Fascinating Video as always! Do you think you could do one on Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow; the last Crow-nation war chief, who brought his people’s way of war with him to the Western front of World War Two?
@ahappypikachu9753 he is on my list of folks I would like to do something with. In the meantime, if you are looking for something on him, check out episode 94 of History on Fire. It’s a podcast. Danelli Bolelli did a awesome job. He gives the history of the crow then tells the story of JMC
Love the idea of making a Comanche bow video. Heck yeah. That way I can get jonesed about yet another project to add to my already ridiculously large list. LOL. Yes please.
@@datesanddeadguysyep. Definitely get on it. I've been planning on a winter bow project for ten years now and it ain't happened yet. Maybe you can inspire me to get off my tail and do it this year.
One thing the Mongols excelled in is the resupply issue. The had plans in place where they could move a desired distance, often up to 100 miles and have an advance group already set the camp up with food and sanitary issues taken are of. They also drove their domestic animals on campaigns so their food issues weren't a disadvantage to a mobile force
Absolutely. When you get your supplies on the go there is no need for supply lines. It creates a logistical advantage other civilizations had to deal with.
@@datesanddeadguysRight no other settled society had this advantage and this meant that the mongols could conduct campaigns thousands of kilometers away for years on end. Where they went made no difference as the saddle was their home.
There's a book, Comanche Empire, by a Finnish professor. One of the side effects of nomadic culture is that if you kill a buffalo, deer, bear, or other large animal and don't share it, you are throwing it away, so it is not only moral to steal that excess before it goes bad, it is immoral to not steal it. Hoarding was the cardinal sin. Europeans had factories, mines, workshops, and the workers to run them and savings to build them, and stores and warehouses to distribute them. We are all familiar with this. When these two cultures met, they were utterly foreign to each other. The Comanches saw farms and ranches and stores as hoarding, and it was immoral to not steal what they needed. Then they'd come back the next day to trade the same stolen goods for horses or textiles or metal tools, and the Europeans could not understand this brazen attitude. I'm sure I've paraphrased this much too simply. It's a fantastic book.
It is just unreal how powerful they seemed to be. Although, when they left the steppe, a lot of that seemed to fade. When Kublai Khan started South and they found some trouble, especially in jungles. Go figure.
@@datesanddeadguysthe jungle is a major problem for ANYONE not from there. Look at Alexander when he got to inner India, sure he won the battles, but his troops started getting terrified of what they were walking into. Is the middle east part of the steppe??? No, and they crushed them with ease whenever they had a royal family general. Mamluks just got lucky Mongke didn't die 6 months later or Hulagu would have crushed them as well.
@herbthompson8937 it's always surprising to me that India has won any military action. Over a hundred years of competing in the Olympics, and they've only won 10 gold medals with two of those in individual sport. They have such a large population that purely by chance they should have won more, but they haven't. Are they statistically the weakest humans on the planet?
@@kday6340 the way they treat women in that sh!thole country, they might be the weakest men on the planet. As far as winning battles, I would say terrain, elephants and outnumbering by alot their opponents would be why they won some battles. Up until the Timurids, no one really was able to get to the interior of India. Imagine seeing a King Cobra or Tiger for the first time, hahahaha I'd be running in the opposite direction as well
I’ve often pondered this question. In my estimation I see the Mongols as a corporation. Organized to the nth degree, with leadership at every level trained to serve the corporation. Once assigned to a unit the leader and his men were going to see it through. The Comanche were not so structured, young warriors could opt out if they wanted and run their own operations, so unified cohesiveness was not their metier’. I believe Khan and his Mongols would have prevailed.
Mongol tribes were actually just as unorganised before Genghis Khan came along. He had to make tons of reforms to make them the absolute war machine we know today. He even had to decree that no looting was to take place before the enemy was defeated which shows just how highly organised the mongols became by the end of his life.
Oh without a doubt. The Mongols did not use stone age weapons like the Comanche and pretty much all native American tribes did. Now if the Comanche were given guns it would equal out more, but the Mongols would still win. Almost guaranteed.
The Mongols would have destroyed them. They had superior military tactics. The Comanche were mostly raiders and lacked the organization and structure to wage war. If the Comanche had the bow of the Mongols, that might have balanced out the armor the mongols wore. So the Mongols could outshoot them being able to take more hits with an arrow. I'd also add in the quality of who they conquered. The Mongols won against organized militaries and defeated many nations and types of armies, so they needed to adjust tactics to their enemy. The Comanche basically used their horse skills because they were the only ones who possessed them. The Mongols could match that taking their biggest advantage away. And if the Mongols took out their war leader, the rest would run off. The Mongols had a rank structure to assume command if one went down.
In many accounts the Comanche were said to be the finest and most deadly light Calvary on earth. Superb horsemen who were acclimated to horseback life, put in the saddle at 4 years old, more at home on a horse than their own feet. I admire few as much.
Cossacks would clear right? They were a blend of “Western” style combat and nomad. I mean Russia used them to beat and subjugate nomad factions like Mongols, Tartars, Turks and others that had millenniums of nomad warfare experience/ took and subjugated empires themselves. Comanches were relatively new to the nomad lifestyle with much less experience than the Steppe Tribes Cossacks beat
@@G0rdy92And when the Cossacks had dealt with the nomads, they became violent in their own country. My own great grandmother was a Russian Jew, and she told my dad how the Cossacks would ride through Jewish villages and horsewhip the men, violate the women, and burn down houses! Just For Fun. Because of this barbarous behavior, when I took my DNA test I found out I was part Russian. Hmmm. But Jews are Matrilineal, if the mother is Jewish , so is the child. In the end, the family slipped over the border into Poland and immigrated to America. Because they didn't want to suffer another Pogram. I guess highly trained cavalry needs something challenging to do or they go nuts.
Bro wtf are you talking about? you’re not an Indian you’re an American. if you’re an Indian and who the fruck am I. Learn some friggin geography you friggin dumb wits and stop confusing everyone
@@Endwankery I am from Brazil, my aunt was indigenous. But the thing is, I never got to even know her. The sad thing about our history here is, Its destroyed to a level, most people don't even know they are very close related to "indians". In some ways, Its was worse than the US 💔
I’m glad I have Jicarilla Apache, I love these types of videos where scenarios are made possible with great knowledge. One thing I do know is Apache tried not to travel at night and Comanche used it to their advantage. I think it would be fitting for the Sioux vs Mongols. Sioux had impressionable numbers like the Comanche, and were just as unified if not more so. The Sioux as children bred for battle, and played a game they basically named War where they would reenact and often get injured, and these were children counting coup for fun, wanting to get to the battlefield as soon as they could. Don’t get it twisted - Comanche had built a complex and vast network of manpower, trade, and communicable resource that was centrally controlled as well. The Comanche came down from Northern regions to follow the Buffalo. Coincidentally the newly eastern Sioux tribes moved out west towards the Black Hills and upper plains just a little before the Comanche exodus. Sioux and especially Lakota and Minneconjou warriors often were large and imposing figures, Chief Touch the Clouds was somewhere in the 6”5’ range and Lakota had average height of 6 feet or more. Contrasting as to where accounts of SW give Comanche stature of a short (termed possibly the shortest of known tribes) and often plush or chubby figure, less ideal of a foot soldier, and unlike Apache descriptions of SW accounts. In Sioux accounts they often name a worn down and skid-dish tribe I’m not familiar with, I’ve often wondered if it was Nūmūnūū. There’s a reason Comanche refer to the Sioux as cut throats.
Comanche were picked on by other tribes supposedly. The description here would also tie in that they were of smaller stature, hence their prowess on horseback, and fighting atop their mount. After gaining horses from the Spanish, whether directly or indirectly, they were feared by even the Apache. The Comanche along with German immigrants in the Texas Hill Country, honored a treaty between both parties 17:58 duringlatter part of 19th century. The Easter Fires in Fredericksburg, TX. Still honor this tradition. Also check out the Pacific War Muesem, interesting history of Admiral Nimitz and Japan at the end of WW2 and a tradition that is still honored by the Japanese to this day.
The Comanche have a super unique shooting style. Lars Anderson has made some videos on it. They shoot with the arrows on the opposite side of the bow that you would expect. They kept a clump of arrows in their bow hand and would reload over the string in on motion for rapid fire. They also didn’t draw as much as the plucked the string. I am going to look like a goof but I am excited about it.
I haven't even watched it yet, but dude... The Mongol Horde was the most destructive force, ever. As terrifying as the Comanches could have been... yeah. I'm not criticising, super hyped to watch the video, keep it up!!
So I would say the Comanches were nimbler on horseback, just on the fact that they wore less armor, had more manoeuvers and were so confident to boast their prowess in the face of battle. Still, Mongols were far superior in tactics, range, armor. Sounds like the Comanche would fall so easily for the Mongol bait in a pitch, like, in warfare they were no where near each other.
Now, I think the romans could be the ones to actually beat them, in the steppe. You would need resourses to tear up their plains and make trenches, ditches, pits, an army of balistas to give you cover and as many fortifications as you can get. The most resourceful army ever is the best pick for this.
@@Tonhaorealto say that the Comanche were more nimble on horseback just doesn’t really make much sense due to the fact that the nomadic tribes in the steppe in general just worse plain clothing and no armor
@@Tonhaorealhonestly the Roman’s really wouldn’t have because that just won’t make much sense. The Han Chinese were able to beat back the nomads by employing the same techniques of horseback archery but armored and armed to the teeth
Great content as always dude. I wish times were easier and I could contribute more, but I make sure to share your vids with friends n family in the meantime.
Comanche had power in numbers - trust me unlike the guerrilla Apache, there was no issue “locating” a Comanche number on the war path campaign or a large and intimidating camp. It was their haughty nature and aggression that made them marvelous. Spanish Governor of New Spain was so enamored by the Chief Querna Verde he immediately offered his support rather than try to subdue. It was like he became ingratiated by servitude to the Comanche, and this was a only a fractional portion of the western Comanche bands.
I enjoy the way you tell stories the very interesting and fascinating at the same time you keep the curiosity up keep up the great work you make a great storyteller
Great video! Interesting topic, would be cool to see a vid of you trying horse archery!! Also the Mamluk Turks were great at halting the expansion of the Mongols into the rest of the Middle East and Egypt, mostly because they too were horseman and had a large trained cavalry
The Mamluks got lucky, that's all. Their horse archers were a watered down version. Mongke died which forced Hulagu to return back to Mongolia with 80% of his army, leaving a bum general, Kitbuqa, behind. And once Hulagu came back to finish the job, Berke started the process of the Mongol Empire starting to splinter by allying with the Mamluks against Hulagu because he was butthurt Hulagu destroyed Baghdad. If Mongke died just 6 months later, the Mamluks would have been easily run over.
@@DavidAguilar-wo6ho sounds good! I'm a huge fan of most of the steppe armies. The Mongols really were so close to conquering from Pacific to Atlantic. A couple untimely deaths screwed them. But in the end, I blame 2 men, Berke and Kublai for the downfall of their empire. Berke allied with outsiders, the Mamluks to fight against Hulagu. Kublai became the Great Khan and just decided to allow everyone be semi independent instead of forcing his power on everyone.
In all seriousness though, even the fractious Roman civilization of the first century BCE would be the best choice to fight nomadic armies. Their mastery of logistics, adaptability, a massive pool of manpower, and an utterly insane drive to achieve victory would make them the best choice.
Another fantastic and interesting perspective between the two waring factions. I agree that the mongols had an advantage. Because of the sheer numbers, weapons and armor. But also there pure determination. Didn't they march Themselves and elephant's 🐘 over the Alps too fight? PS yes I would like to watch the production of your long bow 🏹. Thanks for all your insightful knowledge 🐎🏜️
The catheginians marched the elephants over the alps. It was an expedition led by Hannibal in the Punic wars. The mongols did fight war elephants though in India. They did not like it. They scared their horses
@@datesanddeadguys ok thanks, I stand corrected. I will have to do a better job at learning history. And that is why I watch your blog. Appreciate it. Thanks you very. much.
The idea of Roman legionnaires squaring off against Comanche horse 🐎 archers is intriguing. The Roman Gov/General Arrian wrote a tactical manual for fighting horse archers called the Allani, also keeping in mind that the Roman soldier was better equipped and trained than his US counterpart of the 1800’s where conscripts were known to desert their post. Romans were keen to take care of there own!
A hundred legionaries would be slaughtered on the great plains, but I don't think any mounted archers could conquer the Roman Empire in its prime. The environment is everything. The strength of Rome is the ability to put enormous numbers of fairly well trained people in the field and replace losses. Logistics wouldn't allow such a large army of infantry to operate on open grassland and a sedentary society doesn't have enough people with the requisite skills to fight effectively while mounted. That's why the Spencer Carbine was such a game changer.
The Cumanji (Cumans) got their butts kicked bad by the Mongols. Most were then drafted into the Mongol horde but many took refuge in Bulgaria, the Byzantine Empire and Hungary.
The Comanche earned their claim to fame differently than the Mongols. Doesn’t make sense to me to question who would win in a fight. They destroyed settlements and other tribes, while the mongols built an empire; simply because they both lived on horseback and were good archers isn’t enough similarities to pit them against one another.
I recently found your videos and have been bingeing them and fell asleep to your multi choater video on the apache. Would love to see a video on your comanche bow making it and shoot8ng it eventually
100 vs 100 would have been interesting . the gorilla tactics of the comanche would have negated some of the superior armor and bows of the mongols . fighting at night would also work to the comanches favor . they could have stolen horses cut off supply lines and made night raids . if they faced each other in daylight and lined up like the french and the british the mongols have the advantage because of the bows . but if they're mounted on the same horse the comanche are more mobile and faster . its a very interesting comparison .
I love the Mongolians but i think the show was more about a 1v1 as far as i know. I agree that if the two armies were to clash the mongols would win. But a 1v1 would be very interesting! You should delve into this more!
Very interesting comparison and good video. Ya, You can make the Bow video, and follow through later on of making of the arrows on the plains. Thanks for the video.
Would you consider doing a piece on what might have happened if the Comanche and the Lakota Sioux had met on the battlefield? I have often wondered who might have come out on top in a fight between these two great tribes of horsemen.
Additionally the armor waste horse down making it slower than what the Comanches would be dealing with making their flight faster than the Mongols could pursue
The fight would be a bit closer, this was due to the fact that the it was mainly mongol heavy troops who wore armor, the Mongolian war tactics mainly relied on speed and mobility, the standard mongol warrior wore little to no armor
Great show, I liked it. The idea of mounted horse archers goes way back. The Assyrians back to around 2200 BC. Yes they had their ups and downs like a third world stock market. And at their peak they had 3-4 armies with up to 250,000 men each.
Great episode, and I enjoyed the music you used too. One thing you didn't consider so much is the effect of home turf. The Comanche had such low numbers because they lived in a very arid place with a low carrying capacity for pre-modern people. But they could thrive in such a difficult environment. If you took 10k Mongols on horseback vs 10k Comanches on horseback, and have them fight in an environment like east Texas 1840, the results I think would be pretty close. Any force that held off the US military for decades would make for stiff competition.
My counter to this was that the carrying capacity was larger than the population due to the massive Buffalo herds. I have a hard time thinking a much larger force would have a hard time getting the food they need.
Do the bow! Would love to see the build and use details. Love these match up, compare contrast videos. Would like to see leadership and elite/special team comparisons like the kesikten & yassa emissaries vs. the lobos & big horses.
I'm shocked -- SHOCKED - at the thought of the History Channel getting something wrong! Please tell me this video was supposed to have been posted on April 1st. Otherwise, a great episode, as I'm sure you already knew.
You talking about very deadly poison effects on the bow and arrows! The Lakota sioux indian warriors actually put human shit at the end of the tips of the sharp patt of the arrow head. So it can very immediately throughout the blood stream faster of a painful death sentence of a poor unlucky human being. During the old west the fighting indian wars time period. My great inspiring wisdom for today. Have a great fabulous wonderful day.😀
The Lakota sioux indian arrow effects is also duing the veitnam war by the veit cong would use this on the hidden punche sticks effects during that conflict too, The human shit effect on very sharpe end of all deadly weapons of war! Have a great fabulous wonderful day.😀
Great video, glad i found your channel. Your take on the Comanche vs Mongol is interesting. Usually i would concur that armor changes the narrative in war. Armor is great against slashing weapons and hand to hand combat. So the numbers of Mongols if you take the Comanche off horseback I would give the victory to the Mongol. But piercing weapons vs armor not that advantageous. The Comanche are faster on horseback and more agile and even acrobatic on their horse fighting with less weight without the armor. The Mongol could shoot farther with accuracy and on horseback but still not as fast. I believe it was the Comanche warriors ability to speed shoot arrows that inspired the revolver to be created to win the "west". So shooting speed should be a consideration in your comparison. Ultimately with numbers and a close enough skilled mounted military the Mongols would win but not easily. I say the Comanche were more skilled on horseback and with a bow and arrow. And the reason why the Deadliest Warrior didn't factor in armor is because against the bow and arrow its pointless.
Cool video! But did no one attempt to develop armor as the mongols in the west before the rangers had colt revolvers? Cataphract or knightly armor would probably slow them down too much but how about some leather armor. I think that is the reason why mongols had such a powerful bow. On the other hand, maybe a fastmoving unarmoured Comanche trained from childhood to shoot insects would ride up close and aim for the gaps in such armor.
If you need some Osage orange for your bow I can get you some. We call it bodark here. You think it’s wood but it’s almost like cutting steel. It’ll turn your entire shop yellow 😂
Comparing the best of the best is always subjective when it comes to history. Like the best basketball players, Jordan or LeBron. Two different eras and even though they are both alive, LeBron is considerably younger and there is no way to compare them both in their prime. Now with a time machine we could compare people though out the ages, but alas we can't. I would say the Mongols just by shear numbers would win. But one on one who knows, all people are different and maybe one has a bad day or terrible luck. Still it's kinda fascinating to think through the possible scenarios and the outcome. Cool comparison. Thanks.
