Battle of Keresztes, 1596 AD (Part 2/3) ⚔️ Ottoman and Christian armies converge 

Thank you for adding Indonesian language in your videos. Many connoisseurs of the history of war in Indonesia, especially the history of Islamic sultanates in the world.

Please the name of the game

How are things progressing on part 3?

Where is the part 3 ??

The whole vid looked sensational

Great vids, my go to on days off

@@shamsheed1726 Same here! My first day off is cleaning house day and setting up for the work week and of course history documentaries!

EDIT removed the spoiler lol And the channel very much gives a more western account of things even putting in complete fantasies about Mehmet wanting to send only the Rumelians or wanting to abandon his army

@@godofchaoskhorne5043 Spoilers !!!

@@Pawn2e4 apologies fam. Figured most here would know. But I mean the whole channel is kinda full of sh. Downplaying the western army's size. Making up complete fantasies about Mehmet wanting to abandon his forces etc.

@@godofchaoskhorne5043 Sure... Glad we have you the expert here.

@@Arnyh0ld Its biased tho, thats not hard to notice if you have some knowledge about those matters.

The narrator does an excellent job of engaging, but the script as well is fantastic. It reads like fiction, doesn't it? Because it is so entertaining.

too short

The exact videos of all three parts are already on youtube. Just search the name of the battle, the only difference is the quality of production. It hasn’t got the finishing touches yet

The Ottomans won.

I am also waiting for the results lol. Even though it happened 400 years ago, I am on tenterhooks

oh then u will love third part :D

Ottomans routed Christians, many Habsburg soldiers drowned while retreating

@@Sam-wt1cx lol

@@Sam-wt1cx Kil joy lol

More to come!

If you're a patron, you'd know that he's been planned for quite a while. Sit tight. I'm sure we'll get to see him soon ;)

Birde resmen yalan söylemeseler. Hem Hristian ordusunu olduğundan küçük gösteriyorlar hemde batılı kaynaklara dayanarak Mehmet sade Rumeli askeri yollamak istedi, Mehmet kaçmak istedi diye saçmalıyorlar. Osmanlıyı olduğundan beceriksiz göstermeye çalışıyorlar. Ama Osmanlı bu harbi yendi amk..batılı orduyu yerle bir etti. Iki bölümdür Osmanlı yenildi ve çok becerisiz algısı yapıyorlar

@@godofchaoskhorne5043 Because the narrator is a Balkan origin.It's not easy to get rid of his Prejudices.Not just for this video.If you watch other Ottoman videos you will understand.

Working on it.

​@@HistoryMarchegood work bro

this video is not an absolutely correct narrative of the truth, they also only rely on sources and that Eurocentric, and Selam to Saray Bosnia 🇹🇷❤️🇧🇦☝🏼

@@kuvayinizamiye819 alaykumu selam kardas :)

well oftentimes there would be spectators to massive battles like this, especially the "camp followers" who trailed armies - families, merchants, prostitutes, etc. That is often what caused massive supply problems for armies, and some leaders explicitly stopped it. The practice died off towards the end of the renaissance, but it could still be seen in periods as late as the American civil war

I don't think, that they are crusaders? Or is the Holy League a Crusader army? I thought this was a political alliance with a dash of religious motivation. The Holy League was reinvigorated by the Pope, but he didn't call for a crusade. (I don't think, that it would have worked anyway after the Reformation and translation of the Bible into multiple peasant languages. I always thought, that the Pope or another important religious leader calls for a Crusade. (According to that definition the Jihad is a crusade... Huh.)

Nah Ottoman armies were made up of mostly Turks and Eastern Europeans, other nations such as Kurds, Egyptians, Arabs, Caucasians,... were present much later on and regional only

@@nenenindonu armenians too Kurds were also present but not much

the bulks were turkish sipahi, with european janissari only in the start of world war where arabs, and all sort of nationality were summoned for jihad

Syrians troops mainly were used as garrison troops and wars vs Persia, until ww1

It was mostly Turks doing the fighting. Balkan, Tatar, Kurdish and Caucasian Muslims joined to Turks when conflict was around their region.

I think your Schwarzenberg is the one from the Napoleonic Wars. Look up Epic History TV's vids on the Battle of Leipzig.

Harassing enemies during night was done on regular basis. But it was mostly done using cavalry not wish archers. Tatar cavalry was very effective in this.

They did that but not with flaming arrows, they are not effective irl

@@wasimshaikh1665 Oh that's nice to know, I was wondering why I never heard about someone doing it. tnx :)

You are not an idiot just not educated enough on the subject. I think they not only had watches and towers they must have had mobile guards watching perimeter. Scouts and also some contingents on surrounding strategic terrain. So it would be very difficult to approach albeit not impossible. If you could approach and set some tents on fire it would be moral breaking but I doubt it will be worth it. After all it would take some courageous and able men to put up that kind of show. You could use them in battle much more effectively. However I am sure you can find some kind of succesful small group action against a prepared camp defense.

No, you're not and I am sure people have done this, but knowing Christian's code of honor, it would be unacceptable for them. It would be very easy to counter it with only troops near the camp door waking up and if needed, to drive them away or put out fires, so others could sleep well. They would see it, if not earlier, then at least when the archers light the arrows. Though their range is formidable, properly chosen camp site can already counter that, because arrows flying too low would just hit the wall. In addition, we don't know how far are two camps from each other, so in the case of horsemen sallying out, could they return to base? Similar, if not with larger effect things could be achieved with some drums and horns+it could wake their whole camp up. Multiple times at night and voilá! Also, you could try to poison the wells, use scorched earth tactics, spread rumors of not having pay/water/food/manhood, because even if they arent true, it will still spread doubts and discord. Ah yes, attacking the honor of the commander, especially when he is impatient and young, that will work too

Ideally they retreat after some fighting

Don’t stress him. He said that one of his team members is ill. Omg.

Noice

What a shame for the great Ottoman Empire

Yazık

Well yeah but i mean it was the law since Mehmed II and every Pahdisah from Mehmed II to Mehmed III killed their brothers in order to stop future civil war. (also Murad IV did it also in his latter years, even though it wasnt law anymore and needed a fetva for it)

I would have expected the Ottomans to be more accspting of kinslayers.

If Mehmet III had not become a sultan and had not killed his 19 brothers, is there a guarantee that one of his brothers would have become a sultan and not have killed his 19 brothers, including Mehmet III?

I was thinking the same thing

Yup, he was. Killing his 19 brothers (some of them were babies) was the only thing he could do. After Suleiman the magnificent no other sultan afterwards were very capable leaders or had necessary knowledge or skills for warfare.

He just had too much pressure on his back

@@shafqatishan437 true but some mans are very still very capable. e.g koprulu family

@@shafqatishan437 Murad llll was legendary

Yes, working on it. Team member who was the lead on this got seriously ill, not much we can do there, so there's a bit of a delay. But it's coming.

@@HistoryMarche oh sorry, I didnt know that. Thanks for the information.

@@tacidar558 Yeah. Just be calm man omg.

I believe he is pulling from The Encyclopaedia of Islam Vol 6 Mahk-Mid specifically from page 1030 there is also A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East by Spencer C. Tucker which lists approximate numbers of this battle on page 547. They all agree on the approximate numbers, the problem is that the numbers of the armies were not static. The ottomans outnumbered the Christians initially but after the defeat of Jaffar Pasha and (from what I have read) some of the rumelians and tarters lost their will to fight so the numbers by this point of the conflict may have been more evenly matched.

@@kylejenson6607 in the same Page the number for the habsburgs is given 140 000 to 200 000 while the ottomans at 100 000 İ dont understand how they count the ottomans double The most accurate numbers are between 95 to 100 000 for both sides Because the battle is famous for the ottomans poor performing in comparison to earlier battles where they had the edge in same size battles its very unlikely that most historians use it to compare the 2 armies and the ottoman or habsburg one are double the in numbers But i guess if you only use western chronicles than in most of the battles they won outnumbered 10 to 1

@@bossenes5020 took a little bit to reply but no, eastern chronicles are just as unsure about the numbers. Sources from the ottoman side always place the armies of equal strength. Looking at other sources such as Arab observers, makes them even or gives the ottomans a slight advantage but again. The ottomans didn't have the size advantage the whole fight, the problem with any sources citing that the forces were evenly matched is that it doesn't account for the ottoman allies who lost heart and left the field. A sizable portion left, and yet they are still some how evenly matched? That makes no sense. Either they started out evenly matched and then the ottoman allies left and then the Habsburg's outnumbered the ottomans (which no source from the west or East claims) or the ottomans had double the size with their allies slowly abandoning them through the fight. You say you don't see how the ottomans have double? count their allies as well, then the number is easily twice that of the Habsburgs. I have no idea why eastern sources do not count the allies, is it because they weren't ottomons? or was it because they abandoned the fight part way through? hard to tell.

@@kylejenson6607 ottoman chronicles mostly count the numbers at the start of campaigns Not before the battle Thats why it is so hard to tell the numbers in battles The ottomans at that point dont have much allied troops most of the time only crimean tartars and their carpathian vassals which in this battle were obviously abscent because they fought on the habsburg side The tactics in this battle however are implausible with double the numbers for the ottomans And the accounts are bureaucratic accounts on the ottoman side which are more relyable than ottoman or habsburg chronicles because they have not the intention to glorify but to analyse But anyway this battle can not be used as an indication for ottoman decline because the ottomans modernized after this battle and were way more successfull in the next campaigns

Yeah if at first you dont succeed, keep trying till you run out of troops lol

Overconfidence to their strenght, not just in numbers, but thinking the infidels are no match for muslim troops.

The fear of having much more causalties during crossing the river.