I think a seriously underrated point regarding the effectiveness of armour in the period (or any period) is the amount of variables. Different bows could have different draw weights, the distance could vary, different arrows could likely yield different results from the same bow, differing angles could result in more or less effective shots, and not all equipment is necessarily the same quality.
Very good point! The thing about warfare, it's never really the ideal scenario that people plan for. And that's just one aspect; which army is better fed, better led, better rested, spied out the battlefield best, which has better moral, more experience, has the sun in the eyes, what is the condition of the battlefield.... essentially warfare is a million different variables playing out. Random chance upon random chance, from the smallest level of how the arrow strikes the armour, to what the commander sees.
Correct. I've done various tests with different bows, arrow lengths, thicknesses, different types of flights and heads. All give very different results on soft and hard armour.
To the facial injuries- the great helm was not often worn in meleé combat. Joinville notes (among other sources) that after the joust, knights would ride back to their lines and exchange the helm for a kettle hat (or something similar) so they could see better in the CQC. However, that leaves the face more open.
Excellent point! I missed that in Joinville but it explains the volume of facial injuries then. The trade off between visibility and protection that exists for every head armour.
They also wore skullcaps hidden under the great helm so if this wasn't an option, they could still discard the great helm and fight with full visibility under the skullcap. Having used a greathelm in armored combat before, it's undeniably protective but the peripheral vision is extremely limited even compared to other European helmet designs.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I don't think Joinville ever directly says that, I think that is a lot of extrapolation (or perhaps just misunderstanding) from Joinville. The closest part I remember is Joinville loaning his iron cap so the King's could take off his great helm, since the King was more or less cooking under it. Which if anything just shows an interesting taboo about not being helmetless (which can be seen in other Latin European sources of the time), rather than anything similar to what the original commenter said.
I am flying to Türkiye today and will be there for a few weeks. The rest of the series is complete and will upload on schedule. I will still reply to comments when I can but I probably won't be as in-depth in my replies as you may be accustomed to. Not while there's mezes to be eaten, at least. Part 1: Overview on Mongol Equipment ua-cam.com/video/WuDE6y6mJ4k/v-deo.html Part 2: Mongol Cavalry in the war against the Jin Dyansty: ua-cam.com/video/jPaY-pbRjek/v-deo.html Part 3: Mongol Cavalry against Khwarezm, Delhi Sultanate and Qipchaqs: ua-cam.com/video/L_ZIw2y4wvU/v-deo.html Part 5: Mongols vs Mamluks ua-cam.com/video/27ijAgITqzE/v-deo.html
Not surprised that the Mongols valued European knights as better foes than the usual, feudal Europe was in near constant warfare and rarely had any other troop of value, most improvements in technology and tactics went on making knights deadlier. And not surprised the Mongols still knew how to overcome them, knights may have been better than the heavy cavalry they had already overcome but not THAT much better, and the Mongols didn't build their empire by being unable to adapt.
As a Mongol history enthusiast, this video presents aspects of the Mongol invasion of Europe, Hungary in particular, that I was not aware of. Your presentation, with its rich inclusion of primary sources, makes for a very engaging account of how the Mongols fared against European heavy cavalry. I hadn't known for sure that French Templars participated in the Battle of Mohi, but what you present confirms that. My question is: given the difficulties of later Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary in the 1260s and 1280s, do you think the Mongols would have been more successful under better leadership, or if better resourced?
Thank you for the kind words, I am very happy you have found it informative and useful, that is always my goal and am happy it is achieved! Regarding post-1241 attacks, this is what we see. In 1250s Mongol border operations against Halych-Volhynia are rather ineffective, under the poor command of Qurumshi. When he is replaced by the more effective Burundai/Boroldai at the end of the 1250s, we see a rapid change. The 1259/1260 attack on Poland by Boroldai was very devastating on Poland as result. The 1285 Hungarian/1287 Polish campaign are an even better example. This is part of my ongoing PhD research. I argue part of the poor performance of the Mongols in these campaigns is because the khan in charge was Tele-Buqa. Probably in 1285 he is only in his early twenties, and this was likely his first campaign. A highly inexperienced yet overconfident commander was a very bad combination to have.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thank you so much! I always had the sense that if these later campaigns were better led, they would have been far more successful. I look forward to seeing the results of your research.
History is not Pokemon. One type of soldier does not have a 4x weakness to another kind and any view of history that shows it that simplistically should be taken at deeply suspect
Maille could be arrow proof and it's not a good idea to look at tod's tests as the end-all be-all as maille is the single most variable form of armor there is. Normal hauberks, especially in style of the 14th century (which is what tests are often conducted upon) will not stand up to longbow or heavy composite fire, especially using bodkins. However, doubled maille, king's maille, etc under various terms it appears in chronicles, is specifically arrow proof and usually worn with fore-knowledge of a very hard engagement. What it exactly was is completely unknown because no examples of it survive, but it could be anything from literally wearing two haubeks atop each other, doubled maille over the torso, smaller ring diameter leading to increased density, or 6-in-1 weave vs the usual 4-in-1 weave, which is mentioned in Persian sources and thus could be the right answer. Either way in chronicles this explicitly fends off arrows/bolts with impunity, along with potentially being able to shrug off couched lance hits (possibly this form of maille was often used in tournaments). Of course going by its material either being doubled or at least increased by 33%, this is fairly expensive equipment and thus even less accessible to many. It does show up in chronicles in Europe however, IIRC being mentioned in use in the Third or Fourth Crusade in particular during urban fights on foot, and shows up in Arab/Persian mention, so likely not that uncommon. Which personally causes confusion for me as to the whole deal with the First Crusade and arrows being completely ineffective against Franks. It's possible the Arabs and Turks were simply knocking broadheads which will simply bounce off hauberks unless they can cut a ring or two, but maille is endemic to the middle east for over a millennium by the time of the first crusade, so it's odd how archers wouldn't know how to cope with ten thousand Latins armored in maille. Also the other issue with maille is that density of the weave itself based on ring diameter can extremely warp performance. Ultimately it's the wrong conclusion to say that maille is weak to piercing attacks or missiles, it just requires specific adaptions to counter it. Plus we know from period accounts of men getting struck by lances in the high or even early period, and those are enormously more powerful than arrows so, confusion variability at the end of the day. You certainly got what you paid for though.
It's a very important point which demonstrates the uneven quality of equipment various troops would have, and why it's so hard to test for this. As I think Tod himself says in his tests, all they can do is show one possibility, which doesn't account for any variables, really. Regarding the first Crusade accounts, I have heard this but I've never really looked into it. I do wonder though: were the Turks there only firing from very long range perhaps? I have no explanation for that, not without doing more research into the matter
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I don't know the distance they were firing at, but evidently something was afoot to make the turk arrows fail to do much and leaving the anecdotes of Latin 'pincushions'. One possibility could be that they were in fact wearing double maille, some argue that the Bayeux Tapestry shows doubled use of hauberks by Normans but feels a bit of a stretch. IMO at least, broadheads being used at least would explain lackluster results at close range if the Turks were anticipating lighter armored troops, which is maybe possible given the Arabs and Turks themselves often fielded large groups of lightly armored men? Or maybe intended to shoot out the horses which neutralizes a knight but attacked the Crusaders at camp and thus found them on foot. Dorylaeum is the main example I'm thinking of here.
@@wyattw9727 I've seen a youtube video titled "viking arrows" from Dan Hoj of Viking needle bodkins which were so thin that the dude demonstrating it just put the needle tip through a piece of riveted mail without any effort with just his hands (not even shooting the arrow at the mail) I'm certain archers in the east had similar arrow heads as well and against such arrows, I don't think even Double hauberks will do much
the hungarian cavalry at the time was indeed made up by a majority of light cavalry, forces that still used horsearchery where the szekelys, pecheneg remnants and the cumans and uzes, especially the szekely were known as light cavalry being able to inflict heavy damage to the mongols in some battles
If you could point to an actual source which demonstrates their use in battles against the Mongols I would appreciate it. So far I have only found the Szekely's role explicitly mentioned in relation to the 1285 attack. There are sources also noting Hungarian horse archers in the wars against Austria and Bohemia, but as of yet there doesn't appear any direct mention of them in 1241 in any chronicle or other source I have read.
Szekelys, Pechenegs and other similar groups did not make the majority of the Hungarian army and Magyar horse archers in the 13th century were much less likely. Since the 11th century Hungary was a feudal state. Without nomadic lifestyle, horse archers were not as easy to produce. For nomadic groups the production of horse archers is basically automatic. They need the skill for their every day lives and practice it since childhood. In the other hand serfs make their living from agriculture. A much more static life and they are even prohibited from hunting. This means training horse archers would've been an extra effort. Those who could've afforded this were not the common folk (look at other horse archers in feudal societies, like the Mameluks). Nobles used the western style and there was already a source of horse archers from the Szekelys who were not feudal in nature. It did not worth the effort to produce horse archers from Magyar serfs, especially becouse the quality of those troops would had been much lower than natural horse archers or professional ones. Szekelys were the vanguard of Hungarian armies, based on contemporary descriptions of battles. The bias in pictoral evidence is not really a valid point in my opinion, becouse there is not seem to be one in most depictions. Only the Chronicum Pictum lacks a lot of horse archers, but contemporary church frescos depict them. It seems like horse archers in this period used the same kind of bows, but wore light western armor. When it comes to the majority of the Hungarian armies, they were most likely levied commoner infantry or light melee cavalry.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Hi! Well, I am struggling with a tooth abscess and am on antibiotics, but cannot help try to comment, if I may! 1. At 4:23, you indicate the Hungarians killed Kötön(y), leader of the Cumans, but this is not the case. The German citizens of Pest killed him, and it was whispered that Frederick the II, Duke of Austria, had paid them to do so. 2. Hungarian light cavalry. It is a myth to think Hungary gave up its light cavalry. One of the historians you mention, B.Szabó János, has written a great book on this topic, covering light cavalry from the Xth to the XIth C. While they did give up their semi-nomadic lifeway, they continued their pastoral ways, clans-families owning between 40 and 50 horses kept outdoors, but grain fed in the winter. (Nagy Kálmán -- a former hussar officer). 3. Archaeology. Only one grave of people from the battle at Muhi has been found and this was two men, one of whom was a light cavalryman. He was armed with maille armour, parts of a sabre and four arrows were found buried with him and much else, including a type of mace associated with Pechenegs and Cumans. There is also a ring which belonged to a Hungarian noble clan, he might have belonged to that. library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/MEGY_CSON_EK_Sa_12/?pg=639&layout=s 4. Charters: I am too tired to hunt them up right now, but B. Szabó refers to a number of charters issued by Béla IV after the battle, which include a call for 'phraretriares' ('quiver-men') or 'tegzesek' in Hungarian. This is in conjunction with the command to wear armour and helmets as well as a lance. Clearly, 'quiver-men' were archers, and while the Székely were the most famous, this charter of 1260 calls on all regions of the country to provide such men. I hope I have helped and later will try to get the actual charter.
@@woff1959 Try chewing a clove with the problematic tooth, you can also try keeping salt water in that half of your mouth. I also suffer from that, these are the most effective methods I've found.
One thing I think people tend to not get about knights is that they weren’t really heavy cavalry as most of the world understood heavy cavalry, at least normally, in the Middle East and towards the east of Europe they act more and more like the heavy cavalry seen in Asia, wearing more armour and using mail barding more often, I think mainly because of the lack of plains and steppes in western and Central Europe, many thousands of cavalry can’t really do many complex movement or harass the same way most heavy cavalry could because they didn’t have the room, they had to charge into the other army
The history of world conquest by the 'World's Strongest Empire, the Great Mongol Empire'. This is a lecture on the history of the world's strongest empire, the Mongol Empire, conquering Europe. It was helpful in studying world history. '세계 최강대국 대몽골제국'의 세계정복역사. 세계 최강대국 몽골제국이 유럽을 정복한 역사에 대한 강의군요. 세계사 공부에 도움 됐습니다.
Ya boi George Kolev(writer of the Mongol Invasion of Europe alt history in Wizards and Warriors) could learn a thing or two from this video. 110 Venetian aligned knights "blocking 1000s of Mongol arrows"... The ridiculousness of how the series went is laughable.
I would think if maille was "arrow proof," I don't think there would have been a need to improve upon it. It's better to wear than nothing, if you are faced with a cloud of arrows, but it's not an impenetrable shield by any means
I remember the knights in the battle of isonzo using shields and it's dozens, not 1000's of arrows. It also depends on what chainmail the knights wore, the regular hauberk doesn't fair too well against mass composite recurve fire but the double maille/kings maille is specifically made to counter projectiles. The reason why this wasn't used that often was because this was very very expensive and only those who could afford it could get it. There are no surviving examples left today but it is mentioned in european sources as being different to regular maille and heavily featured on third crusade, fourth crusade sources(this may be exaggeration) While it is possible that the French used this with more regularity and thus giving their knights the iconic "most well armoured" reputation, the fact that in the battle that you say is completely ridiculous, only 110 knights were present, indicates that these were the very best the powerful sponheim family could actually afford; outfitted with the best training, horses, weapons and armour in the german state. You could make an argument that the Templar's in mohi were even more powerful and richer than sponheim but only a small percentage were actually templars in the battle, the rest were hungarian heavy cavalry with different types of armour and combat prowess
Excellent video. I have a question though: how fast were Mongolian heavy cavalry when compared to European knights at the time? I've read that on one hand, the Mongolian horses were perhaps twice as low in weight (600 pounds compared to 1200), which generally makes them faster since smaller horses are faster. BUT on the other hand, I've read that horses will decrease in speed once the total weight on them becomes more than 25%. Since even a mongolian would've perhaps been up to 150 pounds, when combined with both further weapons, armor and horse barding, this would've become perhaps something like up to 250 pounds. Still, I'm not sure if the elite Mongolian heavy cavalry horses would've been bigger to compensate for this. European horses on the other hand, possibly could've gotten away better by the knights wearing more armor, weapons and equipment than mongolian horses. So I would like to know your opinion when it comes down to speed. Thank you.
Is it possible Coloman's final charge was less effective because of equipment degradation? What I mean is the forces involved in knightly charges would surely cause a lot of lances to break or be discarded due to being lodged in their targets, so by the 3rd charge could the knights have been deprived of their main gimmick and entered a melee they were at a disadvantage at if the mongol heavy cavalry still had their anti heavy cavalry weapons such as their hooked spears and maces?
Yes that could certainly be among the factors at play. We should probably imagine by the end of the battle the knights and their horses are injured, exhausted, equipment damaged and lost. All things would contribute to the destruction of his men by the end of the battle
The mongol already tested melee to melee fight much more faster than european knight which was agaisnt the chinese spear man of jin, south east asia light and medium infantry in jungle and swamp then japanese samurai in beach, forest and mountains.
I would have loved one as well, but the current access I have to sources on that area are so far, rather brief when it comes to this sort of material. It's a topic that requires more research, translations of Chinese and other local languages and speaking to scholars on those regions, before I could hope to put something together even as detailed as this video. A good project in future, as great new scholarship comes out everyyear on the Mongol interactions with these areas. Even compared to what I could find on this region 4 years ago
The unit is explicitly led by a fellow called "Ba'atur" (八哈秃) in Subedei's Yuan Shi biography (based off of a Mongolian original likely produced around 1260). Elsewhere the Chinese sources tend to call these sorts of units "ba'atur," "hero units," and the leaders of them may have thus all born the epithet. However, the unit itself is not called ba'atar in biography; regarding the fight on the bridge, it says "Thirty soldiers and Ba’atur, Batu’s subordinate general, were killed." This same unit and its fight for the bridge is also noted in the European accounts of the battle. None of the sources as far as I can tell, remark on the ethnicity of the members of this united. Ba'atur is merely a title here, rather than a personal name.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory probably like "Alps" of the Oghuz tribes, like Osman and Ertughrul were alps who had great armour and high quality weapons
Can i ask you one quest. If the Mongol lost tactic and mobility advantages, then the knights will have upperhand against Mongol heavy cavalry in a melee battle depsite wearing chainmail armour, like in Battle of Mohi, right?
The biggest difference between Western knights and Mongol armies is that Western heavy cavalry did not use bows and arrows and were accompanied by many infantry. The point is that all Mongolian soldiers ride on horseback and march with about five spare horses. They are completely different in terms of maneuverability and speed of advance. In both China and Persia, the Scythians and Xiongnu, who are horse races, won great victories because of this. Mobility becomes more important than the number of soldiers.
Mongol bow were not different from other composite bows. And from front and real distances were not able penetration knight armour. In legnica Mongols first killed horses them defeated knights by polearms. In battles Richard Lion heart turkopoles complained that Crusaders looks like hedhehogs and stil fights.
I love how everytime someone does Mongols vs Europeans the narrative changes. In Kings and Generals that guy said the Mongols easily charged past the bridge, in your thing you say the Mongols got beaten back and somehow the princes both knew the Mongols were coming and still allowed their men to sleep. This is classic eurocentric rewrite cope. Face it, they didnt conquer Europe because they didnt want to. They broke apart before they decided they wanted to. It wasnt the useless castles and it wasnt the useleas knights that fell to them left and right. Move on with life
In the Crusades, Seljuk arrows were not effective against European mail armor, but it seems that Mongol arrows were effective, so was the Mongol bow stronger than the Seljuk bow, or were Mongol arrows designed to penetrate armor unlike Seljuk arrows, or both ?
It's a good question that I thought about while working on this, but decided to save it for future analysis that dedicates more time to it. There are some historians today who are of the opinion that the Mongols' bows were in some way qualitatively better then their predecessors, or were seen as such as by contemporaries. For example, one contemporary Armenian writer, Grigor Aknertsi, calls them "the Nation of Archers." Now Grigor would have spent his life aware of the archery proweress of the neighbouring states (Seljuqs, Khwarezmians, Qipchaqs etc.) and yet saw the Mongols as uniquely "THE nation of Archers." However I would want to do much more research before making a presentation on that, or why the Seljuq's archery against European knights seemed somehow less effective than that of the Mongols'. At the moment, I do not have an answer for that.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Through what I researched, I found that the Mongol bow was larger than the Turkish bow, and this most likely means that it was stronger. Also, the level of protection that the European knights had was present among some Muslim warriors, but in smaller numbers which means that the European armor was not something out of the ordinary for others, but the difference was that the proportion of European armored warriors was higher than that of others
Does Thomas's account not raise questions of the nature of armour in Europe at this time if he has a concept of a breastplate? Is this not an evidence that some kind of solid armour was present?
Two things on this point: thirteenth century is the very start of starting to do slightly larger metal plates incorporated into armours, so it isn't impossible some are at Muhi (but still a ways off of the full-plate harnesses of the later fourteenth century). But this is also a problem when terminology and translation; the translation may had a meaning not intended in the original text. For example, John de Plano Carpini wrote in latin, and said that the Mongols have " galeas et loricas." In the sixteenth century, Hakluyt translated this into English as "helmet and brigandine." In the twentieth century translation (the Dawson edition, "the Mongol Mission") of the text, lorica is translated to cuirass. Now these can be very specific terms (cuirass can be a bit more flexible, but generally is brings to mind a rigid, molded form protecting chest and back), but if we read the rest of the passage, Carpini clearly goes on to describe the leather laminar armour noted in the first video in this series. This is the issue with translating lorica to a specific term, because in meaning lorica is basically just meaning "armour." And most medieval words for armour are not a specific type of armour, but just a word that designates armour (like Mongolian quyag; some people use it for a specific style, but the Mongols probably called all armour as quyag). In the modern world, we really like having specific designations and technical terms for everything. While the medieval world still likes terminology, they don't tend to use it in the rigid way we do today. So lorica can be, depending on the period, usually maille but of course you'll know it best for the lorica segmentata/lorica hamata etc. of the Roman army... but again these are not terms used by the Romans, but modern authors. So, I would suggest that when you're seeing "breastplate" in Thomas' account, what you're seeing is probably just the translator's choice, rather than a meaning Thomas intended. I'd have to double check, but I feel confident Thomas probably just wrote lorica or some other generic word for armour, which for whatever reason translators can't just leave as "armour."
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thank you, I have run into this phenomenon before where in my copy of the Art of War where soldiers are described to be wearing 'mail' which would not have been common in China at the time.
The Mongols took heavy losses against the Europeans, that’s why Batu was pissed off with Subutai, almost coming to blows. This is why they turned back from Europe right?
Probably among the reasons, yes. Probably a calculation that, Batu's army as it existed in 1242 was insufficient to continue a conquest and occupy Europe. At that point it was 6 years into the campaign and the army had travelled thousands of kilometers and fought perhaps hundreds of battles. It was worn down from its ideal strength, and there wasn't much point driving the army onwards until it was ground down into dust. The indications are that they has fully intended on returning and completing the conquest (after the conquest of China likely) later with a full, fresh army. Only this never developed before the break up of the empire
Mongol got heavy losses due to being unable to maximize what their capable of. After all, they fought beside the river, and it's advantage for the knight to charge forward.
In hand to hand combat the Mongols would probably have the advantage, they had a lot of physical strength, a hard life, harsh winters that Europeans never experienced and are also excellent wrestlers, easily knocking down big guys even if they are small.
@@elvice3262 I think the best model for a Mongol soldier is that of a hunter, not a warrior. Their primary weapon is a projectile weapon (bow/arrow), like hunters today they shoot hoping to would and they wait for the animal to bleed out and once sufficiently weakened, go in with lance to finish it off. So Mongols didn’t see the European knights as enemies per se, but rather as prey, a dangerous game animal clad in heavy armor. Of course today’s soldiers do the same with firearms. If you want “warriors” who preferred man to man close up combat, look no further than the ancient Roman legionaries and to an extent the ancient Greeks. Both peoples disdained projectile weapons considering them cowardly and not as ‘manly’ as a gladius and spear and shield.
I don't know if I agree with you that ranged weapons were so effective against armour. And indeed reading Jonville my impression was rather just how much arrow fire was required to bring someone down who was properly armoured. From my reading of High Medieval and some early Late Medieval sources, it seems to me that ranged weapons are used much more as a battlefield shaper, rather than the weapon used to drive victory home, most of the time. We even have an account of Richard the Lionheart during a siege, placing his men in formation in range of the enemy crossbowmen and letting them waste their ammunition with barely a casualty, but it should be noted that he did so since he recognised the poor judgement of the enemy commander and their lack of skill, meaning they were shooting ammunition excessively at the limit of their range without hitting much (at least that is how I draw it from memory but the details could be different). When ranged weapons become dangerous seems to be when you are stuck in their shooting in an exposed position for a long time, such as many naval battles during the Sicilian Vespers War where Aragonese crossbowmen almost shot fish in a barrel so to speak, when facing French naval forces. Another point of danger seems to be against horses themselves. Indeed, during the 1100's entire marching plans by the Crusader states were drawn up where they would march with infantry protecting cavalry, receiving prolonged arrow fire for a very long time indeed, the most famous one being the Battle of Arsuf (1191), and as I understand many sources on the Muslim side comment on how good the armour was of even the European footmen against their arrows (and this was of course as early as during the 1100's). Indeed the largest problem the Crusader states seem to have faced from the arrows in those battles were the horses' vulnerability. This isn't to say that ranged weapons are not effective, but at least during the European Middle Ages, it seems to me that bows, crossbows and the like were used to shape battlefields rather than drive victory home, except in very favourably circumstances. But I also agree that during the 1200's armour was much more evenly developed throughout Eurasia than it had been during say the 1100's (where Muslim sources really remark on how good European armour is, for example), and people using armour as an explanation of why the battles were hard fought are often holding anachronistic notions of Late Medieval plate armour.
This is just not accurate, historian battlefield accounts showed most of the deaths & injuries vs Mongols were arrows. This is because while some elite knights did have plate armor at the time, the majority only had access to mail due to economic reasons. Recurve bows of 130 pounds or more have no issues going through mail. Then there's issue of the unarmored horse which is a prime target. A knight falling off his horse at speed is serious injury or lethal.
@@SilverforceX Have you read first hand accounts of the era? I have quite a bit. Are you implying that there is battlefield archaeology? Can you give it a source then? I know that in the Battle of Visby (1361), the archaeology shows that only 25% of the Gotlandic got hit by ranged weapons, despite many having really rather low quality armour due to being a hastily assembled militia, and despite the fact that the Danish crossbowmen had flanked them.
@@SilverforceX He was talking about TOP OF THE LINE armour. Obviously the average person does not have what is top of the line, that almost a part of the definition of top of the line.
@@majungasaurusaaaa In the mid 1200s, coat-of-plate definitely existed. And remember, he was not talking here about what was the equipment of your average knight, but what about what the top of the line wore.
As of yet there is no evidence that Attila was remembered after his death outside of Europe. He remained a figure of prominence and even political legitimacy in Central Europe, especially Hungary. But no evidence exists for a medieval steppe memory of Attila or the Huns, and it appears he was re-introduced as a person in the modern-era. Which makes sense, as Attila's prominence in his lifetime was largely confined to central Europe. So someone born and raised on the eastern steppes, like Chinggis Khan, almost certainly never heard of him. The thing about Attila is that by steppe-standards, he's not that impressive a guy and didn't establish a long-lasting empire. He was notable to the Romans, hence he remained notable to Europeans afterwards (but even the Nibelungenlied version of Attila has little to do with the Roman version of him). But Attila did rather little to make a name for himself in the steppe world. Regarding Alexander, the Mongols did know of him, but through his Persianized identity as Sikandar. By the fourteenth century the Mongols were producing illustrated manuscripts of the Persian epic the Shahnama, which features Sikandar prominently, but shown in Mongol features and armour. There is even argument that the final scene between Chinggis and Jamuqa is modelled off of Darius and Alexander's final scene in the Alexander Romances. So while the Mongols did know of Alexander, all the evidence for that comes after Chinggis' death, so it's not clear if he did know of him, or what he thought of him.
The Mongols dealt with Knights really well when they had space to move & knew it was coming. But when trapped in melee, the Knights had the big advantage with shield + proper sword for combat. Generally, the Mongols would lure Knights to a chase or ambush, both are fatal for the Knights. Even with great armor, the horse can be shot in the head and the rider will fall, getting injured or killed due to the speed & mass.
@@kewlkat2712 So at the Battle of Mohi as already depicted in this video the Mongols actually did fight Hungarian Knights in melee and basically won. Just because they're primarily known for bows and arrows doesn't mean they aren't also good at close quarters. And that's just like one example, they acquitted themselves respectably in melee at Ain Jalut as well.
@@kolsveinnskraevolding Yeah you forgot to mention the Mongols only came into melee with their heavy cav after the archer cav wore down the Knights into fatigue & injury! Read how the Battle of Mohi took shape and the tactics employed.
The recent research has made this more nuanced. Up to 70% in certain regions, rather than the kingdom as a whole. So the area later known as the Kiskunsag/Nagykunsag (Cumania) suffered extensive destruction, and was later resettled by Cumans. But areas West of the Danube suffered (comparatively speaking) much less devastation. Soon after the end of the invasion the kingdom was quite capable of raising armies again to attack its neighbours, so it certainly was not reduced to 30% of its population in 1241-1242
The word also just generally is used in medieval Mongolic and Turkic poetry to refer to a skilled, reckless, bloodthirsty, honourable, and 'manly' sort of warrior. We might be reading a bit too much into it as being a term for a formal unit.
The difference between power of a longbow and a composite bow, can be more than double in favor of the latter. The reason for this lies in priority in piercing armor, which grows more prominent as you head East. A blow of 80J may kill through concussion. Mongolic bows comfortably reach 160J range. Longbow, 80-100J. The common practice of the cavalry is to shoot from close distances, as close as 2 meters. Preliminary fire from no more than 30 meters. Finally, heterogeneity, there are only 120k mongol warriors at the peak of the nations power. Most went to China, most of remainder stayed in Mongolia.
It is said that Genghis' brother could shoot an arrow 800m. Some Japanese Kamakura samurai flew 600m. Both would be carried by the wind. However, it is said that there were many Kamakura samurai in Japan who could shoot arrows 400m. By the way, the initial velocity of an arrow cannot be determined by joules alone. Even 100 joules of energy makes a big difference if you shoot it in 1/10th of a second or 1/100th of a second. The joule of a professional boxer's punch is much greater than that of a pistol.
I mean looting battlefields has been standard for probably as long as we've had battles. It's only in recent wars that soldiers have been well equipped enough by their government that they don't feel the need to loot the enemy dead (at least constantly).
No. We have in Islamic, Byzantine and European accounts mention of Qun people; the large scale Turkic migration over the steppes in the 11th century is described as the Qun migration in the Islamic account. Cuman is merely Qun with the suffix -man added to it (like Turkmen). Indeed, the Hungarian word for Cuman is still Kun (the area they settled is still called Kunsag, Cumania, in Hungary). Cumans/Qun, Qipchaq and Qangli were all related, but distinct, people inhabiting the Desht-i Qipchaq, and mostly the contemporary sources tend to depict some sort of vague distinction between Cuman and Qipchaq; Cuman/Qun inhabit the western parts of the steppe, while Qipchaq live in area around Volga River, and east of Ural River were the Qangli (apparently ruling over the Qipchaq there). There are many, many source descriptions of these peoples and they are rather consistent in this matter.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory they never called themselves as Cumans. All the people who inhabit the areas only remember themselves as Qipchak. Word Cuman doesn't even exist in Turkic languages. Cuman was simply a European name for Qipchaq, and Qangly, were just one of Qipchaq tribes.
I think a seriously underrated point regarding the effectiveness of armour in the period (or any period) is the amount of variables. Different bows could have different draw weights, the distance could vary, different arrows could likely yield different results from the same bow, differing angles could result in more or less effective shots, and not all equipment is necessarily the same quality.
Very good point! The thing about warfare, it's never really the ideal scenario that people plan for. And that's just one aspect; which army is better fed, better led, better rested, spied out the battlefield best, which has better moral, more experience, has the sun in the eyes, what is the condition of the battlefield.... essentially warfare is a million different variables playing out. Random chance upon random chance, from the smallest level of how the arrow strikes the armour, to what the commander sees.
Correct. I've done various tests with different bows, arrow lengths, thicknesses, different types of flights and heads. All give very different results on soft and hard armour.
One of the best history channels ever.
Great series
I am very happy you have bene enjoying it!
To the facial injuries- the great helm was not often worn in meleé combat. Joinville notes (among other sources) that after the joust, knights would ride back to their lines and exchange the helm for a kettle hat (or something similar) so they could see better in the CQC. However, that leaves the face more open.
Excellent point! I missed that in Joinville but it explains the volume of facial injuries then. The trade off between visibility and protection that exists for every head armour.
They also wore skullcaps hidden under the great helm so if this wasn't an option, they could still discard the great helm and fight with full visibility under the skullcap. Having used a greathelm in armored combat before, it's undeniably protective but the peripheral vision is extremely limited even compared to other European helmet designs.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I don't think Joinville ever directly says that, I think that is a lot of extrapolation (or perhaps just misunderstanding) from Joinville. The closest part I remember is Joinville loaning his iron cap so the King's could take off his great helm, since the King was more or less cooking under it. Which if anything just shows an interesting taboo about not being helmetless (which can be seen in other Latin European sources of the time), rather than anything similar to what the original commenter said.
I really like the design of the arrows, especially the long and tall fletches
I am flying to Türkiye today and will be there for a few weeks. The rest of the series is complete and will upload on schedule. I will still reply to comments when I can but I probably won't be as in-depth in my replies as you may be accustomed to. Not while there's mezes to be eaten, at least.
Part 1: Overview on Mongol Equipment ua-cam.com/video/WuDE6y6mJ4k/v-deo.html
Part 2: Mongol Cavalry in the war against the Jin Dyansty: ua-cam.com/video/jPaY-pbRjek/v-deo.html
Part 3: Mongol Cavalry against Khwarezm, Delhi Sultanate and Qipchaqs: ua-cam.com/video/L_ZIw2y4wvU/v-deo.html
Part 5: Mongols vs Mamluks ua-cam.com/video/27ijAgITqzE/v-deo.html
Greeting from Türkiye! I hope you will have a good time.
@@RandomGuy-df1oyI certainly will!
Not surprised that the Mongols valued European knights as better foes than the usual, feudal Europe was in near constant warfare and rarely had any other troop of value, most improvements in technology and tactics went on making knights deadlier.
And not surprised the Mongols still knew how to overcome them, knights may have been better than the heavy cavalry they had already overcome but not THAT much better, and the Mongols didn't build their empire by being unable to adapt.
They weren't well led. Feudal armies simply didn't have the organization, chain of command and cohesion to be 1st rate medieval ones.
As a Mongol history enthusiast, this video presents aspects of the Mongol invasion of Europe, Hungary in particular, that I was not aware of. Your presentation, with its rich inclusion of primary sources, makes for a very engaging account of how the Mongols fared against European heavy cavalry. I hadn't known for sure that French Templars participated in the Battle of Mohi, but what you present confirms that. My question is: given the difficulties of later Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary in the 1260s and 1280s, do you think the Mongols would have been more successful under better leadership, or if better resourced?
Thank you for the kind words, I am very happy you have found it informative and useful, that is always my goal and am happy it is achieved!
Regarding post-1241 attacks, this is what we see. In 1250s Mongol border operations against Halych-Volhynia are rather ineffective, under the poor command of Qurumshi. When he is replaced by the more effective Burundai/Boroldai at the end of the 1250s, we see a rapid change. The 1259/1260 attack on Poland by Boroldai was very devastating on Poland as result.
The 1285 Hungarian/1287 Polish campaign are an even better example. This is part of my ongoing PhD research. I argue part of the poor performance of the Mongols in these campaigns is because the khan in charge was Tele-Buqa. Probably in 1285 he is only in his early twenties, and this was likely his first campaign. A highly inexperienced yet overconfident commander was a very bad combination to have.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thank you so much! I always had the sense that if these later campaigns were better led, they would have been far more successful. I look forward to seeing the results of your research.
Oh I've been dying for this one!
I hope it lives up to wait!
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory It really does!
History is not Pokemon. One type of soldier does not have a 4x weakness to another kind and any view of history that shows it that simplistically should be taken at deeply suspect
one of your best videos thank you
Very glad you think so, it was great fun to work on and put together.
Maille could be arrow proof and it's not a good idea to look at tod's tests as the end-all be-all as maille is the single most variable form of armor there is. Normal hauberks, especially in style of the 14th century (which is what tests are often conducted upon) will not stand up to longbow or heavy composite fire, especially using bodkins. However, doubled maille, king's maille, etc under various terms it appears in chronicles, is specifically arrow proof and usually worn with fore-knowledge of a very hard engagement. What it exactly was is completely unknown because no examples of it survive, but it could be anything from literally wearing two haubeks atop each other, doubled maille over the torso, smaller ring diameter leading to increased density, or 6-in-1 weave vs the usual 4-in-1 weave, which is mentioned in Persian sources and thus could be the right answer. Either way in chronicles this explicitly fends off arrows/bolts with impunity, along with potentially being able to shrug off couched lance hits (possibly this form of maille was often used in tournaments).
Of course going by its material either being doubled or at least increased by 33%, this is fairly expensive equipment and thus even less accessible to many. It does show up in chronicles in Europe however, IIRC being mentioned in use in the Third or Fourth Crusade in particular during urban fights on foot, and shows up in Arab/Persian mention, so likely not that uncommon. Which personally causes confusion for me as to the whole deal with the First Crusade and arrows being completely ineffective against Franks. It's possible the Arabs and Turks were simply knocking broadheads which will simply bounce off hauberks unless they can cut a ring or two, but maille is endemic to the middle east for over a millennium by the time of the first crusade, so it's odd how archers wouldn't know how to cope with ten thousand Latins armored in maille.
Also the other issue with maille is that density of the weave itself based on ring diameter can extremely warp performance. Ultimately it's the wrong conclusion to say that maille is weak to piercing attacks or missiles, it just requires specific adaptions to counter it. Plus we know from period accounts of men getting struck by lances in the high or even early period, and those are enormously more powerful than arrows so, confusion variability at the end of the day. You certainly got what you paid for though.
It's a very important point which demonstrates the uneven quality of equipment various troops would have, and why it's so hard to test for this. As I think Tod himself says in his tests, all they can do is show one possibility, which doesn't account for any variables, really.
Regarding the first Crusade accounts, I have heard this but I've never really looked into it. I do wonder though: were the Turks there only firing from very long range perhaps? I have no explanation for that, not without doing more research into the matter
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I don't know the distance they were firing at, but evidently something was afoot to make the turk arrows fail to do much and leaving the anecdotes of Latin 'pincushions'. One possibility could be that they were in fact wearing double maille, some argue that the Bayeux Tapestry shows doubled use of hauberks by Normans but feels a bit of a stretch. IMO at least, broadheads being used at least would explain lackluster results at close range if the Turks were anticipating lighter armored troops, which is maybe possible given the Arabs and Turks themselves often fielded large groups of lightly armored men? Or maybe intended to shoot out the horses which neutralizes a knight but attacked the Crusaders at camp and thus found them on foot. Dorylaeum is the main example I'm thinking of here.
@@wyattw9727 I've seen a youtube video titled "viking arrows" from Dan Hoj of Viking needle bodkins which were so thin that the dude demonstrating it just put the needle tip through a piece of riveted mail without any effort with just his hands (not even shooting the arrow at the mail) I'm certain archers in the east had similar arrow heads as well and against such arrows, I don't think even Double hauberks will do much
the hungarian cavalry at the time was indeed made up by a majority of light cavalry, forces that still used horsearchery where the szekelys, pecheneg remnants and the cumans and uzes, especially the szekely were known as light cavalry being able to inflict heavy damage to the mongols in some battles
If you could point to an actual source which demonstrates their use in battles against the Mongols I would appreciate it. So far I have only found the Szekely's role explicitly mentioned in relation to the 1285 attack. There are sources also noting Hungarian horse archers in the wars against Austria and Bohemia, but as of yet there doesn't appear any direct mention of them in 1241 in any chronicle or other source I have read.
Szekelys, Pechenegs and other similar groups did not make the majority of the Hungarian army and Magyar horse archers in the 13th century were much less likely. Since the 11th century Hungary was a feudal state. Without nomadic lifestyle, horse archers were not as easy to produce. For nomadic groups the production of horse archers is basically automatic. They need the skill for their every day lives and practice it since childhood. In the other hand serfs make their living from agriculture. A much more static life and they are even prohibited from hunting. This means training horse archers would've been an extra effort. Those who could've afforded this were not the common folk (look at other horse archers in feudal societies, like the Mameluks). Nobles used the western style and there was already a source of horse archers from the Szekelys who were not feudal in nature. It did not worth the effort to produce horse archers from Magyar serfs, especially becouse the quality of those troops would had been much lower than natural horse archers or professional ones.
Szekelys were the vanguard of Hungarian armies, based on contemporary descriptions of battles.
The bias in pictoral evidence is not really a valid point in my opinion, becouse there is not seem to be one in most depictions. Only the Chronicum Pictum lacks a lot of horse archers, but contemporary church frescos depict them. It seems like horse archers in this period used the same kind of bows, but wore light western armor. When it comes to the majority of the Hungarian armies, they were most likely levied commoner infantry or light melee cavalry.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Hi! Well, I am struggling with a tooth abscess and am on antibiotics, but cannot help try to comment, if I may!
1. At 4:23, you indicate the Hungarians killed Kötön(y), leader of the Cumans, but this is not the case. The German citizens of Pest killed him, and it was whispered that Frederick the II, Duke of Austria, had paid them to do so.
2. Hungarian light cavalry. It is a myth to think Hungary gave up its light cavalry. One of the historians you mention, B.Szabó János, has written a great book on this topic, covering light cavalry from the Xth to the XIth C. While they did give up their semi-nomadic lifeway, they continued their pastoral ways, clans-families owning between 40 and 50 horses kept outdoors, but grain fed in the winter. (Nagy Kálmán -- a former hussar officer).
3. Archaeology. Only one grave of people from the battle at Muhi has been found and this was two men, one of whom was a light cavalryman. He was armed with maille armour, parts of a sabre and four arrows were found buried with him and much else, including a type of mace associated with Pechenegs and Cumans. There is also a ring which belonged to a Hungarian noble clan, he might have belonged to that.
library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/MEGY_CSON_EK_Sa_12/?pg=639&layout=s
4. Charters: I am too tired to hunt them up right now, but B. Szabó refers to a number of charters issued by Béla IV after the battle, which include a call for 'phraretriares' ('quiver-men') or 'tegzesek' in Hungarian. This is in conjunction with the command to wear armour and helmets as well as a lance. Clearly, 'quiver-men' were archers, and while the Székely were the most famous, this charter of 1260 calls on all regions of the country to provide such men.
I hope I have helped and later will try to get the actual charter.
@@woff1959 Try chewing a clove with the problematic tooth, you can also try keeping salt water in that half of your mouth. I also suffer from that, these are the most effective methods I've found.
@@ahmeteminerdogan9266 Thanks, much appreciated, the antibiotics are working, but I'll keep it in mind!!
One thing I think people tend to not get about knights is that they weren’t really heavy cavalry as most of the world understood heavy cavalry, at least normally, in the Middle East and towards the east of Europe they act more and more like the heavy cavalry seen in Asia, wearing more armour and using mail barding more often, I think mainly because of the lack of plains and steppes in western and Central Europe, many thousands of cavalry can’t really do many complex movement or harass the same way most heavy cavalry could because they didn’t have the room, they had to charge into the other army
big fan of the magyar knight drawing
cool stuff
Another brilliant piece by THE authority on Mongols. Tx mate.
Very well prepared. Thank you.
The history of world conquest by the 'World's Strongest Empire, the Great Mongol Empire'. This is a lecture on the history of the world's strongest empire, the Mongol Empire, conquering Europe. It was helpful in studying world history.
'세계 최강대국 대몽골제국'의 세계정복역사. 세계 최강대국 몽골제국이 유럽을 정복한 역사에 대한 강의군요. 세계사 공부에 도움 됐습니다.
Ya boi George Kolev(writer of the Mongol Invasion of Europe alt history in Wizards and Warriors) could learn a thing or two from this video. 110 Venetian aligned knights "blocking 1000s of Mongol arrows"... The ridiculousness of how the series went is laughable.
I would think if maille was "arrow proof," I don't think there would have been a need to improve upon it. It's better to wear than nothing, if you are faced with a cloud of arrows, but it's not an impenetrable shield by any means
I remember the knights in the battle of isonzo using shields and it's dozens, not 1000's of arrows. It also depends on what chainmail the knights wore, the regular hauberk doesn't fair too well against mass composite recurve fire but the double maille/kings maille is specifically made to counter projectiles. The reason why this wasn't used that often was because this was very very expensive and only those who could afford it could get it. There are no surviving examples left today but it is mentioned in european sources as being different to regular maille and heavily featured on third crusade, fourth crusade sources(this may be exaggeration) While it is possible that the French used this with more regularity and thus giving their knights the iconic "most well armoured" reputation, the fact that in the battle that you say is completely ridiculous, only 110 knights were present, indicates that these were the very best the powerful sponheim family could actually afford; outfitted with the best training, horses, weapons and armour in the german state. You could make an argument that the Templar's in mohi were even more powerful and richer than sponheim but only a small percentage were actually templars in the battle, the rest were hungarian heavy cavalry with different types of armour and combat prowess
Oohhh jajaja. Se viene videazo!!!
Thank You for making this video.
Excellent video. I have a question though: how fast were Mongolian heavy cavalry when compared to European knights at the time? I've read that on one hand, the Mongolian horses were perhaps twice as low in weight (600 pounds compared to 1200), which generally makes them faster since smaller horses are faster. BUT on the other hand, I've read that horses will decrease in speed once the total weight on them becomes more than 25%. Since even a mongolian would've perhaps been up to 150 pounds, when combined with both further weapons, armor and horse barding, this would've become perhaps something like up to 250 pounds. Still, I'm not sure if the elite Mongolian heavy cavalry horses would've been bigger to compensate for this.
European horses on the other hand, possibly could've gotten away better by the knights wearing more armor, weapons and equipment than mongolian horses. So I would like to know your opinion when it comes down to speed. Thank you.
Is it possible Coloman's final charge was less effective because of equipment degradation? What I mean is the forces involved in knightly charges would surely cause a lot of lances to break or be discarded due to being lodged in their targets, so by the 3rd charge could the knights have been deprived of their main gimmick and entered a melee they were at a disadvantage at if the mongol heavy cavalry still had their anti heavy cavalry weapons such as their hooked spears and maces?
Yes that could certainly be among the factors at play. We should probably imagine by the end of the battle the knights and their horses are injured, exhausted, equipment damaged and lost. All things would contribute to the destruction of his men by the end of the battle
Beautiful artwork
The mongol already tested melee to melee fight much more faster than european knight which was agaisnt the chinese spear man of jin, south east asia light and medium infantry in jungle and swamp then japanese samurai in beach, forest and mountains.
Fighting against samurai happened very later during Kublais dynasty
I doubt it's apart of it, but id love an episode on heavy cavalry in Southeast Asia.
I would have loved one as well, but the current access I have to sources on that area are so far, rather brief when it comes to this sort of material. It's a topic that requires more research, translations of Chinese and other local languages and speaking to scholars on those regions, before I could hope to put something together even as detailed as this video. A good project in future, as great new scholarship comes out everyyear on the Mongol interactions with these areas. Even compared to what I could find on this region 4 years ago
About the elite units at 5:30 are you referring to turkic batyrs? Or maybe their mongolic counterpart?
The unit is explicitly led by a fellow called "Ba'atur" (八哈秃) in Subedei's Yuan Shi biography (based off of a Mongolian original likely produced around 1260). Elsewhere the Chinese sources tend to call these sorts of units "ba'atur," "hero units," and the leaders of them may have thus all born the epithet. However, the unit itself is not called ba'atar in biography; regarding the fight on the bridge, it says "Thirty soldiers and Ba’atur, Batu’s subordinate general, were killed." This same unit and its fight for the bridge is also noted in the European accounts of the battle. None of the sources as far as I can tell, remark on the ethnicity of the members of this united. Ba'atur is merely a title here, rather than a personal name.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory probably like "Alps" of the Oghuz tribes, like Osman and Ertughrul were alps who had great armour and high quality weapons
Great vid! I’ve also heard that Mongol troops wore silk shirts to prevent lethal tears from piercing weapons.
another classic jack W 😏
The problem at the battle for Mongols was that they violated one of their main principles of warfare: never fight with a river behind
Quick question, is there a discord server for your community/is there a plan to make one? I'd say it'd greatly improve & quicken communication.
Can i ask you one quest. If the Mongol lost tactic and mobility advantages, then the knights will have upperhand against Mongol heavy cavalry in a melee battle depsite wearing chainmail armour, like in Battle of Mohi, right?
The biggest difference between Western knights and Mongol armies is that Western heavy cavalry did not use bows and arrows and were accompanied by many infantry. The point is that all Mongolian soldiers ride on horseback and march with about five spare horses. They are completely different in terms of maneuverability and speed of advance. In both China and Persia, the Scythians and Xiongnu, who are horse races, won great victories because of this. Mobility becomes more important than the number of soldiers.
Yes, that is discussed in the first video in this series.
no. These nations were defeated by mongols heavy cavalery. Same as Chinese armies.
Mongol bow were not different from other composite bows. And from front and real distances were not able penetration knight armour. In legnica Mongols first killed horses them defeated knights by polearms. In battles Richard Lion heart turkopoles complained that Crusaders looks like hedhehogs and stil fights.
Richard the Lionheart fought in the third crusade in the 12th century.
Mongols fought against the crusade in the 13th century
I love how everytime someone does Mongols vs Europeans the narrative changes. In Kings and Generals that guy said the Mongols easily charged past the bridge, in your thing you say the Mongols got beaten back and somehow the princes both knew the Mongols were coming and still allowed their men to sleep. This is classic eurocentric rewrite cope. Face it, they didnt conquer Europe because they didnt want to. They broke apart before they decided they wanted to. It wasnt the useless castles and it wasnt the useleas knights that fell to them left and right. Move on with life
In the Crusades, Seljuk arrows were not effective against European mail armor, but it seems that Mongol arrows were effective, so was the Mongol bow stronger than the Seljuk bow, or were Mongol arrows designed to penetrate armor unlike Seljuk arrows, or both ?
It's a good question that I thought about while working on this, but decided to save it for future analysis that dedicates more time to it. There are some historians today who are of the opinion that the Mongols' bows were in some way qualitatively better then their predecessors, or were seen as such as by contemporaries. For example, one contemporary Armenian writer, Grigor Aknertsi, calls them "the Nation of Archers." Now Grigor would have spent his life aware of the archery proweress of the neighbouring states (Seljuqs, Khwarezmians, Qipchaqs etc.) and yet saw the Mongols as uniquely "THE nation of Archers." However I would want to do much more research before making a presentation on that, or why the Seljuq's archery against European knights seemed somehow less effective than that of the Mongols'. At the moment, I do not have an answer for that.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Through what I researched, I found that the Mongol bow was larger than the Turkish bow, and this most likely means that it was stronger. Also, the level of protection that the European knights had was present among some Muslim warriors, but in smaller numbers which means that the European armor was not something out of the ordinary for others, but the difference was that the proportion of European armored warriors was higher than that of others
Does Thomas's account not raise questions of the nature of armour in Europe at this time if he has a concept of a breastplate? Is this not an evidence that some kind of solid armour was present?
Two things on this point: thirteenth century is the very start of starting to do slightly larger metal plates incorporated into armours, so it isn't impossible some are at Muhi (but still a ways off of the full-plate harnesses of the later fourteenth century).
But this is also a problem when terminology and translation; the translation may had a meaning not intended in the original text. For example, John de Plano Carpini wrote in latin, and said that the Mongols have " galeas et loricas." In the sixteenth century, Hakluyt translated this into English as "helmet and brigandine." In the twentieth century translation (the Dawson edition, "the Mongol Mission") of the text, lorica is translated to cuirass. Now these can be very specific terms (cuirass can be a bit more flexible, but generally is brings to mind a rigid, molded form protecting chest and back), but if we read the rest of the passage, Carpini clearly goes on to describe the leather laminar armour noted in the first video in this series.
This is the issue with translating lorica to a specific term, because in meaning lorica is basically just meaning "armour." And most medieval words for armour are not a specific type of armour, but just a word that designates armour (like Mongolian quyag; some people use it for a specific style, but the Mongols probably called all armour as quyag). In the modern world, we really like having specific designations and technical terms for everything. While the medieval world still likes terminology, they don't tend to use it in the rigid way we do today. So lorica can be, depending on the period, usually maille but of course you'll know it best for the lorica segmentata/lorica hamata etc. of the Roman army... but again these are not terms used by the Romans, but modern authors. So, I would suggest that when you're seeing "breastplate" in Thomas' account, what you're seeing is probably just the translator's choice, rather than a meaning Thomas intended. I'd have to double check, but I feel confident Thomas probably just wrote lorica or some other generic word for armour, which for whatever reason translators can't just leave as "armour."
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thank you, I have run into this phenomenon before where in my copy of the Art of War where soldiers are described to be wearing 'mail' which would not have been common in China at the time.
Seek original text. Its probably not a breastplate evren though leather or steel breastplates show up from time to time then.
The Mongols took heavy losses against the Europeans, that’s why Batu was pissed off with Subutai, almost coming to blows. This is why they turned back from Europe right?
Probably among the reasons, yes. Probably a calculation that, Batu's army as it existed in 1242 was insufficient to continue a conquest and occupy Europe. At that point it was 6 years into the campaign and the army had travelled thousands of kilometers and fought perhaps hundreds of battles. It was worn down from its ideal strength, and there wasn't much point driving the army onwards until it was ground down into dust. The indications are that they has fully intended on returning and completing the conquest (after the conquest of China likely) later with a full, fresh army. Only this never developed before the break up of the empire
A minor reason, but not the full picture.
Mongol got heavy losses due to being unable to maximize what their capable of. After all, they fought beside the river, and it's advantage for the knight to charge forward.
In hand to hand combat the Mongols would probably have the advantage, they had a lot of physical strength, a hard life, harsh winters that Europeans never experienced and are also excellent wrestlers, easily knocking down big guys even if they are small.
@@elvice3262 I think the best model for a Mongol soldier is that of a hunter, not a warrior. Their primary weapon is a projectile weapon (bow/arrow), like hunters today they shoot hoping to would and they wait for the animal to bleed out and once sufficiently weakened, go in with lance to finish it off. So Mongols didn’t see the European knights as enemies per se, but rather as prey, a dangerous game animal clad in heavy armor. Of course today’s soldiers do the same with firearms.
If you want “warriors” who preferred man to man close up combat, look no further than the ancient Roman legionaries and to an extent the ancient Greeks. Both peoples disdained projectile weapons considering them cowardly and not as ‘manly’ as a gladius and spear and shield.
I don't know if I agree with you that ranged weapons were so effective against armour. And indeed reading Jonville my impression was rather just how much arrow fire was required to bring someone down who was properly armoured. From my reading of High Medieval and some early Late Medieval sources, it seems to me that ranged weapons are used much more as a battlefield shaper, rather than the weapon used to drive victory home, most of the time. We even have an account of Richard the Lionheart during a siege, placing his men in formation in range of the enemy crossbowmen and letting them waste their ammunition with barely a casualty, but it should be noted that he did so since he recognised the poor judgement of the enemy commander and their lack of skill, meaning they were shooting ammunition excessively at the limit of their range without hitting much (at least that is how I draw it from memory but the details could be different).
When ranged weapons become dangerous seems to be when you are stuck in their shooting in an exposed position for a long time, such as many naval battles during the Sicilian Vespers War where Aragonese crossbowmen almost shot fish in a barrel so to speak, when facing French naval forces. Another point of danger seems to be against horses themselves.
Indeed, during the 1100's entire marching plans by the Crusader states were drawn up where they would march with infantry protecting cavalry, receiving prolonged arrow fire for a very long time indeed, the most famous one being the Battle of Arsuf (1191), and as I understand many sources on the Muslim side comment on how good the armour was of even the European footmen against their arrows (and this was of course as early as during the 1100's). Indeed the largest problem the Crusader states seem to have faced from the arrows in those battles were the horses' vulnerability.
This isn't to say that ranged weapons are not effective, but at least during the European Middle Ages, it seems to me that bows, crossbows and the like were used to shape battlefields rather than drive victory home, except in very favourably circumstances. But I also agree that during the 1200's armour was much more evenly developed throughout Eurasia than it had been during say the 1100's (where Muslim sources really remark on how good European armour is, for example), and people using armour as an explanation of why the battles were hard fought are often holding anachronistic notions of Late Medieval plate armour.
This is just not accurate, historian battlefield accounts showed most of the deaths & injuries vs Mongols were arrows. This is because while some elite knights did have plate armor at the time, the majority only had access to mail due to economic reasons. Recurve bows of 130 pounds or more have no issues going through mail. Then there's issue of the unarmored horse which is a prime target. A knight falling off his horse at speed is serious injury or lethal.
@@SilverforceX Have you read first hand accounts of the era? I have quite a bit.
Are you implying that there is battlefield archaeology? Can you give it a source then? I know that in the Battle of Visby (1361), the archaeology shows that only 25% of the Gotlandic got hit by ranged weapons, despite many having really rather low quality armour due to being a hastily assembled militia, and despite the fact that the Danish crossbowmen had flanked them.
Surely the top of the line armour for a knight during this era was a coat-of-plates, not mere mail?
Very few Knights had coat-of-plates, the average was mail + thick cloth gambeson type.
@@SilverforceX He was talking about TOP OF THE LINE armour. Obviously the average person does not have what is top of the line, that almost a part of the definition of top of the line.
CoA was a late 13th century thing. Mid 13th heavy armor was aketon+hauberk+gambeson. Which was almost as good.
@@majungasaurusaaaa In the mid 1200s, coat-of-plate definitely existed. And remember, he was not talking here about what was the equipment of your average knight, but what about what the top of the line wore.
Were coat of plates used at that time or did that come a bit later?
Later.
Jackmiester do you think genghis was aware of alexander and attila? And if he did what do you think he thought of them?
As of yet there is no evidence that Attila was remembered after his death outside of Europe. He remained a figure of prominence and even political legitimacy in Central Europe, especially Hungary. But no evidence exists for a medieval steppe memory of Attila or the Huns, and it appears he was re-introduced as a person in the modern-era. Which makes sense, as Attila's prominence in his lifetime was largely confined to central Europe. So someone born and raised on the eastern steppes, like Chinggis Khan, almost certainly never heard of him. The thing about Attila is that by steppe-standards, he's not that impressive a guy and didn't establish a long-lasting empire. He was notable to the Romans, hence he remained notable to Europeans afterwards (but even the Nibelungenlied version of Attila has little to do with the Roman version of him). But Attila did rather little to make a name for himself in the steppe world.
Regarding Alexander, the Mongols did know of him, but through his Persianized identity as Sikandar. By the fourteenth century the Mongols were producing illustrated manuscripts of the Persian epic the Shahnama, which features Sikandar prominently, but shown in Mongol features and armour. There is even argument that the final scene between Chinggis and Jamuqa is modelled off of Darius and Alexander's final scene in the Alexander Romances. So while the Mongols did know of Alexander, all the evidence for that comes after Chinggis' death, so it's not clear if he did know of him, or what he thought of him.
The Mongols dealt with Knights really well when they had space to move & knew it was coming. But when trapped in melee, the Knights had the big advantage with shield + proper sword for combat. Generally, the Mongols would lure Knights to a chase or ambush, both are fatal for the Knights. Even with great armor, the horse can be shot in the head and the rider will fall, getting injured or killed due to the speed & mass.
I really wish people would stop commenting things without actually having knowledge of the sources around the topic which they're talking about.
@@duchessskye4072 What's wrong with his comment?
@@kewlkat2712 So at the Battle of Mohi as already depicted in this video the Mongols actually did fight Hungarian Knights in melee and basically won. Just because they're primarily known for bows and arrows doesn't mean they aren't also good at close quarters. And that's just like one example, they acquitted themselves respectably in melee at Ain Jalut as well.
@@kolsveinnskraevolding Yeah you forgot to mention the Mongols only came into melee with their heavy cav after the archer cav wore down the Knights into fatigue & injury! Read how the Battle of Mohi took shape and the tactics employed.
@@SilverforceXit's actually true that Mongol fought well against Knights. They had maces and hooked spear that's really good against heavy cav rider
Excellent video. But it is "cavalry" not "calvary".
If I'm not mistaken, the Golden Horde invasion destroyed 70% of the Hungolian population.
The recent research has made this more nuanced. Up to 70% in certain regions, rather than the kingdom as a whole. So the area later known as the Kiskunsag/Nagykunsag (Cumania) suffered extensive destruction, and was later resettled by Cumans. But areas West of the Danube suffered (comparatively speaking) much less devastation. Soon after the end of the invasion the kingdom was quite capable of raising armies again to attack its neighbours, so it certainly was not reduced to 30% of its population in 1241-1242
hungolian👁👄👁
Oh I didn't even notice that at first
This Baatars created at Ogedai's time ? Seem,that unit kinda exist in pre-Chinggisid mongolia but not mentioned by Secret History in 1206
Yes the Chinese sources indicate these type of units existed from the inception of the Mongol army and the wars in China.
The word also just generally is used in medieval Mongolic and Turkic poetry to refer to a skilled, reckless, bloodthirsty, honourable, and 'manly' sort of warrior. We might be reading a bit too much into it as being a term for a formal unit.
支持！
👍👍👍
🙌
May Coloman rest in Peace.
It’s pronounced “cavalry” not “Calvary” lol
Another good account is the Serbian knights who served Bayezid against the Timurids.
The difference between power of a longbow and a composite bow, can be more than double in favor of the latter.
The reason for this lies in priority in piercing armor, which grows more prominent as you head East.
A blow of 80J may kill through concussion. Mongolic bows comfortably reach 160J range.
Longbow, 80-100J.
The common practice of the cavalry is to shoot from close distances, as close as 2 meters. Preliminary fire from no more than 30 meters.
Finally, heterogeneity, there are only 120k mongol warriors at the peak of the nations power. Most went to China, most of remainder stayed in Mongolia.
It is said that Genghis' brother could shoot an arrow 800m. Some Japanese Kamakura samurai flew 600m. Both would be carried by the wind. However, it is said that there were many Kamakura samurai in Japan who could shoot arrows 400m. By the way, the initial velocity of an arrow cannot be determined by joules alone. Even 100 joules of energy makes a big difference if you shoot it in 1/10th of a second or 1/100th of a second. The joule of a professional boxer's punch is much greater than that of a pistol.
☺️ Promo*SM
Nice. Modern Europeans would be shocked to hear that Europeans had to loot armor off of Muslims 😂
I mean looting battlefields has been standard for probably as long as we've had battles. It's only in recent wars that soldiers have been well equipped enough by their government that they don't feel the need to loot the enemy dead (at least constantly).
Who the hell are Cumans? There have never been such people, there were Qipchaqs.
No. We have in Islamic, Byzantine and European accounts mention of Qun people; the large scale Turkic migration over the steppes in the 11th century is described as the Qun migration in the Islamic account. Cuman is merely Qun with the suffix -man added to it (like Turkmen). Indeed, the Hungarian word for Cuman is still Kun (the area they settled is still called Kunsag, Cumania, in Hungary). Cumans/Qun, Qipchaq and Qangli were all related, but distinct, people inhabiting the Desht-i Qipchaq, and mostly the contemporary sources tend to depict some sort of vague distinction between Cuman and Qipchaq; Cuman/Qun inhabit the western parts of the steppe, while Qipchaq live in area around Volga River, and east of Ural River were the Qangli (apparently ruling over the Qipchaq there). There are many, many source descriptions of these peoples and they are rather consistent in this matter.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory they never called themselves as Cumans. All the people who inhabit the areas only remember themselves as Qipchak. Word Cuman doesn't even exist in Turkic languages. Cuman was simply a European name for Qipchaq, and Qangly, were just one of Qipchaq tribes.
@@arystanbeck914Keep crying
@@leonardoferrari4852 this is an adult conversation. I suggest you go hide under your mom's couch