We highly recommend you to listen to our podcast, as it explains the early history of the Ottoman administration and political institutions: bit.ly/2tAY1Yg Please rate it! If you want to learn more about the battle of Pavia, check out our video on it: bit.ly/2BNXJlc
I am apreciated your video but there something rather different from information that i know. It state that Hungarian made up 25000 army to defense againts Ottomans. But, some literature describe that Hungarian receives reinforcement from many countries in Europe except British, Portugal, and Sweden. It takes a toll around 200000 mostly cavalry than the Ottomans bring up only 100000. I'm sorry for my english because i'm still learnt. Thank you
@@USN1985dos Kingdom of Hungary Kingdom of Croatia Kingdom of Bohemia Holy Roman Empire Duchy of Bavaria Papal States Kingdom of Poland multinational army=imperial army
After Süleyman won this victory, he said that he was arrogant in his heart. For this reason, after the night of victory, he dug a grave in his tent and spent the night lying in that grave. He wanted to remind himself that the last order he could reach was death.
true story?? well as a muslims, i wouldn't be surprise if he done that even when Khalid al Walid were to superior and undefeatable against the Roman/persian empire, Umar the Caliphate sack his positions to remind him the afterworld and the glory only for temporary Khalid accept it with open heart becoz he knew that
more like he forgot his faith to god, he was corrupted by the victory and then decide to dug a grave and spend the night in there because he remember that the god gives life and takes life, to god we belong to him is our return nobody is bigger than god etc... u could say it was a little bid reminder who is, simple a human being
@@dumdebadaba well western colonials didn't give a tiny choice to the inlanders. They just plundered the riches and walk away like nothing happen. Holly sh*t!
@dumdebadaba It’s a matter of perspective, right? Your Christian empires are favorable to you guys and Muslim ones are favorable to our people. All empires did shitty things. They’re empires my friend. They rule with brutality. Look at Catholic Spain and the inquisitions and subjugation of the new world, the Lowlands (Dutch), and Philippines. There’s a reason why the Dutch revolted. Look at the English and the various crimes they committed in Africa and Australia. I’m not defending the Ottomans, but the bias towards non Western European Empires is clearly present on most RU-vid videos. I don’t know if it’s because of the demographics or what. Some say the Roman Empire was magnificent yet they committed the first genocide in history, the Carthaginians were annihilated and their farms salted. Oh and the tax wasn’t 80%, it was arguably less than in some other contemporary European States. It was a flat tax. Anything else my good man? With all due respect
@Viktor Samoja Again that’s biased. The celts had a civilization prior to the conquests of Caesar. They had villages, metallurgy, and beautiful art. Same with the Germans and even my Illyrian People. “Third world shithole” the UAE literally has a space program and a mars mission queued up in the next few years. Viktor, you gotta get your head out of your ass man 🤣 Third world means non aligned with the US or USSR, Yugoslavia was a third world country. You don’t even know the definition of first, second, or third world. “Nations conquered by Rome” Rome conquered Syria and it’s in shambles. Rome collapsed in the 500s in the West. To say Rome effected the economies of modern countries is utterly preposterous. Don’t let anybody hear you say that in real life Viktor, they’re gonna laugh at your ass 😭💀
@@kouldbanyone4983 he probably went to heaven for all the good things he did for islam. You dont need to be properly buried when you die fighting for islam
@@kouldbanyone4983 cennet birtek müslümanlara ve türklere ve ALLAH yolunda ölenlere yazılmıştır o laf attığın kişi yaşasaydı avrupayı tümüyle alırdı ve biz türkler her aldığımız yere huzur adalet merhamet götürüyoruz Şunu bilki Peygamber efendimizin bir sözü vardır Türkler Dünyayı ikinci defa hükmedecek
Yes, they fought against each other, and hungarians also fought against each other, this was the best occasion for the Ottomans, and Suleiman knew this.
I live in Osijek, where Suleiman constructed a great bridge to cross Drava river but as it would take too long to finish he found another way, after the bridge was finished it became a vital part that connected pannonian basin with adriatic sea, which was a lucrative trade route. To this day parts of that bridge can be seen if water levels are lower
I'm happy and sad at the same time, happy because you uploaded Battle of Mohacs, sad because you missed the chance of involving the famous letter of Suleiman and Francis more detailed, which could make this video WAY better. I wish you could add some more about Charles-Suleiman-Francis triangle. I'm looking forward to your next videos in these series.
@Badr eddin search in google you'll get it. It starts with " i am the sultan of sultans khan of khans ruler of egypt , Syria, Palestine, anatolia , hijaz ....... son of selim......"
@Badr eddin I who am the Sultan of Sultans, the sovereign of sovereigns, the dispenser of crowns to the monarchs on the face of the earth, the shadow of the God on Earth, the Sultan and sovereign lord of the Mediterranean Sea and of the Black Sea, of Rumelia and of Anatolia, of Karamania, of the land of Romans, of Dhulkadria, of Diyarbakir, of Kurdistan, of Azerbaijan, of Persia, of Damascus, of Aleppo, of Cairo, of Mecca, of Medina, of Jerusalem, of all Arabia, of Yemen and of many other lands which my noble fore-fathers and my glorious ancestors (may God light up their tombs!) conquered by the force of their arms and which my August Majesty has made subject to my flamboyant sword and my victorious blade, I, Sultan Suleiman Khan, son of Sultan Selim Khan, son of Sultan Bayezid Khan: To thee who art Francesco, king of the province of France ... You have sent to my Porte, refuge of sovereigns, a letter by the hand of your faithful servant Frangipani, and you have furthermore entrusted to him miscellaneous verbal communications. You have informed me that the enemy has overrun your country and that you are at present in prison and a captive, and you have asked aid and succors for your deliverance. All this your saying having been set forth at the foot of my throne, which controls the world. Your situation has gained my imperial understanding in every detail, and I have considered all of it. There is nothing astonishing in emperors being defeated and made captive. Take courage then, and be not dismayed. Our glorious predecessors and our illustrious ancestors (may God light up their tombs!) have never ceased to make war to repel the foe and conquer his lands. We ourselves have followed in their footsteps, and have at all times conquered provinces and citadels of great strength and difficult of approach. Night and day our horse is saddled and our saber is girt. May the God on High promote righteousness! May whatsoever He will be accomplished! For the rest, question your ambassador and be informed. Know that it will be as said. - Answer from Suleiman the Magnificent to Francis I of France, February 1526
@@hmm-.- you have no clue about ottoman history. Ottomans fought almost every European and Asian nationalities. Were all of them weak? :D plus Ottomans alone fought multiple times against the biggest alliance ever made by Europeans called Crusaders back in the day.
@@hmm-.- Suleiman wait for more troops at mohac because he think Hungary is more powerful than that(Turks made so many big battles with hungary).And they just get in to budha to show their superiority and get back in to Istanbul with their loot.Aaaand if hungarian army doesn't act like a fool Ottoman would not be able to defeat them easily.They attack when Ottoman soldiers were preying but didn't think their anger.Moral is important thing that ages.When moral combine with discipline they fucked up .d(I say these because you sayed Ottoman attacked weak and unprotected hungary)
What a turning point most historians ignore. Most games or armchair historians think Hungarians were pushovers during that era but thats far from the case. Hungarian discipline and cavalry were looked upon with awe even by Austrians. Keep in mind they were keeping Habsburg dominance of Eastern Europe in check, trying to break free of Austrian sphere. In a way Ottomans created their own biggest rival when they conquered Hungary and installed a vassal.
I honestly don't think it's ignored by anyone, never heard the battle of Mohacs to be treated as a foot note. How could it be when it's the end of one of the strongest kingdoms in Europe, after 5 centuries?? While this might be debatable, probably at times Hungary was the strongest kingdom in Europe and had even the potential to become an empire before the Mongol invasion.
-1533 Treaty of Istanbul 1. According to this treaty, the German King is considered equal to the Ottoman Empire Pasha. 2- "Suleiman the Magnificent" will be on every king and prince responsible for the Habsburg dynasty in Europe. 3- The title of the Emperor cannot be given to anyone except Sultan Süleyman Han. 4- Ferdinand gives 30,000 gold taxes to the Ottoman State every year. 5-All Hungarian lands and the graz city in the south of Austria shall be accepted as the Ottoman property. 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
I'm hungarian, I love history, I love battles, but my favourite is the battle of Mohacs. I couldn't believe my eyes, when I saw the title. I knew we lost, of course, but It was so sad to see so many hungarians fall.. More was lost at Mohacs=Több is veszett Mohácsnál I love the work K&G, keep it up.
@Ahmet Sakızcı It's so funny. Your f.cking Ottoman Empire destroyed our country, but you are trying to find a conflict between us and the european countries. I don't like Habsburgs , but they were still better than the Ottomans. We don't need turkic people's fake respect.
Ahmet and Renata, our differences and problems were in the past, let's not bring them into the present. We Romanians suffered on account of both of you, Turks and Hungarians, but that is gone. Every people had their dark page in the history when they did a mistake or suffered under occupation. We drew our lessons from those times and moved ahead. So, try to be civilized when debating.
There is a proverb among the Turks: "Instead of a dishonest friend, I should have an honorable enemy." Even though we fought many times in history, the Hungarians were really brave and honorable people. We also have a common history. You can tell from my name.
@@rkzinczy Well we can't completely say we're so common but we have some same ancestors like Attila. Also there was a empire called West Hun Empire and East Hun Empire and these empires are Turkic. West Hun influenced to Christianity and the culture they lived. You can even find some same words in Hungarian and Turkic languages. Also Hungary is a observer member of Turkish States Councel because of the ties they have with Turks. Hungarians and Turks were living in the same state then they separated. So ı guess Hungarians and Turks have strong relationship from the past that no one can ignore.
Hungarians have Cuman roots especially Szekely and Paloc Hungarians , and Black sea and aegean turkey have cuman roots. That's why the hardest enemies of Ottomans were Hungarians
Suleiman I's response to Francis I's letter: ''I, who am the sultan of sultans, the sovereign of sovereigns, the dispenser of crowns to the monarchs on the face of the earth, shadow of god on earth, the sultan and sovereign lord of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, of Rumelia and Anatolia, of Karamania and the land of Rum, of Zulkadria, Diyarbakir, of Kurdistan, of Azerbaijan, Persia, Damascus, Cairo, Aleppo, of the Mecca and Medina, of Jerusalem, of all Arabia, of the Yemen and many other lands, which my noble forefathers and my glorious ancestors - may God light up their tombs - conquered by the force of their arms and which my august majesty has made subject to my flaming sword and victorious blade, I, Sultan Süleyman Han, to thee, who art Francis, king of the land of France … You have sent to my Gate, the sanctuary of many kings, a letter by the hand of your faithful servant Frangipani. He has made known to me how the enemy overran your country, so you are now a captive. You have asked aid, for your deliverance. All this your saying having been set forth at the foot of my throne, which controls the world. Your situation has gained my imperial understanding in every detail, and I have considered all of it. There is nothing astonishing in emperors being defeated and made captive. Keep your heart content and do not grieve. In these situations our glorious predecessors and illustrious ancestors, may God keep alight their tombs, never ceased from making war to drive back their foe and conquer his lands. We ourselves have followed their path; we have at every time conquered provinces and citadels both great in strength and in difficulty of approach. By night as well as by day our horse is always saddled, and our saber ever girded on. May God the Most High advance righteousness! May His will, whatsoever it portends, be accomplished. For the rest, ask it from your envoy and be informed. Know that it will be as said,,
@Diogenes thehorsefan We won more than you can imagine, probably much more than your country did. At least we fought our battles, instead of getting clapped and still coming out as a winner with gifted territories from the western world, and siding with fascists and commies in the same war like some other spineless country might have done.
As a hungarian, and long time channel follower, I appreciate this great review all the more. Indeed, often we do say, even now "more was lost at Mohacs". Thank you.
@@blackgoku2023 Even when you're struggling with something, or made a bad decision, big or small, it cannot be that bad how it was for the hungarians at the Battle of Mohacs.
@@alphadios2003 i think as a nation we had a lot of losses on our side, times of oppression.. It's just a weird turn of events how this stands out, how hungarians refer to it in general. Personally I do not give much thought to it when I say it, maybe only having a generally hopeful and positive attitude that it can always be better with the right approach.
@Alex C It wasn't an empire, true, but his point wasn't about being an empire anyways. Hungary had to beat the mongol invasion twice before the Ottomans, yet it WAS one of the strongest kingdoms during the 15th century, if you'd ever heard the Black Army you'd know it. We were fighting all these invasions, while the French, Germans etc. were measuring their dicks against each other on the west, so it's not a fair comparision tbh. We wouldn't had a problem if our nobles.. ah you can see it in the video anyways.
One thing that's often overlooked about Mohacs are the Hungarian reinforcements that never arrived. Instead of waiting for around 5000-6000 soldiers from Croatia and around 8000-10000 from Transylvania (both led by very experienced generals), the young king decided he had enough men and thus lost miserably.
Thanks for pointing this out. Indeed the issue is overooked, and an army of cca. 45.000 soldiers (including some German troops coming from northwest) could have real chance of victory. Although it is still debated in Hungarian historiography if the royal army was in position to delay the battle; as retreating would give the Turks the most densly populated areas, and could have caused more mutinity; and after a certain point the Turkish army was closer to the royal army, than the reinforcements. In my opinion it is the failure of the feudal state that the troops could not been properly collected and arranged.
@@januszkowalski5345 Hi, maybe Wien, 1899 were not the most suitable palce and time to discuss Szapolyai's role; anyway with the use of a method callled critical thinking you could have realised, that this one man to blame for all scenario is more of a fiction than reality. The quotation from L. K. has at least to major factional errors. 1. "if he had defeated it" Szapolyai had maximum 10.000 soldiers, absolutely no match for the turkish main army. 2. "nobody could question his rule and control of the country." The Habsburgs and their allies did, no matter Szapolyai's prestige, because the Habsburgs' claim on the country was based on their double marriage treaty to the Jagellonians in 1515. And by discussing his deeds, i hope you know very well, that pre-1526 Hungary had anarchistic tendencies with selfish people mindi too much their own business and too less the county; far more than "one man's ambition". "preferred the role of a Judas, a traitor and bootlicker and servant of the killer and enslaver of his nation" - this is so beutiful, i had to quote. :) This is indeed literature that has little to do with history. Of course Szapolyai wanted to rule a strong and free country. People are not becoming traitors out of the blue. Szapolyai became a turkish ally years after Mohács, when he was defeated by Habesburgs.
@@januszkowalski5345 Hi, i shall repeat my words, this Kupelweiser seems to be extremely biased, and you should treat him with more caution, or possibly look for better sources. If he writes about 40.000 soldiers of Szapolyai, when no serious historian thinks more than 10.000 is possible, then this should be a warning sign for you. What you quote from turkish source, might indicate the Sultan's will to recognize Szapolyai as king of Hungary. Anyway this would be in accordance with Hungary's laws. But this is not an evidence on Szapolyai's alleged friendship to Turks. At the mentioned time (early September 1526) Szapolyai did not even know the result of the battle, and was still on the way to join king Louis. Please keep in mind that Szapolyai made his contacts to Turks in 1529 ot late 1528, after being defeated by Habsburg forces and fled to Poland. This is why your question ("Now a question for you, my friend. Can you indiacte me a single country ...") is irrelevant, because being a Turkish vassal was not Szapolyai's intention.
@@januszkowalski5345 hi probably last comment for me. I assume the person you regularly quote biased in favor of the Habsburg side, that means anti-Szapolyai bias in this context. Again i suggest to read more balanced sources. 'Why did not Szapolyai attack?' First of all the situation was quite hopeless. Indeed saving his army seemed to be a priority for him, you might judge him for that. But then dont forget to ask, why Christoph Frankopan made only insignificant skirmishes? Why the Czech and Brandenburg troops under margrave Georg retreated without a fight? Why the Habsburgs did not offer any help for Hungary that time, although they claimed the throne? Please use the same measure to judge thes figures. Please keep in mind, that Szapolyai made alliance to the turks later, in 1528-9. His deeds in 1526 and before are not to be judged according to his later orientation (although it is done in pro-Habsburg argumentations). Anyway making treaties with Turks seems to be somewhat necessary. Even the Habsburg king Ferdinand became a turkish vassal in 1533. Is then a subject to all your poetically formulated accusations? "Zaploya had no legitimate claims for the crown" Diet of Rákos, 1505 gave the right of electiong a new king to the diet of nobles, who swore to elect only Hungarians. Szapolyais election was totally legit. We might argue over the primate of election by diet, or succession by treaties, but this is already philosophy, and they were paralelly legit by 1526. Sulieman's influence on creating a new king is insignificat, and obviously enlarged by pro-Habsburgs to blacken Szapolyai. Szapolyai was the obvious candidate without any intrigue from Turks. (Anyway, i wonder how many magnates were present at Pest on the 17th od October, and if they consulted Szapolyai before. Szapolyai reached the battlefield of Mohács somewhen 10-14 September [forgot the exact date]; he could hardly send one message to Pest in that short time) "Only united with the Habsburgs did the Hungarians have a chance to avoid" united with the Habsburgs, we still suffered the Turks for a long time.
@@januszkowalski5345 hi, your personal and ahistoric remarks drive me to write another comment. My goal is quite simple: to learn and discuss my homeland's history as accurately as possible. My only bias is that im pro-Hungarian. It might tell a lot about yourself, that you did not even assumed truth-seeking intentions from me. Please note, that im not glorifying Szapolyai, im just trying to free him from unfounded accusations. Sure, he was greedy for power (as were most magnates). Sure he was not a tactical genius comparable to the Hunyadis. Sure his subordinates ridiculed him for his female-like voice. Sadly in your comments i see little effort for truth-seeking, but you are making a scapegoat to blame for all. You were quoting judgements form a 120 year old book, that judgements were disproved even before that time. Again i suggest to read more sources, even the new K&G video on Buda&Eger might reflect, that these struggles were far more complicated, and not one-man shows. For example, you did not comment on the Treaty of Istanbul, 1533, where Ferdinand of Habdsburg accepted turkish suzerainity. If you blame Szapolyai for the same, would you blame the Habsburg? Did Kupfelweiser discuss that point of the treaty? Why not? Please note, that (almost?) all your anti-Szapolyai arguments are valid against the pro-Habsburg side too. I just re-read sultan Suleiman's diary about his occupation of Buda in 1526. Your argument's core was that hungarian nobles announced to Suleiman that now János I is the king. Although the diary is rich in particular events (even tells about the weather!) somehow Suleiman did not mention meeting any Hungarian noble while in Buda-Pest. I still have the impression, that if such encounter happened, it was insignificant on every level. And well, it is quite logical, for someone who wants to rule a country, to try to be independent. This is what Szapolyai tried first, then, as he lost to Habsburgs, he tried the Polish alliance, and when that was rejected, he turned to the Turks. There is absolutely no proof, that Szapolyai wanted to help the Turks pre-Mohács or wanted the Mohács disaster. "he was not interested in victory but in defeat of the king and his court" - as there is no evidence on that, claiming to read someone else's mind from 500 years distance is quite brave. If we are talking about history, and not fairy tales, János Szapolyai had no abilities to foresee king Louis's death. Please consider that in the 1510s and 20s Szapolyai was hunting glory by fighting against Turks. If you ask me, this might have been his personal motive in the Mohács campaign: to win, and take the glory. You probably know, that János Szapolyai was appointed leader of the royal army (as he didnt arrive, his brother substituted him), and wrote letters to king Louis not to engage in battle without him. Calling Nenad Jovan a Hunyadi no. 2 is not even a joke but an offense. First, making a peasant army, and occupying parts of the still-free (non-turkish occupied) country, and creating a new political entity is obviously a rebellion, with some anti-feudal tone. Last time i checked rebellions served to weaken the state, not to strengthen it. And pls correct me, but i do not know about any action Nenad Jovan made against the Turks. Well, we went far, we started to discuss, why the battle of Mohács was lost. Many historians agree that it was not lost on the battlefield. It was lost, because the anarchistic Hungary could not focus its powers on the threat; and most importantly Ottoman Empire was several times bigger in manpower and income. One-man scapegoats are not sufficient to explain these.
As usual, here are several ATW mods we used in this video : - -Medieval Kingdom 1212AD (with custom graphical tweaks by myself). -Aztec's Graphics Enhancement 2015. -Lucifer Hawk's GEMFX . Best wishes, Malay Archer ڤمانه ملايو
Greetings from Istanbul! I have recently discovered this channel and I like it a lot as a history buff. I will now check out the podcast too. Keep up the good work!
Thank you for this one. Despite it being so far back, for Hungarians this historical event is still considered a trauma. Non Hungarians don’t know about it and couldn’t care less. But at least it could explain the attitude of some Hungarians towards the great western friends that weren’t there then, in 1956 or basically any other time…
''süleyman could not believe he had destroyed the entire hungarian army so quickly;he had expected more out of a kingdom that was once a formidable and powerful foe'' LMAOOOOOO
Truth to be told, he was right. He did not destroy the whole army. Zápolya witheld the reinforcement (another 25.000 men total), so only half of the hungarian forces fought at Mohács. And later Zapolya could became the vassal king of eastern hungary under Suliman as a reward.
@@jekesan4221 It was treason. The commander of the reinforcement wanted to take the throne, so he simply let the king and most of the nobility die in the battle. Suliam rewarded the commander by acknowledging him as the new king under the Sultan rule.
LOL! Reminds me of Hitler invading the USSR. During the opening of Barbarossa, the Germans did so well, he personally thought: "Wait, Wait?! It's too easy! Stalin is planning some secret move. There's no way we can be doing this well"...
Very-very old and worn-out pun. And a tad bit offensive. Hopefully, it will stop in the future. I was about a 4-year-old toddler and even then I thought, 'Well, there is one born every minute'. Now, I am 39. :)
@@RichiEnglish Get a sense of humor. It's not malicious, and I don't see why it's a huge deal...I certainly wouldn't be offended if you poke fun at Americans...everyone else does.
@@ofallmyintention9496 I have got a sense of humour. It is just old as a highway. Get over it. That is all. Time passes. Things GET old, for instance, landline telephones. See? 😂
@@cuzimmoody6470 All of his actions was not necessary. The Byzantine empire alredy capituled, they even not crown an emperor without the ottoman sultan agreement.
The Europeans did not learn anything obviously from the defeats of Nicopolis 1396, Varna 1448 and Kosovo 1448. The nomadic war tactics used by the Turks always went well against enemies who moved too fast to attack.
Turkish tactics allways have surprise factor against europeans. Cause european war culture says central forces are the main part of an army. Btw wings are the most important and powerfull parts for the turks.
The tactic you say is Turan's tactics. In the third century BC, this tactic was used by Huns of the Turks against China and dropped huge blows to China.
Thank you for this video! I learn history in Hungary at the university, and our teachers told us the same things as you did, so you researched this topic very well. Everybody should see your great quality videos, they helped me a lot in some other topics. So thank you again! :)
@@metalp6366 We don't say like this. Rather the turkish people like to say, hungarians weren't outnumbered, when in the reality there were at least 60k soldiers in the Ottoman army
@@iskambillordu no. Ottomans were not a genocidal state like Britain and France. everyone lived their own culture and believed in their own religion. ignorant.
In the video you say that Hungary held Bohemian territory which along with Hungary passed to the Austrians, but thats not quite the case. So just to clear it up, Hungary and Bohemia were in personal union since Vladislaus II of Bohemia also gained Hungarian throne in 1490. However the two kingdoms were separate in all other regards, there was no Bohemian territory held by Hungary or vice versa. When Louis II died, the next heir to both thrones was considered Ferdinand I of Ausria because of his marriage to the daughter of Vladislaus II, so the nobility of both countries elected him the new king. This is also considered the beginning of the Habsburg Monarchy, which would exist in various forms all the way up until 1918.
Matthias conquered most of Bohemia in 1479, though Vladislaus could keep the rest after the Treaty of Olmütz. And after 1490, the death of Matthias, he got the Hungarian throne and with it the conquered parts of Bohemia. So it's more complicated by today standards to decide what belonged to who. Feudalism works differently. Though I agree with you that there are serious misunderstandings nowadays how this thing works. Even when Matthias conquered Bohemia it wasn't part of Hungary, he ruled through the title "King of Bohemia". If the same guy hold several titles it won't merge the countries just if he can manage to spread his own title to the other region. Funy but the other similar and pretty common misconception that the Kingdom of Hungary was never part of Austria, just the "Habsburg Empire". Ther was always a border, a Diet of Hungary and it was always ruled through the tiltle "King of Hungary", never e.g. the "Kaiser of Austria". But you can hardly make people see the differences between titles belonging to countries and some medieval guys holding even a long list of titles sometimes whenthey think in nation states and nations conquering each other.
@@siililiik The treaty of Olmutz allowed Matthias to keep hold of Moravia and Silesia, however that did not mean they became part of Hungary, those lands were still formally part of the Lands of the Bohemia Crown. Acording to the treaty Matthias was even allowed to stile himself as king of Bohemia, underlining that those lands were not Hungarian. After Matthias died in 1490, Moravia and Silesia were once again in direct possession of the actual king of Bohemia, reseting the status quo to the time before the conquest. So after 1490 there is no reason to speak of Moravia and Silesia as Hungarian land, even if the two kingdoms were in personal union, but I understand it can get a little complicated.
@Frederick the Great Exactly, this is what I'm talking about too :) I mean, were Bohemia the same country as Hungary, even under Matthias or Vladislaus? Of course not. But were Austria and Hungary ever the same country 1526-1918? Again, no. Just as Austria and the Netherlands weren't 1714-1795 or Austria and Spain 1519-1521. Or Hungary with Poland 1370-1382? No, just Louis the Great was a lucky dude to have both titles. Or was England the same country as France 1422-1453? It was a personal union, so? Or even a better example, were Denmark and Norway the same country 1524-1814? Have the Kingdom of Norway ceased to exist in the Oldenburg Monarchy, the Dano-Norwegian personal union? It isn't that complicated by itself, just because people like to project their own political realities back to the past. They can't think outside nationstates. Same as some believes the Iron Curtain existed hundreds or even thousands of years ago, I guess there were communist Celts and democratic Gauls back then. Some people can't really adept to the shifting realities of European history. But don't worry, I had to study the Battle of Mohacs and this thing with Bohemia is just one of the many mistakes and inaccuracies here. Starting with why the Black Army was actually disbanded and that 25-30,000 at Mohacs were about the biggest army what an European kingdom could field in that era, same size as armies in the Battle of Pavia or the Siege of Calais. Plus with 50-80 cannons (plus 500 arquebus!) compared to the 20-30 European average by army (and opposite to the 300 Turkish cannons, to demonstrate the unmatched power of the Ottoman Empire), the 3000 top quality heavy knights and the 4000 elit Czech "pike and shot" mercenaries made it about the best what Europe could show off those years. Not a weak army at all. Following with the fact that the reason behind the war of succession between Ferdinand and John Sapolyai wasn't the "shocked nobility" but two different but valid claims based on two different treaties. Half of the Hungarian nobility supported this guy, the rest the other guy. But most importantly that the details of the battle itself were widely different than what was presented in the video. I can give you some details if you're interested, but to just mention some big one, there were two Turkish armies, the Rumelian army led by Ibrahim and the Anatolian army led by Suleiman (what followed the first one long long miles behind) and Ibrahim was already fighting with the Hungarians, his sipahi light cavalry were already routing and his elit janissaries and artillery were already fighing back the charge of the Hungarian right wing when Suleiman even arrived at the battlefield. And there was the charge of the Hungarian heavy cavalry against the Ottoman centre, straight against Suleiman himself what reached his personal bodyguards but couldn't kill him. That was the real turning point of the battle when the Hungarian success broke and the Turks started to win. But even after that there were the Bohemian mercenaries who couldn't run away and set up defensive square formations and killed so many Turks that they had to drew some cannons there to finally kill them (based on contemporary Turkish sources). And so on and on, it was a significantly different battle. Oh and things like, the Turks indeed had no clue that they won the battle because of the whole chaos at the end what already happened at dawn and in the dark. Suleiman made his troops stand in full battle order through the whole night in pouring rain (the cavalry could dismount after midnight but that's all). But the next morning, counting the bodies, they got pretty much certain that they won this one and haven't waited anything more. Suleiman stayed at spot because he was desperately looking for Louis. After his father's death and he started to rule, he had to renew his father's treaty with the Hungarians, his ambassadors were already at Buda since half a year, wasting time on purpose. He wanted to beat Louis in battle then sign a much more favourable treaty (even making him a vassal?) and a way to Vienna. So, when days after the battle he got the news that Louis died without a heir, he got very disappointed that the whole attempt was in vain. The war of succession broke out between Ferdinand and Sapolyai. In this war Suleiman even supported Sapolyai in 1529 by taking Buda from Ferdinand's forces and giving it to Sapolyai. But otherwise ha rather just marched against Vienna. It took more than a decade when it turned out that the war of succession is ending with a stalemate, everybody's keeping what they control, braking the country into a Royal Hungary (Fredinand) and an Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (Sapolyai). That gave the opportunity again to just march against the war-ridden country and took a huge triangle in the middle, up till Buda in 1541. Anyway, I don't want to bore you to death, what I wanted to say that the legal circumstances of the rule over Bohemia is about one of the last things what you should worry about with all of these inaccuracies :) (Btw, if you would be really interested, I think B. Szabo is kind of the most up-to-date expert on the subject nowadays. You can find many Hungarian and English papers at his academia edu site, but here's his brief article from The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, ed. J. Rogers, 2010 and one more interesting about the military technology of the battle: www.academia.edu/4152622/BATTLE_OF_MOH%C3%81CS_1526_AND_P%C3%81L_TOMORI_HUNGARIAN_CHIEF_COMMANDER_ www.academia.edu/9236694/THE_BATTLE_AT_MOH%C3%81CS_AND_THE_MILITARY_REVOLUTION_1526_1._PART )
@@frederickthegreat1352 No, Vladislaus and Louis ruled Moravia, Silesia and Lausitz as kings of Hungary. The Czech part of their realm was expected to pay 400.000 golds for re-annexing mentioned provinces, which they did not. Edit: contemporary reference: Rerum Ungaricarum Decades, 4.9.201-204.
Croatia had the status of kingdom with its own laws and its own Parliament. In January 1527. Croatian noblemen have elected Ferdinand von Habsburg for legitimet king of Croatia. There is even document preserved about this election. Yes, after this there was a war between Ivan (iohannes) Zapolia, who had supporters in kingdom of Slavonia, and Ferdinand von Habsburg who was supported by Croats.
Pay the valiant and experienced Black Army instead of selfish Nobles! Don't piss of your farmers and soldiers. It's humiliating that the Black Army was disbanded by short-sighted King and nobles.
Hungarian nobles usually were powerful. If someone wanted to be the King of Hungary, he needed the Hungarian nobility's support. Only few powerful kings, like Matthias, could control them.
The fall of Hungary was because the Black Army. Paying it costed too much and the new king had no money. King Mathias was a fool anyway not crushing the ottomans with it at least. By not relying on the nobles, he ensured anyone comes after him(if it's not his son) could only be a king as a pawn to the lords. The "short-sighted King" recognised he can't pay the BA anymore and tried to win the favor of the lords by giving up his lands to the nobles.
@@TSDT97 Matthias was not a fool. He didn't try to crush the Ottomans, because he recognised that Hungary by itself didn't have the man-power to do so. He learned that from his father's John Hunyadi's repeated defeats, that it's a waste of Hungarian blood to throw doomed campaign after doomed campaign at the Balkans, so he tried to preserve Hungary's strength, and gather support from Europe by becoming Holy-Roman Emperor first.
When Selim The Stern died Pope said “The Lion is dead The Sheep is on the throne” but there was a bigger problem because “Sheep” was Suleiman The Magnificent
not true selim focused his wars on the mamluks and Safavids of the mideast, both of which were in a poor state at the time. While Suleiman defeated the Habsburgs on Land and the Spanish and Italians at sea
With Rhodes conquered, and Belgrade taken, Suleiman saw a divided Europe, and grew Hungary for more conquests. Yes, I went for the low hanging fruit, do your worst, internet.
Turks always have broken feeling and sadness about fighting against Magyars. Its not about winning or losing. Even they lose, we feel like loser inside. We have total respect to them. We believe brothership with Magyars. I hope we never have to fight again with our brothers. So the Great Khan Attila may rest in peace in his grave. Respect and love Magyar brothers and sisters 🇭🇺🇹🇷
@@revivalist355 Ottomans are Turks but firstly they are Empire. Empires doesnt give a shit about friendship, brotherhood or any good feelings. Empires have different mechanism. Im talking about people. But yes you are kinda right. We shouldnt be stuck in the past.
If you think about it - the numbers alone, the only way Louis could win the battle was to not fight it in the first place. The only scenario when he could win was, that Süleyman would get a stroke.
@@OhioOwns Yeah, they could even lift final battle straight out of Last Samurai. With hungarian knights being gunned down by 15 000 janissaries and 300 cannons.
Thanks Lot for this good work!The result of this war was the main reason that no one dared to fight against main Ottoman Army in battlefield next 70 years. Hungarians were trapped. Right wing was provoked by Rumelian cavalry and fake retreat to the support lines. Central Azabs pulled the Hungarian central to the cannons and Janissaries. Ottoman right wing kept busy Hungarian left wing. Please , do not underestimate the intelligence of Grand Vizier and the commander of Rumelian cavalry.
@@oblamovadvanced5956 You are wrong!! In this war there was no Turan Tactic. All Europe had already learned this tactic before this battle , because of the fake retreat of Ottoman leftwing , Hungarian Army did not suspect a new plan, and then attacked full power in little time!!!
Oblamov Advanced Turan tactic contains fake retreat of center power, not wings.Also, Asian (especially Turks) used this tactic but in history, first and successful this kind of plan organized by Hannibal at Cannae!
I am so delighted to say that I have repeated watching this video and showed it almost to all my family members to appreciate the efforts you have put recognising the mightiness of Sultan Suleyman!
I find the sheer density of great and memorable leaders at this period fascinating. The Ottomans did have great leaders like Mehmed II and Suleiman I but they could never seem to catch a break, with enemies like John Hunyadi, Skandeberg, the first Safavid Shah and Vlad Dracula.
Vlad Dracula killed innocent people and lived like a coward and died like a coward... he's only a fictional hero in Hollywood movies but a cowardly villain in reality...
@@darkking2460 I never said Vlad was a hero but a prudent ruler and spectacular general he was, if you deny that then you clearly know nothing about him. I also think what stands out about Vlad is not his slaughter of innocents, as that was standard practice for many (though not all) contemporary rulers, but instead the immense brutality of his methods and the sadism with which he appeared to enjoy the suffering he inflicted.
@@joshuapilling3641Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vladin kellesini koparıp İstanbul sokaklarında gezdirmistir. Vlad zalim ve korkak biriydi. Türkler cezasını verdi
Kings and Generals Never donated to any channel but I will definitely donate to you guys. Absolutely loving the ottoman series and awesome soundtracks that you guys add in. Keep up the amazing work! 👊🏼
@Veysel Zernov That sounds like something from the telenovela about Suleiman. Anyway the swamps were on the other side, in the east near the Danube. According to this video and most historians there were no clever tactics. The Ottoman army simple used its reserve to stop and push back the right flank of the Hungarians. More people, more money, militarized state, far better odds.
@@kicsakgabor you are wrong Turks have a technique applied in war.this is TURAN TACTİC and this tactic is the hunting tactic of wolves. Turks of Central Asian origin learned this tactic by watching wolves and applied it in many wars
@@canavarkatili6157 The Ottoman army was the conquering, invading one. The Hungarian army was defending their home. By today standards an invading army can deserve respect after their readiness and being highly organized, but morally does not deserve any. I am sure you would say differently, if you considered the Russian military actions in the Caucasus, or in Crimea. To be a respectable human being, one must have empathy. If it comes to talent, I consider Selim as the last great Sultan. His son, Suleiman was a mediocre one. He wasted the best years of the Empire. West Hungary and Austria was at very limit of the Ottoman army action radius (range) for major campaigns. The empire grew too big. There was only one way to grow bigger, by focusing on naval power and trade. Conquering Hungary was a strategically, financially wrong decision at the time. The Hungarian villajets become a financial burdens for the central budget. The border become 3x longer between the remains of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
@@tucosalamanca9075 just call it pincer movement. Check wiki. Although in its Wikipedia article the battle of Mohacs mentioned as example, there is no convincing evidence to prove that it was actually used. By the way, half or 2/3 of the cavalry survived, even couple of thousands of infantry. So, it couldn't be a planned spectacular, properly executed pincer movement. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much survivors from the cavalry who were all involved in the attack. Anyway more Czech, German, etc. died in the battle than Hungarians. The death of the king and many officials of the government, and its consequence was the real deal.
Great job as always, putting together the main events and also adding some well built up backstory to see the whole picture. Thanks for putting in the Painting of Székely Bertalan: The founding the body of King Louis II. This painting resembles the not just the death of our polish king but also the death of old Hungary who was left alone again to face a rising empire. For more then 150 years from now on the land of the Hungarian Kingdom run red with blood since it stood with it's castle-fortress system as a buffer zone for the Habsburgs against the Ottoman Empire. Some calculation of our historians suggest that from the late Medieval era population (approx. 3 500 000) to the end of the Ottoman wars, Hungarians and the nations living in the kingdom lost more then 1 million people (war, famine, slave trading etc.)
great video as always! any plans for an armies and tactics series for the Ottomans? by the way, in Ottoman sources, it is told that Ibrahim's retreat in the beginning of the battle was a planned move (a faint retreat) from the beginning to divide the outnumbered but heavily armoured Hungarian troops into distinct groups and the Ottoman reserves' positions were determined accordingly.
@@danielgorog2646 Yes i find it difficult the believe as well for the same reason you mentioned. On the other hand, Ibrahim pasha was a good tactician and popular among the troops and the army at the time was well trained and diciplined. Fake retreats have been a traditional battle tactic troughout Turcic history as well. I think it is kind of impossible to reach a certain conclusion. Just wanted to mention how it is recorded by Ottoman historians anyways.
@@natasharkdodo8892 Technological advantage of the Western Christian forces The earliest type of Turkish hand cannons are called as "Şakaloz", which word came from the Hungarian hand cannon "Szakállas puska" in the 15th century.[15] Although Ottoman janissaries adopted firearms in battles since the beginning of the 16th century, the Ottoman usage of the handheld firearms spread much slower than in the Western Christian armies. Wheel-lock firearms were unfamiliar for Ottoman soldiers until the Siege of Székesfehérvár in 1543, despite it was used for decades by Western Christian armies in Kingdom of Hungary and in Western Europe. According to a report from 1594, the Ottoman soldiers hadn't adopted the pistol yet.[16] In 1602 the grand vizier reported from Hungarian front about the firepower superiority of the Christian forces: "in a field or during a siege we are in distressed position, because the greater part of the enemy forces are infantry armed with muskets, while the majority of our forces are horsemen, and we have very few specialists skilled in the musket"[17] According to Alvise Foscarini's (Venetian ambassador in Istambul) report in 1637, "few Janissaries even knew how to use an arquebus"[18]
@Gray Jedi everytime i see a Christian defeat on muslim side,they blame number and positions.. I saw it from yarmouk,qadissiyah,hattin,constantinople nd every ottoman victory
The relationship between Francis and Suleiman the Magnificent has been misunderstood. After Francis was captured by the Habsburg dynasty, he was sent to Madrid and imprisoned there. While there, he communicated with Suleiman the Magnificent through his mother and accepted his greatness and superiority and asked for help. Suleiman the Magnificent also sent a letter to the Habsburg dynasty and said, "If Francis is not released, I will attack Germany." On top of that, Francis was released. The letter of reply given by Suleiman the Magnificent to the letter of the French king Francis, who asked for his help, has still survived to the present day. At the beginning of the letter, Suleiman the Magnificent praised himself and what a great emperor he was, in a very long paragraph and using many titles. Later, he despised Francis by saying, "You are only the king of the French county, Francis." Sorry for my English, I used Google Translate.
I actually went to the Mohacs battle memorial and the city of Mohacs itself. The Hungarians deeply honor their King and the Hungarian and allied soldiers who perished in the battle.
The video was awesome as always but you made a small mistake. Suleiman didn't annex anything of Hungary in 1526. He left the two kings, Ferdinand and John, to fight with each other. The borders of Hungary were left intact, only one side of the civil war was a vassal to the Ottomans. Only at the death of Johna Zapolya, in 1541 were borders redrawn, when Suleiman annexed the middle part of Hungary, gave Transylvania to his vassal, John Zapolya's infant son, and the Habsburgs took the western part of the country. Anyway, awesome video as always, and greetings from Hungary!
I would say leaving out that 15 years was not a simple 'small mistake' but a rather coarse one. Up until that point I was really astonished by the craftmanship of this video. After this point they lost me - I became slightly suspicious and afraid to accept any of the facts mentioned by face value...
@@JosephLadanyi This channel, however good and detailed it is (and it definitively IS), is just for us armchair historians. It is not a substitute for academic research. If one wants to take it to the next level, he needs to delve into history books and original historical sources, not into 15 min You Tube videos. There was a mistake (and i bet not just one) but the viewer gets the basic overview, so I would not take it too hard on K&G.
@@juremustac3063 You are right. It is probably just that I am Hungarian and we dealt with this period for weeks in primary school (and even longer in high school). It was also a significant turning point in our sad, sad history. But as I said, you are right. In five hundred years it will probably be just a minor mistake e.g. if someone will say WWII ended in 1960 or so.
Ferdinand always tried to take hungarian throne, when Ottomans move east for fight againts safavids. But when Ottomans turns their face europa ferdinand flee from this region. So King means not like ferdinand feels. And ferdinands wasnt a hungarian king. Emperor Sultan Suleiman Khan came and took this country with his sword rights. Thats why end of ferdinand military campaigns in Hungary, when peace treaty sign Ottomans and HRE, ferdinand called Suleiman as a father. And ferdinand accepted by Ottomans to Equal to Ottoman Grand Vizier (not eqal to Sultan). And HRE Charles accepted by Ottomans as a King of Spain, not Emperor.
Still remember the old days when Hungary was considered the strongest kingdom in Europe during the mongol times. Such a shame they're became so weak that even suleiman was confused about it
France was considered the strongest for most of European medieval and early modern history. The time you listed was indeed Hungary's golden age after the Mongol Invasion of Bhatu Khan but it was only enough to stand up to and often influence the divided HRE (Louis I the Great, Sigismund, Mathias etc.). Once the Ottomans came it turned into a 2 front war and later a 3 front one with the Russians, also in the 16-17th centuries cheap imported gold from South-America also weakened the nobility that relied heavily on silver and gold exports. We were destined to fall anyway, it was just Suleiman who was there to pull the trigger.
@@csfelfoldi France was not always considered the strongest, rather one of the strongest. The time period before the mongolian invasion and the complete annihilation of the hungarian army, it was indeed the strongest in Europe. Maybe not the biggest, but the army composition was superior to most other European armies.
@@Ulas_Aldag I think that regarding France, it highly depends on how united would be the kingdom in case of war. France was incredibly populated at the time (around 10 millions people, I read somewhere it was the highest pop density in Europe), but divided (until the 100 years war ended). The king didn't have much power compared to his nobles (that's why some of those nobles took possession of England). Think of it as something almost as bad the HRE, I said almost. I think a France completely united for a war was the strongest in Europe at the time, but I'm unaware of the particular political situation in France during the Mongol invasion. Let's say it's hard to say who had the strongest army.
@@Ulas_Aldag While nobles and petty kings had scuffles between themselves in the West, Hungarians were used to larger scale wars than most so the army composition reflected that. While it maybe more effective, fighting something like France or the Ottomans you have shear numbers and more importantly resources outweighing this advantage. The biggest scale invasion Hungary sustained in the time period was in Naples which almost bankrupted the country resulting in the fail to keep the conquered territory. Also all great nations have at least a semi decent navy, Hungary lost that opportunity when we lost to Venice.
@@xenotypos : France was divided during the Hundred years war because of the Hundred years war. The Navarrese, then Burgundese party tried to surf on english victories to gather power. Before that, it was unified during the reigns of the "Three Great Capetians" (1200-1325), wich was indeed a golden age for medieval France.
Thank you. The description is precise up to the tiny details. The battle of Mohács was mainly lost because of the poor leadership of the Christian army, the Hungarian Kingdom had not been used to great military campaigns in the past 30 years before Mohács, there had been such a long period of more or less peaceful era with the Ottomans. It is considered irresponsable of the king to enter into battle without seeking and ensuring the possibility of retreat and without waiting for the rest of the troops to arrive. Around 8000 Czech gunmen was marching to the south to meet the Hungarian army (Louis II was also a Czech king) and the Transsylvanian army led by János Zápolya was just crossing the river Tisza 100 miles away at the time of the battle. The young King succumbed to the demand of the Hungarian noblemen to start the battle right away neglecting the advise of the more experienced mercenary leaders in the camp to postpone the battle and retreat until the rest of the troops would have arrived.
This video is perfect, there are only a few fun facts to add. 1. Only about half of the Hungarian forces arrived on time. 2. Hungarian leaders present new that Mohács is far from the best place to meet the enemy but internal confict slowed them down. 3. Some of the cannons that caused the most demage to the Hungarian army were actually made by Hungarians and captured by or even sold to the Ottoman army. 4. John Zapolya was considered as a traitor for not being present with his huge army during the battle. In reality, they probably suspected an attack on Transylvania, so they had to wait until they were certain the Ottomans are fully focused on Central Hungary. He was seen as a traitor for almost 300 years. 5. Most of the Hungarian nobility and clerity was present during the battle so almost 2/3 of them are belived to die there. The country basically fell apart. 6. Suleyman died on Hungarian soil during the siege of Szigetvár. They won the battle after his death with the last few hundred Hungarian defenders opening the gates and blowing a strike one last time, losing their lives rather in battle than surrendering. We still have a huge memorial called the Tomb of Suleyman honoring him there. We also have a memorial for the defenders naturally, but the sultan deserved a tomb there even if he basically doomed the country. 7. Commonly mentioned fact but we really do have a phrase "more have been lost at Mohács" meaning two things: First, that anything bad happens, we've had it worse and second, that we not only lost one battle but almost everything for the next centuries.
@Alt Metin In hungarian it's Magyarország. Why Hungary? Magyars lived in a tribal alliance with the Onogurs. When the Bizantynes first met them, they've mistaken them one (as they did with the slavs and scandinavians too), so they named the magyars Ongri. Later latin added a silent H, becouse of it's grammar and it became Hongri. This is where the name is from.
Just FYI (correct me if I'm wrong). The ottoman declare war is bcz his delegation was executed during collecting the tribute from Hungary, and the hungary and pope provoke a war on Ottoman with it by sending a letter to the whole Europe to join the "holy" war againts Turks.. So it means it's a war between Ottoman and almost Whole Europe
@@bora8100 Hungary was the premiere power in continental Europe during the mid 15th century. It has conducted several succesful campaigns against the Ottomans, and held as vassals multiple of the Valkan states. There was absolutely no reason Hungary would capitulate to the Ottoman Empire until well after the defeat at Mohács, and even then the Ottomans didnt quiet occupy half the country.
The differnce between theory and practise. Europe promise the help but only one was pope who help with some money. For example the Charles V was at honeymoon during 1526 august.
Nice video! The battle was also very important for Czech history as Louis Jagiellon (as we call him in Czech republic) was also king of Bohemia. Both Kingdom of Bohemia and Kingdom of Hungary were in personal union and the death of Louis and Habsurgs gaining power was beggining of Early Modern era in these two countries. :)
@@KingsandGenerals Do you receive revenue just by us downloading it? I have no interest in playing the game, but if you get your bonus on download i'll happily take the time.
One slight oversight, that I see cropping up all over the place, not just this channel. That is not an accurate depiction of Hungary, what you highlighted in red are actually *two* kingdoms, Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia, in personal union since 1102 (and would remain in personal union until 1918, joined by Austria in 1527). Also, while there were some Croatian forces with the King on the field of battle, the main Croatian army under Count Krsto Frankopan did not participate in the ensuing clash. The Croatian army, and the Transylvanian army under the command of another Croat, Count Ivan Zapolja (John Zápolya, mentioned briefly at the end of the video) were a few days worth of march away, and were racing to reach the King, but the council of nobles that travelled with the main royal army decided not to wait for them, and engaged the Ottomans on their own, denying themselves some 15 000 additional troops. Another note that I must protest over is the supposed "loss of independence" of Hungary. Those were different times, there was no idea of a "nation" or anything of the sort, a realm was represented by its nobility, which had the right, under certain conditions, to elect their King. The monarch did not need to be of the same nationality, a concept that, again, did not exist back then. Both the Croatian and Hungarian estates elected, separately, Ferdinand I as their new King. Hungary and Croatia had previously elected various other royal houses to fill the thrones, including the Bohemian Přemyslids, Bavarian Wittelsbachs, French Anjous, Polish-Lithuanian Jagiellonians and others. Even the Habsburgs held the thrones at one point *prior* to Ferdinand I, in persons of Albert II and Ladislaus V, in the 15th century. Hungary and Croatia, together with Austria and Bohemia, would be the principal realms to form what is commonly referred to as the Habsburg Monarchy, which remained a personal union all the way until 1918.
Actually John Zápolya (or as we call him Szapolyai János) were not eager to fight the Ottomans. He didn't race for helping the king, but rather camped in Szeged and waited till the battle was over at Mohács. They actually wanted Louis II to lose the battle. (To be honest even with the additional troops we would have lost the battle anyway) This was because he and other nobles wanted a "true Hungarian" king and not someone from Bohemia or other foreign house. That's why Szapolyai was elected as the other king opposing Ferdinand of Habsburg.
@@TamasMatyus I did hear of this before, but I must say I do not find it all that convincing. For one, there is no actual evidence for it. The only thing I can think of that would lend some credence to the theory is the fact Zapolja and the Frankopan family were friends and allies, therefore making the leaders of the Croatian and Transylvanian armies aligned with each other. On the other hand, no one back then actually preferred the Ottoman rule, even Zapolja's reputation was severely tarnished by his decision to submit to the Sultan, and a defeat like the one at Mohacs was bound to bring at least a large part of the country under Turkish rule, that much was obvious to all. Also, Zapolja was of Croatian nobility, and was not an ethnic Hungarian. He was also related to the Habsburgs themselves through his mother, and later, as King, agreed to Ferdinand I as his successor, though this treaty was later revoked when Zapolja got a son of his own. Added to that, Hungary was not ruled by ethnic Hungarians since the House of Árpád went extinct in 1301 with András III, the only exception being Matthias I in the 15th century, so I am somewhat doubtful that was a pressing factor, especially since having monarchs of the same blood was not seen as a vital interest back then, the nobility saw any ruler who would protect and, if possible, expand their personal influence and wealth as a good choice, even the Turkish Sultan, if all else failed (as demonstrated a century later when the Croatian Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy wanted to displace Leopold I in favour of the Ottoman Sultan, because Leopold was fighting to reduce the power of the nobles). And most important of all, Louis II actually wanted to withdraw, in part to wait for the reinforcements. It was the council of nobles that decided to strike immediately and forced this upon the King. Yes, this was a council of mostly Hungarian nobles, and yes, it sounds like a decision deliberately made to ruin the King, if not for the fact those same nobles were then by and large killed in the same battle. Hungary also went through severe social and economic turmoil, splintering apart, as the result of the battle and the ensuing Ottoman occupation and civil war. Croatia, meanwhile, was reduced to its smallest size ever by the Turks, even to this day we call that period reliquiae reliquiarum (remnants of the remnants of the Kingdom), being in danger of ceasing to exist entirely. Hardly sounds like the desired outcome, and people were well aware something like this would follow a catastrophic defeat such as the one at Mohacs. No one wanted to displace the King at the expense of the Kingdom itself, or their own property (which was largely ruined in the process, with most of the high nobility dead on the field of battle).
@@marinusvonzilio9628 I agree with you almost entirely. I would like to make some additions. There was an other army which did not join the battle the Bohemians 9 000 men. With them the army which did not participate was 24 000 men roughly. That could have turned the battle. Not even mentioning the fact that John of Szapolya was a better commander than Paul Tomori who was 51 years old. John was simply too far defending Transilvania, when the Hungarians knew Turks were advancing towards Buda John's forces were on forced march to join with the king's forces. The nobles whom forced the battle upon the king were simply defending their estates against pillage as their land were the first one to be attacked.
Everyone talks about Suleiman's wisdom and ability ! no one talks about how Hungarians lost due to their ego centric behaviors and lack of disciplines. easy victory turn into a graveyard. Great video as always
@The Unbeatable oh well above is not a biased comment I do study European history and I am Asian ,considering the facts it is prudent that Hungarians were at an advantage during battle of Mohacs, and I completely disagree with your term "unbeatable" no glorious Army was invincible during this era it's just too good to be truth if they were unbeatable further example Mongols were considered to be the most fatal and unbeatable army but Mamalukes proved it wrong and Keivan RUS did the same. Easy victories turned in to disasters. You need to learn history if you're to argue. Finally history is history if you take that personal then there no one stupid as you're in this world.
@The Unbeatable And you certainly had to write two comments just to prove that I am triggered , LOL I'm always triggered aren't we all? But this is about history and now it's evident that you're Turkish and you take historical events very personally. i do apologies for hurting your feelings unintentionally. Victory is yours Ottomans were unbeatable , Period! Ciao 🙏
Kings and Generals can you make an episode about the Catalan Company under Roger De Flor and their actions with the Eastern Roman empire? Also good job !😆😆👏👏
As a Hungarian myself, I can say that you can say Hungarian names better then any English-speaker I have heard before. Just one thing, György is George is English ;)
