Watch our episode on the "True Size of a Spartan Army" which covers their organization, formations, and fortifications: ruclips.net/video/XLd1tab8f0c/видео.html
السلام عليكم يا صاحب هذه القناة أرجوك إني محب لهذا المحتوى أرجوك أيمكنك إضافة ترجمة للغة العربية لأن إنجليزيتي ضعيفة لذلك لا أفهم فلو يمكنك إضافة ترجمة عربية و جزاك الله كل خير و هدانا أجمعين و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
These detailed documentaries of ancient nations army structures is invaluable and unmatched anywhere. Most appreciated by anyone studying military history as I have for a very long time.
As a Mongol I find it hard to believe a single unit (Arbun) would field only around 6 sheep. Herder families here for example keep hundreds of sheep at a time and some get rewards for keeping thousands usually without external help or a hired hand
A lower assumed average I'd say. As they said for horses, a minimum of 3, up to 18, but they use 6 as an estimated average. The real number of sheep could be much higher than that. Same thing with Camel and cart. I feel 1 per Arban is the bare minimum, they must've brought spare camels and carts.
the sheep were actually the auxillary farm animals. Mongols primarily fed on horses if they couldn't scavenge enough food in order to maintain their mobility.
Subutai was undoubtedly one of the greatest military commanders in history, he won more battles and conquered more land against a wider range of opponents than Alexander. Its crazy how he isn't given more attention.
It was also a time when the most of the world was at its lowest in unity and economics. The same happened with the Arabs, having the Sasanids and Bizantins exhausted before they started their invasion. After that they use the more developed territories conquered to sustain further expansions. However the Arabs were able to leave their culture and even replace some ancient ones like the Egyptian. The mongol couldnt do that at all.
@@juangomezfuentes8825 si tienes razon, si ves como luchaban contra egipto veras q los mongoles no pudieron hacer nada. bueno, creo q era timur q ha invadido alguna parte de egipto, pero solo porque en egipto habia un sultan de 12 años Faraj y no sabia como manejarlo su pais, era demasiado joven
Now i understand why medieval sources always paint mongol armies as this massive wave of unending hordes. Even though they didnt have much men, the sheer number of animals made it appear like they were facing a much larger enemy. In fact, the mongols often played into the psychological warfare that by loading dummies onto extra horses, lighting more fires while camping and purposely kicking up more dust in the air to intimidate their foes so you can imagine how much more exaggerated their numbers are to the enemy.
@@harrybuttery2447 Medieval Europe was in weird period where they couldn't field much men relative to their population compared to any other period in history. Europe combined still fielded less men compared than the Romans before them while china at the time could field a million men and that was only the Jin dynasty.
True, and never forget when the mongols send you emissaries - treat them well and don't think for a moment of hurting or killing them to intimidate the mongols or some nonsense like that
@@boendal2529 the Khawarazmian emperor tought he can get away with it since his empire was on the rise , have a large military and expanding into Persia and India . Let's say the Mongol gave him Shock Therapy on his delusions .
@@nijadbahnam9859 Yes !! he certainly thought so. From his position with the information that was available at the time about distant rulers, I might have also thought something like that He also would certainly never have guessed that the Mongolian main army would take a route that no normal army would take xd And !! he wasn't the only one in history who treated Mongolian envoys badly........ in the end everyone learned their lesson
An important thing to note is the speed of communication. A Mongol messenger could be sent out on a horse and wherever he went be given a fresh horse to continue at full speed to deliver a message. The Khan could know what happened on the other side of the Empire and make decisions extremely fast for that time period. Scouts could see an enemy army and inform commanders and a horde could be formed very rapidly where there wasn't one before.
So could all nation armies at the time and faster because of the horses. European horses were faster than the smaller Mongolian horse's but needed an extra change of horses along the way.
@@britishpatriot7386 Yeah if we go by the numedian cavalery, the arab cavalery etc, european horsemanship was sub par for the time. they almost always got outclassed.
Mi magyarok 8-10 lóval indultunk csatába, akkoriban nekünk voltak a legjobb lovaink a lovainkat kiherültük arra az esetre ha az ellenség kezébe kerülne ne tudja tenyészteni☝️
The Mongols mastered "shock and awe" battle tactics, "feint retreat" and "pincher move" "psychological warfare" and many more battle tactics, but most importantly, they mastered "support and logistics" which always wins wars... They are truly a force to be reckon with... man I'm glad I wasn't born in those times...
You forgot biological warfare. They started the plague that killed half the population of Europe. I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just the era they lived in.
Shock and awe is the tactic of hitting hard, fast, and with strength so that surprise and fear stun the enemy. Feigned retreat is “feigning” or faking a retreat. Enemies will pursue thinking they’ve won, then you ambush them Pincer move is when you split your forces so that both sides hit the enemy in the opposite flanks. Pincer, like a crab claw. Then psychological warfare is a whole category but involves all the non combat aspects of picking apart your enemy and their alliances, which the Mongols were great at
@@InvictaHistory Rome during the republic, the early empire and Rome after Marian reforms will most likely get the most views. I'd personally would like to know Hannibal army and early Prussian Army
@@anathardayaldar Yeah, it's about.... 25-40% are combat troops. Somewhere in there, depends. I'm sure it can vary even more than that but yeah. Roman army was actually only 8 fighting men in the line of 10. The other 2 were slaves who took care of the mule and cooked etc.
The Tooth to Tail ratio is how it's known these days. I think that the US Army these days is approximately 1:15 The fighting Tooth being 1 and the supporting Tail the 15. By comparison the modern Russian Army is something like 1:3.
@@markstott6689 Looking it up, in Iraq it was 11%. You're talking 6.65%. So probably not far off. I feel like it's got to be higher if you're just counting like, the actual division and brigade organization.
@Jonny- B I remember watching a video about it in the last 12-18 months and thinking how shockingly high it was for the US. I admit my memory could be playing tricks on me, so perhaps 1:12 is more accurate. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. Equally, how poor the Russian ratio is In comparison, it was a shock.
One understand how efficient they are with their logistics, which meant they could support a massive army, while keeping morale up. If your soldiers get to have the comforts of home, wife and children while out on campaign, not only are you less likely to desert, but you also have a good reason to defend your tribal/military units. As your own children and wife would end up being captured should that collapse. It is pure fucking genius.
With this video, it is now easier for me to understand the terrifying vision that seeing a Mongolian army approaching your territory could cause. At first glance it could not be surprising if it is compared in size to other armies, but the fact that they were all mounted on horses and that they brought with them a greater number of mounts, along with the rest that you mention, makes it understandable why they were seen as walking death for many contemporaries and with an impressive speed of mobility. With their tactics they could defeat several armies twice their size and with practically no casualties, a total killing machine.
Scorched earth tactics weren't popular back then. If you knew they were coming, you can burn the grasslands to ash and make it impossible for them to advance. On totally barren ground, an infantry-only army would require far fewer supplies.
Imagine being a soldier in 1240’s Hungary,knowing an invading army is approaching,you see the clouds of dust that the thousands of horses kick up and all of a sudden Wolf Totem by The Hu starts in slow but intensifies over time
@@Naikomi95 I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure it would be very expensive if you wanted sufficient men in heavy armor to be able to counter-act the Mongols, otherwise small patches of knights would just get tramped or lanced. And some bows are powerful enough to pierce through knights armor.
@@goos746 yes, you are no historian. Bows that are powerful enough to pierce through high medieval armor are a complete myth. And having sufficient amount of armored knights and was in the end the tactic Hungary used to beat back the mongols. So next time read up on history.
@@Naikomi95 "read up on history" as a history buff (first world war era) just saying that makes me disappointed in the community, firstly it doesn't help me or anyone else understand about what is the correct history. I made a stupid guess, but blunting stating I'm wrong then telling me to read up on history is a little misleading since if I did want to research the topic I would have no place to start. The internet is full of false information and therefore will mislead people, sorry if I'm "asking for too much" but "reading up on history" can mean a wikihow article or a page from the US Library of Congress website, the average person probably won't be able to find those trusted sources.
@@Naikomi95That is the most bland, surface level take from someone who immeadiately says “do you research”. Its clear you’ve done none of your own. Hungary almost lost when the mongols first invaded them in 1241, but after a pyrrhic victory at Mohi, Subutai and Batu fell back. (Historians argue it was a political decision, an upcoming election among the mongolian leadership, but its not really clear) During that invasion, the king of hungary at the time Béla the fourth, took note of what stymied the mongols the most, knowing they would come back. The most notable examples were, stone fortressess, crossbowmen, and yes, knights. So for the rest of his decades long reign, he turned hungary into a fortress state so a battle like mohi would never happen again. Fast forward 40 years and the mongols attack again, but this time theyre met with a chain of border fortresses spanning the entire country, and an army tailored to fight them. They got their ass kicked. But if you want to know the tactics for how the mongols were beaten on the field, IIRC (I would need to find sources for this) a formation of heavy infantry/ knights were placed in front of massed archers and defended them. Stationary archers had greater range than those on horseback, and so whenever the mongols would rally for a charge, they would be pelted way out of range by the opposing archers while never being able to get close enough to deal actual damage to the heavily armored foot soldiers in their way. It was a battle of attrition, the likes of which a mobile army could not deal with. So TLDR, hungary didnt give everyone plate armor and call it a day. That would be dumb, mongols would ride circles around heavily mounted cavalry
@𒂗𒀉𒆗𒇷𒉺𒋼𒋛𒄑𒆵𒆠𒁕𒆠𒂊𒁕𒋩 Sweet, one "historian" who ignores the consensus sure knows better than the other 95% of historians who say otherwise. Especially the Chinese historians with demographic proof, including censi...censi which Maddison literally ignored. You literally directly quoted fucking wikipedia, who uses an ECONOMIST. He wasn't even a fucking historian! And his last paper was published 2003, IN ECONOMICS. I can 99.9% guarantee you don't even know who the Xianbei were, what the Era of Disunity was, why the ethnic Han moved south during the period, how or why the Sui and Tang came into existence, or even where Kaifeng or Nanjing are.
These are amazing. They fill a great gap in the usual depiction of historical armies and the true mastery of logistics required to field a significant force.
Very informative. I can remember as a child I imagined the Mongols as mountain rangers just raiding like vikings. Today I found out they have a disciplined army 😮
I thing the vikings were also rather organised, you know, in the US you have lots of gun crime and mass killings, but you wouldn't call them the empire of savages, bit the same for the vikings, they founded Kiev, ruled Napoli, colonised the UK... had a wide trade network, basically their logistics backbone was that trade network and their Drakars allowed them to outmanoeuvre the enemy, get to shore quickly, and retreat faster than they came (these boats sail as fast in both directions)... so a bit the same as the Mongols, clever design, mastery of their habitat (the sea, the rivers and the shores), well organised, disciplined, high morale people...
It is true that the killing power of the bow is around 50 meters. At 300meters most arrows will not cause serious harm to infantry with shields and only should be used for morale
@@jonber9411 If you are trying to imply that the killing range of an English longbow would be further then that's not the case / It entirely depends on Poundage of the bow & the Mongol used between 100-150 LBS bows, so the 50 meters will most likely be Armored opponents with shields While at 300 meters they'll kill horses, disabling enemy cavalry & wounding lightly armored units the Bows they shot on foot had even higher poundage's
@@aburoach9268 This is sort of an apples to oranges to bananas comparison since the time period is 200 years after the Mongols and in an entirely different context, but in this one Italian treatise on arms from 1451, it recommends either the English longbow or the Turkish composite bow for sappers (among other weapon/armor recommendations for the various types of infantry and cavalry of the era.) Considering the composite bow would be more exotic for a European army, this suggests they were still similar enough in performance in a battlefield scenario to be considered a viable alternative, but it is likely neither would be great against someone wearing a lot of plate armor (and this is supported by the direct performance of archers in the Hundred Years War and early battles with the Ottomans.) This doesn't say much about how they would compare to the earlier Mongol bows, but considering the average draw weight military archers were capable of across Eurasia was surprisingly consistent at around 110 lb (with >130 lb considered a strong archer and 60 lb the bare minimum), I think it stands to reason that at least the Mongol bows would be comparable in performance to contemporary European self bows. Higher averages such as what you mention, or as observed in the English in the Hundred Years War, are possibly because these were offensive campaigns which would justify bringing stronger archers on average while leaving the weaker ones behind for defensive purposes. Sources just so people don't think I'm talking out of my ass. gallica.bnf.fr/.../btv1b8478964h/f46.planchecontact ruclips.net/video/lzRx832A9B4/видео.html
The Mongols had smaller, but more mobile forces. They were usually outmanned, but won with cunning, surprise and speed. They were the first Blitzkrieg. They stunned the bigger slower enemy with smoke and arrow traps. They were undefeated until their garrison forces lost to the Mamelukes.
Amazing video! I'd like to see the approximate true size of a Medieval army (how many retainers a knight, baron, etc. might take into battle, and how many camp followers and animals there might have been as well).
The Mongols were almost the perfect war machine. Mobile and deadly, with the biggest benefit being their non-reliance on a supply chain (totally self-sustaining in terms of food and fuel needs).
This was written in the 9th century by an Arab philosopher when the Turkic people were still serving as slaves, they were used by kings to fight, they often served as blacksmiths because they were good with metal.
The Turks could fire in all directions while riding at full gallop. Mounted archery gave the Turks an advantage over almost all of their enemies. They could either completely destroy their enemies with minimal contact or weaken them to the point where they could not withstand the onslaught that followed the volleys of arrows. Furthermore, the Turks were just as deadly when retreating as they were when attacking, as they could fire their arrows just as accurately to the rear when retreating from battle. The Turks were also superbly equipped for war and skilled in the use of all their weapons, making them a versatile fighting force. In addition to their powerful composite bows (they often carried three of them into battle), they were also armed with spears, daggers, maces, and swords. The spear used by the Turks was hollow and shorter, which made it more “penetrating.” A very interesting detail mentioned in this essay about the Turks is their use of the lasso in war, which they skillfully used to catch their enemies or their mounts and drag them to the ground or capture them.
Genuine question. I saw a video on mongolia from RealLifeLore and according to him mongolia only have like 3-4 million people where half live in the capital and the rest are kinda nomadic. Do you guys import from other countries or from around rest of mongolia?.
No nation on earth has ever brought more shame to humanities dignity that the mongols...if i were a mongol, i wouldn't have the audacity to reveal my despicable nationality...
Al Jahiz also mentioned that the Turkish warriors were excellent riders and had a special and close relationship with their horses. They were faster than the Kharijites and had greater endurance for long rides. Their horses were well trained for war and easily maneuvered by their riders. In fact, the Turks raised their mounts from foals themselves and developed a close relationship with them. They took excellent care of their horses and were skilled as veterinarians when it came to treating their horses when they became sick or injured.
Love this. This aspect of logistics is rarely truly exemplified in detail. It really paints a more complete picture of the rate of success of mongol expansion
Just a small addition. Correct abbreviation tends to end with T and thus 10 unit is called Arav/Aravt (Арав in mongolian means 10) 100 unit is called Zhuu/Zhuut (Зуу in mongolian means 100) 1000 unit is called Myanga/Myangat (Мянга in mongolian means 1000) 10000 unit is called Tum/Tumet (Tүм in mongolian means 10000)
"The mongols are coming"... Those words for centuries in whatever language pumped terror into the hearts of people stretching from Japan to Eastern Europe to North Africa. .
Being a century long hyperpower, the Mongol empire possessed one of the most martial and numerous armies in history led by military geniuses like Genghis, Subutai, Jebe, etc.
This is insane! Easily the most strategic & efficient army on Earth pre-industrialised era. They were basically a nation that lived to support war throughout the year.
I would also like to see a historical account of the battles and successes of the mongol campaigns. I've read that Genghis Khan actually reorganized the mongol society to better aid his military war goals, such as changing the courtship practices and the ages of when people would marry. In other words, he redesigned the mongol culture for war.
I find the Mongols and their horse armies so fasinating, and this video elevates that interest. It sad how Hollywood doesn't touch on Mongols as much as other empires. It would have amazing tactics, battles and strategies unlike any other.
I don't want Hollywood messing with the Mongols; they are only interested in quick money and politicaly correct History. And I'm not going to mention John Wayne...
Hollywood would never make an movie on Mongols, Chinese, Indian and Persian empires bcz if they did it would be embarrassing for the Roman Empire legacy.
They have but only in fantasy. Game of thrones. The husband of daenerys lol. Dothraki inspired loosely by mongols. And Khal drogo seems like genghis khan. Better wait for asians to make it themselves lol.
One thing: Clockwise. Because genetically absolute majority of humans are right-handed, and hold the bow with their left hand, one can turn and aim freely within 180 degrees or even more when aiming to the left. Almost no angles to the right. So a horse archer, always maneuvers to have the enemy on their left. (Ambidexterous switching is an individual art, not a military maneuver) Thus, in battlefield maneuvers, horse archers almost always tend to circle clockwise. They run up to enemy, and then turn right, not left.
@kektar-b6h Merriam-Webster defines 'horde' as 'a large unorganized group of individuals.' This is also how literature has portrayed them, whether they be orcs or zombies. Thus, it is legit surprising to learn that, historically, an actual horde was quite the opposite.
Very good. I appreciate how you avoided characterizing the horde either as teeming masses (as medieval records often did, to excuse their losses) or as superhumans who conquered Asia with just six guys, a rusty switchblade, and the genius of Temujin (as fanboys today do upon discovering the Mongol legacy). Still small relative to the continent they conquered, yes, but not THAT small. Mongol cavalry was a force using expensive, technically demanding equipment to punch above its numbers, comparable in this respect to the British reliance on its navy or the US on its varied air forces. How expensive? Yelü Chucai had to talk the Mongols out of depopulating northern China and losing the tax base with it just for more pasturage.
You should do a "True size" video on Napoleonic army/cavalry. The sheer numbers of dead at some single battles tends to dwarf anything historical, so much that I can't even imagine what it'd look like (outside of Return of the King's Rohan charge which I think was CGI-duplicated up to 6000 cavalry, and that looked huge), and even makes American Civil War casualty numbers look minor. For that matter you could get into WWI and WWII units and battles, but I think those were more spread out (in space and over time) than Napoleonic battles/units.
Mongols weren't even crazy big. We'd had bigger armies in Antiquity. But it sure helps when every man who is part of your army is trained how to ride and hunt and kill. Instead of a levy, you have an army on the go.
could you give example's, because the time the Mongols army was at it's zenith and controlled the Entire Eurasian steppe along with conquered sedentary kingdoms like Persia & China / It could Wield Massive Cavalry & infantry armies numbering in several millions spread out all over that huge empire
Compared to a modern army, where the vast majority of people are support and not trigger pullers you can see how efficient this system was. I’ve also read in several sources that commands up the 1,000 level were voted on by their members and not appointed.
I want to thank you for including the size of pasturage needed. I suspect they fought mainly in the warm months when grass was at its best. One of the things I missed was the amount of water needed. This many men and horses and camels could drink up a small river. Thanks again.
The Mongol Army, led by Genghis Khan, was a highly disciplined force known for its expert horse archers, innovative siege tactics, and psychological warfare. They rapidly expanded to create the largest contiguous empire in history, using speed, fear, and relentless military strategy to conquer vast territories.
What people tend to forget when comparing the Mongol horde against other factions like Rome, Greece etc. The mongols were nomads from the steppes whom managed to come to the top as one of the greatest empires thats eved lived. And the fact a mere 10,000 soldiers were sent west to europe and they won most of their engagement. Even when they were out numbered twice. Against the kipchaks and their allies. Then against the Rus Princes when the kipchaks were defeated had gone to ask the Rus Princes for help. Then against the Chinese whom fields some of the largests armies along side some of the greatests fortresses of their time. The nomads have trained to fight against fortications thanks to the defection of chinese engineers along side they were given the technologies of gunpowder aswell
No! Golden means the Center, as Mongols and Turks used colours for directon, like west is white, south is red, north is black, east is blue. Orda meant a royal court originally and then a fiefdom or a state. So Golden Horde, means the "Central State"
@@august4215 Popularly called The Golden Horde, the domains of the heirs of Jochi were not known by that name. The term ‘Golden Horde’ does not enter the sources until the sixteenth century, when Russian chroniclers referred to the domains as Zolotaia Orda, the Golden Camp or Palace.¹ During the Mongol era, they were known as the Kipchak Ulus or Khanate or the Jochid Ulus or Khanate. The Kipchak Khanate appellation came later and was a substitution for the Dasht-i Kipchak, or the Kipchak Steppes. May, Timothy. “The Jochid Ulus or Golden Horde.” The Mongol Empire, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, pp. 280-314,
@@moribundo well horde in English comes from the Greek word "ορδή" which means "a large group of people". In English it also has the meaning of "a small loosely knit social group typically consisting of about five families" so it means the "Central Horde" or the "Central large group of people"
Great video! Been an avid researcher of the mongol lifestyle and army for a long time. Great to see it before your eyes. Very good artists rendition. Thanks!
Before the rise of Genghis Khan Mongolic was spreading at westward and absorbing Turkic speakers (Janhunen, 2008). During the Mongol expansion, Turkic speakers whose tribes and states had been incorporated into the Mongol empire were so much more numerous than Mongols that, although Mongolian was the language of command, it was Turkic rather than Mongolic speech that was chiefly spread across Central Asia and the central and western steppe. Antonio Benítez-Burraco, Steven Moran 2018 p.92
That was fab! A topic I'd be interested in would be to cover any Mongol military defeats in open battle, as I can't get my head around how such a force could be stopped (outside of a hurricane)
etymological question. What is the spelling for the Jaghun unit acting as a forward scout? CC wrote it down as Alginci. The word strongly reminds me of the Turkish term for the raider/scout troops from the Ottoman era: Akinji, Akinci.
In Timothy May's book, it is called Alginchi. But I don't think there's a standardized transliteration system for Middle Mongolian to modern Latin script so it can be spelled as anything close to it.
@@syjiang I am mongol,writing from Mongolia.China was under mongol rule for centuries during dynasti Wei 386-535,Tan empire 618-907,Liao dynasti 916-1125 & great Yuan empire 1279-1368.After escape from China in 1368 mongols did 3 unsuccesful attempt to conquer Ming dynasti in 1370,1405 with Tamerlan,in 1449 after crush and capture emperor In Zsun (Tumu catastrophe).But helped to manchus to conquer China in 1644 .Qing dynasty 1644-1911 was manchu dynasty.Now Mongolia is the most poor and undeveloped countryin our planet.China is the second economy in the world,population 1.5 billion can mobilizate 200 million soldiers.China buy from Mongolia nature resources and help to Mongolia economy.
Always been fascinated by the mongols and the way they fight their battles With Djebei and Subotai coing out of nowhere at the head of couple of toumans, blitzkrieg medieval style I highly recommend Mount and Balde, nothing like having a horde behind you and lea from the saddle, shooting arrows and chopping heads left and right On pure gameplay fun, it beats all games
Good one but some parts are missing: You didn't note that 10,000 official unit number does not mean it is actually a fully equiped 10,000 men unit, maybe 6-8,000 depending on the situation. This was the case in the past and is today. Whilst Mongolian steppe horses are smaller than those you find in Europe or Americas, it is still a pretty large animal. Imagine it is 2m long, and you need to find a river bank where 100 horses can stand next to each other whilst drinking water. The 6,000 horses would form a 1.2km long (assumed no gaps between horses) 100 horse wide column just to drink water, every single day. I watched historian Zhukov who estimated 3 to 4 horses as the most likely average number: two for a change, 1 to carry goods, 1 spare to replace the lost in battle or due to a disease horse. Also, at least in Eastern Europe, at the time of Mongols, a 10,000 horse archer / lancer army (Chun) was simply unnecesary. There was noone to gather a large enough army to attempt resisting this. So most likely people of that time have never come across even one united Chun, most likely armies of 1,000 to 3,000 men. Considering these 3,000 men armies also included hundreds of men on foot, this was a very formidable force, most did not dare to challenge. (The Chun's may have been seen together in China where the number of people has been larger and so it was a neccesity.) In summary, most likely the horse number devide by two, then apply 30% reduction factor on both number of horse riders and the number of horses. It is still an impressive and previously unseen organised force. You also did not mention that those engineers were not just (only) men with shovels, they carried equipment that required assembly ahead of a siege. Don't take as only criticism. This video highlights that Mongols were not some random robbers in ragged clothes yelling and running around in small groups. If that was the case, they would have never heen able to achieve what was achieved. Discipline and training was everything.
Wow, I appreciate it! Greetings from Mongolia thank you so much I love your channel, keep going ❤🔥 I think probably that fastest and successfully conquer’s secret must had been strategy and good battle tactics(good military tactics may have high morale and high confidence in winning battles). Also Mongol army’s all Mongol men had bow, they all could shoot. In addition, Mongol men were not so strong and tall as compared to people from Europe and other countries. So, indeed this is the merit of a very good battle leader and battle tactician
"Mongol men were not so strong and tall as compared to people from Europe and other countries" is such debatable point. Some sources even confirms that Mongols seemed larger not because they were larger but because only after Industrial revolution, west fed their people enough to be tall and strong.
I've always been facinated by the strength of Mongolia in ancient times. Today, they are a mere whisper of their former glory. The same could be said of Macedone.
absolutely incredible video you guys made about my country's golden age of history. But hearing the names pronounced entirely wrong is a bit awkward, I guess many words in my language are challenging to say for English speakers 10-Aravt rough translation ten’th 100-Zuut-hundred’s 1000-Myngat-thousand’ 10000-Tumt- our way of saying the number 10000 like Japanese people saying their 10000-ichiman* Also some of the narrator’s way of calling the name is not even understandable/ recognizable but great work guys thanks for the effort
As someone who really enjoyed Marco Polo on Netflix, but understood that it was extremely loose with the truth, I'd really love to see an accurate prestige TV series depicting the Mongols rise and fall.
Great Video! The amount of grass that the Mongols' horses needed to eat every month was ENORMOUS! It is amazing that there was any grassland left in Europe after a Mongol Army swept through it!
The true size of an army, especially one like the Golden Horde, is so much larger than just the fighting men. For every soldier, there are two horses, a dozen sheep, a flock of chickens, three women and whatever other people and resources THOSE need to stay fed and mobile. It's less like a modern expeditionary military and more like a moving city.
A chapter of history renowned for its conquests and the sheer scale of its armies. It's an invitation to experience the grandeur and magnitude of a remarkable era. 🐎🏹🌍
Love the videos like this. I know it would be away from the norm. But would love to see a video like this for the royal navy at its hight. Or napoleons grand army in its prime.
Knights’ heavy armors made soldiers too slow to move that actually became an advantage for Mongols to bring knights down from their horses by ropes. There are videos about Mongol invasion in Europe in RUclips. Also, I watch a well known Mongolian historian videos here. I’m a Mongolian and history is my hobby. So, I mentioned what I heard!
Prince looking out his tower window: 'As vast as the enemy's forces are, at least they are outside the walls this night if nothing else.' Mongol spy: '... Yes.'
I find it quite interesting when you said "Jin China", because as a Chinese we never thought of it that way. Most Chinese people considered them nomadic invaders, although they themselves claimed to be a Chinese dynasty, and their descendants, Manchurians, who ruled the Qing dynasty, are considered to be Chinese by most. Maybe it's because they never really conquered China (the Song dynasty), so the Song narrative stayed as the official one
Well its because nowadays chinese people like yourself seem to ignore world history and talking based on the the communist propaganda matetials that you've been fed through decades, but its ok if you wanna be imaginary
Your view is wrong and does not conform to historical facts. Your views do not represent the views of ordinary Chinese people. If the Soviet Union did not force China through military force to allow Mongolia to become independent from China, the Mongolian Empire would be regarded as a minority regime of China, which means that the Mongolian Empire (1206-1260) is a part of Chinese history. But because Mongolia is now an independent country, the Mongol Empire is not part of Chinese history, but the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) established by the Mongols is part of Chinese history. The Genghis Khan family still survived in Inner Mongolia, China, and the golden family still thrived in China. But since Mongolia was ruled by the Chinese dynasty for hundreds of years，Many Chinese still consider the Mongol Empire to be part of Chinese history. But the Mongols disagree. They believe that China has been oppressing them for hundreds of years. For some reason, Mongolia describes its resistance to Chinese rule as national independence. The Qing Dynasty was established by ethnic minorities in China, which cannot be questioned. Nurhaci, the founder of the Qing Dynasty, was a local official of the Ming Dynasty, and their hometown was under the jurisdiction of the Ming Dynasty. Now there is no difference between the Manchus and the Han people in terms of language, culture and customs.
@snowlee-ml7rr I agree with what you said about Mongolia and China, but I don't think it contradicts with my previous comment? The Jin dynasty was a different story in that: 1. It never conquered China 2. It was never conquered by China either. Instead it was destroyed by Mongolia before the Mongolian-Chinese Yuan dynasty 3. Unlike Mongolia, the Jin nation does not exist today, so there is no narrative from their side
@@ozilter Outer Mongolia is mainly composed of Khalkha Mongolia. This Mongolian tribe has a very low status in the Mongolian Empire. They are responsible for logistics during the war. The reality is that the descendants of the Mongolian tribes who fought everywhere live in Inner Mongolia, China! If you conquered such a vast land, would you live in the extremely cold place (Mongolia) on the Mongolian plateau where supplies are scarce? If the Soviet Union did not force the Republic of China to agree to the independence of Outer Mongolia, Mongolia would still be in China. Do you suspect that Mongols are not Chinese? As a Chinese, I don't care whether Genghis Khan is Chinese or not. However, Genghis Khan's tomb is in Ningxia Province, China, and will be excavated one day in the future.
The biggest advantage that Nomads had was thelat they were Nomads and the nomadic lifestyle was part of life and they thrived in constant state of change, movement, hardhsips, and warfare. Whereas other civilizational powers were accustomed to city/rural life, stable agriculture based lifestyle, which is typically not suitable for constant change, hardhsips, warfare. Mongols have parallel with tribal Arabs who were desert nomads. It would have been very intresting if Mongols had conquered whole of continental of Europe. They were certainly capable. History would have turned out completely different
Temujin was not only the greatest Conqueror, but also a military genius. Most of his Army's organizing plan came out of his brain. Never arrogant, he despised arrogant people, but a good listener, so he learned from others. If the governor of a province of Khwarezmian Empire did not kill all 500 good-will traders sent with a friendly letter by Temujin and stole all treasures, there would have been no war by Ghengis Khan. One of 500 killed was a friend of his. Months later, Temujin learned it and became in great rage, but cooled himself down and fasted for 3 days praying to the Heaven to guide him what to do next. Later, he captured the governor and punished him with boiling melted silver pouring down into his eyes in public execution.
And destroyed to ashes all other Great Cities of Central Asia. Ideas he embraced and actions his armies did were absolutely horrifying, and he knew about it as well (absolute horror was one of his weapons). No place for glorifying him, just acknowledging his legacy, which does indeed live to our days.
@@shakhzod8583 that is medieval time dude, people were horrifying regardless of Mongols so they just killed good-will traders do you understand? I do really think people should glorify him even more! that is what others who read more doing too, imo they are the only ones who acted like how nobles should be, I think you should read more before rush to judge. what you are doing is caused by dunning kruger effect
@@fastfamilyfivem9532 Well, apparently you are sure they were indeed good will traders, not spies or nothing. You KNOW it somehow, and the only option is Chingiskhan was great and good and others tried to invade and kill him with armies and burned thousand years old cities to ground :) On the other hand, I am exactly from Central Asia, where both Kharazmian Empire was and Chingizkhan's Empire and everything else after that and before them. His brutality and terror "legacy' are unmatched. There is nothing to glorify, only acknowledge. I guess the only difference is, in case you are from West or any other part of Earth which didn't face anything like him, you just find him astonishing for his victories, forgetting about millions of victims. Imagine any of Rome, Bologna, Paris, Vienna or kind burning, everyone left them, blood is flowing like river, any movement for freedom was punished by perishing everything. So much so that after his "glorious" marches even CO2 levels were lower worldwide. Probably with this type of thinking it is quite ok to say 20th century killer dictators are subject for glorifying as well, don't you think? Well, if you think so, just tell me you are ok with and should glorify Holocaust, Gulag and you name it.
@@shakhzod8583 Also the mongols did not do so well in countrys such as India, Vietnam ,Eygpt and the Poles and Hungarians seem to have adapted very well to fighting the mongols using castles and fortifications effectivly
no, the difference is that your people would still loot and kill good will traders, so you tremble in your boots when repercussions are talked about@@shakhzod8583
Thanks so very much for this kind Sir! Though I do have a few books that have assisted me in discovering how the Mongol Armies functioned, seeing it displayed greatly adds to the retention factor (pic worth a thousand words), as they say... :) Considering the effect a Mongol army would have on an area of conquest, it's no wonder they were feared so greatly. As Michael Palin so eloquently puts it; "it was like a series of atomic bombs going off as they progressed".
@@azieldaly2965Presumably the old artwork of armored Mongolic or Turkic riders fighting with heavier armor while using the bow? Probably also that similar societies had cavalrymen use the bow and lance. It’s not exactly impossible to happen
At 27:57, we see the horse archers turning so they can shoot at the enemy on their right. But when you're a right-hander, shooting to the right seems not easy when riding (I don't even know if it's possible). Wouldn't it be easier to turn to the other side so the enemy is on the left? (I'm not an expert, though - I've never conquered a continent on horseback.)
It's interesting how much a Chun resembles a modern (WW2 and later) armored corps, with 3 armored divisions in it. Each division would be the maximum size that could march as one unit, using one large road, so 3+ divisions that were to fight together would need to take 3 different paths to the battlefield. Armored divisions also contain a similar number of soldiers to a Tumen (in the order of 10000, depending how you count) and also have similar logistics needs. Finally, in battle, the way an armored forces can leverage mobility (as last seen during the Iraq wars), also strongly resembles Mongol tactics, which can help them defeat numerically superior enemies when conditions are right. The similarities go so far that one might be tempted to believe that Guderian was somewhat inspired by the Mongols when writing Achtung Panzer in 1937.
What always surprises me is that there was actually this many people inhabiting the central Asian steppe at this time. I know it’s a vast area and isn’t necessarily desolate but there were no great kingdoms or cities so I would think that the nomadic tribes would be generally small in population. I guess not though.
No settled kingdoms, but definitely you must know about the Huns, which were able to bend not only Romans but Sassanids as well. Horse nomads also played crucial role since the time of Xerxes, through Alexander the Great, Huns (as mentioned), Arabic conquest, and some may dispute about Seljuqs and Mamluks. So, in general, apparently this type of living was "efficient" enough for time being. I guess one of the reasons they actually had any power was also their proximity to bigger urban places too. To exchange ideas, goods and whatnot.
@@shakhzod8583 oh yes I’m aware of the Huns as well as the various white hunnic tribes that raided the Sassanids but I’m just always surprised with the numbers that the steppe people are able to organize.
Not sure why its not in the description, but here are the works I referenced while I was working on this video Works Cited: Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire, Paul D. Buell Daily Life in the Mongol Empire, George Lane Mongol Art of War, Timothy May The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, Timothy May The Mongol Warrior 1200-1350, Stephen Turnbull & Wayne Reynolds The History of the Mongol Conquests, J.J. Saunders There's also an article about Bankhar dogs and livestock that I forgot to write down at the time, sorry.
i'm reading the mongol eries from Conn Iggulden atm and its stressed many times that the horses are more like ponies. also when they came into contact with other cavalry its stressed many times those horses were far larger then their own. would that not mean they would neat less space/month for food ?
You are correct, mongolian ponies were far smaller than contemporary (and modern) horses. Unfortunately data on their food consumption/diet was unavailable while I was researching this topic. To compensate for this missing information I offered a possible range in which their food consumption would likely fall.
I was reading about the Comanches who were like the Mongols of the America's. They like the Mongols rode on ponies. In the book about the comanches, it mentions that the ponies ridden could eat more variety of food sources than the European horse brought by the settlers and American cowboys. I imagine the Mongol ponies could also eat a greater variety of plants than their enemies horses.
in iran, words such as “keshik” (which can mean a guard or sometimes refer to spying on someone) and “cherik” (which means militia in Persian) are widely used. These terms, along with other Mongolian military terms, have permeated our language, poetry, metaphors, and other aspects of our culture. This is largely due to the fact that Iran was occupied by Mongolian forces for hundred of years.
Really 6 horses per person????? The amount of resources needed to feed those horses should have been enourmous. Astonishing thank you very much for your work
@@luqmannasir6927 Nonsense, Tell that to Attila which reached all the way to the center of Gaul // & the Hungarian & Polish plains would've been the perfect HQ to put supply bases On Top of That, By that Time, They had countless numbers of Auxiliary foot Infantry that fill that role while the Nomadic cavalry supported it wherever needed
@@torikeqi8710 That's entirely on Attila, you inattentive child, learn to read a comment / The point was whether a Nomadic army could operate in western Europe & Attila's Hunnic army clearly proved it could + The Roman's did not defeat him in a broader sense, They just repelled him from Gaul, Most of the losses Attila took in that battle were Germanic auxiliaries & not his Huns in the center which performed excellent and even almost broke the Roman center, In the End the Romans did not even crush his army, Attila just retreated due to the unfavorable position & loss of flank / Later on he Raided Italy & only left due to a plague, meaning that the Romans never got rid of him So It was not Rome that matched Attila or his Huns, But just Aetius in particular who knew them very well Also Mongol army >>>>> Hunnic army
This explains the mongolian tactic of ravaging the countryside for supplies/resources and thus Unintendingly driving the rural populace into cities, creating fear, overcrowding and hunger in cities, causing them to surrender. Great example of unintended successful consequences of simply fulfilling one's needs (ravaging countryside).
Watch our episode on the "True Size of a Spartan Army" which covers their organization, formations, and fortifications: ruclips.net/video/XLd1tab8f0c/видео.html
السلام عليكم يا صاحب هذه القناة
أرجوك إني محب لهذا المحتوى
أرجوك أيمكنك إضافة ترجمة للغة العربية
لأن إنجليزيتي ضعيفة لذلك لا أفهم
فلو يمكنك إضافة ترجمة عربية
و جزاك الله كل خير و هدانا أجمعين
و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
its only 300 right?
This honestly some of the more interesting stuff on yt these days
Only if you said no, they really did not like no
Mongol name for fermented mares' milk is airag, it is never called kumiss/koumiss in Mongolian language.
These detailed documentaries of ancient nations army structures is invaluable and unmatched anywhere. Most appreciated by anyone studying military history as I have for a very long time.
True indeed, however even videos on early medieval period are pretty decent aswell
I agree, as a fellow student of military history.. if you have more recommendations please tell
As a Mongol I find it hard to believe a single unit (Arbun) would field only around 6 sheep. Herder families here for example keep hundreds of sheep at a time and some get rewards for keeping thousands usually without external help or a hired hand
Or it was to keep some space for the ennemy's sheep after plundering...
A lower assumed average I'd say. As they said for horses, a minimum of 3, up to 18, but they use 6 as an estimated average. The real number of sheep could be much higher than that.
Same thing with Camel and cart. I feel 1 per Arban is the bare minimum, they must've brought spare camels and carts.
the sheep were actually the auxillary farm animals. Mongols primarily fed on horses if they couldn't scavenge enough food in order to maintain their mobility.
@@thomasthetanderloin where did they get so many horses from?
@@riperboyxl3216 Mongolia seems very large. Im not surprised at the huge number of horses.
"And behold a white horse, and he sat on him had a bow; He went forth to conquer"
Literally playing attila total war after this lmao
God is so real.
It's not just that, its the fact that he called himself the judgment of God.
@@0animalproductworld558 because a class of warrior that used horses in the time the bible was written? Huhh
@@divulgedspirit u lack spiritual discernment
Subutai was undoubtedly one of the greatest military commanders in history, he won more battles and conquered more land against a wider range of opponents than Alexander. Its crazy how he isn't given more attention.
Based
jebe wasnot less than subutai
subutai was beaten by the way jebe never, and when jebe passed away strangely subutai was beaten in central rusia
It was also a time when the most of the world was at its lowest in unity and economics. The same happened with the Arabs, having the Sasanids and Bizantins exhausted before they started their invasion. After that they use the more developed territories conquered to sustain further expansions. However the Arabs were able to leave their culture and even replace some ancient ones like the Egyptian. The mongol couldnt do that at all.
@@juangomezfuentes8825 si tienes razon, si ves como luchaban contra egipto veras q los mongoles no pudieron hacer nada. bueno, creo q era timur q ha invadido alguna parte de egipto, pero solo porque en egipto habia un sultan de 12 años Faraj y no sabia como manejarlo su pais, era demasiado joven
Now i understand why medieval sources always paint mongol armies as this massive wave of unending hordes. Even though they didnt have much men, the sheer number of animals made it appear like they were facing a much larger enemy. In fact, the mongols often played into the psychological warfare that by loading dummies onto extra horses, lighting more fires while camping and purposely kicking up more dust in the air to intimidate their foes so you can imagine how much more exaggerated their numbers are to the enemy.
He says that 10,000 was not much but for a medieval European army that was actually fairly large.
@@harrybuttery2447 Medieval Europe was in weird period where they couldn't field much men relative to their population compared to any other period in history. Europe combined still fielded less men compared than the Romans before them while china at the time could field a million men and that was only the Jin dynasty.
didnt have much men? how much men do you need ? xD wtf
@@AXharoth World conquest tends to require a lot of men
@@googane7755 there was a ton by any stretch of imagination
Genghis Khan was basically the Thanos of Middle ages . If they show up , you know you are going to have a really bad day .
True,
and never forget when the mongols send you emissaries - treat them well and don't think for a moment of hurting or killing them to intimidate the mongols or some nonsense like that
@@boendal2529 the Khawarazmian emperor tought he can get away with it since his empire was on the rise , have a large military and expanding into Persia and India . Let's say the Mongol gave him Shock Therapy on his delusions .
@@nijadbahnam9859
Yes !! he certainly thought so.
From his position with the information that was available at the time about distant rulers, I might have also thought something like that
He also would certainly never have guessed that the Mongolian main army would take a route that no normal army would take xd
And !! he wasn't the only one in history who treated Mongolian envoys badly........ in the end everyone learned their lesson
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
He was more like Galactus sending heralds and emissaries.
An important thing to note is the speed of communication. A Mongol messenger could be sent out on a horse and wherever he went be given a fresh horse to continue at full speed to deliver a message. The Khan could know what happened on the other side of the Empire and make decisions extremely fast for that time period. Scouts could see an enemy army and inform commanders and a horde could be formed very rapidly where there wasn't one before.
So could all nation armies at the time and faster because of the horses. European horses were faster than the smaller Mongolian horse's but needed an extra change of horses along the way.
@@britishpatriot7386 horses from central asia are the best, followed by iraq and syria not europe
@@britishpatriot7386 Yeah if we go by the numedian cavalery, the arab cavalery etc, european horsemanship was sub par for the time. they almost always got outclassed.
Mi magyarok 8-10 lóval indultunk csatába, akkoriban nekünk voltak a legjobb lovaink a lovainkat kiherültük arra az esetre ha az ellenség kezébe kerülne ne tudja tenyészteni☝️
Basically the Pony Express before the Pony Express.
The Mongols mastered "shock and awe" battle tactics, "feint retreat" and "pincher move" "psychological warfare" and many more battle tactics, but most importantly, they mastered "support and logistics" which always wins wars... They are truly a force to be reckon with... man I'm glad I wasn't born in those times...
Can you describe all of those you mentioned individually?
You forgot biological warfare. They started the plague that killed half the population of Europe. I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just the era they lived in.
Shock and awe is the tactic of hitting hard, fast, and with strength so that surprise and fear stun the enemy.
Feigned retreat is “feigning” or faking a retreat. Enemies will pursue thinking they’ve won, then you ambush them
Pincer move is when you split your forces so that both sides hit the enemy in the opposite flanks. Pincer, like a crab claw.
Then psychological warfare is a whole category but involves all the non combat aspects of picking apart your enemy and their alliances, which the Mongols were great at
@@Ibly31 Wow, thank you! This is fascinating
Sayfiddin Qutuz
This was absolutely incredible, it really makes you understand the mechanics of an army. Please do more of these, on different armies :)
Any suggestions
@@InvictaHistory I’m sure Rome, Persia, and Macedon are on a lot of people’s wish list!
@Invicta crusader armies may be cool!
@@InvictaHistory Rome during the republic, the early empire and Rome after Marian reforms will most likely get the most views. I'd personally would like to know Hannibal army and early Prussian Army
@@InvictaHistory any sort of african army's?
Surprisingly efficient. The ratio of combatants to support staff is incredible.
I heard in a modern army, for each man doing the shooting there were seven in the rear in support roles.
@@anathardayaldar Yeah, it's about.... 25-40% are combat troops. Somewhere in there, depends. I'm sure it can vary even more than that but yeah. Roman army was actually only 8 fighting men in the line of 10. The other 2 were slaves who took care of the mule and cooked etc.
The Tooth to Tail ratio is how it's known these days. I think that the US Army these days is approximately 1:15 The fighting Tooth being 1 and the supporting Tail the 15.
By comparison the modern Russian Army is something like 1:3.
@@markstott6689 Looking it up, in Iraq it was 11%. You're talking 6.65%. So probably not far off. I feel like it's got to be higher if you're just counting like, the actual division and brigade organization.
@Jonny- B I remember watching a video about it in the last 12-18 months and thinking how shockingly high it was for the US. I admit my memory could be playing tricks on me, so perhaps 1:12 is more accurate. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. Equally, how poor the Russian ratio is In comparison, it was a shock.
One understand how efficient they are with their logistics, which meant they could support a massive army, while keeping morale up. If your soldiers get to have the comforts of home, wife and children while out on campaign, not only are you less likely to desert, but you also have a good reason to defend your tribal/military units. As your own children and wife would end up being captured should that collapse.
It is pure fucking genius.
So many genius innovations in not only military but bureaucracy governance vassalship etc
@kektar-b6h argue elsewhere chud boy
With this video, it is now easier for me to understand the terrifying vision that seeing a Mongolian army approaching your territory could cause. At first glance it could not be surprising if it is compared in size to other armies, but the fact that they were all mounted on horses and that they brought with them a greater number of mounts, along with the rest that you mention, makes it understandable why they were seen as walking death for many contemporaries and with an impressive speed of mobility. With their tactics they could defeat several armies twice their size and with practically no casualties, a total killing machine.
Even if you defeated them they would have stripped the land bare with their horses, just them marching by would destroy a region. Truly horrifying.
just insane , terror incarnate
They literally brought the plague to europe
so they can come to you, but you can't enter their steppe...
Scorched earth tactics weren't popular back then. If you knew they were coming, you can burn the grasslands to ash and make it impossible for them to advance. On totally barren ground, an infantry-only army would require far fewer supplies.
Imagine being a soldier in 1240’s Hungary,knowing an invading army is approaching,you see the clouds of dust that the thousands of horses kick up and all of a sudden Wolf Totem by The Hu starts in slow but intensifies over time
Wear a knights armor and the mongols are useless
@@Naikomi95 I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure it would be very expensive if you wanted sufficient men in heavy armor to be able to counter-act the Mongols, otherwise small patches of knights would just get tramped or lanced. And some bows are powerful enough to pierce through knights armor.
@@goos746 yes, you are no historian. Bows that are powerful enough to pierce through high medieval armor are a complete myth. And having sufficient amount of armored knights and was in the end the tactic Hungary used to beat back the mongols. So next time read up on history.
@@Naikomi95 "read up on history" as a history buff (first world war era) just saying that makes me disappointed in the community, firstly it doesn't help me or anyone else understand about what is the correct history. I made a stupid guess, but blunting stating I'm wrong then telling me to read up on history is a little misleading since if I did want to research the topic I would have no place to start. The internet is full of false information and therefore will mislead people, sorry if I'm "asking for too much" but "reading up on history" can mean a wikihow article or a page from the US Library of Congress website, the average person probably won't be able to find those trusted sources.
@@Naikomi95That is the most bland, surface level take from someone who immeadiately says “do you research”. Its clear you’ve done none of your own.
Hungary almost lost when the mongols first invaded them in 1241, but after a pyrrhic victory at Mohi, Subutai and Batu fell back. (Historians argue it was a political decision, an upcoming election among the mongolian leadership, but its not really clear)
During that invasion, the king of hungary at the time Béla the fourth, took note of what stymied the mongols the most, knowing they would come back. The most notable examples were, stone fortressess, crossbowmen, and yes, knights. So for the rest of his decades long reign, he turned hungary into a fortress state so a battle like mohi would never happen again.
Fast forward 40 years and the mongols attack again, but this time theyre met with a chain of border fortresses spanning the entire country, and an army tailored to fight them.
They got their ass kicked.
But if you want to know the tactics for how the mongols were beaten on the field, IIRC (I would need to find sources for this) a formation of heavy infantry/ knights were placed in front of massed archers and defended them. Stationary archers had greater range than those on horseback, and so whenever the mongols would rally for a charge, they would be pelted way out of range by the opposing archers while never being able to get close enough to deal actual damage to the heavily armored foot soldiers in their way. It was a battle of attrition, the likes of which a mobile army could not deal with.
So TLDR, hungary didnt give everyone plate armor and call it a day. That would be dumb, mongols would ride circles around heavily mounted cavalry
Möngke Khan who ruled the intact Mongol empire at it's greatest extent had more than a third of all soldiers in the world at his command
@@nvelsen1975 if he counts china, it will be accurate
He abandoned humanity and returned to mongke
Except by that point numerous other Genghids were in ACTUAL command of the forces, which led to the horde breaking in less than a generation.
@𒂗𒀉𒆗𒇷𒉺𒋼𒋛𒄑𒆵𒆠𒁕𒆠𒂊𒁕𒋩 Sweet, one "historian" who ignores the consensus sure knows better than the other 95% of historians who say otherwise. Especially the Chinese historians with demographic proof, including censi...censi which Maddison literally ignored. You literally directly quoted fucking wikipedia, who uses an ECONOMIST. He wasn't even a fucking historian! And his last paper was published 2003, IN ECONOMICS.
I can 99.9% guarantee you don't even know who the Xianbei were, what the Era of Disunity was, why the ethnic Han moved south during the period, how or why the Sui and Tang came into existence, or even where Kaifeng or Nanjing are.
You cant really believe this
This episode is just perfect. Concise, well presented, and really gives you an idea of what a Mongol army looked like. Excellent work, Invicta!
These are amazing. They fill a great gap in the usual depiction of historical armies and the true mastery of logistics required to field a significant force.
Very informative. I can remember as a child I imagined the Mongols as mountain rangers just raiding like vikings. Today I found out they have a disciplined army 😮
I thing the vikings were also rather organised, you know, in the US you have lots of gun crime and mass killings, but you wouldn't call them the empire of savages, bit the same for the vikings, they founded Kiev, ruled Napoli, colonised the UK... had a wide trade network, basically their logistics backbone was that trade network and their Drakars allowed them to outmanoeuvre the enemy, get to shore quickly, and retreat faster than they came (these boats sail as fast in both directions)... so a bit the same as the Mongols, clever design, mastery of their habitat (the sea, the rivers and the shores), well organised, disciplined, high morale people...
Except Mountain rangers don't fully lay siege on a fortress city without numbers, advanced weaponry, strategy and tactics of a well-oiled war machine.
Today you were educated
It is true that the killing power of the bow is around 50 meters. At 300meters most arrows will not cause serious harm to infantry with shields and only should be used for morale
Depends on the bow, the mongol bows were small composite bows. And 50 meters sounds plausible. Also depending on what the enemy wears
@@jonber9411 bows are quite complicated and a smaller bow does not mean more powerful
@@HistoricalWeapons still 50 meters sounds plausible for a mongol bow. Direct shot.
@@jonber9411 If you are trying to imply that the killing range of an English longbow would be further then that's not the case / It entirely depends on Poundage of the bow & the Mongol used between 100-150 LBS bows, so the 50 meters will most likely be Armored opponents with shields While at 300 meters they'll kill horses, disabling enemy cavalry & wounding lightly armored units
the Bows they shot on foot had even higher poundage's
@@aburoach9268 This is sort of an apples to oranges to bananas comparison since the time period is 200 years after the Mongols and in an entirely different context, but in this one Italian treatise on arms from 1451, it recommends either the English longbow or the Turkish composite bow for sappers (among other weapon/armor recommendations for the various types of infantry and cavalry of the era.) Considering the composite bow would be more exotic for a European army, this suggests they were still similar enough in performance in a battlefield scenario to be considered a viable alternative, but it is likely neither would be great against someone wearing a lot of plate armor (and this is supported by the direct performance of archers in the Hundred Years War and early battles with the Ottomans.) This doesn't say much about how they would compare to the earlier Mongol bows, but considering the average draw weight military archers were capable of across Eurasia was surprisingly consistent at around 110 lb (with >130 lb considered a strong archer and 60 lb the bare minimum), I think it stands to reason that at least the Mongol bows would be comparable in performance to contemporary European self bows. Higher averages such as what you mention, or as observed in the English in the Hundred Years War, are possibly because these were offensive campaigns which would justify bringing stronger archers on average while leaving the weaker ones behind for defensive purposes.
Sources just so people don't think I'm talking out of my ass.
gallica.bnf.fr/.../btv1b8478964h/f46.planchecontact
ruclips.net/video/lzRx832A9B4/видео.html
The Mongols had smaller, but more mobile forces. They were usually outmanned, but won with cunning, surprise and speed. They were the first Blitzkrieg. They stunned the bigger slower enemy with smoke and arrow traps. They were undefeated until their garrison forces lost to the Mamelukes.
Aka, they were vulnerable once they lost their mobility.
Yet easily defeated by a simple wooden palisade, or even a lack of endless grasslands for grazing...
They were smart enough to adapt and adopt new strategies. Fear mongering is one of those tactics they used to great effect.
@nayanaariyarathna2625 Examples?
@@penultimateh766 Siege of Zhongdu (1215)
Siege of Kaifeng (1232)
Siege of Baghdad (1256)
Siege of Xianyang (1267)
Thanks to all who attended the live premiere! What True Size topics should we cover next?
Amazing video! I'd like to see the approximate true size of a Medieval army (how many retainers a knight, baron, etc. might take into battle, and how many camp followers and animals there might have been as well).
crusaders please
I think it would be cool to see the scope of the biggest WW2 Pacific theater Naval battles or some of the biggest ancient Roman conflicts.
mabye spesific large roman battle with multiple legions
I'd love to see the organisation and tactics of a Byzantine Army.
Nobody ever enriched my knowledge of mongolian horde so thoroughly. Amazing. Thank you soooo much.
The Mongols were almost the perfect war machine. Mobile and deadly, with the biggest benefit being their non-reliance on a supply chain (totally self-sustaining in terms of food and fuel needs).
not ,try to walk in woods or steppes for some days on horse back
then imagine 100 men then more
without logistics no army exist
This was written in the 9th century by an Arab philosopher when the Turkic people were still serving as slaves, they were used by kings to fight, they often served as blacksmiths because they were good with metal.
The Turks could fire in all directions while riding at full gallop. Mounted archery gave the Turks an advantage over almost all of their enemies. They could either completely destroy their enemies with minimal contact or weaken them to the point where they could not withstand the onslaught that followed the volleys of arrows. Furthermore, the Turks were just as deadly when retreating as they were when attacking, as they could fire their arrows just as accurately to the rear when retreating from battle. The Turks were also superbly equipped for war and skilled in the use of all their weapons, making them a versatile fighting force. In addition to their powerful composite bows (they often carried three of them into battle), they were also armed with spears, daggers, maces, and swords. The spear used by the Turks was hollow and shorter, which made it more “penetrating.” A very interesting detail mentioned in this essay about the Turks is their use of the lasso in war, which they skillfully used to catch their enemies or their mounts and drag them to the ground or capture them.
As a Mongol, thank you for our history to be revealed in very accurate and visualized manner.
you guys were trully cheesing out the war
you should invade china again they are becoming a nuisance
Genuine question. I saw a video on mongolia from RealLifeLore and according to him mongolia only have like 3-4 million people where half live in the capital and the rest are kinda nomadic. Do you guys import from other countries or from around rest of mongolia?.
@@vegardkjrberg1929 Both. Rest of mongolia provides food, clothing, furniture etc basics. Exotic or tech stuff comes from outside.
No nation on earth has ever brought more shame to humanities dignity that the mongols...if i were a mongol, i wouldn't have the audacity to reveal my despicable nationality...
One of the best videos about the Mongols that I've watched. Detailed and well illustrated with good graphics. Thanks 👍
These guys truly understood that the logistical advantage of the horse was the superweapon of the era.
Al Jahiz also mentioned that the Turkish warriors were excellent riders and had a special and close relationship with their horses. They were faster than the Kharijites and had greater endurance for long rides. Their horses were well trained for war and easily maneuvered by their riders. In fact, the Turks raised their mounts from foals themselves and developed a close relationship with them. They took excellent care of their horses and were skilled as veterinarians when it came to treating their horses when they became sick or injured.
This is what Turkic Mongolian normads who come from the Altai Mountains have been doing for centuries 😊
Love this. This aspect of logistics is rarely truly exemplified in detail. It really paints a more complete picture of the rate of success of mongol expansion
Just a small addition. Correct abbreviation tends to end with T and thus
10 unit is called Arav/Aravt (Арав in mongolian means 10)
100 unit is called Zhuu/Zhuut (Зуу in mongolian means 100)
1000 unit is called Myanga/Myangat (Мянга in mongolian means 1000)
10000 unit is called Tum/Tumet (Tүм in mongolian means 10000)
"The mongols are coming"... Those words for centuries in whatever language pumped terror into the hearts of people stretching from Japan to Eastern Europe to North Africa.
.
Being a century long hyperpower, the Mongol empire possessed one of the most martial and numerous armies in history led by military geniuses like Genghis, Subutai, Jebe, etc.
npc comment
@@VortexDBD No THAT was a npc comment hahaha god damn
@@ravnor874 viking pfp opinion ignored.
@@VortexDBD Ignored but responded too? Think you need to search up definitions ;) hahaha
This is insane! Easily the most strategic & efficient army on Earth pre-industrialised era. They were basically a nation that lived to support war throughout the year.
Great episode! It's amazing what the logistics were to support a Mongol army.
I would also like to see a historical account of the battles and successes of the mongol campaigns. I've read that Genghis Khan actually reorganized the mongol society to better aid his military war goals, such as changing the courtship practices and the ages of when people would marry. In other words, he redesigned the mongol culture for war.
I find the Mongols and their horse armies so fasinating, and this video elevates that interest. It sad how Hollywood doesn't touch on Mongols as much as other empires. It would have amazing tactics, battles and strategies unlike any other.
I think Hollywood doesn't have too many asian actors to make a mongolian movie.
I don't want Hollywood messing with the Mongols; they are only interested in quick money and politicaly correct History. And I'm not going to mention John Wayne...
@@peterjames232they did before, it's called the conqueror l. It was made in 1956. Although it has John Wayne playing as Genghis.
Hollywood would never make an movie on Mongols, Chinese, Indian and Persian empires bcz if they did it would be embarrassing for the Roman Empire legacy.
They have but only in fantasy. Game of thrones. The husband of daenerys lol. Dothraki inspired loosely by mongols. And Khal drogo seems like genghis khan. Better wait for asians to make it themselves lol.
Amazing video! I know it would be a challenge but a video on the true size of Xerxes' army at Thermopylae would be great
One thing: Clockwise. Because genetically absolute majority of humans are right-handed, and hold the bow with their left hand, one can turn and aim freely within 180 degrees or even more when aiming to the left. Almost no angles to the right. So a horse archer, always maneuvers to have the enemy on their left. (Ambidexterous switching is an individual art, not a military maneuver) Thus, in battlefield maneuvers, horse archers almost always tend to circle clockwise. They run up to enemy, and then turn right, not left.
Isn’t that anti clockwise?
@@jmac_au4344 nope
One wouldn't expect a "horde" to be so much thoroughly organised. Thanks for the video!
@kektar-b6h Merriam-Webster defines 'horde' as 'a large unorganized group of individuals.' This is also how literature has portrayed them, whether they be orcs or zombies. Thus, it is legit surprising to learn that, historically, an actual horde was quite the opposite.
Very good. I appreciate how you avoided characterizing the horde either as teeming masses (as medieval records often did, to excuse their losses) or as superhumans who conquered Asia with just six guys, a rusty switchblade, and the genius of Temujin (as fanboys today do upon discovering the Mongol legacy). Still small relative to the continent they conquered, yes, but not THAT small.
Mongol cavalry was a force using expensive, technically demanding equipment to punch above its numbers, comparable in this respect to the British reliance on its navy or the US on its varied air forces. How expensive? Yelü Chucai had to talk the Mongols out of depopulating northern China and losing the tax base with it just for more pasturage.
Love it! Logistics and organization are by far the most interesting part of war
You should do a "True size" video on Napoleonic army/cavalry. The sheer numbers of dead at some single battles tends to dwarf anything historical, so much that I can't even imagine what it'd look like (outside of Return of the King's Rohan charge which I think was CGI-duplicated up to 6000 cavalry, and that looked huge), and even makes American Civil War casualty numbers look minor. For that matter you could get into WWI and WWII units and battles, but I think those were more spread out (in space and over time) than Napoleonic battles/units.
Mongols weren't even crazy big. We'd had bigger armies in Antiquity. But it sure helps when every man who is part of your army is trained how to ride and hunt and kill. Instead of a levy, you have an army on the go.
could you give example's, because the time the Mongols army was at it's zenith and controlled the Entire Eurasian steppe along with conquered sedentary kingdoms like Persia & China / It could Wield Massive Cavalry & infantry armies numbering in several millions spread out all over that huge empire
Typical Americans lol
Compared to a modern army, where the vast majority of people are support and not trigger pullers you can see how efficient this system was. I’ve also read in several sources that commands up the 1,000 level were voted on by their members and not appointed.
I want to thank you for including the size of pasturage needed.
I suspect they fought mainly in the warm months when grass
was at its best.
One of the things I missed was the amount of water needed.
This many men and horses and camels could drink up a small
river. Thanks again.
nope, they invaded the damn Russia in winter.
I like how Mongol empire become bigger and bigger as video progresses
The Mongol Army, led by Genghis Khan, was a highly disciplined force known for its expert horse archers, innovative siege tactics, and psychological warfare. They rapidly expanded to create the largest contiguous empire in history, using speed, fear, and relentless military strategy to conquer vast territories.
What people tend to forget when comparing the Mongol horde against other factions like Rome, Greece etc.
The mongols were nomads from the steppes whom managed to come to the top as one of the greatest empires thats eved lived.
And the fact a mere 10,000 soldiers were sent west to europe and they won most of their engagement. Even when they were out numbered twice.
Against the kipchaks and their allies.
Then against the Rus Princes when the kipchaks were defeated had gone to ask the Rus Princes for help.
Then against the Chinese whom fields some of the largests armies along side some of the greatests fortresses of their time.
The nomads have trained to fight against fortications thanks to the defection of chinese engineers along side they were given the technologies of gunpowder aswell
They weren’t called the “Golden Horde” for no reason. Translation a ridiculous large amount of Persons 😂
No!
Golden means the Center, as Mongols and Turks used colours for directon, like west is white, south is red, north is black, east is blue.
Orda meant a royal court originally and then a fiefdom or a state.
So Golden Horde, means the "Central State"
Golden horde in mongolian means golden state or country
Despite the mongols being known for their large numbers. The mongol "hordes" were actually almost always outnumbered when fighting battles.
@@august4215 Popularly called The Golden Horde, the domains of the heirs of Jochi were not known by that name. The term ‘Golden Horde’ does not enter the sources until the sixteenth century, when Russian chroniclers referred to the domains as Zolotaia Orda, the Golden Camp or Palace.¹ During the Mongol era, they were known as the Kipchak Ulus or Khanate or the Jochid Ulus or Khanate. The Kipchak Khanate appellation came later and was a substitution for the Dasht-i Kipchak, or the Kipchak Steppes.
May, Timothy. “The Jochid Ulus or Golden Horde.” The Mongol Empire, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, pp. 280-314,
@@moribundo well horde in English comes from the Greek word "ορδή" which means "a large group of people". In English it also has the meaning of "a small loosely knit social group typically consisting of about five families" so it means the "Central Horde" or the "Central large group of people"
Excellent as always. Don't have to elaborate details. Never disappointed with your extensive work and presentation. Thank you.
Great video! Been an avid researcher of the mongol lifestyle and army for a long time. Great to see it before your eyes. Very good artists rendition. Thanks!
Before the rise of Genghis Khan Mongolic was spreading at westward and absorbing Turkic speakers (Janhunen, 2008). During the Mongol expansion, Turkic speakers whose tribes and states had been incorporated into the Mongol empire were so much more numerous than Mongols that, although Mongolian was the language of command, it was Turkic rather than Mongolic speech that was chiefly spread across Central Asia and the central and western steppe.
Antonio Benítez-Burraco, Steven Moran 2018 p.92
#Free KURDISTAN from turkey 🦃 occupation
That was fab! A topic I'd be interested in would be to cover any Mongol military defeats in open battle, as I can't get my head around how such a force could be stopped (outside of a hurricane)
etymological question. What is the spelling for the Jaghun unit acting as a forward scout? CC wrote it down as Alginci. The word strongly reminds me of the Turkish term for the raider/scout troops from the Ottoman era: Akinji, Akinci.
In Timothy May's book, it is called Alginchi. But I don't think there's a standardized transliteration system for Middle Mongolian to modern Latin script so it can be spelled as anything close to it.
@@penguasakucing8136 Thank you!
@@syjiang I am mongol,writing from Mongolia.China was under mongol rule for centuries during dynasti Wei 386-535,Tan empire 618-907,Liao dynasti 916-1125 & great Yuan empire 1279-1368.After escape from China in 1368 mongols did 3 unsuccesful attempt to conquer Ming dynasti in 1370,1405 with Tamerlan,in 1449 after crush and capture emperor In Zsun (Tumu catastrophe).But helped to manchus to conquer China in 1644 .Qing dynasty 1644-1911 was manchu dynasty.Now Mongolia is the most poor and undeveloped countryin our planet.China is the second economy in the world,population 1.5 billion can mobilizate 200 million soldiers.China buy from Mongolia nature resources and help to Mongolia economy.
As a Mongol, it was fun to hear those with cracked up English accents 😂 please keep going
Always been fascinated by the mongols and the way they fight their battles
With Djebei and Subotai coing out of nowhere at the head of couple of toumans, blitzkrieg medieval style
I highly recommend Mount and Balde, nothing like having a horde behind you and lea from the saddle, shooting arrows and chopping heads left and right
On pure gameplay fun, it beats all games
Good one but some parts are missing:
You didn't note that 10,000 official unit number does not mean it is actually a fully equiped 10,000 men unit, maybe 6-8,000 depending on the situation. This was the case in the past and is today.
Whilst Mongolian steppe horses are smaller than those you find in Europe or Americas, it is still a pretty large animal. Imagine it is 2m long, and you need to find a river bank where 100 horses can stand next to each other whilst drinking water. The 6,000 horses would form a 1.2km long (assumed no gaps between horses) 100 horse wide column just to drink water, every single day.
I watched historian Zhukov who estimated 3 to 4 horses as the most likely average number: two for a change, 1 to carry goods, 1 spare to replace the lost in battle or due to a disease horse.
Also, at least in Eastern Europe, at the time of Mongols, a 10,000 horse archer / lancer army (Chun) was simply unnecesary. There was noone to gather a large enough army to attempt resisting this. So most likely people of that time have never come across even one united Chun, most likely armies of 1,000 to 3,000 men. Considering these 3,000 men armies also included hundreds of men on foot, this was a very formidable force, most did not dare to challenge. (The Chun's may have been seen together in China where the number of people has been larger and so it was a neccesity.)
In summary, most likely the horse number devide by two, then apply 30% reduction factor on both number of horse riders and the number of horses. It is still an impressive and previously unseen organised force.
You also did not mention that those engineers were not just (only) men with shovels, they carried equipment that required assembly ahead of a siege.
Don't take as only criticism. This video highlights that Mongols were not some random robbers in ragged clothes yelling and running around in small groups. If that was the case, they would have never heen able to achieve what was achieved. Discipline and training was everything.
Wow, I appreciate it! Greetings from Mongolia
thank you so much I love your channel, keep going ❤🔥
I think probably that fastest and successfully conquer’s secret must had been strategy and good battle tactics(good military tactics may have high morale and high confidence in winning battles). Also Mongol army’s all Mongol men had bow, they all could shoot.
In addition, Mongol men were not so strong and tall as compared to people from Europe and other countries.
So, indeed this is the merit of a very good battle leader and battle tactician
Whats Mongolian wrestling popular back then? In my mind, the Mongolians are built like wrestlers.
"Mongol men were not so strong and tall as compared to people from Europe and other countries" is such debatable point. Some sources even confirms that Mongols seemed larger not because they were larger but because only after Industrial revolution, west fed their people enough to be tall and strong.
@@bataabagi5969 false. "Giant" civilizations existed well before the industrial revolution...
I've always been facinated by the strength of Mongolia in ancient times. Today, they are a mere whisper of their former glory. The same could be said of Macedone.
26:57 I knew I recognized that music! Total War: Atilla Hun Theme :D
absolutely incredible video you guys made about my country's golden age of history. But hearing the names pronounced entirely wrong is a bit awkward, I guess many words in my language are challenging to say for English speakers
10-Aravt rough translation ten’th
100-Zuut-hundred’s
1000-Myngat-thousand’
10000-Tumt- our way of saying the number 10000 like Japanese people saying their 10000-ichiman*
Also some of the narrator’s way of calling the name is not even understandable/ recognizable but great work guys thanks for the effort
thank you for letting me know
Great video! It would be interesting to see this done with the Roman army as it changed throughout the years
We actually have an episode on both the republican and imperial legion
Will you do the same for the byzantines?
As someone who really enjoyed Marco Polo on Netflix, but understood that it was extremely loose with the truth, I'd really love to see an accurate prestige TV series depicting the Mongols rise and fall.
Great Video!
The amount of grass that the Mongols' horses needed to eat every month was ENORMOUS!
It is amazing that there was any grassland left in Europe after a Mongol Army swept through it!
I would argue it is the mobility the mongol armies achieved that allowed them to build the biggest contiguous empire in the world.
Under favorable conditions grasslands grows back enough to be grazed by horses about once every 5 days.
The true size of an army, especially one like the Golden Horde, is so much larger than just the fighting men.
For every soldier, there are two horses, a dozen sheep, a flock of chickens, three women and whatever other people and resources THOSE need to stay fed and mobile.
It's less like a modern expeditionary military and more like a moving city.
Was just watching Great Khan lore from Fallout and this video drops! So stoked to complete this circle lol
20:45
Topics to Cover
True size of the Mahabharata Army.
18 Akshihinis Participated in war.
A chapter of history renowned for its conquests and the sheer scale of its armies. It's an invitation to experience the grandeur and magnitude of a remarkable era. 🐎🏹🌍
I was watching this video when I could not sleep at night. Counting those Mongol sheep made me really sleepy really fast. Thanks!
Love the videos like this. I know it would be away from the norm. But would love to see a video like this for the royal navy at its hight. Or napoleons grand army in its prime.
Knights’ heavy armors made soldiers too slow to move that actually became an advantage for Mongols to bring knights down from their horses by ropes. There are videos about Mongol invasion in Europe in RUclips. Also, I watch a well known Mongolian historian videos here. I’m a Mongolian and history is my hobby. So, I mentioned what I heard!
There were “Tumeny” men in the Mongol army if you ask me
Prince looking out his tower window: 'As vast as the enemy's forces are, at least they are outside the walls this night if nothing else.'
Mongol spy: '... Yes.'
I find it quite interesting when you said "Jin China", because as a Chinese we never thought of it that way. Most Chinese people considered them nomadic invaders, although they themselves claimed to be a Chinese dynasty, and their descendants, Manchurians, who ruled the Qing dynasty, are considered to be Chinese by most. Maybe it's because they never really conquered China (the Song dynasty), so the Song narrative stayed as the official one
Well its because nowadays chinese people like yourself seem to ignore world history and talking based on the the communist propaganda matetials that you've been fed through decades, but its ok if you wanna be imaginary
Your view is wrong and does not conform to historical facts. Your views do not represent the views of ordinary Chinese people. If the Soviet Union did not force China through military force to allow Mongolia to become independent from China, the Mongolian Empire would be regarded as a minority regime of China, which means that the Mongolian Empire (1206-1260) is a part of Chinese history. But because Mongolia is now an independent country, the Mongol Empire is not part of Chinese history, but the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) established by the Mongols is part of Chinese history. The Genghis Khan family still survived in Inner Mongolia, China, and the golden family still thrived in China. But since Mongolia was ruled by the Chinese dynasty for hundreds of years，Many Chinese still consider the Mongol Empire to be part of Chinese history. But the Mongols disagree. They believe that China has been oppressing them for hundreds of years. For some reason, Mongolia describes its resistance to Chinese rule as national independence. The Qing Dynasty was established by ethnic minorities in China, which cannot be questioned. Nurhaci, the founder of the Qing Dynasty, was a local official of the Ming Dynasty, and their hometown was under the jurisdiction of the Ming Dynasty. Now there is no difference between the Manchus and the Han people in terms of language, culture and customs.
@snowlee-ml7rr I agree with what you said about Mongolia and China, but I don't think it contradicts with my previous comment? The Jin dynasty was a different story in that:
1. It never conquered China
2. It was never conquered by China either. Instead it was destroyed by Mongolia before the Mongolian-Chinese Yuan dynasty
3. Unlike Mongolia, the Jin nation does not exist today, so there is no narrative from their side
@snowlee, we're you just trying to flex about your knowledge? Cause your comment has no relation to what OP said.
@@ozilter Outer Mongolia is mainly composed of Khalkha Mongolia. This Mongolian tribe has a very low status in the Mongolian Empire. They are responsible for logistics during the war. The reality is that the descendants of the Mongolian tribes who fought everywhere live in Inner Mongolia, China! If you conquered such a vast land, would you live in the extremely cold place (Mongolia) on the Mongolian plateau where supplies are scarce? If the Soviet Union did not force the Republic of China to agree to the independence of Outer Mongolia, Mongolia would still be in China. Do you suspect that Mongols are not Chinese? As a Chinese, I don't care whether Genghis Khan is Chinese or not. However, Genghis Khan's tomb is in Ningxia Province, China, and will be excavated one day in the future.
The biggest advantage that Nomads had was thelat they were Nomads and the nomadic lifestyle was part of life and they thrived in constant state of change, movement, hardhsips, and warfare. Whereas other civilizational powers were accustomed to city/rural life, stable agriculture based lifestyle, which is typically not suitable for constant change, hardhsips, warfare. Mongols have parallel with tribal Arabs who were desert nomads. It would have been very intresting if Mongols had conquered whole of continental of Europe. They were certainly capable. History would have turned out completely different
Do you think they could have conquered all of Europe?
Temujin was not only the greatest Conqueror, but also a military genius. Most of his Army's organizing plan came out of his brain. Never arrogant, he despised arrogant people, but a good listener, so he learned from others. If the governor of a province of Khwarezmian Empire did not kill all 500 good-will traders sent with a friendly letter by Temujin and stole all treasures, there would have been no war by Ghengis Khan. One of 500 killed was a friend of his. Months later, Temujin learned it and became in great rage, but cooled himself down and fasted for 3 days praying to the Heaven to guide him what to do next. Later, he captured the governor and punished him with boiling melted silver pouring down into his eyes in public execution.
And destroyed to ashes all other Great Cities of Central Asia. Ideas he embraced and actions his armies did were absolutely horrifying, and he knew about it as well (absolute horror was one of his weapons). No place for glorifying him, just acknowledging his legacy, which does indeed live to our days.
@@shakhzod8583 that is medieval time dude, people were horrifying regardless of Mongols so they just killed good-will traders do you understand? I do really think people should glorify him even more! that is what others who read more doing too, imo they are the only ones who acted like how nobles should be, I think you should read more before rush to judge. what you are doing is caused by dunning kruger effect
@@fastfamilyfivem9532 Well, apparently you are sure they were indeed good will traders, not spies or nothing. You KNOW it somehow, and the only option is Chingiskhan was great and good and others tried to invade and kill him with armies and burned thousand years old cities to ground :)
On the other hand, I am exactly from Central Asia, where both Kharazmian Empire was and Chingizkhan's Empire and everything else after that and before them. His brutality and terror "legacy' are unmatched. There is nothing to glorify, only acknowledge. I guess the only difference is, in case you are from West or any other part of Earth which didn't face anything like him, you just find him astonishing for his victories, forgetting about millions of victims. Imagine any of Rome, Bologna, Paris, Vienna or kind burning, everyone left them, blood is flowing like river, any movement for freedom was punished by perishing everything. So much so that after his "glorious" marches even CO2 levels were lower worldwide. Probably with this type of thinking it is quite ok to say 20th century killer dictators are subject for glorifying as well, don't you think? Well, if you think so, just tell me you are ok with and should glorify Holocaust, Gulag and you name it.
@@shakhzod8583 Also the mongols did not do so well in countrys such as India, Vietnam ,Eygpt and the Poles and Hungarians seem to have adapted very well to fighting the mongols using castles and fortifications effectivly
no, the difference is that your people would still loot and kill good will traders, so you tremble in your boots when repercussions are talked about@@shakhzod8583
Thanks so very much for this kind Sir!
Though I do have a few books that have assisted me in discovering how the Mongol Armies functioned, seeing it displayed greatly adds to the retention factor (pic worth a thousand words), as they say... :)
Considering the effect a Mongol army would have on an area of conquest, it's no wonder they were feared so greatly. As Michael Palin so eloquently puts it; "it was like a series of atomic bombs going off as they progressed".
The algorithm cannot defeat my appreciation of this amazing historical channel. Love the video. Always learn something new.
Can you please prepare video about Subutai one of the greatest general ever.
Its like the human version of a swarm of locusts.
I couldn’t imagine that many animals in one place, imagine the smell, how torn up the ground would be, the sound if that many
Seems unlikely they would limit themselves to being either a “lancer” or “archer”. They all carried bows and lances.
Where is your evidence Mr Historian.
@@azieldaly2965Presumably the old artwork of armored Mongolic or Turkic riders fighting with heavier armor while using the bow? Probably also that similar societies had cavalrymen use the bow and lance. It’s not exactly impossible to happen
@@azieldaly2965 All Mongols need to have their own bow, also the Chinese-Era source mentions that each carried different weapons
Mongols used to defeat big forces with small forces. they smart
Is truly this is the army worthy of the endless sky I'm scared
At 27:57, we see the horse archers turning so they can shoot at the enemy on their right. But when you're a right-hander, shooting to the right seems not easy when riding (I don't even know if it's possible). Wouldn't it be easier to turn to the other side so the enemy is on the left? (I'm not an expert, though - I've never conquered a continent on horseback.)
It's interesting how much a Chun resembles a modern (WW2 and later) armored corps, with 3 armored divisions in it. Each division would be the maximum size that could march as one unit, using one large road, so 3+ divisions that were to fight together would need to take 3 different paths to the battlefield.
Armored divisions also contain a similar number of soldiers to a Tumen (in the order of 10000, depending how you count) and also have similar logistics needs.
Finally, in battle, the way an armored forces can leverage mobility (as last seen during the Iraq wars), also strongly resembles Mongol tactics, which can help them defeat numerically superior enemies when conditions are right.
The similarities go so far that one might be tempted to believe that Guderian was somewhat inspired by the Mongols when writing Achtung Panzer in 1937.
Mongols logistics were unmatched
What always surprises me is that there was actually this many people inhabiting the central Asian steppe at this time. I know it’s a vast area and isn’t necessarily desolate but there were no great kingdoms or cities so I would think that the nomadic tribes would be generally small in population. I guess not though.
No settled kingdoms, but definitely you must know about the Huns, which were able to bend not only Romans but Sassanids as well. Horse nomads also played crucial role since the time of Xerxes, through Alexander the Great, Huns (as mentioned), Arabic conquest, and some may dispute about Seljuqs and Mamluks. So, in general, apparently this type of living was "efficient" enough for time being.
I guess one of the reasons they actually had any power was also their proximity to bigger urban places too. To exchange ideas, goods and whatnot.
@@shakhzod8583 oh yes I’m aware of the Huns as well as the various white hunnic tribes that raided the Sassanids but I’m just always surprised with the numbers that the steppe people are able to organize.
Sorry I skipped the ad because I was so excited to start the video!
Not sure why its not in the description, but here are the works I referenced while I was working on this video
Works Cited:
Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire, Paul D. Buell
Daily Life in the Mongol Empire, George Lane
Mongol Art of War, Timothy May
The Mongol Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, Timothy May
The Mongol Warrior 1200-1350, Stephen Turnbull & Wayne Reynolds
The History of the Mongol Conquests, J.J. Saunders
There's also an article about Bankhar dogs and livestock that I forgot to write down at the time, sorry.
You mention a "secret history" 17:13 what is that source? Can you give the page also? please.
"The secret history of the Mongols"-209.
If only Ney had an endless supply of horses.
i'm reading the mongol eries from Conn Iggulden atm and its stressed many times that the horses are more like ponies. also when they came into contact with other cavalry its stressed many times those horses were far larger then their own. would that not mean they would neat less space/month for food ?
You are correct, mongolian ponies were far smaller than contemporary (and modern) horses. Unfortunately data on their food consumption/diet was unavailable while I was researching this topic. To compensate for this missing information I offered a possible range in which their food consumption would likely fall.
I was reading about the Comanches who were like the Mongols of the America's. They like the Mongols rode on ponies. In the book about the comanches, it mentions that the ponies ridden could eat more variety of food sources than the European horse brought by the settlers and American cowboys. I imagine the Mongol ponies could also eat a greater variety of plants than their enemies horses.
A similar video about Spanish Tercios would be great 👌🏻
The pike and shot era is criminally underrated.
in iran, words such as “keshik” (which can mean a guard or sometimes refer to spying on someone) and “cherik” (which means militia in Persian) are widely used. These terms, along with other Mongolian military terms, have permeated our language, poetry, metaphors, and other aspects of our culture. This is largely due to the fact that Iran was occupied by Mongolian forces for hundred of years.
Really 6 horses per person????? The amount of resources needed to feed those horses should have been enourmous. Astonishing thank you very much for your work
Which is really pretty much the reason why nomads never did get into west europe.. not enough grazing grounds
@@luqmannasir6927 Nonsense, Tell that to Attila which reached all the way to the center of Gaul // & the Hungarian & Polish plains would've been the perfect HQ to put supply bases On Top of That, By that Time, They had countless numbers of Auxiliary foot Infantry that fill that role while the Nomadic cavalry supported it wherever needed
@aburoach9268 Atila didn't manage to conquer or hold Roman Gaul.
Besides the fact that Romans also defeated him
@@torikeqi8710 That's entirely on Attila, you inattentive child, learn to read a comment / The point was whether a Nomadic army could operate in western Europe & Attila's Hunnic army clearly proved it could + The Roman's did not defeat him in a broader sense, They just repelled him from Gaul, Most of the losses Attila took in that battle were Germanic auxiliaries & not his Huns in the center which performed excellent and even almost broke the Roman center, In the End the Romans did not even crush his army, Attila just retreated due to the unfavorable position & loss of flank /
Later on he Raided Italy & only left due to a plague, meaning that the Romans never got rid of him
So It was not Rome that matched Attila or his Huns, But just Aetius in particular who knew them very well
Also Mongol army >>>>> Hunnic army
This explains the mongolian tactic of ravaging the countryside for supplies/resources and thus Unintendingly driving the rural populace into cities, creating fear, overcrowding and hunger in cities, causing them to surrender. Great example of unintended successful consequences of simply fulfilling one's needs (ravaging countryside).
Herding all those horses would have been an amazing feat!
Make one about byzantine.
definitely planning on it!
@@InvictaHistory Nice, Especially the era of Nikephoros to the Sacking of Constantinople by the crusader.
Really good explanation. And the voice is incredible. Visuals wonderful. Keep it up
Awesome video, so glad this exotic culture is being studied to such a degree, especially because of such a alien language to most of western cultures.