Hey friends, not too sure how to feel about this one. I think the pacing was fine and everything but i feel like i wanted to talk so much more about the strengths and skills of the horse archers. A lot less repetition and incoherence too. But is it entertaining? Have i given the proper context and explained enough? Something important to keep in mind for this battle is that the sources are limited (as they have been with most battles i've done). Please feel free to leave any comments below letting me know your thoughts!
I agree, I think you could have talked a little more about horse archery. However, I think you did a great job with the pacing and not using too many filler words. Great job!
Wow. What an honor to catch this channel flourishing at it's very-very start!! The enthusiasm of Author-san, the explanation that made perfect sense, scheming🤍🖤💙 Thank You so much! My first video of yours to watch ever - and I confidently subscribed, will look ahead for more of yours!!🖤
New subsciber here, I'm binging on all your videos rn. I've alway wondered how well a whole mess of English Longbowmen would do against the Mongols (with their Infantry and Cavalry protecting them ofc) I heard the Mongol composite bow outranged the Longbows but I still think it might be an interesting match up.
Haha i hope you've been enjoying them! I've noticed you dropping a ton of knowledge in my other videos which i very much love and appreciate! Now your question regarding the Longbowmen is an interesting one, and i unfortunately all i can offer are the speculation of and amateur...But it is my feeling that the nomads would be too quick for the Longbowmen to hit with enough accuracy to cause any real damage. I think the whole confrontation would be the archers trying to bait the nomads into coming close for the infantry and cavalry to close in, and from the nomad side their strategy would be to try and separate the enemy cavalry and infantry from their artillery, pick them off, then finish off the archers. I'd love to hear your thoughts!!
If done right, it had a good chance of working, judging from much better documented later battles against the Crimean Tatars. The strategy often used against them was to utilize field fortifications and cavalry protection, which is pretty much exactly how the English forces fought against the French. The archers (or firearms in later battles) would shoot from behind cover, which gave them the advantage. The infantry would man the fortifications (stakes, wagons, a shield wall, if nothing else was available) which would protect the archers from a frontal assault, while the cavalry would cover the rear. After the Tatars expelled some of their arrows and tired their horses, it was possible to charge them and break them with comparative ease. The crucial part was that your cavalry had fresh and healthy horses, while their horses were tired, wounded and the arrows mostly spent.
@@bakters Excellent point about the English and French. Have you read John Keegans 'The Face of Battle'? because he talks about exactly this at the battle of Agincourt
@@battlefieldgenius I've watched some of his lectures, but I never read his books. Oh, sorry, I've read one, about ancient warfare. On the screen only, so I'm not sure it counts... ;-)
@@bakters Oh i've never watched any of his lectures. Guess i know what i'm doing today. I much prefer holding a physical copy of a book but sometimes you gotta go digital
That's a great question! For me the most glaring mistake was the inability of the Europeans to unite together. The Mongols had been wrecking Russian principalities before arriving at eastern and central Europe, but instead of helping the Russians all the other countries took advantage and kept taking land. I think had they been able to recognise the threat for it was and had worked together they would have won. But remember that at the same time the Mongol intelligence division was great at sowing and exploiting this lack of unity.
@@battlefieldgenius If Mongolian horse archers are faster than European knights, what stops them from wearing down the European armies from afar? Can a fully mounted mongol army be defeated in the field of battle?
@@robertwright4906 This is the exact question so many asked themselves as the time from the Chinese to the Arabs to the Russians. There is a reason the Mongols conquered as much as they did, and a huge part of that is that there was no answer to the horse archer. For a while fortifications could hold them off but the Mongols integrated seige engineers from China so that didn't stop them Until the invention of gunpowder i would argue that nothing could've stopped them. Perhaps had the Chinese been able to unite they'd have defeated horse archer arrmy by shear numbers. Or the Russians or Europeans. I wish i'd spent more time talking about them. If you really want to hear some great and entertaining stuff on the Mongols i can't recommend Dan Carlins 5 part podcast on them. Dan Carlin of course being a huge inspiration for this channel
@@robertwright4906 Western Europe could have stopped them since the terrain in Western Europe isn't a grassy field like the Eurasian Steppe. Western Europe has rough terrain, mountains where the Mongols can't play their game which is fighting on open field, replying on bows and horses. Western Europe also had better fortification than Eastern Europe.
You know this is a really good question. Whats interesting about it is that even steppe nomads who knew and used it fell for it when fighting other horse archers Dan Carlin had an interesting take on it where he says it played on the natural human urge to chase/hunt something down Personally i think its a tactic that left you little choice. If you don't chase after the horse archers and finish them off, you risk them regrouping and just coming at you another time or another day
Yeah. They were experts at travelling fast and surviving on next to nothing, so nobody could catch them. That's how they tended to dictate when and where to fight.
@@bakters There were knights and soldiers who were mostly from the HRE that were in Hungary. By the time the Mongols came, the allies and mercenaries from Western Europe left Hungary, and the kingdom was wide open for invasion. Basically, the main reason the Mongols didn't fight many knights is because the opposing forces didn't deploy very many knights to begin with. It wasn't because the Mongols were so fast and gave them the slip. However, the very little Knights the Mongols did encounter the knights, usually gave them a bloody nose.
Hey friends, not too sure how to feel about this one. I think the pacing was fine and everything but i feel like i wanted to talk so much more about the strengths and skills of the horse archers.
A lot less repetition and incoherence too. But is it entertaining? Have i given the proper context and explained enough? Something important to keep in mind for this battle is that the sources are limited (as they have been with most battles i've done).
Please feel free to leave any comments below letting me know your thoughts!
I agree, I think you could have talked a little more about horse archery. However, I think you did a great job with the pacing and not using too many filler words. Great job!
@@justiceforsadalfred527 Thank you so much!
I've studied the Mongols a lot in different languages, and I still felt like you taught me something 🥳
@@ScottyShaw Thank you for the kind words Scotty!
No clue why I got recommended this but I'm loving it.
haha hey Kibō! thanks a lot
Wow. What an honor to catch this channel flourishing at it's very-very start!! The enthusiasm of Author-san, the explanation that made perfect sense, scheming🤍🖤💙
Thank You so much! My first video of yours to watch ever - and I confidently subscribed, will look ahead for more of yours!!🖤
Mr BlueSky thank you so much for these kind words! You've painted a giant smile on my face.
@@battlefieldgenius Phehe, You just did the same❤️❤️❤️❤️!!!!
The words came from a sencire heart.
Informative
Thanks Rob!
New subsciber here, I'm binging on all your videos rn.
I've alway wondered how well a whole mess of English Longbowmen would do against the Mongols (with their Infantry and Cavalry protecting them ofc)
I heard the Mongol composite bow outranged the Longbows but I still think it might be an interesting match up.
Haha i hope you've been enjoying them! I've noticed you dropping a ton of knowledge in my other videos which i very much love and appreciate!
Now your question regarding the Longbowmen is an interesting one, and i unfortunately all i can offer are the speculation of and amateur...But
it is my feeling that the nomads would be too quick for the Longbowmen to hit with enough accuracy to cause any real damage.
I think the whole confrontation would be the archers trying to bait the nomads into coming close for the infantry and cavalry to close in, and from the nomad side their strategy would be to try and separate the enemy cavalry and infantry from their artillery, pick them off, then finish off the archers.
I'd love to hear your thoughts!!
If done right, it had a good chance of working, judging from much better documented later battles against the Crimean Tatars. The strategy often used against them was to utilize field fortifications and cavalry protection, which is pretty much exactly how the English forces fought against the French. The archers (or firearms in later battles) would shoot from behind cover, which gave them the advantage. The infantry would man the fortifications (stakes, wagons, a shield wall, if nothing else was available) which would protect the archers from a frontal assault, while the cavalry would cover the rear.
After the Tatars expelled some of their arrows and tired their horses, it was possible to charge them and break them with comparative ease.
The crucial part was that your cavalry had fresh and healthy horses, while their horses were tired, wounded and the arrows mostly spent.
@@bakters Excellent point about the English and French. Have you read John Keegans 'The Face of Battle'? because he talks about exactly this at the battle of Agincourt
@@battlefieldgenius I've watched some of his lectures, but I never read his books. Oh, sorry, I've read one, about ancient warfare. On the screen only, so I'm not sure it counts... ;-)
@@bakters Oh i've never watched any of his lectures. Guess i know what i'm doing today.
I much prefer holding a physical copy of a book but sometimes you gotta go digital
How could the Europeans have countered the mongol strength in horse archery? Could they have utilized their army better?
That's a great question! For me the most glaring mistake was the inability of the Europeans to unite together. The Mongols had been wrecking Russian principalities before arriving at eastern and central Europe, but instead of helping the Russians all the other countries took advantage and kept taking land.
I think had they been able to recognise the threat for it was and had worked together they would have won. But remember that at the same time the Mongol intelligence division was great at sowing and exploiting this lack of unity.
@@battlefieldgenius If Mongolian horse archers are faster than European knights, what stops them from wearing down the European armies from afar? Can a fully mounted mongol army be defeated in the field of battle?
@@robertwright4906 This is the exact question so many asked themselves as the time from the Chinese to the Arabs to the Russians. There is a reason the Mongols conquered as much as they did, and a huge part of that is that there was no answer to the horse archer.
For a while fortifications could hold them off but the Mongols integrated seige engineers from China so that didn't stop them
Until the invention of gunpowder i would argue that nothing could've stopped them.
Perhaps had the Chinese been able to unite they'd have defeated horse archer arrmy by shear numbers. Or the Russians or Europeans.
I wish i'd spent more time talking about them. If you really want to hear some great and entertaining stuff on the Mongols i can't recommend Dan Carlins 5 part podcast on them. Dan Carlin of course being a huge inspiration for this channel
@@robertwright4906 Western Europe could have stopped them since the terrain in Western Europe isn't a grassy field like the Eurasian Steppe. Western Europe has rough terrain, mountains where the Mongols can't play their game which is fighting on open field, replying on bows and horses. Western Europe also had better fortification than Eastern Europe.
Both Poland and Hungary lastly defeated the Mongols after adopting new strategies.
And those were just the fringes of medieval Europe.
This was great information
Thanks for letting me know! Always puts a smile on my face
@@battlefieldgenius you welcome,i will remember those tactics in days to come
How could army after army after army fal for this tactic, again and again and again?
Why didn't someone say "wait a minute, I see a pattern here"?
You know this is a really good question.
Whats interesting about it is that even steppe nomads who knew and used it fell for it when fighting other horse archers
Dan Carlin had an interesting take on it where he says it played on the natural human urge to chase/hunt something down
Personally i think its a tactic that left you little choice. If you don't chase after the horse archers and finish them off, you risk them regrouping and just coming at you another time or another day
I'm impressed! For the most part 👍👌(a bit better drawing)
Haha thanks Tihl! hopefully that drawing improves with more videos!
The thing is the Mongols didn't really fought very many knights in the first Mongol invasions
Yeah. They were experts at travelling fast and surviving on next to nothing, so nobody could catch them. That's how they tended to dictate when and where to fight.
@@bakters There were knights and soldiers who were mostly from the HRE that were in Hungary. By the time the Mongols came, the allies and mercenaries from Western Europe left Hungary, and the kingdom was wide open for invasion.
Basically, the main reason the Mongols didn't fight many knights is because the opposing forces didn't deploy very many knights to begin with. It wasn't because the Mongols were so fast and gave them the slip.
However, the very little Knights the Mongols did encounter the knights, usually gave them a bloody nose.
I read that the Mongols outnumbered the Silesian Forces at this battle
Hey Gilgamesch, i could very well be wrong! If you could provide a source for this claim that would be very helpful!
the mongols where always out numbered in just about every major battle in the invasion of europe