The Last Crusade - Battle of Varna 1444 - Crusaders attempt to drive out the Ottomans from Europe 

❤

Another Ottoman video🤣 I'm sure there will still be many videos on your beloved Ottomans topic! Your Eurocentric approach never ceases to impress 😂 Only European affairs matter! Bravo👏

Numbers are wrong

Not 44 minutes , better upload 400 hours long video ! People doesn't have something else except of watching your videos !

There's a theory that the military victory of the ottoman Turks at Varna in 1444 AD had opened the way to conquer the Great City of Constantinople itself, Nine years later in 1453 AD !

No

Yes

Zawisza died long before battle of Varna was fought.

@@themosticonicscenesinmovie8737 That is one of the theories. That is why i called it a legend. There are debates whether the guy even existed. I just stated what i was always told.

Thanks for the fun facts. I would have never known about these if the kind commenters had not mentioned them.

@@thegraybeards2568 the internet entertains and teaches

​@@CrownHetman There's a theory that the military victory of the ottoman Turks at Varna in 1444 AD had opened the way to conquer the Great City of Constantinople itself, Nine years later in 1453 AD !

Do you criticize or like it ? 😂

@@lothric_k can you read?

Yes!

​@@paulbriot1404Yes, does it's his first mistake?

@@annuryilham5561What? 😂

​@@FuhqEwetwice at least

@@daarom3472 What?

Murad's seem to be the most competent group of Ottomans :D Murad I, Murad II, Murad IV all top elite

Yeah I can't believe I'm 42 and am just learning about these great men /leaders

@@nenenindonu we will all pretend Murad III never existed😂

@@alaa6532 It's said that he had 130 children, does this make him a competent Murad ? Idk

And I'm sure a great lover of children like his prophet.

Europa Universalis IV is definitely a great game, it only took me 100+hours too learn lol😂

@@jackshannen809 You need 1000 hours to learn basics :D

No dont talk about it because it wasnt the case. This video is pure BS. 1- There is always a scapegoat in history for any defeat. Usually the dead one since he cant talk for himself so he was conveniently chosen. We dont know whether Wladislaw was indeed carried away or it was a desperate last attempt to charge at Ottoman centre to turn the tide. What we know is the battle didnt ensue in ''3 phrases'' in the last of which sultan retreated into some fucking camp or he completely awaited his reserve army until the 40.000 strong army was defeated thorougly. 2- It is almost impossible to determine the numbers in this battle but even European accounts dont give these numbers. Those that give 60.000 for Ottomans give 30-40.000 for crusaders while those that give 20.000 for crusaders give 40.000 for Ottomans and these are the European accounts. 3- We have almost no idea regarding how the battle ensued. Appearently Wladislaw charged at the centre of Ottoman army at some point and couldnt make it. He was blamed for the defeat but we cannot know whether he was indeed responsible or was chosen as a scapegoat and the outcome was already clear at that point and he charged as a desperate attempt. It for certainly however didnt happen in 3 phrases. That is the biggest bullshit of this video. No account mentions that and it completely conflicts Ottoman doctrines or logic. Why the hell would Murad keep his elite 20.000 strong army by his side until the 40.000 strong Ottoman army is thoroughly defeated first. They didnt have that many kapikulu soldiers at the date and they would use them as reserve troops in all battles.

This was an extremely biased point of view of the defeated Europeans. That's not exactly how the actual battle went and nor was the numbers given on each side accurate.

@@matikhorasani3842 how so

For the algorithm!

Comment for QUALITY CONTENT!

Thomas napıyo hacı 🤣

so abducting children and force them to fight for you makes you a great soul? Interesting.

Adam resmen papanın bile oha çüş diyeceği kadar yanlı bir şekilde yapmış videoyu. Osmanlılar toplam 60.000 haçlılar 23.000'di. Haçlılar yine de yendiler ama ah işte Wladislaw toy çocuktu gaza geldi o yüzden kaybettik'e bağlamış resmen.

Oh yes I'll listen to Turkish historians and their institutionalized misinformation. Turkish Historians can't even admit they committed the Armenian genocide in the 1900s.

Hungarien propaganda 😂😂

I am pretty sure even if polish king didn’t do so the navy from Constantinople would have taken more than 2 days to embark on Verna till then it would have been hard to supply the army with food for army and horses plus an ottoman assault with a discovery of a flank on right between beach and wagons would have been charged

@@PedroRaccoonHQ If he didn't charge, he wouldn't have been killed, wouldn't have forced his knights to retreat, along many other men. Not only there would have been way more soldiers the next day ready to fight for the Ottomans, but morale would've been way higher, with the king alive.

o que vc ta fazendo aqui cara ???

@@itamarmoreira5161 amo história:D

This video is biased. The size of crusaders were much more than Ottomans cuz the ottoman anatolian contingents were blocked from entering balkans

Well, if only, right?

Yes. In any case, all European defeat depends on either cloudy weather or various misfortunes. It certainly cannot be a result of the Turks' successful implementation of their tactics and strength!!!

@@AnatolianHittite nobody here said that, on the contrary, to be fair the Genoese did help the Turks in that particular situation by ferrying their troops. It is reasonable to assume that things would have turned out very differently, had they not.

In a fight it will always comes down to who won the war

It also didn’t help that various groups like the Genoese betrayed Europe for the Ottomans. Ironic considering they themselves would later lose everything they had in the East to the Ottomans later on.

Thank you for this wonderful bit of extra information!

The catholic promises is meaningless. They are people without honor.

Eh… Idk, the Turks and Muslims in general broke promises as well. Neither side’s better than the other on that count. Though, screw Jizya and all of that other tyrannical stuff.

He would be avenged at belgrade by Hunyadi

محتوى جميل ❤

@@Iiiiiiiiiiiic123 Murder, plunder, rape and destruction.

​@@Iiiiiiiiiiiic123الحمدلله مش لوحدى اللى بتابع المحتوى ده

@@Mahmoud-dp7ox حبيبي ❤

@@Mahmoud-dp7ox وأنا مثلك

The first big Turkish defeats in the Balkans began during the reign of Murat II. Murat II was written as a fair and merciful ruler, but I do not think Murat 2 was very successful militarily. Moreover, the Crusaders lost the Battle of Varna only because of the imprudent attack of the young Hungarian King. I think that Mehmet the Conqueror's active personality emerged as a reaction to his father, Murat II. Murat II wasn't as powerful ruler as we thought.

Adam resmen papanın bile oha çüş diyeceği kadar yanlı bir şekilde yapmış videoyu. Osmanlılar toplam 60.000 haçlılar 23.000'di. Haçlılar yine de yendiler ama ah işte Wladislaw toy çocuktu gaza geldi o yüzden kaybettik'e bağlamış resmen.

@@Asterix958 Dont take this dumbass video seriously. The resources on the battle of Varna are very fucking scarce. This video exceeds even the Christian telling of how the battle took place in propaganda. There is no account that claims it was 60.000 vs 23.000 or the battle was in three stages and christians actually defeated the Ottoman army. Even the account regarding ''Christians were doing fine until Wladislaw charged and died'' is a subject of debate, we dont know if it was a feigned retreat by the Ottomans, a very typical tactic of Asian armies.

​@@Asterix958That king came from the Polish royal house and was never Hungarian! Obelix became wiser because he kept quiet! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Hungarien propaganda 😂😂

It was a mix of Manzikert's geopolitical consequences and the battlefield results of Keresztes in 1596. The Crusaders almost had a small victory in the course of the battle during this Crusade (depending on whether John Hunyadi was able to persuade the king not to chase after the Ottomans and reconsider their poor tactical position so that the Crusaders could preserve their remaining manpower and possibly leave the battlefield), but the position that the Polish King put them in ended any hopes of salvaging the campaign akin to Romanov IV's legacy for Byzantium. Władysław III's aggressiveness and his portion of the Crusader force also made the same wrong decision that Maximilian III of Austria made when his troops got too overconfident in attacking the Sultan's camp when the Ottoman leader was able to bring victory from the jaws of defeat. Christian monarchs have overestimated their Persian counterparts' military capacities and influence for centuries. Their biggest Achilles heel was maintaining cohesive military control over their armies when overconfidence & glory override any common sense of military awareness.

@@SolidAvenger1290 This depiction of the battle is too Eurocentric, sounds like you're licking your wounds

​@@Tyrach.Especially the part with "The Crusaders almost won the battle" no, no they didn't 😅

@@nenenindonu In truth, they had a few small victories against the Ottomans on the battlefield; however, to your tactical point, the Sultan still retained some fresh and best troops to guard the camp to where the opposing enemy of the Ottomans made a very tactical error. Which was very smart and akin to what other great sultans have done in history. The battle was already moot for the Christians in a compromised position as time progressed. Like at Manzikert, Keresaztes, and now Varna, all three Christian leaders (Byzantine Emperor Romanos IV', Maximilian, and Władysław III) greatly underestimated the capacities/tactics of their opposing army's troops, including the respect & more significant influence of their respected leader/Sultan to inspire the men to fight longer in battle. In all three scenarios from the onset, the Christians were more or less outnumbered yet saw glimpses of victory, but human hubris would turn its ugly head again as we would see both Romanovs IV & Władysław III for glory charge their troops into an trap that would see the whole decimation of their armies. Maximillian was lucky that his defeat at Keresaztes didn't reach the high levels of his contemporaries. However, the lack of control over others was the biggest Achilles heel for many Christian monarchs for centuries in many crusades. Note-HistoryMarche, based on flawed secondary sources, forgot a few critical details about Alparslan in their video about Manzikert months ago. They received comments stating that the battle was viewed from a Eurocentric POV, which I highly agree wasn't great overall. To conclude, I misspoke about the Crusaders "almost" winning. I was trying to present potential alternative observations had things gone differently. However, the Ottomans still had the upper hand in the overall position, given how compromised the Crusaders were at Varna. Had Władysław II not charged the Ottoman camp, and the Crusaders reconsidered their position after temporarily beating back the Sultan's army, the best option would have been to pull out and evade the Ottomans to fight another day.

@@nenenindonu, if it makes you feel better, I misspoke and have already corrected that. Note to Tyrach-That is a respectable viewpoint overall & I will respect that. To be honest, I didn't particularly appreciate either that HM made eurocentric errors or missed Persian facts on their Manzikert video about Alp Arslan seven months ago. Faulty secondary sources depicted the Persian side, which many called out in the comment section over time. The point was trying to make was that all three battles highlighted the tale of human hubris for Christendom's leaders when things were truly on the line, and the brilliance of Persian leaders is showcased to everyone on the battlefield. Like many Christian leaders, their Achilles heel was the coordination & control of their troops and their overconfidence in battle for personal glory.

oh wow

Hungarien propaganda 😂😂

You enjoyed diarrhea of a bigot christian that still feels butthurt over a 600 year old battle?

This is not how the events ensued, thats why it looks so stupid. Watch king and generals video on this battle. This channel made up a pure fantasy video.

​@@arda213 It doesnt matter, we couldnt know all truth, what's was ocurring in that day

​@@arda213funny how you're implying that Kings and Generals aren't making things up while you can clearly see that just by looking at their pro-ukrainian bias lol

Technically, Morrocco is not in Europe, as the tittle of the video was NOT the last crusade but the last crusade to drive the devils from Europe, not Africa.

@@davidp7178 i agree , this one was last crusade in europe yes .

@@davidp7178 *The roman empire included africa, if that is the foundation of european civilization, it's logical to forget this bullshit about africa and europe and understand that the map was more like "Catholics" and "Muslims", Europe was more like "Everything Catholic" than any concept of geography, since scandinavia or britain are not in the same region as, say, italy**

​@@GAarcherThis is true. There was no sense of unity based on the shared continent back then, that's more of a modern development. It was all about religion, and Europeans would routinely massacre each other over religion (northern crusades, thirty years war). Europeans of different ethnicities have never unified on the basis of race or geography, only culture and religion.

@@davidp7178 oh so we are the devils now huh ?

Thanks so much for your kind support! Much appreciated.

Alhamdulillah

Who told you that only Turk fight in the army of Ottomans

You are so right my friend, and on top of that, he says he is outnumbered and shows equal boxes, it's totally ugly 😁(eril)

@@user-ec8og2sl1wyes they simply cannot cope with their defeats

They have inferiority complexes towards the Turks. They are extremely brazen and out of touch with reality. There is no history in the West, there are made up fairy tales.

The 3 red squares were heavy european knights, covered from foot to head in metal armour, charging into lightly armoured and armed footmen. Knights were like medieval tanks, 100 knights could rout 1000 man easily.

@@syed1431 There are no fixed men in front of you. They did not stand a chance against the light, active and disciplined Turkish army. Tin men were defeated in all major wars.

I am glad other people have also noticed this. Anyone who knows about this battle, surely should be able to see that there are many question marks in there. Not only bias, but also because this channel wants to be different from other channels, so they feel that they must come with new things, at which point they are running the risk of making errors.

I have similar feelings, lots of details and gaps. After watching this only thing that I can think of is the list of references

he was also young and brave, such is the law of youth

The Ottomans are fighting at home, where they can call up large numbers of levies and garrison forces to bulk out their numbers, while the crusader forces to a large extent consist of volunteers who are motivated enough to journey across half the continent to participate (and have the means to be able to afford doing so), in an age where crusading as a movement was already on the wane anyway. Also note that the numbers given for these battles are stunningly, staggeringly unreliable. Taking the crusade of Nicopolis for example, a contemporary source says some 16000 crusaders and 200K Ottomans, while a contemporary Ottoman source says 60K Ottomans and 130K crusaders. Some of those numbers are clearly absurd and you'll notice the blatant bias that the side that is writing is claiming their side heroically faced down a gazillion foes.

Source: Trust Me, Bro 😅

​@@user-xj6sk8cx9cthe sources are literally in the description

Not a single Turkish source. History written by the enemy isn't much history...

Nikopolis had proved that already. They just couldn't see it at the time.

More like Europeans have excuses for every battle they lost.