This is the compilation of the five videos I uploaded on Mongol heavy cavalry. No new footage has been added, but I know some people like to be able to listen to the entire thing without interruption.
A world history lecture video about the world conquest of the 'Great Mongol Empire, the world's strongest empire.' This is a very useful world history lecture video for studying world history. 세계 최강대국 대몽골제국의 세계 정복기군요. 세계사 공부하는데 강력히 추천하는 세계사 강의 영상입니다.
Hey brother, just want you to know how much I appreciate this content. Your scholarship is a treasure to us all. And while this is very late, congratulations on achieving your latest education goals!
Thanks to History Dose I recently developed an insatiable obsession and desire to learn more of the mongols. And thanks to his shoutout to this channel recently I’ve found you. This is exactly the channel I needed!
Id be curious if you read Eduard Alofs' 4-Part Essays "Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia I-IV" from 2015 available on JSTOR, particularly part 4 on the "Turanian Tactics" (a catchall term for nomad to differentiate from "Iranian" which serves as a catchall for settled societies influenced by nomads ie Iran, Byzantine Rome, China, etc). In my opinion it is very much in-line with your conclusions in this video series. Alofs also draws the conclusion that most armored cavalry was armored horse archers primarily who more often than not were skirmishing or fighting individual or small group duels in the no-mans land between battle lines while the unarmored herders did the caracole behind the protection of armored horse archers who skirmished much closer to the main enemy battle line. He also concluded that things like a group "massed charge" was something that they would do, but were far more rare and was like you said, used when an army believed they could break an enemy to flight in a single decisive stroke. I'd be very curious about your thoughts on that essay, because I definitely used your videos as a visual aid for what he seemed to be describing while attempting to dive even deeper into the specifics of small unit tactics
I have not read it or heard of his articles before, but I had a quick glance over it today. It may be that some of his argumentation I learned cited via others and thus came across it every indirectly. What I saw so far from my brief look sounds reasonable, and I suspect it's something of a "natural conclusion" from a close reading of these accounts (given that in general, its the best way to maximize the offensive potential of mounted troops while also minimizing their exposure to combat and thereby reducing the loss of many expensive mounts and experienced men). I'll give it a more in-depth read when I get chance though, thank you for bringing the series to my attention.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thanks for the response, and thank you again for all the work you've done over the years. I've learned a ton from you over the years. I think "natural conclusion" is a very apt way of putting it, or maybe even "a reasonable speculation". I will say that the entire series may be a tad overzealous in seeing horse archers everywhere. For instance, he seems to scoff at the idea that the early Muslim armies were predominantly infantry with limited, light cavalry that is more or less commonly accepted. He suggests that the citizen elite familiar with 'Iranian' (ie. Roman & Sassanian) tactics would have also formed into armored horse archers, and that the famous "Mubariz" duelists were probably just the equivalent of steppe "Baghaturs" or "Cataphracts" as armored horse archers. I can't say one way or the other if it has weight, but be warned. But as far as that 4th part focusing on the "Turanian" way of war seems solid, especially in terms of being in line with your videos on the topic. I also found it very helpful that he framed it in the almost feudal-style of levy (herders) and noble/professional soldiers (armored baghaturs). I actually was hoping to get to ask you this in the spirit of the video: Since the levy / "hero" military society seems to be the norm for steppe societies; did Genghis Khan actually make the Mongols unusually "heavy" cavalry by steppe standards expecting 40% of his troops to be lancers / presumably "baghaturs"? I've seen estimates that in earlier Steppe empires the percentage of troops that would be lancers in addition to archers would be much lower than 2/5.
I recently reread my textbook from when I did general mongolian history 101. In page 230 of Монгол түүх it talks about the military of the northern yuan it mentions besides cavalry as the main force infantry and cattle soldiers "үхэрт цэрэг". Do you kniw anything about them? All I can find online is a few pictures on facebook of people riding cows all of seemingly from europe.
Many years ago actually. The style is out of date and doesn't look so nice, and there's aspects I would change about the actual information in it but overall it's a thorough overview ru-vid.com/group/PLPsdXcXIMVm25V3SB8hexh2L9DDIxS5tz
Im sure their equipment is not so far off from the khitai and jurchen or chinese armour. Lamellar with metal helmet and of course bow and arrow. For heavy cavalry it will be heavy lance and broad saber like what the Jurchen and Song Chinese using. While some of the surrendered Jin iron pagoda or Song heavy elite cavalry man will armed with 2 handed double edge swords. While Jurchen and Khitai used straight broad saber, mongol might be using slightly curved saber like the yanmaodao of the Song dynasty. Shorter, but stouter and thicker which cause massive damaged compared to slender long saber used by the western turks like the cumans, pechenegs, or oghuz turks. Most curved sabers with yelmans are origins of seljuk and western turks.
And as they conquered their way into china and the western eurasia looted equipment and those manufactured by local artisans were incorporated. Heavy access to chinese and persian armories would have given their heavy cavalry top notch armor.
Can I make a request? I always assumed the Mongols never invaded India but recently I learned that the Mongols did invade India and conquered modern Punjab area and occupied it for roughly 50 years. Could you elaborate this further? Apparently many Mongol soldiers and their families migrated to Punjab only to be hunted down by the Delhi Sultanate ruler, Khilji.
Hey, you seem to be an expert on mongolian warfare and gear. I've been wanting to do some reenactment in that direction. To be more precise as a mounted mongolian warrior. Are there any producers of historically accurate mongolian amor, weapons, clothing you can suggest? (Maybe there are even some more affordable ones I dont know...). I actually find it quite hard to find anything. Thanks for your feedback! Very much enjoyed this Video!
I'm not so familiar with the reenactment side of things. For clothing, you can purchase a variety of styles (13th century to modern) through www.mongolianz.com/. Something like this is the 13th century style: www.mongolianz.com/product-page/traditional-mongolian-deel-ikh-mongol/
Now I think (but don't know for certain) that most of that clothing is coming from a company called Khuyag. There website doesn't seem to be working right now but here's their facebook page facebook.com/KHUYAGmn
Unfortunately I don't know where to look in terms of armour or weapons. Most of what I have seen is rather poor in quality or accuracy (or both) and not something I could comfortably recommend as being worth your money. Many of the more prominent armour producers who I know people were sourcing things from (though not necessarily Mongolian equipment) are located in Ukraine, and as you might imagine production and export ahs been greatly impacted by the war.
It may be useful to contact the Namnaa Academy. They are a prominent horse archery organization in Mongolia and I know a number of their members are interested in very careful reenactment of 13th century styles, for clothing and bows. They resell a lot of bows I think, but if you contact them they may be able to recommend a bow producer tpp. www.namnaa.world/ and their facebook page facebook.com/namnaa.academy
Great video. I even pressed all the buttons for you. Keep it up. Just one tiny favor for me please? Stop saying Calvary. It's cav-al-ry. Calvary is the hill in the Bible where they took Jesus to be crucified. Cavalry are horse-mounted soldiers. Calvary makes it sound like they ride in on baby cows. So yeah, thanks duder
Jack, one day a friend of mine and I (who like history) were talking about the best generals in history and I told him about Muqali and his military exploits however he said that Alexander the Great was the best of all and that no one compared to him. My question is, can Muqali be compared to Alexander the Great? Good video bro
Muqali was undoubtedly a tremendous commander, and certainly the one who Chinggis likely put the most trust in. And while I will never be one to say Alexander is the unreachable, uncompilable commander a lot of people reduce him to (truly a great commander of course, but a lot of discourse around him consists of repeating platitudes from Roman or Victorian depictions of him rather than necessarily engaging with his actual record or actions. He's not as unique in human history as he's often presented) I think in this case though Alexander has the more impressive record. Muqali is ultimately only in his top position for 1217-1223, and by the end of his campaign (and his life) his efforts were more or less inconclusive; his task was a holding position rather than the conquest of Jin. In this he did admirably, but he seems somewhat disappointed with his own achievements by his death.
Jackmiester I need to know will there be a video on the spread of islam in the mongol empire? And do think Berke khan and oz beg khan became Muslim to gain the support of thier Muslim subjects?
I think the only caveat to the knights relatively lighter armour is the shield, Modern history tv in a couple videos I’d be willing to find if you want has displayed the near complete coverage a triangular shield can give a rider with a couched lance, only the eyes and up and, depending on the size of the shield, an amount of leg, whilst charging I think most knights wouldn’t be an easy target, their horse would though
Western euro heavy cav around 1200 are very heavily armored. The combined weight of textile and maille worn by them is around 30kg (10kg for textile armors like the aketon and gambeson, 20kg for head to toe maille. Add the heater shield and a helmet and a great helm on top of that and you end up at around 35kg of protective gear. That's just as heavy or heavier than most lamellar wearing contemporary cavalries. But it seems there's less emphasis on horse barding in western euro heavy shock cavalry. Having a man clad from head to toe in maille riding on an completely unarmored horse was common. Where as in eastern cataphracts you'd often see partially armored riders on heavily clad horses. My guess is that western euro couched lancers heavily relied on the momentum of the charge and horse armor would slow them down too much. If you're charging home knee to knee horse armor matter little in the impact. It's the weight and momentum that do the work. So most of the heaviest knights would prolly only have textile barding. Complete maille barding was both very heavy, expensive and rare. Eastern cataphracs were heavy horse archers first, lancers second. Their extensive horse armor means they can engage in sustained mounted shoot outs with lighter horse archers.
@@majungasaurusaaaa yeah it does seem that Harding in Europe was restricted to allow for faster charges (and more without exhausting the horse) but I think during the crusades it did become kind of popular in Europe because crusaders had a greater need for it, fighting in much more open spaces against cataphracts, but my point with the armour thing was more talking about Western Asia where wearing lamellar over mail was the height of protection for like millennia and would probably be what the heaviest cavalry in the mongol army were wearing, both because of mongols using other peoples armour and other steppe people being forced to join the mongol ranks
Yes, every major battle that mongol win were due to theirs lancers than horse archers. Agaist nomad forced they did not have significant advantage with their horse archers. Khalka river is the best exeplare.
Every mongol heavy cavalry man is a horse archer first, lancer second. They didn't field dedicated shock lancers unless they had vassals/allied states like the georgians, armenians and crusader states providing them.
Sorry i disagree. Bow in battle cant penetrate armour to real distance. Yes, when you have time and shoting from 20 meters maybe 3 of 10 shots can penetrate. But when you shoting in battle chaos and rushing on your units mass of cavalery knights yours warriors can hurts some of these knights but majority of them crush your unit. In Holy wars in Palestine Arp Arslan complained that the Crusaders look like hedgehogs and still fight. In Mohy battle mongols must first kill horses then defeatet foot knights with lancers. ( Yes, i know that majority of Polish/Silesian army were peasant ) i speak about of elite of this army.
In future. I hope to do a few things of smaller scale before then. The Blacksmithing series and this heavy cavalry series were both quite a bit of work, and I want to do a handful of easier things to produce before I do another larger one.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Can I suggest you new video idea ? Goverments and economic system of Tribes/States in Conn İggulden's Conquerer series would be best for Wizard and Warriors channel. There are videos on Hobbits and Rohan culture so why not about Conn İggulden's worldbuilding ?
Kahn understood the gods of every region he conquered. He knew them, and declared himself the WRATH of GOD (Allah/Yahweh/Zeus/Odin). He SPECIFICALLY identified the gods of every area. He knew the gods of every area. AND YOU DO NOT SPEAK OF GODS. YOU do not even speak of Mongol gods. The gods rule. Kahn survived to a "reasonable" age vs Caesar or Alexander or Napoleon. HE understood the gods BETTER than those conquering generals. Kahn is my older brother. And HE is the only general I call KING (KAHN).
