection of awesome illustrations, both from the period, as well as the modern ones. Beautifully done! Thank you!😊

- but what make the mongol army so dreadfull?" "They've got curved swords. Curved. Swords!!!"

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

Terror tactics and suprise attacks

@deathdealer312

3 жыл бұрын

Noice

@toby1061

3 жыл бұрын

Oh boy they’ve got horses horses!!

@i_love_crpg

3 жыл бұрын

Most nomadic warriors used lances, recurve bows, and maces/axes. Majority didnt use sabers actually.

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

@@i_love_crpg sabers would be exclusive to the richer Nomads, similar to the Vikings.

The idea sounds really funny to me. Central Europeans get wind that the Mongols are coming, they get their stuff and bunker down in the castle, and the Mongols keep going through the countryside wondering where the hell all the people are, running into a castle, scowling at it, then moving on.

@j.p.vanbolhuis8678

3 жыл бұрын

While castles is not the whole story, it is notable that Hungary, and i think poland too, started on a castle building campaign after they survived the invasion. At the least castles would have bought them time. But also probably population. And certainly the kings at that time saw sufficient worth in castle to dedicate huge sums to building them. At a time when both countries were still plundered and poor.

@fuseydunae397

3 жыл бұрын

they were nomads,not stupids

@toby1061

3 жыл бұрын

I mean the Hungarian did this and even defeated the Mongols in open combat during the second invasion of Hungary.

@WarriorofChrist612

3 жыл бұрын

They would find you. They would find you while taking all your precious items from your little house.

@user-wg1mv5hu5v

2 жыл бұрын

@@toby1061 ✝️🇵🇹⚔🇲🇳

I'ma be honest, Mongols vs the Vatican would've been a battle that would've been dope to read about in history books.

Hey Metatron I herd you're interested aboute the french gendarm so here come an intersting story aboute one colorful caracter: The knight of Bayard. He's real name is Pierre Teraille he was born in a little noble family in 1475 that was know for there sense of honnor and chivalry rather than there money. During the firs french incursion in Italy he stand out for his bravery and fiery. Later in 1505 he made his greatest feat: During the retreate of the kingdom of Nalp, the french armie was close to the Italian armie nothing but a narrow bridge stand between them, the bridge of Garigliano . Pierre Terail decided take the defance of the bridge by himself and alone he defaeted two hundreds italians soldiers. Finaly the french artillery take the time to deploy themself and force the italians to fight back. Aside to his well know cavalry quality he was also know for his talant in dual fighting epecialy for his famous dual against the famous Alonzo de Soto in 1503. After several battle he geine in 1509 he the title of capitenne, a tittle usaly restricted to the high nobility. Has the battle gos he fame grow, he even doubbed the king of french after the battle of Marignan (however the episod of the doubbed is highly debated and some historiens think that this doubbed was more a political acte than a chivalrous ceremony). Pierre Teraille was also well know for his sens honnor and chivalry once he defend a family that take care of him when he was injured against some brigands. Once he defend a forifed city with only 3.000 mens against 10.000 soldiers of the holy german empire. But his mos famus page of his legand is his las one: his death. In 1521 he take a arqubus shote frone the back that brocken his vertebral column. Feeling the death invitable he ask his mens to tie him up to a tree and said: During my life I have never turn my back to the enemy and I d'ont want to start while dying". And when came the anemy the general he has so much respect for him that he even suggest a doctor. But Pierre Terail arleady know thate his death is nothing but a matter of time so he refuse the offer (in even heard of that the enemy army take a military parade to show his respot for the french knigh.). After his agony his body was send back to french. Today he his well know as the fearless and blamless knight. I am sory for the ortograph mistake, I am French. Here come the sources: fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Terrail_de_Bayard kzread.info/dash/bejne/ipycpK2ik7u5fZM.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/fmaIp7azebSceZs.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/mY6JqpKQlbibe9I.html

@45calibermedic

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for going through the effort to type this up for us. Oh, and don't worry about the English spelling. My French is far, far worse...

@tnmblonewolf8799

4 жыл бұрын

That guy was definitely a real badass

@alifurkansahin7818

4 жыл бұрын

That's very informative. Thank you and greetings to France!

@RX7FDfreak

4 жыл бұрын

@metatron

@eagleofbrittany7231

4 жыл бұрын

He's one of my favorite knights!

I believe Hungary actually built many castles after the first Mongolian invasions, which proved very effective again the attacks from the golden horde at the end of the century

@user-lu6hp8nx1j

4 жыл бұрын

They actually focused their castle building at the west side of the country (while Mongols came from the east).

@anaussie213

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-lu6hp8nx1j prior to the Mongolian invasion because they were built to stop the Germans. The ones built after were in the east obviously.

@user-lu6hp8nx1j

3 жыл бұрын

​@@anaussie213 Intense castle-building still focused on the west side even after the first Mongol invasion, actually. The logic is simple: Mongols already ravaged and depopulated much of the east side of the kingdom, no point wasting money defending ruins (especially when the Kingdom was already financially strained due to said ravaging). Money is better spent upgrading the defense of still-intact locations.

@Hungabrigoo

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-lu6hp8nx1j Exactly. The western side of Hungary was both richer and significantly more defensible. It made complete sense to abandon the plains and focus the defense there.

i love this video, i learned a lot and it has a story-like structure as well

As a European, it is easy to imagine that the Mongols would have been stopped by fortifications. But there is a huge problem with that theory. It's that in 1258 AD the Mongol Ilkhanate laid siege to Baghdad and CONQUERED it. Baghdad at the time was a well fortified city. I think they could easily have taken all of Europe. The Mongols had of course recruited all the siege engineers they could find as they conquered Kwarezmia and Persian cities as well as chinese cities. At the time Subutai arrived in Europe, it might have taken them a little time to pull together the resources to mount a sufficient siege infrastructure, but they already had the experts, although I don't know how many of these experts were in Subutai's army specifically. The two greatest generals in Mongol history are probably Genghis Khan and Subutai. The main thing that saved Europe was the death of Ogedei followed by the subsequent decision to prioritize the conquest of China above all other objectives. Had they tried to take Europe, only a combined army of Spanish French German and so on could have stopped them. And only if they had a GREAT commander and obedience of the other nations as to the strategy. This is sadly hard to imagine. Maybe Ferdinand III of Castilla and Leon? Maybe he could have pulled it off? I can't think of anyone else at that time doing it.......

@marseldagistani1989

2 жыл бұрын

I am not a professional on this, nor am I a historian, I am simply giving an opinon/theory/Annalysis . I think that the Fortifications theory is valid because in Europe Forts would be much smaller and more often than not they were built near a natural rise, a cliff, on the bend of a river, Wheras the walls of Baghdad were large, and while a layerd defense system was good, like in the case of Baghdad, It would need a lot of soldiers to man the walls. Wheres Europan forts, like the Tower of London, Château Gaillard, Füzéri Castle, were rather compact and were built either in elevated positions close to a lake/river, mountainous positions, or right next to a river, and considerign that Sieges in Europe would be a near constant, like: The SIege of Jerusalem, siege of Orléans, Siege of Edessa, and others that I can't recall served as lessons for the European Eilte on how to buld their fortresses, with many employing the Talus (*a type of fortification where a* *slopped batter is applied to the wall which has the effect of making conventional siege equipment is* *less effective against a wall with a talus. Scaling ladders may be unable to reach the top of the walls* *and are also more easily broken due to the bending stresses caused by the angle they are forced to* *adopt. Siege towers cannot approach closer than the base of the talus, and their gangplank may be* *unable to cover the horizontal span of the talus, rendering them useless. Furthermore, defenders are* *able to drop rocks over the walls, which will shatter on the talus, spraying a hail of shrapnel into any* *attackers massed at the base of the wall*) And if I recall looking from the footage Chinese fortification walls were pretty flat which made it easier to be breached

@eriktheviking927

2 жыл бұрын

@@marseldagistani1989 the mongols had little experience with coastal areas, so they would have had trouble raising a Navy. that was a definite weakness. But I think that if the Mongols had decided to invade Europe instead of China, Europe would have fallen just like China did. Europe was not unified enough to stop the mongols

The mongols have seen fortified castles all over China before and they took all of them. The problem with the invasion of Europe was that taking a castle would've been costly and ultimately not worth the effort unlike the ones in China which offered so much more spoils of war in comparison. They have also shown to take an extremely fortified castle up in a high mountain called Alamut controlled by a powerful assassin order in persia, for context, in the past few centuries many dynasties that ruled persia failed to take the castle until the mongols came, sieged and destroyed it. Reason being is that the great khan was extremely worried about an order of assassins that he ordered its complete destruction. All the invasion forces that was lead into Europe was mainly there for pillage not conquest.

@theaterofsouls

3 жыл бұрын

this was what i had in mind haha thanks!

3 жыл бұрын

European castles were much harder and were often on hills or on water.

@randomdude2026

3 жыл бұрын

Why shouldn't Europe have spoils of war? The church was extremely rich.

@Cyricist001

3 жыл бұрын

Central Europe doesn't only have lots of castle, mountain terrain but also heavily forested meaning horses can't graze a lot. It's very poor terrain for horses. Add to that a lot of coast and rivers flowing outwards from the center and the Mongols would find themselves in the same situation Magyars, Huns and Avars did before the Germans put a hard stop to them.

@nicholasmaximillian9891

3 жыл бұрын

@ Chinese fortification have much thicker wall than european castle, they are also sloped which means Chinese ones can better resist projectiles

The Mongols conquered many fortified cities and castles in both China and throughout the far east and the Levant before they ran into castles in Europe. I disagree that it was European castles that prevented the Mongols from continuing their expansion in Europe. I think it was a combination of political fracturing and infighting between the successor Mongols empires (golden horde, ilkhanate and yuan) that ultimately stopped Mongols momentum. The momentum was also stopped in Egypt by the Mamluks, and many ofnthe Mongols khans spent themselves fighting each other, primarily because the empire had become too big to effectively govern

@whenyoupulloutyourdickands4023

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah forts in China and the East where the Geography is filled with plains and grass for their horses to eat and crops to grow for their armies to eat. In europe its a different story. In europe there are no plains for your horses to eat and there are no crops for your armies to eat other than the farms that the europeans have already burned. Conquering forts in Asia is alot easier than conquering castles in Europe. Europe also has tens of thousands of castles. You don't just take one and all of a suddenly conquer the whole country like what happens in centralized nations like China. You take one castle (which probably took you months as well months worth of supplies) and that means you conquered one castle, not the country. You still have 9,999 more castles to go. Atleast.

@deepdungeon8465

3 жыл бұрын

@Daisy Wong if Europe is poor then, why would the Mongols try to completely conquer it as many as 3 times and losing the renowned Golden Horde at the battle of western hills in Transylvania in the process.

@Andreas-wv5px

3 жыл бұрын

dont forget the german casltes were build do be defendable against nomads. Otto the Great already destryoed a big Hungarian-Nomad Army around 900. And around 1400 the armies had more than 10x the size from that. So - if hungary can field around 70.000 to 100.000 soldiers, the german HRE could field more than a million soldiers in total. Even THAT is a number the mongols cant beat.

@puruttyaaa

3 жыл бұрын

@@Andreas-wv5px 955 Augsburg? study the battles before that :D from 907 Pressburg-exactly. after that hungarians went till Iberia,including France, Italy, many times. later HRE emperor also attacked St. Stephen I, ended up Vienna occupied-before that Melk was the border between Hungary and HRE till 975. 14th century bavarian chronicle describe hungarian light cavalry as the best warriors of that time, including writing down our most common swearing: Kurva :D HRE was really decentralised, took centuries to unite, during the 13 century, mongols wanted to conquer eurole entirely and chosed Hungary as their western base, both of their 2 invasions were unsuccesful. first ended up in raiding the country side and wallachia, second was fatal defeat, even Talabuga left Hungary "barefeet"

@jiawei309

3 жыл бұрын

I agree to your point about momentum being lost as a result of political fracturing and infighting. There is no evidence to suggest that European castles were necessarily superior to anything that the Mongals had faced up that point. In fact, they would have picked up incredible engineering and architectural knowledge from their conquests well before their first contact with European knights and castles.

Meta love your work. Its amazingly well made and easy to understand. But i think the edition needs to be a bit improve, some cuts way too fast. Otherwise great video.

Nicely done! Thoroughly enjoyed it! Thanks!

[Posted: Fifteen Seconds Ago] And this was for my recommended videos. This ought to be good learning for Vlandia against Khuzaits...

Just a little information about the state of Hungary: "IV. Béla" the king of Hungary at that time has weakened the country just before the "Tatárjárás". He was an idiot. He angered the nobility with stupid rules and he took back lands from them without proper reasons. Many lords couldn't build castles because of this. Also most of the major stonemade fortifications were located on the west side of the Danube, because the country had to defend itself mostly from the west prior 1241. When the time came to resist aganist the invasion less than the half of the nobility joined him. And those who did was mostly gentry. It was a weak army and the king also could have choosen better battleground. In my opinion he should had set up the defense near Kassa, today it is located in Slovakia. My teacher at school said he would have chosen Eger. Both these locations should be conquered before safely moving towards "Esztergom" the capital city at that time, and they are surrounded by hills, mountains and forests especially Kassa. I'm sorry if my English is hard to understand. It's so much different from Hungarian.

@Angmir

4 жыл бұрын

It was even worse for Poland. As ... there was no Poland at the time. Poland was split into dozens of small principalities VERY VERY weak individualy at that time, but without the centralised protection the kind of which Holy Roman Empire states enjoyed. Any kind of invasion at that time would be successfull, so it is not suprising Mongols just went and did as they pleased. I dont try to say unified poland would have repelled the Mongols at that time, but it would certainly pose much greater resistance. And also - yeah - at that time - there were hardly any stone fortifications in Poland.

@yurivittorelli9178

4 жыл бұрын

That's interesting info. Do you have any references?

@attilathehun2537

4 жыл бұрын

@ Daniel Soti Very good explanation Cousin.

@Posraldescu

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, IMHO agree. Moreover, the Mongolian army was holden back several days near the "Russian Gate" (Nagy Kapos, currently Velke Kapusany). There were created some fortified objects on the only possible way through the border (trees, bushes; basically a medieval "Abatis"). So the Mongols were not able to get across for a few days. The "Abatis" would be easily defended only by a small group of soldiers - but only for a limited time. Meanwhile "Bela the IV" was supposed to get there with the main Hungarian army. And - bad luck again- the King didn't come in time (reasons are mentioned by Dániel). It was the first defeat in that war, as I know. Let's imagine that: what if the Bela had arrived on time? From the Mongolian side, you would see deep dark forests, swamps and other obstacles. In the middle of it lays a narrow road with deep Abatis fields. Arrows are flying everywhere. And at the end of all are awaiting enemies: the best knights of the kingdom with allies and infantry. Actually, near the "Russian Gate" were also Kumans deployed, they were definitely one of the reasons why Mongols had attacked Hungary. I will try to explain it in another comment.

@mtriet85

3 жыл бұрын

These factor can make a few different in the battlefield, however, it would be hard to change the outcome of the war. Mongols were the war machine at that period. They had best generals, best tactics, field command, siege technology, veteran...

I really enjoyed your presentation. wonderful work!

Great content and very good presentation. Glad that I found your channel.

this might have been my favorite "VS" video so far. The exploration into how the political effected the military in historical times is fantastic. I'd love to see you do some videos exploring how historical politics affected the military campaigns of western Europe, and especially the Italian peninsula. I hear a lot about English and French knights, but really very little about Italy after the fall of Rome. These are both subjects I'd love to hear you speak on.

@Metatron Didn't the mongol army deal with a lot of castles/heavily walled cities/ fortifications in their war against the Song dynasty? They could basically do the same technique of starving out the defenders.

@leedavis7508

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly !

@khublaklonk4480

4 жыл бұрын

The thing is, fortification =/= castle. A castle is fortified, but it's a very different animal from a fortified city. And the further west you went, the more there were. A castle is part fortified shelter, part military base (capable of controlling a radius of up to 12 miles through cavalry power), part private residence and part centre of local government. The horde could handily deal with a castle, but not dozens of castles at a time, whilst being simultaneously threatened by hundreds more, each capable of functioning either by itself or as a part of a greater unit. It makes it a bit like trying to behead a starfish. Where do you begin? And is the meal worth it afterwards?

@64standardtrickyness

4 жыл бұрын

@Aint Jack Yes the greatwall was often built with wood it wasn't meant to be inpenetrable it was just meant to give more time to respond to raids HOWEVER MAJOR cities such as Xian were definitely fortified with STONE walls

@peterwindhorst5775

4 жыл бұрын

@@khublaklonk4480 There were Fortified locations within in China - Jin / Song Dynasty - Siege of Yinchuan, Battle of Zhongdu, Battle of Yehuling (Battle of Wusha Fortress), and others. Wusha Fortress was a major Jin Dynasty military depot and it fell to the Mongols.

@SimonVA99

4 жыл бұрын

Heh, look up trebuchet on Wikipedia and the first picture is of mongols laying siege to a stone walled city with a trebuchet ...

Very good and in-depth video. Keep it up, champ!

I’ve had extra time to watch these kind of videos because of the coronavirus and Thank you because it will probably benefit me when I get back to school so thank you again

C’mon, we all know the Mongol’s greatest weakness is a few stacks of Scottish Noble Pikeman in a castle’s gates

@matthewyang2543

4 жыл бұрын

Expect the Mongols horse archers would ride around and shot arrow at the Swiss pikemen

@scorpixel1866

4 жыл бұрын

@@matthewyang2543 Damn if only they had something to protect themselves, like, i don't know, armour, or shields, maybe even walls with ranged units possessing greater range. A shame really, why did they have to fight naked on a flat field, i know the scots are proud but still... But it's true that no one in Europe understood the principle of a projectile. We just can't identify something not in the hand of an enemy close by as a weapon.

@matthewnunya8483

4 жыл бұрын

😂😂 I seem to recall my favorite way to shatter the mongol death armies was with longbowmen. Setup those spear palisade cavalry traps inside a city or castle them man the walls with the longbows. Let the mongol infantry have the walls while you retreat and the cavalry commit suicide

@abstractfactory8068

4 жыл бұрын

@@scorpixel1866 That's why he said riding around, the shield will normally be facing one direction and as for armor it depends on the armor type, if it's chainmail then very thin arrows can definitely penetrate it.

@2bingtim

3 жыл бұрын

Scottish pikemen are a great close order target for arrows, trebuchet rocks, Greek fire & gunpowder bombs; so I don't think they'd hold Mongols up for long.

"They where well organized because they had to" Is also quite reductive. Mabye they where well organized because they organized on basis of meritocracy. Instead of family ties.

@ssrbgangimaribotan6thofthe12

4 жыл бұрын

yes and Temujin also reorganize the whole tribes and have a good reward and punishment system which makes the army way more discipline than the Europeans as a whole (Including the grunts like infantrie, archers, man of arms) the European knights might be more disciplined but they are smaller in number compared to the whole army that fought.

@lunarincident7517

4 жыл бұрын

Weren't they organized as family clans just like everyone else?

@voswouter87

4 жыл бұрын

@@lunarincident7517 Probably, but military promotions where primarily done on merit. I've heard this several times. Here's two websites saying it: www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire/Organization-of-Genghis-Khans-empire www.wearethemighty.com/history/why-genghis-khan-successful-mongolia?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

@shamand3328

4 жыл бұрын

also the military organisation of troops was similar to roman structure

@voswouter87

4 жыл бұрын

@@shamand3328 I meant people where promoted on a basis of meritocracy. Not how many men where commanded at each level.

Excellent content. Glad to have ran across your channel.

Another well done video. Keep up the good work.

Knights : "I am the best special forces in the medieval time!" Also knights : "Why do I hear throat-singing?"

@JoshLevo

4 жыл бұрын

Le epic meme xDdd

@Knoloaify

4 жыл бұрын

@Klaidi Rubiku Du Guesclin would like to have a word with you.

@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479

4 жыл бұрын

@Klaidi Rubiku the power of the pope would like to change your mind

@TM-eo7mn

3 жыл бұрын

@@Knoloaify Those tiny arrows won't penetrate his horse armour!

short answer? because the Mongols were mostly experienced war veterans and 90% of the European armies were just peasant levies given a spear and a hat by their feudal lords.

@MDPanzera

4 жыл бұрын

And mongols have experienced commanders is very important generals and officiers ....

@confusedkys6090

3 жыл бұрын

Also took engineer from places they conquer to create weapons.

@roicandaule9268

3 жыл бұрын

The mongols were all farmers when Gengis regrouped them...

@eretna2480

3 жыл бұрын

@@roicandaule9268 NO,they were all nomadic herders,big fucking difference

@rebelpoxy

3 жыл бұрын

@@roicandaule9268 farmers? In what parallel universe is this?

A great point is how children were trained for hunting operations from young age like 8. These were difficult, but fun to organise. Perfect way to train for war

God I haven't seen you since video you were sick. Glad you made it.

Ironic how the Magyars once sowed terror in Europe for their nomadic style fighting but was defeated by one.

@warwickthekingmaker7281

4 жыл бұрын

It's not ironic. It would just indicate that their style of fighting was effective

@ElBandito

4 жыл бұрын

@Plamen Stoev Are you joking? The Magyars raided as far as Spain, and European people were praying to God for them to go away. Just look at this map. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe

@mohicantheluststar2550

4 жыл бұрын

@@ElBandito just imagine maygars did invade whole europe while running from Mongols after lost war to them lol

@istvansipos9940

4 жыл бұрын

yes. sadly, no Hungarian monarch made an effort to maintain a capable mounted archer / light cavalry force. once the life style changed and Hungarians weren't nomads anymore, that dreaded art of war got forgotten. well, kinda forgotten from a simple logistical point of view: no1 can train farmboys into that type of mounted warriors. especially not when that good ol' 12th century agriculture needs almost every able bodied man (and woman and child) almost all year round. suprise, surprise: after the Mongol invasion, King Béla started serious fortifications and integrated the Kuns (not the Huns) and their light cavalry methods into the Hungarian forces

@whenyoupulloutyourdickands4023

3 жыл бұрын

@@ElBandito and thats why hungary never once went further than their country's border. They kept getting their ass kicked by europe if they try.

wish you would have went into detail about mongols equipment and historical iconography like you did for the knights.

@yanlinzhu2682

4 жыл бұрын

Mongol equipment would be diverse, you could find them using many types of equipment captured or made from conquered territories. The quality of them you could imagine to be comparable to Persian or Chinese equipment of the time.

@rishabmazumdar5635

3 жыл бұрын

He probably did not have any to show.

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

Its so diverse they literally have those same eastern arstisans with them

Let's not forget that at the Battle of Legnica, while almost the entire Polish army was devastated, 3 Templars died out of 70ish. Just imagine if there were a couple hundred knights out there, and the whole army being led by an experienced Templar

@michastanisawski9093

2 жыл бұрын

That's a misunderstanding of history. That's because the number of templars was ridiculously low. The entire Teutonic Order had no more than 500 Templars at all times. The rest were half-brothers and mercenaries or Prussian troops out of local pacified tribes. Also not long after Legnica the Polish literally destroyed the Teutons at Grunwald. Mainly because Polish Knights were far better armed at that time than the Teutons. Legnica was a loss for Poland because there was no unified Poland. Like the HRE losing to Poland in the early years, it was an issue of no unified chain of command and army.

@unavela

2 жыл бұрын

The thing would be getting hundreds of knights, knights were not common, they were people from decently high class, which of course there wasn't much

@Hardistul

2 жыл бұрын

@@unavela The knights Templars were warrior monks, so their numbers were a bit higher than regular knights, that, as you said, were the combat trained nobility of the era. In the Holy Land, there were probably close to 1000 Templars at their peak (plus around 5 times as more supporting personnel, such as squires, carriers and the such). But I don't really know if the order could spare 200 knights for the Mongol invasion (probably, the short notice was also a factor)

@landsknecht8654

2 жыл бұрын

Actually Knights usually did very well against horse archers most of the time, this modern myth that there are terrible is just a joke. When even the Mongols went up against a reasonable amount number of knights they often had a hard time against them. For example Batu was winning against Hungarian peasants, and the peasants were fleeing there was a just a good handful of Templar knights that showed up and broke through the ranks of the Mongols and killed all of his best soldiers and officers almost then killing Batu him self. Batu had to flee the battle field because the decent number of knights defeated his Mongol army, and these knights were heavily outnumbered. This handful of knight save the Hungarians in the first battle. Even Otto the Great defeated horse archers using a few Knights. Buuut the Romans did well against them too.

@thatrandomeliteultra1158

2 жыл бұрын

@@landsknecht8654 im all for the knights, but if memeory serves correct batu was stuck by a river, and the knights had the advantage.

Great point of view, as always!

Hello Metatron! Thanks for the video! I've a question: We oftenly define the start of the armor age on the 11th century but we also know that theire were already armors before. May you do a video about the early armors of the medium ages?

Listen I understand all the factors and variables, but can we just say the templars deus vulted the mongols back to mongolia?

@kgbcommitteeforstatesecuri3315

2 жыл бұрын

No

Excellent as always

2:11 you have to remember as well, the Mongols drank horse milk. It was a large component of their diet and without enough grass for the mares to graze on, they wouldnt be able to produce enough milk and the Mongols would eventually starve.

@thatrandomeliteultra1158

2 жыл бұрын

But they used male horses?

Explain how my 70 Swadian and Vaegirs Knights defeated an army of 800 Khergits!!!...

@GholaTleilaxu

3 жыл бұрын

Explanation: it's a video game with rules set by the maker.

@ottawasenspb

3 жыл бұрын

It was that sweet Swadian butter

@andresilveray

3 жыл бұрын

change difficulty setting! 😂

Good job on the analysis!!! Thx!! 100% agree. The transition from the Infantry forming a shieldwall to early feudal armies and castles happened as an reaction to the pressure the first nomadic invadors were putting on (central) europe. It is more than natural that these would work exceptionally well against the also nomadic Mongols later. The same thing can be seen in both persia and the east-roman empire: increased fortification and heavy reliance on professional, extremly heavy cavalry to deal with their nomadic enemies.

great courses is fantastic i love it

A few things worth considering what I read in a book about the mongols a few years ago. The mongols had an exceptionally high protien diet for the era because of dried meats and yoghurts compared to peasent based armies many of their enemies had and many chronicles mentions how strong and fit they were. Also the mongols didnt have this heroic death thing what so many warrior cultures promoted so they never sacraficied pointlessly their soldiers and retreating when it wasnt advantages was not a shame. They also used tactics for fear like putting little bones or twigs in the horses tail so the dust made it look like they are a vastley bigger army. Also as far as I know its false that Genghis Khan was exceptionally cruel like in the vikings case many of it was propaganda. He actaully kept his promise many times that if a state or fortress surrenders without a fight everybody can keep their positions but they are subjugated. Also he did take fortresses because the chinese engineers had siege tactics and before that they had examples of mongols surrounding a fortress while not killing the peasents outside but instead had them working for the mongols till the lords and soldiers gave up inside.

@Hungabrigoo

2 жыл бұрын

All valid points. There are sadly a lot of misconceptions regarding mongols (and later huns) as scawny, cowardly people who could only shoot arrows and slaughter peasants. In reality they had (and still have), exceptionally strong physique, tactics and a warrior culture that was frankly unrivalled at the time. Also noticed that they held their men in high regard and never wasted their life, similarily to the vikings, which is an attitude that seems to work really well through history all the way to present day armies.

@rayzas4885

Жыл бұрын

Genghis killed millions. He killed half of persia and required a soldier to kill 24 people each during his invasion

@koreancowboy42

Жыл бұрын

Exactly.. otherwise how would they conquered all of China, Korea and nearly the entire east and almost the whole of Europe had the Khan not died