you forgot the aspect that officers up to generals under Gengis Khan get promoted because of their skill and performance, not because of ther heritage. Its a major factor of their successful campaings, that the could rely on experienced and capable commanders. This stayed in contrast to the feudal practice of most of their adversaries.
You're underestimating the feudal system, the nobility were a warrior caste who were trained to lead armies from birth, it has flaws due to things like the order of precedence but they are every bit as capable as their mongol counterparts
No I do not. You are right that they were trained, but if you were incompetend, you would be commander anyway, because of your birthright. Gengis Khans system showed right at the beginning of his career, that his system was superiour to his feudal nomadic counterparts. Feudal commanders surley don´t have to be bad, you will find some really good ones in history, but also some really terrible ones. If you look at Gengis Khans and his early successors, you will hardly find only one bad general. The same happens in the late 18th early 19th century with the post revolutionary french army against their opponents of old nobility. Competence trumps birthright.
HeiniSauerkraut this, and also that the whole people of the mongols is a trained warrior caste. only the nobility being trained and certain people being denied certain weapons and training in certain times (i say certain because it changes over time) is clearly inferior and only serves to quietly subjugate the people of feudal countries and to not revolt against their rulers who - at times - definitely were highly incompetent
Thus Spake Vespasian, he's just a kid who got off of an Extra Credits video and thinks he knows everything. Pay him exactly as much mind as he deserves: None.
@@thusspakevespasian5587 Then why did the polish and hungarian Kings lost to a mongol raiding party? So much for european nobility huh? You know nothing.
An interesting detail: The original black horsetail war banner, or tug, of Genghis Khan, survived in Mongolia until the great stalinist purges of 1937. As of today, the Mongolian military still uses tugs during ceremonial military acts.
Black horsetail banner is actually mot used today but the nine white horsetail banner is instead used in ceremonies during naadam and such. Black horsetail banner is used only during war.
TheCroatianBajur You know the Blitzkrieg is just basically rushing at the enemy and overwhelming them right? Why give it a name? The world may never know
You know ALL battles and war is essentially "overwhelming your enemy", right? Whether it be in armaments, maneuvers, fortification, supply lines, etc. Blitzkrieg involves multiple branches of the military working in unison with heavy armor like tanks, infantry, and close air support. It's coordinated. It's calculated. It's often pitched. To say Blitzkrieg is just "rushing the enemy" is such an over simplified explanation that it's bordering on being wrong. Blitzkrieg isn't used like a cavalry charge to break a line of defense, Blitzkrieg is usually used as a way to carry momentum over large gained ground.
chemistrycounts You are absolutely wrong. The Blitzkrieg was pretty much like a cavalry charge. It is coordinated in a spearhead formation to break the enemy defense. It is ironic that the very move broke through the Maginot Line which was a defensive line. Also it overwhelmed the enemy for example the Char B1 tanks stood no chance against the Germans due to the numerical disadvantages which proved my other point. So in conclusion it is pretty much a modern adaptation of a cavalry charge
@Marty Man Mongols were never stopped by knights Mongols were too organized What stopped mongols in Europe was the death of the main ruler, which made all the commanders of armies (pretenders) to return to capital
@@Adino1 if i remember correctly there was a huge problem with supply lines when subutai was invading hungary, the lack of new troops so far from the mongol heartlands meant that he had to abandon further conquests toward the west after the death of ogedei khan. As far as i know the mongols were great at hunting and foraging for supplies, but when it comes to reliable fighting men, there is only so many that can be born within the short amount of time that the mongols conquered the whole world. They were limited not even by their ambition or effectiveness, but the fact that there was not enough warriors to support the core of mongol military might after the past decades been spent in constant conquest in all directions...
Hail to the Keshig Crops of the Air, they are the most potent airforce of the time, but it should be noted that the crops suffered severe losses during the operation sealion in japan, many was shot down by the kamikaze air defense system which included a storm-control centre in Hakata fort, but still the mongolian bombers were so effective that causes panic and inflict huge losses to the samurai mecha garrison in hizen and satsuma (but mostly due to the limited amount of air-defense there)
Perfect work. But, "tactics" part may need some improvement. Note that, against shielded and armored infantry, horesback archery was not the main killer. In long initial skirmish stage of battle, Mongols used to divide their main force to many independent units, each made of 50-100 horse archers, running all over the battlefield and attacking infantry formations from all angles and approaches, rear and flanks included, with their composite bows. This often does not have an immidiate effect over well protected infantry. But this is something Mongols can continue all the day, as they always had a number of camps in proximity, but still away from the reach of enemy infantry, where the tired men can rest, find food and water, change their tired mount, and replenich their arrows and bows. Even if the arrows are not an immidate danger for infantry, constantly being under pressure does have a certain influence. If you were an enemy infantry fighting a field battle against the mongol horsemen, you would constantly see dust from galloping horses around, multiple groups of attackers appear out of the dust from all directions, rain arrows on your formation, and disappear before you can respond by your own ranged attack. This "pulsing" attacks waves from multiple directions, makes it impossible to focus fire and the direction of your protective shield wall. It is inevitable under such pressure, that infantry units will change their array, replace their positions, direction of shield Wall, individually. That slowly but consistently drive them away from their battle formation. If this goes hours long, inevitably this will end up with units losing their deployments, crossing eachother in an unorganized way, losing their contact with unit commanders, and the huge formation becomes an almost unctrollable mass. This cancels all the advantage of a defensive infantry formation against the cavalry. At one point the infantry becomes disorganized enough, to be totally uneffective in stopping a well placed cavalry charge. Sometimes a real contact may not even necessary. An instruction of orderly retreat, or any maneuver may turn to rout en mass, even before a real engagement happens. The presence of the cavalry around may be sufficient. The trick is, after long skirmish, if the infantry still holds the ground, the well organized and diciplined cavalry can rapidly gather into one big formation that will hit weakest point of infantry who already lost its organization. The charge at the end of long skirmish must be short and safe contact that will certainly break the enemy formation. If you would have 5 horse per man, full cavalry army, you dont need to risk any other tactic and increase your casualities unnecessarily.
thank you, what is your source? Because I didn't come across anything similar to your information - yet nothing was in depth. The main source on tactics was the "Devil's Horsemen", which was dated and I treated it with caution for other reasons as well, although many recommended it.
Honestly, I have no resource, because I have never heard of any detailed explanation from any historian about how exactly step tactics worked. All I can read was general assumptions how horse archer was successfull. So I must admit it is my own conclusion, or speculation, after my readings on Battle of Manzikert. (not the "brave men, legendary victory" version thaught in our schools in Turkey, but the Byzantian version which gives tons of details). Seljuk army in their early form as 1071, still was a step army generally, and used to follow similar tactics that Mongols used. thus we can assume that Manzikert gives an idea as a general tactical approach which applies to most of the asiatic full horse armies. In fact, it is the only effective way of fighting I can imagine especially for Mongols, who faced and defeated not only conventional infantry but also shieldwall, armor, and combined arms often (crossbow is particularly dangerous for cavalry archer). My basic assumptions are simple to test in fact, but I dont have any chance to do so. 1) Horseback archery cannot be very effective against shield and armor. (yes there is the idea of shooting when the horse is in full speed and remain suspended in air for a second, but, come on... this may not be the massive killing blow to an army right?) 2) Pulsing is the only best way to prevent enemy ranged from focusing fire and cavalry can do this easily. Thus, multiple small wings is the way to go. You dont want to have an archery duel with enemy because you dont need to. If you build massive formations that will stand there and keep shooting, the outcome may be anyone's gain. You cannot destroy their shields with arrows and that is not what you are trying to do. 3) Skirmishing goes on too long in many battles (like Manzikert where it went on all the day) That means Horse archer needs a camp around for spare horse, spare arrow, and surely soldier himself should rest too. 4) Thanks to their mobility, a diciplined cavalry force can rapidly comunicate and gather in a bigger formation even if they are fighting in small units since hours. That may be a problem for very heavy cavalry but not for light horse, especially if horses used in a rotation, and animals are never tired in any stage of battle. (Also check Mongol Horse, which is not Middle East püre blood Seglavi, but Asiatic Ahal Teke, a smaller animal, that is not a close quarter champion, but more a long distance runner with little maintanance requirement, like an American Mustang). In Manzikert Alparslan ordered the charge too late and missed the opportunity to encircle the enemy. He acted only after Byzantine right wing under command of Alyates lost organization and their orderly retreat turned to a chaotic rout. Even after right flank was collapsed, Nikeferos' left flank managed to resist, turkish maneuver delayed and most of enemy infantry could flee the envelope. In fact if the emperor Romanos himself was not captured, Byzantines could probably save enough troops to fight next day. From actions of Alparslan, I can understand that, when this has happened, he and his soldiers in fact were expecting to finish the day to continue the battle tomorrow. It is almost only critical stage of war for cavalry commander to decide if he will order a charge or not. This is maybe the only point that he can actually lose the battle.
@@Nabukadnezar100 You make a very good point about the cavalry charge. A cavalry commander only needs to keep his horses out of reach of enemy retaliation, and cavalry mobility makes that a lot easier than it sounds. an infantry commander has to be constantly on the look out for a lancer charge into his flank, horse archers shooting into his back, making sure his men are facing the right way, and that he is still coordinated with his neighbor units. the horsemen only need one opening to shatter an infantry formation with lances, and completely disrupt the line, causing what you mentioned to happen, an orderly retreat turning into a massive rout. the alternative though, is the cavalry commander misjudges his opponents cohesion. The cavalry charge into what has suddenly become a spear wall, and then gets cut off from behind by an infantry formation that appeared to be retreating just seconds before. Now that the horsemen have lost their advantage of mobility, they're just lightly armed men with no where to run.
Exactly. This decision point is the only moment that a cavalry commander can lose the battle actually, but only if the horseman is fighting in this way I described. The problem with my approach is unfortunately we cannot refer to any reliable source about how exactly the combat was being executed. The prime sources do not tell any details about tactics. The existing historical sources are either unreliable accounts, or are often just the opinions of the authors, who are speculating no less than I did here. Since years of thinking and reading, in lack of any real reliable account, I ended up believing that this was how combat executed, because even if it is speculation, I see no other way to fight and win almost every battle with considerably low losses. A long skirmish, stay clear of melee, stay clear of exchange, fast approach, quick and retrat, use pulsing with small units, all them wings, no main line or formation, constant mobility, show no flank to the enemy (a horse is several times bigger target at the flank due to the shape and body ratio), do not stand, do not even maneuver in their range, (you are bigger target, and they are more accurate on foot, you will lose if you stay and exchange) keep that going for hours, force them lose their formation and organization when trying to cover from arrows, and shock them by direct charge when they are no more ready to face it, follow the runners and slay them all one by one. Of course that requires outnumbering enemy horse several times. But this was the superiority only Mongols had. If there is any better idea, I am all ears.
@@Nabukadnezar100 given the choice of weapons and armor the mongols used, and the fact that MHV pointed out in the video, that mongols lived their lives on horseback, I can't think of any other way the mongols would fight. they would know their weakness against heavily armored european infantry. That weakness being that if the infantry could brace themselves and get their shields up, the mongols would be cut to ribbons by spears and swords at close range. The mongols would either have to tire out their opponents, or take them completely by surprise. The only thing that I think you hadn't accounted for was the Auxiliary formations the mongols took from conquered peoples. many mongols themselves rode on horseback, but they had plenty of foot soldiers as well. The foot soldiers opens the possibility to get the enemy infantry stuck in a more traditional line battle while mongol cavalry cut off escape routes and charges into the rear and flanks, and preventing enemy cavalry from doing the same. It seems to me that you're right though, the Mongols would be more akin to using guerrilla tactics and ambush engagements, even in pitched field battles by the time they were dealing with Europe and "near east" simply because most of european doctrine by that time was heavily armored infantry holding the line and shock cavalry attempting to flank or punch holes for footmen to exploit. as I said earlier "Without their mobility, Cavalry are lightly armed men with no where to run."
To me the Mongols were the most interesting empire. Their power and logistical prowess at their peak are one of the most impressive feats in history. The British used their technological advances to overcome vulnerable peoples while the Mongols used their own brutal and very effective tactics to overcome an area larger then some continents while being more or less just as advanced in technology as the people they conquered.
@@sillabear6679 Funny because the British never manager to critically defeat any European power. They always relied on alliances to win their wars, perfect examples are the Napoleonic and World wars. The only wars they won on their own were agaisnt stone age natives lol
Emil Joseph Being critically defeat is more of a question of containment. They won wars against Chinese and the Sikhs I mind u who were not stone age people. And those stone age natives have muskets because of the slave trade. They don't have rifles but muskets count for something. Check your stereotypes. It is also pretty awesome and empirelike than Britain is usually the most important member of the alliance plus in colonial areas they tend to fight without alliances and European help
silla bear The British Military was impressive but all of their conquests were in underdeveloped areas. They did not conquer similarly advanced people like the Mongols.
I loved how you broke the Mongols down. I've read a number of books on them and still learned stuff from watching as always your informative and entertaining videos.
This is an excellent summary of the arguments and points related to the success of the Mongol Empire. There is one point however, that was not stressed that I think is essential to the success of the Mongols and Chinggis Khan in particular, merit-based leadership and promotion. The Khan established a clear and consistent rule of merit-based promotion within the ranks of the Mongol Army and subsequently the auxiliary forces that the Mongol absorbed. There were many reports of former enemy forces that had joined the ranks of the Mongols that went on to reach high-level positions. In addition, there were also reports of non-Mongol soldiers taking the initiative as members of the Mongol Army, e.g. the first soldiers to breach the walls of Kiev were of Georgian background. Regardless, your presentation was excellent. Thank you!
Certain units were certainly assigned light and heavy cavalry roles in battle, but an individual mongol soldier is relatively skilled with bow, saber, and lance. They also knew how to wrestle from horseback. Armor variety is pretty disparate, even amongst individual units, again, only specializing for a specific role in pitched battle. A Mongol warrior could accomodate either ranged cavalry or heavy cavalry roles equally, and individual initiative/leadership is encouraged. This is one of the major reasons why they were so flexible at warfare, but there is not nearly enough emphasis on these points when people talk about why they were successful.
I think geopolitics of the early 13th century worked spankingly favorably for Genghis and the Mongols: 1. China: divided into Jin (Jurchid), Xi-Xia (Tangut), and South Sung (Han) Dynasties. These three were preoccupied with one another, thus establishing a common front against the Mongols was highly improbable. The South Sung Dynasty even viewed the Mongols favorably as a means of countering the Jin Dynasty which was the arch-enemy of both the Sung and the Mongols. (Spoiler alert: but the South Sung Dynasty was eventually conquered by Khubilai Khan! :P ) The Xi-Xia was destroyed shortly before Genghis' death, while the Jin was conquered by Ogodei, Genghis' successor. 2. Korea: under the iron-fist of the Choe clan, a military family which became the center of power by a coup d'etat, while the kings were mere figureheads. However, this arrangement turned out to be a liability as the Choe clan concentrated their best military outfits to maintain the Choe clan's powerdom, rather than deploying them to defend Korea's northern frontier. However, it took the Mongols grueling six invasions to finally force Korea to capitulate. (More specifically, the Choe clan fought to the bitter end, not the kings, even at the expense of letting their subjects open to Mongol raids and massacres over again. The Choe clan knew too well that if the king submitted to the Mongols, then the Choe clan would become nonpersons, thanks the clan's illegitimate background.) 3. Central Asia: Khwarezm Empire rose rapidly at the expense of Kara-Khitai (which was previously established by the Khitans fleeing to the west in the wake of the conquest of the Khitan Liao Dynasty by the Jurchid Jin Dynasty). However, because the Khwarezm Empire had very little time to consolidate its rapid gains before stumbling upon the Mongols, the Khwarezm Empire dispersed its forces to garrison its rich cities rather than concentrating them against the Mongols. The Khwarezm royally pissed off Genghis by killing his envoys and looting his caravans which was loaded with the riches. Why send this caravan to the Khwarezm??? At that time, Genghis was preoccupied with defeating the Jin Dynasty, so he wanted to avoid a two-front war by establishing diplomatic and trade between the Mongols and the Khwarezm. 4. Middle East: the Crusades vs. the Eastern Roman Empire vs. various number of Seljuk Turk fiefdoms vs. the Abbassid Caliphate. Again, too preoccupied with one another to have put up a common front against the Mongols. (Flashback: the Muslims arose during the time when the Eastern Romans and the Persians were worn out from centuries of inconclusive wars!) 5. Eastern Europe: oh boy, the same crap again--i.e., so many polities, so many conflicts among themselves, unable to put up a common front against the Mongols. Meanwhile, the principalities of Rus was also under threat by the Swedes and the Teutonic Knights from the west which did not help the Rus' predicament. You have to wait until the time of Ivan the Terrible to see the beginning of Russia as a badass Eurasian empire that all of us are familiar with today. ****** Building an empire or a megacorporation share one trait in common: you must stumble upon windfall gains in order to become big. Hard work and being frugal help, but these two qualities alone are not enough if the level of your ambition is beyond becoming the head of a rich family.
2:35 It is true that the Mongols did frequently use their mobility to deceive the enemy into believing they had more forces than they did. However, it should also be noted that, up until roughly the early Modern period, it was extremely common for all chroniclers to inflate the sizes of armies they documented, particularly enemy armies. For example, the Persian army at Gaugamela was reported by multiple (mainly Greek) sources as numbering roughly 1 million men, whereas modern estimates put its strength between 50,000 and 120,000. So those chroniclers "from outside the (Mongol) empire" were likely recording inflated numbers on their own anyway, regardless of the Mongols' tactics (lessening the shame of defeat by inflating the size of the enemy they faced).
I liked the quality of your work content-wise, also presentation and visualization. Great that you used even our decorative patterns in the corners of your screen. Thanks!
Thank you for cover this topic. This is my favorite military history topic for the medieval era and I liked how you broke it down. I’d love to see you cover how the operational level controls like the right time tables enabled things like Subatai’s campaign in Eastern Europe which culminated in Mohi and Leignitz.
Easily one of your best videos so far. Interesting to see how the factors that create an effective military force are largely the same regardless of the time period.
In his book "The Devil's Horsemen" James Chambers writes about the tribesmen that they made perfect natural soldiers: "their life in some of Asia's most inhospitable regions made them tough and phlegmatic. They could suffer without complaint and kill without pity..."
I actually cited his book at least once, but generally, he seems to be way too positive and also made some clear errors about European medieval military history, although, to his defense, I think back then that was actually still the common or even academic viewpoint.
WOW what a good video man. I've never seen such a well put out and referenced video i think. Big props. Watched a million mongol break downs, this is a must see imo for anyone interested.
*LOVE* the mongols! Favorite army in ancient times is Rome, favorite army in modern times is Germany, but in between in medieval times my favorite must be the mongols, they were not just another nomad horse mob of barbarians they had an early version of blitzkrieg and were extremely disciplined and well organized, using feigned retreats and large scale flanking maneuvers and exploiting weak points and literally systematically terrorizing enemies and could coordinate various columns over hundreds of miles during invasions, even adapted to siege warfare after acquiring Chinese engineers and could transport disassembled catapults on horseback to keep pace with their regular cavalry, fought many different enemies in many different places and defeated most, just unbelievable... they would have appreciated bewegungskrieg (sp?) I think...
It is easy to occupy a large area when it was almost empty. They did conquer populated lands, but they were just far away and separated by empty lands. The Roman empire reached the max extent when it took 90 days to march from one extreme to the other of the empire. The Mongols, moving on horse, could negotiate a larger area.
Yep, conquering the whole of China so quickly was an impressive feat but there was nothing between China and Central Asia and the density of population was not comparable.
Great video. Your ending could be extended. It Is not completely true that before Gengis Khan there was no one, but they were less successful and less unite. I think that the situation is similar to the huns and Attila. Attila won some battles also because the romans were weak. It could be interesenting to study the differences between the two. Also Attila built an empire (smaller than mongola) but It soon disappeared. Also from the military point of view he was less effective. I think It was due for example to less use of siege and the Roman army were more used to figth against cavalry. However It would be interesenting to listen what an expert can say about the comparison between mongols and huns (and Attila and Gengis Khan)
I've just spent a happy couple of hours watching a load of these videos, and I have to say that they're utterly fantastic. It's not easy to distill such complicated matters into such a clear narrative, and to do it so well in a language that is not your own, is even more impressive. Mighty stuff entirely.
Used to a highly nomadic live style. Everything they have is mobile and designed to be so. Highly efficient in making and breaking camp. Very good at securing food and water for both man and beast. Good at scouting ahead for resources and the lay of the land in case of battle or to secure a safe encampment area. Highly skilled horsemanship. Good knowledge of sturdy horse breeds and beast of burden to use for long campaigns and battle. Compound bow tech and the knowledge and training to use them. Effective battle tactics using highly mobile and fast forces, shock and awe, not to mention good skirmish tactics breaking the enemies ranks up and moral. Not to mention, their reputation always preceded them to almost everywhere they went. A few Mongole warriors on horseback showing up on the horizon a few days prior to the main force was enough to send most running for the hills, disrupting their ability to fight and secure their own resources to sustain a resistance for any length of time. But most of all, their homeland was large and for the uninitiated very inhospitable, it's people moved around because of their nomadic lifestyle not easily set upon by foreign forces, so it didn't use alot of resources and troops to secure Mongolia itself, freeing them on mass for campaigns almost indefinitely. After Temüjin united the Mongole tribes the die was cast.
Hitler compared himself to Ghengis at one point. If he had done his research, he might have learned about flexibility, adaptability, egalitarianism, governance and diversity, and not been just a parody of a powerful leader. In which case we would all be speaking deutsch and not just Bismarck and his neighbors.
Mixed combat units have been superior to specialized troops multiple times in history. When you are able to employ horse archers, heavy cav and both light and heavy infantry you have a great advantage over an enemy who uses just 1 or 2 types of units. During history it was common to achieve a diverse army by employing soldiers from different places who specialized in one type of combat or another. This way an army with diversity could achieve mixed units where each one was ''elite'' at their fighting style.
@John Mullins I agree with you, I was only giving an example about Michael question of how "diversity" can be useful in a military context. Of course the are many different ways diversity and especialization can be employed,in the end It depends about how one is able to use these strenghts in a correct manner.
@Michael Smith Because it's nigh impossible to build an empire that large that quickly when you have the expressed intent of complete annihilation of any and all conquered people's. Instead of you know, integrating them after the initial slaughter.
The mongols. Did you watch the video? Literally they couldn't make such a massive empire without auxiliary troops. Also Rome had a similar policy, the legion did most of the fighting but auxiliary troops screened, scouted and infiltrated the enemy.
Mongol Empire was huge but large part of it was originally quite unanhibited including steppes and deserts. Therefore its strength was smaller then what it looks on map.
The military aspects you have mentioned till 9:35 all belong to Modu Khan(Modu Chanyu in Chinese sources), who lived around 200 BC. In general, Genghis Khan's warfare strategies and basics were inspired by Modu Khan's. Genghis made a few modifications to it.
I've read The Secret History of the Mongols. I've read Empire of the Steppes. I've read the Tarik al-Rashidi. I've read other works about the Mongols. I've read other primary sources. They were brutal and vile. Your video was superb. You're a brilliant person. I admire your scholarship. But even if they were The Best Soldiers Ever, even if they forged One of the Greatest Empires Ever! they were horrible, brutal, nasty people; who's bizarre lack of ordinary empathy makes one wonder about the nature of humanity in general. Leopold of Belgium, the British Empire's disgusting colonialism, the Machiavellian brutality of Cortez, and the hair raising cold blooded violence of Genghis Khan and his successors are all on a level. Modern ideas on history be damned.
In the osprey book on the mongol conquests, it was a real game changer for me when it debunked the idea that they could just drink milk and blood and be fast all the time. They were more complex then that in terms of logistics.
I just really want to know how the mongolians managed their empire, with it being so huge. There couldn't possibly be enough mongols to maintain such a huge empire when most of them are in the army, and their population not being very big anyway.
Could you do a video on german fuel production comparet with the other powers and then do a breakdown on german fuel distribution between her allies, navy and different fronts. It would also be great if you could do a general breakdown of german resources and there they were investet steel, workforce, capital and so on. A comparison in soft area production like trucks, radio, ammunition would also be great since most only look at tanks,ships, guns and so on. It would also be interesting to look at german AA, antitank guns and artilleri production both total and the ratio of AA to the other two relative to the other powers.
I still don't understand how the mongols dealt with logistic issues like food, water for the soldiers and horses. Also how could they go into an area that they were not familiar with the lay of the land and conduct a successful military attack?How did they replenish their weapons like arrows, lost swords, and lances?
From what I have learn, the khan himself loves Chinese culture, to the point of appointing a Tao religion master as his teacher, a lot of his method came from observing song China and Jing tribe who defeated northern song before the raise of Khan. He successfully develop a system that max the advantage of his army with best of Song, Jing systems and technology. Mongol canons that destroyed many cities in the western conquest was an improvement design by a Song engineer exiled by internal political fighting. It took a lot more years for Mongol to defeat the economically and technically superior (not militarily or politically unified wise) Song empire, then the Chinese section of its huge empire was the very first large section to break away and declare independence. Khans success primary was the defeat of the Jing empire whom once conquered northern China. It too was a tribal people like Mongols but settled and be more civilised after their victory.
Mongols also had much better bows, than the Europeans had. And better armor, leather over silk would prevent arrows from entering the body. They would have surely concurred Europe, if Subutai wouldn't have been called back to Mongolia, in order to elect a new Kahn.
Hey, You're visualized again! That's great. I'm a visual learner. I've got to see something to understand it. I love all your videos, but your not visualized videos were hard for me to remember. Thanks!
Some great thoughts on why the Mongols were so successful. Did you also know that they had a form of amylase enzyme that would help to break down milk in their horses, allowing them to live off them more efficiently?
@@bootleganimepornmerchant5412 The Amrecian Revolution wasn't a Civill War, the rebels didn't want to abolish the parlament in London and take control of the entire empire, they just wanted to kick the Limeys out of the 13 Colonies.
The whirlwind Mongol campaigns westwards are famous, but what gets less attention is that it took them 40 years to conquer to all of China. The final conquest of the Song Dynasty was not completed until 1279, 20 years after Mongol expansion west had ended. One Chinese fortress even held out for 17 years. By the end of the war, the Mongol armies were just as much infantry armies as anyone else's, and they were for the most part not even composed of Mongols.
I heard that there was an unprecedented wet period on the Mongol Steppe at the time of Genghis so there was gigantic tracts of high quality grasslands that where abundant for several generations which gave them the excess resources needed for their empire building activities.
Having subscribe and follow pop up in the middle of the video is just annoying. Do it at the beginning or end if you must but not during the video. They are good enough to speak for themselves.
Asking for people to subscribe so often is a put-off, maybe just ask at the end. As long as your content remains good people will subscribe themselves.
As to why the mongols didn't simply ROFLstomp over everyone before, I think one of the key reasons was the timing of politics in China. Genghis Khan appeared at a time when Northern China was ruled by Jurchens, making it feasible to invade China and recruit defectors, because: 1. For a Han Chinese in Jin land to "defect" would just have meant favouring one foreign ruler over another, rather than a real betrayal of his race. 2. The mongols were in fact in alliance with the Han Chinese against the Jurchens when they conquered them. By the time they actually got to Han Chinese in the South who ruled themselves (Southern Song) they took decades to actually conquer the Song, and that's *after* having already conquered the northern half of China. It's not hard to see how, during periods of Chinese stability and unity, the mongols' superior characteristics would not have been enough. And without the ability to conquer China (and recruit thousands of siege experts from China to help them siege the middle east), the rest of the conquests woulda been much harder.
I've heard that Mongols were used to fight over space resources, but then the climate improved and caused an explosion of the population which again needed more land...
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh you're diving into medieval times. Excellent work!
thank you. Well, it is clearly not the first time.
Most certainly not. It's just great to see your analytical approach to medieval topics.
MHV is absolutely the best history channel. More medieval history please.
Damn good video. I agree with the above. Would be interesting to see your take on the First Crusade.
why go into medieval warfare? this is a ww2 channel. it got famous for being a ww2 channel.
you forgot the aspect that officers up to generals under Gengis Khan get promoted because of their skill and performance, not because of ther heritage. Its a major factor of their successful campaings, that the could rely on experienced and capable commanders. This stayed in contrast to the feudal practice of most of their adversaries.
You're underestimating the feudal system, the nobility were a warrior caste who were trained to lead armies from birth, it has flaws due to things like the order of precedence but they are every bit as capable as their mongol counterparts
No I do not. You are right that they were trained, but if you were incompetend, you would be commander anyway, because of your birthright. Gengis Khans system showed right at the beginning of his career, that his system was superiour to his feudal nomadic counterparts. Feudal commanders surley don´t have to be bad, you will find some really good ones in history, but also some really terrible ones. If you look at Gengis Khans and his early successors, you will hardly find only one bad general. The same happens in the late 18th early 19th century with the post revolutionary french army against their opponents of old nobility. Competence trumps birthright.
HeiniSauerkraut this, and also that the whole people of the mongols is a trained warrior caste. only the nobility being trained and certain people being denied certain weapons and training in certain times (i say certain because it changes over time) is clearly inferior and only serves to quietly subjugate the people of feudal countries and to not revolt against their rulers who - at times - definitely were highly incompetent
Thus Spake Vespasian, he's just a kid who got off of an Extra Credits video and thinks he knows everything. Pay him exactly as much mind as he deserves: None.
@@thusspakevespasian5587 Then why did the polish and hungarian Kings lost to a mongol raiding party? So much for european nobility huh?
You know nothing.
An interesting detail: The original black horsetail war banner, or tug, of Genghis Khan, survived in Mongolia until the great stalinist purges of 1937. As of today, the Mongolian military still uses tugs during ceremonial military acts.
What? That's unbelievably long. Thanks for telling. See you in the next video on your channel.
Black horsetail banner is actually mot used today but the nine white horsetail banner is instead used in ceremonies during naadam and such. Black horsetail banner is used only during war.
Not Tug, but Tuğ.
@@Silahtar357 It doesnt matter as far as I am concerned
@@sandman8115
So I can expect the proud Mongolian navy to hoist it atop the mast shall a declaration of war be issued?
Doing blitzkrieg before it was cool
TheCroatianBajur You know the Blitzkrieg is just basically rushing at the enemy and overwhelming them right? Why give it a name? The world may never know
You know ALL battles and war is essentially "overwhelming your enemy", right? Whether it be in armaments, maneuvers, fortification, supply lines, etc. Blitzkrieg involves multiple branches of the military working in unison with heavy armor like tanks, infantry, and close air support. It's coordinated. It's calculated. It's often pitched. To say Blitzkrieg is just "rushing the enemy" is such an over simplified explanation that it's bordering on being wrong. Blitzkrieg isn't used like a cavalry charge to break a line of defense, Blitzkrieg is usually used as a way to carry momentum over large gained ground.
war is never cool 😒
chemistrycounts You are absolutely wrong. The Blitzkrieg was pretty much like a cavalry charge. It is coordinated in a spearhead formation to break the enemy defense. It is ironic that the very move broke through the Maginot Line which was a defensive line. Also it overwhelmed the enemy for example the Char B1 tanks stood no chance against the Germans due to the numerical disadvantages which proved my other point. So in conclusion it is pretty much a modern adaptation of a cavalry charge
@Marty Man
Mongols were never stopped by knights
Mongols were too organized
What stopped mongols in Europe was the death of the main ruler, which made all the commanders of armies (pretenders) to return to capital
So in a nutshell:
-high mobility
-discipline
-superior planning and tactics
-next to no reliance on supply lines
Who needs supply lines with food on hooves feeding on grass?
Carnivore diet
@@apitbullfromthecaribbean3655 milk diet. Milk alchohol, milk food, milk milk.
They had supply lines like any other army, bringing fresh recruits and manufactured goods to the military camps the hordes would stay in.
@@Adino1 if i remember correctly there was a huge problem with supply lines when subutai was invading hungary, the lack of new troops so far from the mongol heartlands meant that he had to abandon further conquests toward the west after the death of ogedei khan. As far as i know the mongols were great at hunting and foraging for supplies, but when it comes to reliable fighting men, there is only so many that can be born within the short amount of time that the mongols conquered the whole world. They were limited not even by their ambition or effectiveness, but the fact that there was not enough warriors to support the core of mongol military might after the past decades been spent in constant conquest in all directions...
You don't choose the steppe life, the steppe life chooses you :)
Bota367
Dab!
it's not soviet russia....
Bota367 This comment section is like a string from 4chan.
03:34 Mongol Ju-88 in action - no wonder they were so effective!
I get it
What did you germans do this time?
Genghis Kahn beat up the time traveling space Nazis and stole their technology.
Hail to the Keshig Crops of the Air, they are the most potent airforce of the time, but it should be noted that the crops suffered severe losses during the operation sealion in japan, many was shot down by the kamikaze air defense system which included a storm-control centre in Hakata fort, but still the mongolian bombers were so effective that causes panic and inflict huge losses to the samurai mecha garrison in hizen and satsuma (but mostly due to the limited amount of air-defense there)
Perfect work. But, "tactics" part may need some improvement. Note that, against shielded and armored infantry, horesback archery was not the main killer. In long initial skirmish stage of battle, Mongols used to divide their main force to many independent units, each made of 50-100 horse archers, running all over the battlefield and attacking infantry formations from all angles and approaches, rear and flanks included, with their composite bows. This often does not have an immidiate effect over well protected infantry. But this is something Mongols can continue all the day, as they always had a number of camps in proximity, but still away from the reach of enemy infantry, where the tired men can rest, find food and water, change their tired mount, and replenich their arrows and bows. Even if the arrows are not an immidate danger for infantry, constantly being under pressure does have a certain influence. If you were an enemy infantry fighting a field battle against the mongol horsemen, you would constantly see dust from galloping horses around, multiple groups of attackers appear out of the dust from all directions, rain arrows on your formation, and disappear before you can respond by your own ranged attack. This "pulsing" attacks waves from multiple directions, makes it impossible to focus fire and the direction of your protective shield wall. It is inevitable under such pressure, that infantry units will change their array, replace their positions, direction of shield Wall, individually. That slowly but consistently drive them away from their battle formation. If this goes hours long, inevitably this will end up with units losing their deployments, crossing eachother in an unorganized way, losing their contact with unit commanders, and the huge formation becomes an almost unctrollable mass. This cancels all the advantage of a defensive infantry formation against the cavalry. At one point the infantry becomes disorganized enough, to be totally uneffective in stopping a well placed cavalry charge. Sometimes a real contact may not even necessary. An instruction of orderly retreat, or any maneuver may turn to rout en mass, even before a real engagement happens. The presence of the cavalry around may be sufficient. The trick is, after long skirmish, if the infantry still holds the ground, the well organized and diciplined cavalry can rapidly gather into one big formation that will hit weakest point of infantry who already lost its organization. The charge at the end of long skirmish must be short and safe contact that will certainly break the enemy formation. If you would have 5 horse per man, full cavalry army, you dont need to risk any other tactic and increase your casualities unnecessarily.
thank you, what is your source? Because I didn't come across anything similar to your information - yet nothing was in depth. The main source on tactics was the "Devil's Horsemen", which was dated and I treated it with caution for other reasons as well, although many recommended it.
Honestly, I have no resource, because I have never heard of any detailed explanation from any historian about how exactly step tactics worked. All I can read was general assumptions how horse archer was successfull. So I must admit it is my own conclusion, or speculation, after my readings on Battle of Manzikert. (not the "brave men, legendary victory" version thaught in our schools in Turkey, but the Byzantian version which gives tons of details). Seljuk army in their early form as 1071, still was a step army generally, and used to follow similar tactics that Mongols used. thus we can assume that Manzikert gives an idea as a general tactical approach which applies to most of the asiatic full horse armies. In fact, it is the only effective way of fighting I can imagine especially for Mongols, who faced and defeated not only conventional infantry but also shieldwall, armor, and combined arms often (crossbow is particularly dangerous for cavalry archer). My basic assumptions are simple to test in fact, but I dont have any chance to do so. 1) Horseback archery cannot be very effective against shield and armor. (yes there is the idea of shooting when the horse is in full speed and remain suspended in air for a second, but, come on... this may not be the massive killing blow to an army right?) 2) Pulsing is the only best way to prevent enemy ranged from focusing fire and cavalry can do this easily. Thus, multiple small wings is the way to go. You dont want to have an archery duel with enemy because you dont need to. If you build massive formations that will stand there and keep shooting, the outcome may be anyone's gain. You cannot destroy their shields with arrows and that is not what you are trying to do. 3) Skirmishing goes on too long in many battles (like Manzikert where it went on all the day) That means Horse archer needs a camp around for spare horse, spare arrow, and surely soldier himself should rest too. 4) Thanks to their mobility, a diciplined cavalry force can rapidly comunicate and gather in a bigger formation even if they are fighting in small units since hours. That may be a problem for very heavy cavalry but not for light horse, especially if horses used in a rotation, and animals are never tired in any stage of battle. (Also check Mongol Horse, which is not Middle East püre blood Seglavi, but Asiatic Ahal Teke, a smaller animal, that is not a close quarter champion, but more a long distance runner with little maintanance requirement, like an American Mustang). In Manzikert Alparslan ordered the charge too late and missed the opportunity to encircle the enemy. He acted only after Byzantine right wing under command of Alyates lost organization and their orderly retreat turned to a chaotic rout. Even after right flank was collapsed, Nikeferos' left flank managed to resist, turkish maneuver delayed and most of enemy infantry could flee the envelope. In fact if the emperor Romanos himself was not captured, Byzantines could probably save enough troops to fight next day. From actions of Alparslan, I can understand that, when this has happened, he and his soldiers in fact were expecting to finish the day to continue the battle tomorrow. It is almost only critical stage of war for cavalry commander to decide if he will order a charge or not. This is maybe the only point that he can actually lose the battle.
@@Nabukadnezar100 You make a very good point about the cavalry charge. A cavalry commander only needs to keep his horses out of reach of enemy retaliation, and cavalry mobility makes that a lot easier than it sounds. an infantry commander has to be constantly on the look out for a lancer charge into his flank, horse archers shooting into his back, making sure his men are facing the right way, and that he is still coordinated with his neighbor units.
the horsemen only need one opening to shatter an infantry formation with lances, and completely disrupt the line, causing what you mentioned to happen, an orderly retreat turning into a massive rout. the alternative though, is the cavalry commander misjudges his opponents cohesion. The cavalry charge into what has suddenly become a spear wall, and then gets cut off from behind by an infantry formation that appeared to be retreating just seconds before. Now that the horsemen have lost their advantage of mobility, they're just lightly armed men with no where to run.
Exactly. This decision point is the only moment that a cavalry commander can lose the battle actually, but only if the horseman is fighting in this way I described. The problem with my approach is unfortunately we cannot refer to any reliable source about how exactly the combat was being executed. The prime sources do not tell any details about tactics. The existing historical sources are either unreliable accounts, or are often just the opinions of the authors, who are speculating no less than I did here. Since years of thinking and reading, in lack of any real reliable account, I ended up believing that this was how combat executed, because even if it is speculation, I see no other way to fight and win almost every battle with considerably low losses. A long skirmish, stay clear of melee, stay clear of exchange, fast approach, quick and retrat, use pulsing with small units, all them wings, no main line or formation, constant mobility, show no flank to the enemy (a horse is several times bigger target at the flank due to the shape and body ratio), do not stand, do not even maneuver in their range, (you are bigger target, and they are more accurate on foot, you will lose if you stay and exchange) keep that going for hours, force them lose their formation and organization when trying to cover from arrows, and shock them by direct charge when they are no more ready to face it, follow the runners and slay them all one by one. Of course that requires outnumbering enemy horse several times. But this was the superiority only Mongols had. If there is any better idea, I am all ears.
@@Nabukadnezar100 given the choice of weapons and armor the mongols used, and the fact that MHV pointed out in the video, that mongols lived their lives on horseback, I can't think of any other way the mongols would fight. they would know their weakness against heavily armored european infantry. That weakness being that if the infantry could brace themselves and get their shields up, the mongols would be cut to ribbons by spears and swords at close range. The mongols would either have to tire out their opponents, or take them completely by surprise. The only thing that I think you hadn't accounted for was the Auxiliary formations the mongols took from conquered peoples. many mongols themselves rode on horseback, but they had plenty of foot soldiers as well. The foot soldiers opens the possibility to get the enemy infantry stuck in a more traditional line battle while mongol cavalry cut off escape routes and charges into the rear and flanks, and preventing enemy cavalry from doing the same. It seems to me that you're right though, the Mongols would be more akin to using guerrilla tactics and ambush engagements, even in pitched field battles by the time they were dealing with Europe and "near east" simply because most of european doctrine by that time was heavily armored infantry holding the line and shock cavalry attempting to flank or punch holes for footmen to exploit. as I said earlier "Without their mobility, Cavalry are lightly armed men with no where to run."
To me the Mongols were the most interesting empire. Their power and logistical prowess at their peak are one of the most impressive feats in history. The British used their technological advances to overcome vulnerable peoples while the Mongols used their own brutal and very effective tactics to overcome an area larger then some continents while being more or less just as
advanced in technology as the people they conquered.
The British were also fighting their European opponents whose technology is almost similiar
@@sillabear6679 Funny because the British never manager to critically defeat any European power. They always relied on alliances to win their wars, perfect examples are the Napoleonic and World wars.
The only wars they won on their own were agaisnt stone age natives lol
Emil Joseph Being critically defeat is more of a question of containment. They won wars against Chinese and the Sikhs I mind u who were not stone age people. And those stone age natives have muskets because of the slave trade. They don't have rifles but muskets count for something. Check your stereotypes. It is also pretty awesome and empirelike than Britain is usually the most important member of the alliance plus in colonial areas they tend to fight without alliances and European help
silla bear The British Military was impressive but all of their conquests were in underdeveloped areas. They did not conquer similarly advanced people like the Mongols.
Tallis Rockwell When you state similarly advanced people you mean of the Western technology only right?
I thought I'd wait until Bannerlord comes out, but Warband... here we go again.
I loved how you broke the Mongols down. I've read a number of books on them and still learned stuff from watching as always your informative and entertaining videos.
This is an excellent summary of the arguments and points related to the success of the Mongol Empire. There is one point however, that was not stressed that I think is essential to the success of the Mongols and Chinggis Khan in particular, merit-based leadership and promotion. The Khan established a clear and consistent rule of merit-based promotion within the ranks of the Mongol Army and subsequently the auxiliary forces that the Mongol absorbed. There were many reports of former enemy forces that had joined the ranks of the Mongols that went on to reach high-level positions. In addition, there were also reports of non-Mongol soldiers taking the initiative as members of the Mongol Army, e.g. the first soldiers to breach the walls of Kiev were of Georgian background.
Regardless, your presentation was excellent. Thank you!
Because they didn't...
horse around.
Where the door when you need em
@Schrodle E eh any experienced hunter have that kind of trait, but the thing is, steppes people *must* hunt to eat so they kinda earned it
Certain units were certainly assigned light and heavy cavalry roles in battle, but an individual mongol soldier is relatively skilled with bow, saber, and lance. They also knew how to wrestle from horseback. Armor variety is pretty disparate, even amongst individual units, again, only specializing for a specific role in pitched battle. A Mongol warrior could accomodate either ranged cavalry or heavy cavalry roles equally, and individual initiative/leadership is encouraged. This is one of the major reasons why they were so flexible at warfare, but there is not nearly enough emphasis on these points when people talk about why they were successful.
I think geopolitics of the early 13th century worked spankingly favorably for Genghis and the Mongols:
1. China: divided into Jin (Jurchid), Xi-Xia (Tangut), and South Sung (Han) Dynasties. These three were preoccupied with one another, thus establishing a common front against the Mongols was highly improbable. The South Sung Dynasty even viewed the Mongols favorably as a means of countering the Jin Dynasty which was the arch-enemy of both the Sung and the Mongols. (Spoiler alert: but the South Sung Dynasty was eventually conquered by Khubilai Khan! :P ) The Xi-Xia was destroyed shortly before Genghis' death, while the Jin was conquered by Ogodei, Genghis' successor.
2. Korea: under the iron-fist of the Choe clan, a military family which became the center of power by a coup d'etat, while the kings were mere figureheads. However, this arrangement turned out to be a liability as the Choe clan concentrated their best military outfits to maintain the Choe clan's powerdom, rather than deploying them to defend Korea's northern frontier. However, it took the Mongols grueling six invasions to finally force Korea to capitulate. (More specifically, the Choe clan fought to the bitter end, not the kings, even at the expense of letting their subjects open to Mongol raids and massacres over again. The Choe clan knew too well that if the king submitted to the Mongols, then the Choe clan would become nonpersons, thanks the clan's illegitimate background.)
3. Central Asia: Khwarezm Empire rose rapidly at the expense of Kara-Khitai (which was previously established by the Khitans fleeing to the west in the wake of the conquest of the Khitan Liao Dynasty by the Jurchid Jin Dynasty). However, because the Khwarezm Empire had very little time to consolidate its rapid gains before stumbling upon the Mongols, the Khwarezm Empire dispersed its forces to garrison its rich cities rather than concentrating them against the Mongols. The Khwarezm royally pissed off Genghis by killing his envoys and looting his caravans which was loaded with the riches. Why send this caravan to the Khwarezm??? At that time, Genghis was preoccupied with defeating the Jin Dynasty, so he wanted to avoid a two-front war by establishing diplomatic and trade between the Mongols and the Khwarezm.
4. Middle East: the Crusades vs. the Eastern Roman Empire vs. various number of Seljuk Turk fiefdoms vs. the Abbassid Caliphate. Again, too preoccupied with one another to have put up a common front against the Mongols. (Flashback: the Muslims arose during the time when the Eastern Romans and the Persians were worn out from centuries of inconclusive wars!)
5. Eastern Europe: oh boy, the same crap again--i.e., so many polities, so many conflicts among themselves, unable to put up a common front against the Mongols. Meanwhile, the principalities of Rus was also under threat by the Swedes and the Teutonic Knights from the west which did not help the Rus' predicament. You have to wait until the time of Ivan the Terrible to see the beginning of Russia as a badass Eurasian empire that all of us are familiar with today.
******
Building an empire or a megacorporation share one trait in common: you must stumble upon windfall gains in order to become big. Hard work and being frugal help, but these two qualities alone are not enough if the level of your ambition is beyond becoming the head of a rich family.
The Mongols found the op gimmick and exploited it. No gimmick was more broken until one man Army noob tubes.
"Dependency on grass" ; )
Blaze it
Provocateur This comment is hilarious as a reply to the one above.
Joseph Perks Should we smoke them or stone them?
Mongols are stoners
@Provocateur lol.. khan was the punisher
Greetings from mongolia 😎
😎😎😎
@John Mullins Not in our 5 year plan that's for sure maybe 10 year??? I'm not sure but we will get our land back 😂😆
Have mercy on our anus!
Greetings from Korea
@@SammyCee23 no resistance no harm will be done. Don't worry
@John Mullins we are looking forward to do that
2:35 It is true that the Mongols did frequently use their mobility to deceive the enemy into believing they had more forces than they did. However, it should also be noted that, up until roughly the early Modern period, it was extremely common for all chroniclers to inflate the sizes of armies they documented, particularly enemy armies. For example, the Persian army at Gaugamela was reported by multiple (mainly Greek) sources as numbering roughly 1 million men, whereas modern estimates put its strength between 50,000 and 120,000. So those chroniclers "from outside the (Mongol) empire" were likely recording inflated numbers on their own anyway, regardless of the Mongols' tactics (lessening the shame of defeat by inflating the size of the enemy they faced).
I liked the quality of your work content-wise, also presentation and visualization. Great that you used even our decorative patterns in the corners of your screen. Thanks!
Thanks a lot 😊
When test questions suddenly become weird and studying dates doesn't matter anymore
Even Mongols cant resist superior power of pommel throw.
15:07 Every HoI4 player knows infinite Chinese manpower is the key to victory.
That, or just field hospitals. Loose 100k men while inflicting 6 million losses to AI!
The point you made at the end that the mongols needed to focus their attention on an external enemy was also the reason why the empire collapsed
Thank you for cover this topic. This is my favorite military history topic for the medieval era and I liked how you broke it down. I’d love to see you cover how the operational level controls like the right time tables enabled things like Subatai’s campaign in Eastern Europe which culminated in Mohi and Leignitz.
Easily one of your best videos so far. Interesting to see how the factors that create an effective military force are largely the same regardless of the time period.
A bit of a surprising subject, but boy did that pay off! One of your best, and that’s no mean feat.
Sehr schöne Beiträge hier auf deinem Kanal und super für mich um mehr über Geschichte zu lernen + mein Englisch zu verbessern.
Danke !
Thumbs up for using scientific method of researching. Probs one of the few channels who does actual research before making factual claims.
Cool one-off art style here
In his book "The Devil's Horsemen" James Chambers writes about the tribesmen that they made perfect natural soldiers: "their life in some of Asia's most inhospitable regions made them tough and phlegmatic. They could suffer without complaint and kill without pity..."
I actually cited his book at least once, but generally, he seems to be way too positive and also made some clear errors about European medieval military history, although, to his defense, I think back then that was actually still the common or even academic viewpoint.
WOW what a good video man. I've never seen such a well put out and referenced video i think. Big props. Watched a million mongol break downs, this is a must see imo for anyone interested.
*LOVE* the mongols! Favorite army in ancient times is Rome, favorite army in modern times is Germany, but in between in medieval times my favorite must be the mongols, they were not just another nomad horse mob of barbarians they had an early version of blitzkrieg and were extremely disciplined and well organized, using feigned retreats and large scale flanking maneuvers and exploiting weak points and literally systematically terrorizing enemies and could coordinate various columns over hundreds of miles during invasions, even adapted to siege warfare after acquiring Chinese engineers and could transport disassembled catapults on horseback to keep pace with their regular cavalry, fought many different enemies in many different places and defeated most, just unbelievable... they would have appreciated bewegungskrieg (sp?) I think...
It is easy to occupy a large area when it was almost empty. They did conquer populated lands, but they were just far away and separated by empty lands. The Roman empire reached the max extent when it took 90 days to march from one extreme to the other of the empire. The Mongols, moving on horse, could negotiate a larger area.
A lot of occupied land too was culled super hard
China is almost same size as Europe
You do not necessarily move much more faster by horse then by foot; I thini just 1.5 times faster
Yep, conquering the whole of China so quickly was an impressive feat but there was nothing between China and Central Asia and the density of population was not comparable.
True, but enough t keep a larger area under control. And the Mongol empire, anyway, fragmented in a Chinese half and isolated western khanates.
So Basically they where in a need for Constant WAAAAAAAAGH
Sounds familiar...... Ah! XENOS filth !!!
So if I gave a twig to a mongol horse archer and told him that it was a bow, would it fire arrows?
Great video. Your ending could be extended. It Is not completely true that before Gengis Khan there was no one, but they were less successful and less unite. I think that the situation is similar to the huns and Attila. Attila won some battles also because the romans were weak. It could be interesenting to study the differences between the two. Also Attila built an empire (smaller than mongola) but It soon disappeared. Also from the military point of view he was less effective. I think It was due for example to less use of siege and the Roman army were more used to figth against cavalry. However It would be interesenting to listen what an expert can say about the comparison between mongols and huns (and Attila and Gengis Khan)
I've just spent a happy couple of hours watching a load of these videos, and I have to say that they're utterly fantastic. It's not easy to distill such complicated matters into such a clear narrative, and to do it so well in a language that is not your own, is even more impressive. Mighty stuff entirely.
Mongols; very clever but still willing to learn from others. I wonder how their mindset would fair in a modern military? I suspect, very well.
Used to a highly nomadic live style.
Everything they have is mobile and designed to be so.
Highly efficient in making and breaking camp.
Very good at securing food and water for both man and beast.
Good at scouting ahead for resources and the lay of the land in case of battle or to secure a safe encampment area.
Highly skilled horsemanship.
Good knowledge of sturdy horse breeds and beast of burden to use for long campaigns and battle.
Compound bow tech and the knowledge and training to use them.
Effective battle tactics using highly mobile and fast forces, shock and awe, not to mention good skirmish tactics breaking the enemies ranks up and moral.
Not to mention, their reputation always preceded them to almost everywhere they went.
A few Mongole warriors on horseback showing up on the horizon a few days prior to the main force was enough to send most running for the hills, disrupting their ability to fight and secure their own resources to sustain a resistance for any length of time.
But most of all, their homeland was large and for the uninitiated very inhospitable, it's people moved around because of their nomadic lifestyle not easily set upon by foreign forces, so it didn't use alot of resources and troops to secure Mongolia itself, freeing them on mass for campaigns almost indefinitely.
After Temüjin united the Mongole tribes the die was cast.
You get a like for the mount and blade reference alone
Ancient and medieval warfare don't receive enough focus on the strategic and operational aspects. Really nice to see MHV coming to change that.
Thanks for the video ! Very clear and interesting !
Hitler compared himself to Ghengis at one point. If he had done his research, he might have learned about flexibility, adaptability, egalitarianism, governance and diversity, and not been just a parody of a powerful leader. In which case we would all be speaking deutsch and not just Bismarck and his neighbors.
he also might have learned proper genociding techniques, Ghengis really won that first place.
Mixed combat units have been superior to specialized troops multiple times in history. When you are able to employ horse archers, heavy cav and both light and heavy infantry you have a great advantage over an enemy who uses just 1 or 2 types of units. During history it was common to achieve a diverse army by employing soldiers from different places who specialized in one type of combat or another. This way an army with diversity could achieve mixed units where each one was ''elite'' at their fighting style.
@John Mullins I agree with you, I was only giving an example about Michael question of how "diversity" can be useful in a military context. Of course the are many different ways diversity and especialization can be employed,in the end It depends about how one is able to use these strenghts in a correct manner.
@Michael Smith Because it's nigh impossible to build an empire that large that quickly when you have the expressed intent of complete annihilation of any and all conquered people's. Instead of you know, integrating them after the initial slaughter.
The mongols. Did you watch the video? Literally they couldn't make such a massive empire without auxiliary troops. Also Rome had a similar policy, the legion did most of the fighting but auxiliary troops screened, scouted and infiltrated the enemy.
Mongol Empire was huge but large part of it was originally quite unanhibited including steppes and deserts. Therefore its strength was smaller then what it looks on map.
Thank you for covering a medieval topic again!!!
The military aspects you have mentioned till 9:35 all belong to Modu Khan(Modu Chanyu in Chinese sources), who lived around 200 BC. In general, Genghis Khan's warfare strategies and basics were inspired by Modu Khan's. Genghis made a few modifications to it.
I've read The Secret History of the Mongols. I've read Empire of the Steppes. I've read the Tarik al-Rashidi. I've read other works about the Mongols. I've read other primary sources.
They were brutal and vile. Your video was superb. You're a brilliant person. I admire your scholarship. But even if they were The Best Soldiers Ever, even if they forged One of the Greatest Empires Ever! they were horrible, brutal, nasty people; who's bizarre lack of ordinary empathy makes one wonder about the nature of humanity in general. Leopold of Belgium, the British Empire's disgusting colonialism, the Machiavellian brutality of Cortez, and the hair raising cold blooded violence of Genghis Khan and his successors are all on a level. Modern ideas on history be damned.
Shut up you hater , the Mongols are the greatest warriors and empire ever and the did what they had to survive
In the osprey book on the mongol conquests, it was a real game changer for me when it debunked the idea that they could just drink milk and blood and be fast all the time. They were more complex then that in terms of logistics.
I just really want to know how the mongolians managed their empire, with it being so huge. There couldn't possibly be enough mongols to maintain such a huge empire when most of them are in the army, and their population not being very big anyway.
It was a challange. That time Mongolian population was only 1 million.
Could you do a video on german fuel production comparet with the other powers and then do a breakdown on german fuel distribution between her allies, navy and different fronts. It would also be great if you could do a general breakdown of german resources and there they were investet steel, workforce, capital and so on. A comparison in soft area production like trucks, radio, ammunition would also be great since most only look at tanks,ships, guns and so on. It would also be interesting to look at german AA, antitank guns and artilleri production both total and the ratio of AA to the other two relative to the other powers.
yes
Mark Felton is the best in terms of ww2 era breakdowns ands information
finally
this is what i was looking for everywhere
I still don't understand how the mongols dealt with logistic issues like food, water for the soldiers and horses. Also how could they go into an area that they were not familiar with the lay of the land and conduct a successful military attack?How did they replenish their weapons like arrows, lost swords, and lances?
very interesting new ground for you to poke your head into and I am very excited to see more.
Very Well Done, loved it !
From what I have learn, the khan himself loves Chinese culture, to the point of appointing a Tao religion master as his teacher, a lot of his method came from observing song China and Jing tribe who defeated northern song before the raise of Khan. He successfully develop a system that max the advantage of his army with best of Song, Jing systems and technology. Mongol canons that destroyed many cities in the western conquest was an improvement design by a Song engineer exiled by internal political fighting. It took a lot more years for Mongol to defeat the economically and technically superior (not militarily or politically unified wise) Song empire, then the Chinese section of its huge empire was the very first large section to break away and declare independence. Khans success primary was the defeat of the Jing empire whom once conquered northern China. It too was a tribal people like Mongols but settled and be more civilised after their victory.
KHHAAANNN!!!!!!
+1 For the Mount & Blade reference.
They had the best jerky in all the land
Mongols also had much better bows, than the Europeans had.
And better armor, leather over silk would prevent arrows from entering the body.
They would have surely concurred Europe, if Subutai wouldn't have been called back to Mongolia, in order to elect a new Kahn.
I love this MHV keep the great content coming!
Fantastic video, thank you!
Hey, You're visualized again! That's great. I'm a visual learner. I've got to see something to understand it. I love all your videos, but your not visualized videos were hard for me to remember. Thanks!
Superb as always!
I like the way you are useing maps now. Great job as always
Some great thoughts on why the Mongols were so successful. Did you also know that they had a form of amylase enzyme that would help to break down milk in their horses, allowing them to live off them more efficiently?
Was looking for this.... This was actually a key reason....
Because there accuracy and long range weaponry as well as horse riding skills
So the Mongols were like the Orks in WH40k, if they didn't fight someone else then they'd fight themselves. :D
every empire in the world
@@_lovely6753 Are you sure? I never heard about a civil war in the British Empire...
@@Maks-si3xl Are you being sarcastic? I hope so.
Uhh no
@@bootleganimepornmerchant5412 The Amrecian Revolution wasn't a Civill War, the rebels didn't want to abolish the parlament in London and take control of the entire empire, they just wanted to kick the Limeys out of the 13 Colonies.
3:11 thanks for the Rainbow Dash I guess
Idk what it has to do w deception techniques but thanks
wtf I just finished watching a small documentary on the military history of the mongol empire and suddenly you upload this.
Been listening to Mongolian throat singing, then this appears.
@@ninjatuna181 Are we seeing the rise of the second mongol empire through the internet?
@@Seagull780 I hope so brother
The decimal system was invented by Mete Khan and the term tümen is still in use in Turkish military.
"...often even attacked each other..." Sounds like the Orks.
The whirlwind Mongol campaigns westwards are famous, but what gets less attention is that it took them 40 years to conquer to all of China. The final conquest of the Song Dynasty was not completed until 1279, 20 years after Mongol expansion west had ended. One Chinese fortress even held out for 17 years. By the end of the war, the Mongol armies were just as much infantry armies as anyone else's, and they were for the most part not even composed of Mongols.
excellent presentation learned something new about the Mongols
I heard that there was an unprecedented wet period on the Mongol Steppe at the time of Genghis so there was gigantic tracts of high quality grasslands that where abundant for several generations which gave them the excess resources needed for their empire building activities.
You forgot to mention that Mangudais had bonus damage versus siege.
Like the change in graphics.
I use Mangudai all the time when playing as the Mongols on Age of Empires II.
Well put together
as you might already know from mountain blade hahaha good one Knate worst sieges
Super interesting. While very much enjoy your ww2 series, i think you should do more like this! Have you done similar videos on vikings?
I did a myth & reality on the Vikings: ruclips.net/video/vRL9bNONhSM/видео.html
Mongols be like, "infantry?! What's that?"
infantry = auxiliar
Good job
As an avid fan of Mongol history I simply say "fantastic". I don't think you missed a "major" point. Wow!
Having subscribe and follow pop up in the middle of the video is just annoying. Do it at the beginning or end if you must but not during the video. They are good enough to speak for themselves.
Brilliant video. Very interesting.
Asking for people to subscribe so often is a put-off, maybe just ask at the end. As long as your content remains good people will subscribe themselves.
It was not tactics which made them great but their grand strategy
For the Mongols fish was considered a sacred animal. Only poor people or in a difficult situation, it was allowed to consume.
Because they had horde ideas, limitless reputation modifier, and the very powerful tengri religion which allows a nation to be a horde.
love the mount and blade reference!!
As to why the mongols didn't simply ROFLstomp over everyone before, I think one of the key reasons was the timing of politics in China. Genghis Khan appeared at a time when Northern China was ruled by Jurchens, making it feasible to invade China and recruit defectors, because:
1. For a Han Chinese in Jin land to "defect" would just have meant favouring one foreign ruler over another, rather than a real betrayal of his race.
2. The mongols were in fact in alliance with the Han Chinese against the Jurchens when they conquered them.
By the time they actually got to Han Chinese in the South who ruled themselves (Southern Song) they took decades to actually conquer the Song, and that's *after* having already conquered the northern half of China.
It's not hard to see how, during periods of Chinese stability and unity, the mongols' superior characteristics would not have been enough. And without the ability to conquer China (and recruit thousands of siege experts from China to help them siege the middle east), the rest of the conquests woulda been much harder.
Everybody gangsta until Asia is a country.
Mongols "We are the exception"
Steppekriege tactics.
I've heard that Mongols were used to fight over space resources, but then the climate improved and caused an explosion of the population which again needed more land...
How were Mongol so effective in communications during the chaos and mayhem of the battle?
Excellent voice and video
Could you do an overview of the armies and strategy of Holy roman emperor frederick II Hohestaufen?
This is a chanel where you regret if you skip the commercial