And to think, if Sigismund wouldnt have been defeated here, he almost certainly wouldnt have sack Skalitz, and Henry would still just be working the bellows at his father's forge.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

What a way more boring outcome. Glad it happened this way.

@FauxReal.

Жыл бұрын

@@ParryThisgood for us, bad for the people of skallitz

@marianpetera8436

Жыл бұрын

No matter, the main outcome would still be the same: Henry would be quite hungry.

@forests.9597

3 ай бұрын

I think the sack and siege of Skalitz would've still happened regardless of the outcome of this battle, because it was not all about the silver, but eliminating Wenceslas' most powerful supporters to seize the throne, Sigismund is inevitable...

I just came across these video's because of my recent replay of KCD. I already knew a bit of the Nicopolis Crusade because of a book I'm reading called The Burgundians: A Vanished Empire, by Belgian writer Bart Van Loo. The story of the Nicopolis Crusade primarily focuses on John the Fearless (of Nevers) tho. It also has many other stories about banquets and Game of Thrones like politics. It's a really interesting read. Anyways, nice video :D

Good simple explanation. Just a quick correction, Timur/Tamerlane was the one who beat the Ottomans, since the Mongol state had more or less dissipated by 1402, and Timur really slowed down Ottoman expansion in the Middle East

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Excellent additional information. Thanks.

@cengizsogutlu

2 жыл бұрын

He was also Turkic

This was very interesting. This adds a lot to the existing character of King Sigismund.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, King Sigismund is arguably the most prolific person featured in the game.

I was surprised when reading battle of Agincourt, in theire summary King Henry the V use Beyazids Nicopolis tactic which protect archers with impaled spears for protect them charge of knights.

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

It makes sense. The result of the battle was famous, and became known by most learned men at the time, and therefore, the adoption of those tactics is very logical.

@kartoffelsaek

2 жыл бұрын

more likely something they picked up from their years of fighting the scots. Who also used spikes to defend against the english cavalry. but yeah whenever someone uses something that is effective against you, you have a tendency to start using it yourself.

That was very interesting. I enjoyed this little history lesson a lot.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

Excellent video, as always

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Cheers!

I love These Videos!

Nice video! I love it!

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

I'm glad you like it

You failed to mention heavy cavlary of Ottomans that brought victory to Ottoman led by despot Stefan Lazarevic.

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Its more of a high level overview. There are several important details i left out, but none of them change the historical outcome.

This is the battle that Jean de Carrouges, Matt Damon's character from The Last Duel died.

Nice video, I just discovered your channel, I just want to make a correction, Timurid army mostly consisted of Turkic forces from Transoxiana, not Mongolic.

Please make a video regarding battle of kosovo where father godwin participate prior his settling down and wars in poland that martin might be involve of.

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

That is a solid suggestion. I'll have to do some research and see if there is enough information to make a video.

I see another very good video on king Sigismund & history that happens in the background of Kingdom Come. So allow me once again to offer a few more details on the events you've described: It is generally agreed based on historic accounts that Sigismund was the voice of reason during the entire campaign-probably because, as you've pointed out, as the king of Hungary he had the most personal stakes in this whole enterprise. Not just because the Ottoman expansion reached borders of Hungary by the atumn of 1395 and sultan Bayezid had announced he'll move onto conquest of Hungary by the May of next year, but also because Sig was facing serious problems within Hungary itself at this time. In 1395 his wife Mary-through marriage with whom he gained Hungarian crown in the first place-died in labour. And their only child died with her. Without Mary by his side or a child of her blood in the royal nursery Sigismund technically no longer had right to the Hungarian throne. And there were those with blood claim who would challenge him (king Ladislaus of Naples) and those among Hungarian nobility who would support those claims and overthrow Sig at first opportunity. Leading Hungarian forces to a victory against Ottoman invaders could earn support of Hungarian people for him and allow him to keep the throne. This is also the reason why Sigismund is thought to be the initiator of the crusade, who's lobbying in the court of Burgundy and in Rome pushed the crusade from a vague idea into an actual campaign. However, as you've also mentioned, the man bankrolling all of this was the duke of Burgundy, and he used his money to put his son, John of Nevers, as the official commander of the joint army. A side note here: the numbers you've given are thought by modern historians to be highly inflated, since after-battle accounts of both sides probably vastly exaggerate opponent's numbers (crusaders to make the abject failure more palatable while Ottomans to magnify the glory of victory). Modern consensus seems to be that numbers were pretty similar on both sides: around 15.000-16.000 troops in total each. 70.000 soldiers supposedly commanded by Sigismund especially makes little sense, since with such an overwhelming numerical advantage over the force lead by John of Nevers (by the cout you give 10.000 French-Burgundian troops, 16.000 if we add Germans) Sig should've been able to easily wrestle command from John-and as we know this didn't happen and Sigismund time and again was forced to follow John's command despite vehemently disagreeing with its direction. This plus the fact that Sig had to send envoys to beg Burgundians for money & soldiers pretty reliably suggest that Hungarians and their allies were in the minority (if only slightly) among the crusaders. The first point of contention between Sigismund and John rose during the war council in Buda. Sig preferred to wait for the promised Ottoman invasion force at Hungarian border, therefore forcing the enemy to tire himself in a long march. But scouts couldn't find the Ottomans and John insisted that crusaders should be the ones to venture in search of the battle, least the cowardly sultan will hole up somewhere an avoid the confrontation altogether, thus robbing them of their chance at glory and plunder. So the crusaders went forth and they did have some early successes. Though I think especially the massacre at Rachowa merits a bit of expansion as what happened there is thought to directly lead to the slaughter of the crusaders captured by Ottomans after battle of Nicopolis. Apparently, Sigismund managed to broker the agreement with the citizens of Rachowa: they would surrender the city without siege (just as Vidin did earlier, sparing lives of everyone but the Ottoman garrison) and in return their lives and property will be safe. However, French troops broke this agreement as soon as the gates were opened and they went on to pillage, kill, rape and burn the city. They've also took around 1.000 people hostage. Two additional points to make here: 1) Rachowa untill recently was Bulgarian territory, therefore a sizable portion of people there weren't Muslim but Orthodox Christians-they weren't spared; 2) Hungarians took this whole affair as insult to Sigismund, while French were now convince Hungarians were hell-bent on robbing them of the opportunity for glorious battle. When crusaders finally reached Nicopolis (with their 1.000 captives in tow-this will become important) they laid the ineffective siege. Sigismund, however, sent more scouts and they've warned that now the Ottomans really were approaching. The French promptly ignored this, until the only reasonable guy among them, de Coucy, veteran of 100 Years War and numerous other campaigns, took his own force on a recon and after engaging Ottoman vanguard in a fierce (and victorious) skirmish reported the same thing: Ottomans were coming. This invigorated the crusaders, who so far were really underwhelmed by this whole endeavor-however this didn't prompt them to so much as post proper sentries. On 24th, so a day before the eventual battle Sigismund called the war council to propose his tactic: Wallachian foot soldiers (so commoners) who had a lot of experience fighting Ottomans for the last 6 years would engage subpar Ottoman vanguard, while the French will attack after the shock of engagement will break Ottoman ranks and Hungarians will keep the Ottoman cavalry from overrunning all of them. This was once again nixed by John, since it was unworthy of the true knight to follow peasants into battle. He was adamant that French must be first to engage enemy, which to Sig was a moronic strategy. They didn't reach the agreement, so Sig went to make plans for his forces on his own, while the French went to drink and party as all the previous days of the siege. Later that night Sigismund send the report of his scouts to the Frenchmen: the main Ottoman force was hours from the battlefield. This news panicked drunk crusaders and they've massacred the 1.000 prisoners they took in Rachowa-supposedly because they had no guards to spare for them-which will end disastrously for the crusaders themselves in a few short hours. The battle was the disaster you've described. Ottomans captured several thousands of crusaders, mostly, though not exclusively Frenchmen (John of Nevers among them). And then they've discovered the massacred people of Rachowa in the crusaders' camp. This (alongside the fact that Bayezid didn't find Sigismund's body on the battlefield as he had hoped) enraged sultan. The day after battle he ordered the prominent nobles worthy a great ransom and the captives to be judged under 20 to be separated from the rest of the prisoners. This second, much bigger group was then stripped naked, marched before the sultan and mercilessly cut down (though once again the number of 10.000 killed seems to be exaggerated and modern estimate varies between 3 hundred or 3 thousand slaughtered). This was actually against the Ottoman custom at the time as they didn't kill their captives, preferring to ransom them or press into service. Sigismund escaped the slaughter of battle and humiliation of captivity thanks to Knights Hospitalers of Malta and Venetian navy, who sailed him all the way to Croatia. It is said that as his ship sailed past Gallipoli the Ottomans lined the captives they've took along the shoreline to mock Sigismund and taunt him over his inability to rescue his comrades. And when Sigismund finally arrived in his kingdom the failure of the crusade and the pointless death of many Hungarians turned the people against him and forced him to flee to his brother's court in Bohemia.

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for adding this great amount of detail. I enjoyed reading it quite a lot.

@bdleo300

11 ай бұрын

After the Battle of Kosovo between Serbs and Ottomans, Sigismund invaded and plundered Northern Serbia in 1389. Then Serbs joined Ottomans and crushed Sigismund and crusaders at Nicopolis.

I appreciate the effort to discuss the topic. Pinctuality is key! Unfortunately a small blunder can tarnish the whole work effort. The "russian knights" inaccuracy is worth being avoided.

by the end of the campaign no skeptics have been left in court...

5:35 that's Mehmed 2

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Oops. I should have known that the best picture i found would be the wrong guy.

2:32 Quite wrong .Crusades continued until the XIXth century , mostly thanks to the the Knights of the Hospital of Saint John and my beloved Hispanic Empire .

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Well, thats a fair point.

I’m a bit confused, isn’t the French and England still fighting the hundred years war during that time? Yet they still made alliances against the ottomans? That’s interesting to see how much power religion has in medieval Europe

Later crusades were carried out in 1420s against Hussite movement in Bohemia.

How did it put a stop to large crusades against the ottomans what about the battle of varna and later the holy leagues against the ottomans.

God save you, Henry!

Ah yes the common era, the era that is common. The common era just so happened to begin as soon as Christ died too, odd that. I wonder if they’re related?

To sum it all up, the rash and conceited nature of the French was their down fall.

2:08 this Turkish flag is introduced in 18th century...

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, that was just use as an illustration that everyone would recognize.

Wait is this dtg?

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

There may be some cross over.

@MrGufi-nf2jz

2 жыл бұрын

@@ParryThis after i had wrote the comment i Saw that u are dtg

@MrGufi-nf2jz

2 жыл бұрын

@@ParryThiscould u do an armour guide for a english longbowmen or have u already done that before?

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrGufi-nf2jz I actually did an English type longbowman armor guide in a video i did covering a cool yew longbow conversion mod.

@MrGufi-nf2jz

2 жыл бұрын

@@ParryThis ok i Will check it out

Common era dude?

Had to stop when I heard “Of the common Era” sorry

Ottoman standing army consisted Janissaries (Infantry/archer division), Kapıkulu heavy cavalry (Chosen Sipahis as guards of Sultan), Sipahis (Cavalry division during wars, local security during peace. They were always free of any tax but had to arm themselves), Cebeci ocağı (Supply division). Because Ottoman armies were always dispatching from Anatolia they had a massive supply division in order to keep army fed and supplied through long journey. Christian sources are often including them as part of Ottoman fighting force while they weren't at all. Ottoman fighting force was probably around 40-50,000 strong, 5,000 Janissaries, 2,000 Kapıkulu cavarly, 3-40,000 Sipahis and around 5,000 Serbian Knights. So crusader army was actually outnumbering them for sure but difference could be small. But as a vast majority cavalry force they were extremely mobile and for defeating them crusader heavy cavalry aka French Knights were very important. However French knights disregarded any plan and charged at Ottoman center positioned on top of a hill, covered with spikes and other defenses. Under arrow fire most of them were dismounted and struggled to advance through defenses with their heavy gear and Janissary skirmish units retreated while lightly engaging and contiuning raining arrows against them. So when they could finally reach Janissary infantry they were already quite tired and got sealclubbed literally. Sigismund with rest of crusader army tried to join them and save the day but French knights charged so disorderly without waiting at all it took several hours until they could climb the hill and join the fight. By then the French were mostly gone with around a thousand Ottoman casualties, mostly skirmish forces. After enemy heavy cavalry gone Sipahis flanked Sigismud's forces freely and encircled them, Serbian Knights also charged to their right flank. So Sigismud's army found itself surrounded in every corner and even if they fought well it didn't take long until the entire army was routed in panic. It was so bad hundreds if not thousands drowned in Danube trying to reach crusader ships and boats. Honestly Wallachians were smart to run as soon as French failure as it was literally impossible to stop Sipahis after that. Nobody took responsibility for defeated crusader army and Knights etc struggled to return home, many died during journey back or arrived months later with torn clothes. After learning crusaders executed Turkish garrisons (Hanged from walls) Sultan Beyazid ordered all crusader prisoners to be executed as well. A known Knight who served in Ottoman before was chosen to identify nobles for ransom and they placed a 1.60 stick to the ground. Anybody taller was decided as an adult and executed while nobles and Sultan watching, sometimes nobles begged their relatives/friends to be pardoned as well and if they had ransom value it was allowed. This continued for entire day so it was pretty bad and around 2-3,000 crusaders were executed. However after the end of day Beyazid decided to enslave or ransom rest of prisoners as well so not all were executed. In Ottoman slavery was time limited, 7 years for Africans and 9 years for Europeans, shorter if they adopted Islam. So they probably saw their homes again unless they were sent to ME and sold there ofc. European version is just false really like claim Turkish casualties were bad, according to Turkish records casualties were around 4,000 which is nothing, especially compared to crusader casualties which was 30,000 at least. No wonder European nobles weren't eager to start another crusade after such a defeat..

@-V-_-V-

28 күн бұрын

The 9 years claim is about harem slaves not slaves in general Furthermore the french knights were using the same tactics they did in the hundred years war and lost the same way they did to the English, so accusing the Europeans of having bad tactics from that is absurd.

@ggoddkkiller1342

28 күн бұрын

@@-V-_-V- What? Harem women weren't slaves! I really wonder where you could learn such a nonsense then could even claim "9 years only for them" wrongly. There were always dozens of women trying to be selected into Sultan's harem after all it meant becoming rich instantly. Perhaps you are confusing slaves serving in harem with harem women that they weren't same thing at all. Ottoman harem wasn't an orgy party where Sultans were screwing everything on their path like some lustful rulers including in the west, rather it had very strict rules. About slaves it didn't matter if they were serving in harem or not, all slaves had to be released after 9 years, in fact this was the whole reason why vast majority of civilians didn't own slaves in Ottoman. Because they had to be released it wasn't making sense financially. There were never farm estates etc like in the west which were profiting severely from slavery. However as i said before because of this slaves were often sold in middle east instead, for example slave market in Tunisia was much larger than Constantinople despite latter being much larger city. I don't think i claimed "Europeans had bad tactics" in anywhere of my message, rather only shared the battle from Turkish perspective. You should try to leave partisanship aside and read my message again then you would see there is nothing glorifying nor vilifying any side. Expect perhaps the French alone, what i can say they screwed it rather spectacularly..

Don’t say common era. Just be normal and say AD.

@ParryThis

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, i did a few videos where i did the whole BCE and CE thing, but i hated it, so i switched back pretty quick.

@VOTE_REFORM_UK

9 ай бұрын

@@ParryThis Oh that’s good news. Ive always hated that system too as you can probably tell.

@Lord_Machiavelli

21 күн бұрын

Anno Domini

YEET

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

YOTE

Anno Domini saying common era sounds totaly gay.

@ParryThis

6 ай бұрын

you are correct. These days i just say, "In the Year of Our Lord,"

@titanscerw

6 ай бұрын

@@ParryThis Vivat Christus Rex! +][+

@liquidsnake6879

4 ай бұрын

Trigger warning lol@@ParryThis

Turks (just Ottomans) VS Allstar of Europe :)

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

accurate.

@bdleo300

11 ай бұрын

@@ParryThis Not really. Ottomans only won thanks to Serbian knights... they completely annihilated Crusaders at Nicopolis (in revenge of Sigismund's invasion of Serbia after the Battle of Kosovo in 1389)

@mucotakis308

28 күн бұрын

​@@bdleo300lmao not at all, it was just the french knights faults, europeans could have won the war by a high chance

Ottoman colonists and slavers!

I blame Sigismund .With a Christian victory here , the expulsion of the Turks might have been achieved centuries earlier and the Roman Empire might have been saved

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the christian loss here cannot be understated in effect.

@yunusemredemirhann

7 ай бұрын

But it didn't happen😂

the numbers never made any sense to me. The Turks a nomadic people who came from the other side of Asia were able to field more troops then multiple agricultural nations of Europe. Isn't possible.

@Fankas2000

9 күн бұрын

In a nomadic society a bigger percentage of men can perform military duties.

@billyjesus5442

8 күн бұрын

@@Fankas2000 yes but nomads cannot sustain populations that agricultural societies could. England with a massive peasant population working the fields could sustain a larger population heading into war then a peoples who herd animals and livestock. Nomads at best had tent towns while agricultural based societies had massive cities. And even if that explains one nation, it doesnt explain how Turks supposedly could field more troops then a european coalition of 20 kingdoms combined. I think us europeans are doing what we've always done when it comes to finding excuses for losing wars.

@Fankas2000

8 күн бұрын

@@billyjesus5442 Coming up with excuses is a universal human trait, that said. I'm not sure if the numbers are that exaggerated, the medieval period in Europe is notorious for how small armies were.

Where is jurisprudence Sigismund von Luxembourg 🇱🇺 is Real Victor at Nicopolis Where is Bajaseth if he lives in Timurid Empire Tat name is yo Conqeur who is weak Timur has proven jurisprudence jury

Sigismund was saved by a count of cili herman the ll not a knights hospitalers. He was also married later to the barbara of celje or cilli at the time so you should look into history better😂😂😂

TIMUR saved Europe from Ottoman's

@driffbro3380

2 ай бұрын

Not quite. Within around 20-30 odd years the Ottomans were back in action and were powerful as before after restoring their empire which led to the conquest and victory over Constantinople in 1453.