You were facing an army consisting of longbows and heavy armor. And you didn't even deploy cavalry archers! Man, you should've been born in the Middle Ages.
reasons being Knights wore very heavy armour with a heavy sword making them slow, a samurai has a sword just as good and lighter and wears lighter armour, and overall the training is much better for Samurai's
@JoshuaStephenHutt Have you actully seen a knight's sword and armor (I mean a real one, not a fake movie one)? They are NOT heavy. We have instances of knights doing CARTWHEELS and other acrobatics in full armor before a battle and they were NOT tall tales. The swords only weighed 1 or 2 US pounds. The German greatsword (forgot it's real name) was only 5 pounds max! The training for Samurai was not better at combat, it was better recorded! Most European martial arts are now forgotten.
@1Celebrindor It wouldnt be easy for them to do cartwheels considering the armour on the region of the shoulder would restrict how high the can lift there arms to do such an act, also knights where noble men who spent quite some time training but the also did many other activities like hunting, meeting in court, getting drunk, looking after there estates and many other things, where as the samurai practically devoted there life to training everyday with there blade and to master the arts
@JoshuaStephenHutt actually no it wouldnt, the armour evolved after centuries of design to make them as useable as wearing cloth.
personally i would predict that it depends on the person inside after all even a samurai sword would have trouble cutting through steel chain and leather in one swipe and if the knight gets one hit in the sam is dead and remember knights use poleaxes not swords in england for instance
i realize why video game voices are so lame. I once had an audition for one, but another dip shit got the job. We were both a pair of losers to be sure, and to think..... if I had have gotten the job, the Germans in some first person shooter war game would have sounded even fucking stupider than they do today. Yiiiiiiiip!
@Gomer189 In fairness, you are watching a medieval battle twixt longbowmen and cavalry. It's not exactly a place that history buffs are going to avoid. Incidentally, the heavy plated battle knights will defeat the hordes, indeed.
@Floodlezoot You realize the average mongol bow was 160lbs if not more, *also the design of the bow storing more energy" i'm sure they could pierce plate. Theres a reason why they used recurve bows till the 1600s in Eastern Europe.
@DanMarik Actually, the Mongols had decent armor. They used good scale plating, of course not as good as Knights, but certainly powerful. Also, their arrows were very good at punching through anything. They massacred the Russian knights who had VERY heavy armor...
@DanMarik Actually, the Mongols had decent armor. They used good scale plating, of course not as good as Knights, but certainly powerful. Also, their arrows were very good at punching through anything. They massacred the Russian knights who had VERY heavy armor...
@Equaliser34 yea bro, all of Europe, well they almost did, if Tsubodai (spelling varies) hadn't been called back from his campaign after the death of Ogedai Khan (spelling varies again), the Mongols most likely would have conquered all of Europe, as they had been so dominant in previous encounters there were not any armies feasibly big enough to stop them...it is one of the biggest but least known turning points in history.
@spongewiggle51094 yeah, i dont disagree with that. its amazing how many turning points there arre in history, like if charlemange had lived a few more years he might have been able to unify the holy roman empire and the carolingian empire.
@spongewiggle51094 Doubtful. You are right that the Mongol army was larger and more powerful than any nation in europe could muster at the time but the Mongols could simply not control an area that large while still expanding. One is the fact that the European armies though mostly disorganized and factional were still well armored and disciplined the Mongols would be constantly taking casualties moving west. Eventually attrition would cut the Mongol numbers down. (continue in next post)
@micah9639 Also you should take into account rebellions. The mongols would have to control entirely different groups of people under different national flags and worshipping different religions. Some peoples would have been much too proud to be under the Mongol boot heel especially if there were not enough troops to enforce it. China is a prime example.Rebellions would force troops in the west to come east to defend their conquests. Other rebel groups would be the Catholic Church or Persians
@micah9639 Actually, historically speaking during the reigns of Ghengis and Ogedai, the Mongol's conquered lands gave them very little trouble, they were very merciful towards cities which surrendered to them unconditionally as soon as they arrived, and where they didn't the Mongols were merciless, not only that but conquered peoples were allowed to keep their religions and traditions, and were even ruled by the same governors in all places except China. Cont next post.
@spongewiggle51094 Mongols didn't worry themselves with keeping peace, they used the local rulers, fear and mercenary armies to do it for them. They threatened whoever was in charge, so peace was kept for them. Mongols were always out numbered but had startling results against the armor of the Hungarians and the Russians. Most organised European resistance was crushed during this time, and left Europe mostly defenseless. One more post after this
@spongewiggle51094 Not only this but Tsubodai, the Khans' leading general, never lost a battle during his lifetime, so with their innovative fighting style, governing style, and a genius leading the army there is little doubt that the Mongols would have conquered at least most of Europe. Maintaining it would be another matter though, as the Mongol system of lineage was primitive at best, and saw them slip into mediocrity after 4 or 5 generations.
@spongewiggle51094 Ya but they couldn't hold most of their land. Most of their land were tributary states that paid a sum to keep them from attacking them. Their is alot of doubt that they would have conquered most of Europe, They conquered the steppes because of their tactics with Horse archers however this bonus leaves them as soon as they leave the steppes. Cont....
@spongewiggle51094 The Hungarians and the Poles were the only Heavily armored foes that the mongols had to face and they didn't possess alot of armor. If they every got into the hill/forested lands of the germanic lands and against their Knights I doubt a Mongol would be able to outmaneuver them effectively. Cont....
@spongewiggle51094 Part 3. The only piercing weapons the mongols widely used were the tipped arrows and spears (not as common). A typical Germanic Knight had full Chain-mail, partially plated, and a shield. They already tested tipped arrows on Plated Armor and it pierced 1 1/2 inches at the most, you need a 2 1/2 inch pierce to damage major arteries, put chain-mail behind that and you got virtually no broken skin. A Shield forget would hold the arrow by itself. Cont...
@spongewiggle51094 Part 4 this is assuming every fielded mongol had tipped arrows. The Elite Milanese-Armored Germans would be walking tanks, Now that they lost their arrow advantage put them in melee combat. As both Germans and Mongols are both very deadly fighters the point would have to go the the one with more armor. Also because the Mongol only had the Talwar and Hammer-Nail, the Talwar has no Piercing value and the Hammer-Nail is very very heavy. Easily blocked. Cont...
@spongewiggle51094 Part 5. The Mongols were anything but merciful. Two polish cities that surrendered unconditionally were sacked, women raped, every other man killed and the Lord was paraded down the street, as a head on a pike. No the only way the Polish citizens escaped the wraith of the Mongols was to leave the town and hide in the forest. And on many occasion the survivors were forced to pay a ridiculously tax.
Actually the Mongols were cruel to the people who surrendered and were even more cruel to the people who didn't. For example the mayor and a couple families fled to the mountain near their village because they thought that the mongols would kill them even if they surrendered. They saw the mongols go in and when they were coming out they were drunk and carried a load of gold from the churches so the mayor shot the man who seemed to be the leader.Part 1
And a city which did not surrender at first sight was blocked off and they catapulted cows with deadly illnesses into the city and when they saw the guards die they just grabbed their battering rams went inside killed all the people who weren't dead stole the riches raped the women enslaved the surviving children stole the treasures of the city and then burned it to the ground. So if anything the mongols were cruel, ruthless, horrible, deceiving people. Part 2 of 2
That's why they slaughtered everyone in the cities.. they simply did not need to keep peace, because their own people moved to the conquered towns and occupied it after the Mongols had exterminated the native population.
@TheRoopeKonna Exterminated if the city in question did not put up resistence. Plus the fact that they slaughtered cities not whole populations. There are plenty of records of Mongols sparing many populations. Though complacent at the time of conquest they would eventually have risen up when they saw signs of weakness or complacency from their conquerors. The Mongol Empire was an empire forged entirely out of conquest. It was already dividing even while it was being built
What do they care if the city puts up a resistance xD they just exterminated them, they had weapons and the citizens didn't. Yeah empire forged out of conquest true, they are never bound to last long
not true, timurids, mongols, and the papal states are off limits. they don't start out in the 1080's like the other factions and the papal states don't have princes or kings, so they don't count due to inconsistancy.
"The specific origin of the Mongolic languages and associated tribes is unclear. Some researchers have proposed a link to languages like Tungusic and Turkic, which are often included alongside Mongolic in a hypothetical group called Altaic languages, but this grouping is controversial." Wikipedia o r g
Did u use low graphics or something cause the graphics seem to sucks. Oddly only my rome total war can be high graphics without lag, other total war games, especially napolean total war i need to put lowest graphics or it will lag like hell... mayeb thats cause i hav vista
@devons1ck Cant be that goddamned advance, seriously the lag makes the game unplayable even when i set the graphics to so low that my inf looks like stick figures.
I'm fed up with ppl who say Mongols related to Turks. They might be related each other only because all people on this world related each other. Plus historically Turkic people migrated from Mongolia were Mongoloid people. Today Turkish people are not real Turkish people. They're mixed with Europeans and Arabic people.
Man I cant believe u guys can be so arrogant and ignorant. Turks and mongols were together in the past against china. read the stories well or u shut up cuze u are making urself someone looking really weird and odd... or simply go check up turks in wikipedia and stop daydreaming...
After the fall of Liao Dynasty in 1125, the Mongols became a leading steppe tribe. However, their wars with the Jin Dynasty and Tatars weakened them severely. In the 13th century, it grew into an umbrella term for a large group of Mongolic and Turkic tribes united under the rule of Genghis Khan under a same identity (mostly cultural)
so basically speaking, u need to read some books not FHM magazines..
@nezihlevent2009 Don't act like you know Mongol History. Who told you that Mongols were weakened because of the wars with Tatars and Jin? That's a big lie. You should better to read some history books from different sources.
@gangadarits This guy is right like English Longbowman MY ASS! Like mongolian and huninc bows (composite) have 2x more strength then Yew Bows... And more acuraccy, cause they shoot from horseback witch is a lot more difficult!
@PompeusMagnus Dont let all the angry white people hear you say that lol. You are right though the mongol composite is stronger I dont know why people wont admit it.
@ralphyboy1 Lol... It's just pride... Like im Portuguese and one of the greatest battles that we won against Spain (Battle of Aljubarrota), where the English faught on our side with 500 Longbowman, though i don't understand why the english are so proud of the Longbowman since they where Welsh and not British... Though the Mongols where superior ... Like they had practicly the same power of a crossbow witch they could shoot 10 times faster then us...
@PompeusMagnus lol yah werent the welsh and normans at war for a long? Also were the european crossbows in the 1200s really as strong as a composite i mean they were tiny lol. They were very effective though considering you could hide behind a shield *forgot the name of it* and fire, also I believe crossbow teams came in 2 or 3 so one guy would reload and keep handing a fresh crossbow.
@ralphyboy1Dude like... I didn't say they had the same power i said practicly... The shield name is Pavise... And the shield is not a excuse, like Mongols would shoot at galloping speed, while you where "stuck" in meanings of mobility with a Pavise that was heavy and on stationary position... So Mongols - Individual skirmisher, faster reloader, manouverability and power... Crossbowman- Lots of power, needs more then one man, poor manouverability and slow reloading per capita...
@PompeusMagnus Yah I guess your right, Maybe if they set the Pavises in a phalanx lol jk. I read at the battle of mohi the hungarian/european forces inflicted heavy casaulties on the mongols with crossbows, but I think they were also crossing a long bridge. Im just wondering but do you know if crossbow men could also fight or were they mostly just squires and stuff?
@ralphyboy1 There was a few crossbow teams consisting of two shooters and one loader with about 4 crossbows between them. But later on they figured a quick and effective way for 1-man crossbowmen. They added a foot bar on the front of the crossbow to greatly decrease reload time.(I think it was either the France or Northern Italian States that developed this.
@DanMarik When was that invented I couldve sworn they had those foot step things for a long time loading a crossbow would be difficult if you didnt have one unless it was weak.
@ralphyboy1 Very early Crossbows were very ineffective and were twice as large. Look up Alexander the great's Gastraphetes. Which was shot from the belly.
@PompeusMagnus Welsh are British as of now. British is a collection of the people of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland(now only Northern Ireland) and the Isle of Mann. The Welsh did developed the longbow but the English perfected it in terms of quality and the men who used them. In medieval England it was by law that all twelve year old boys practice the Yew Longbow everyday until they came of age for atleast two hours a day.
@PompeusMagnus Also your mistaking the power and true nature of the crossbow. English-Welsh Longbow and the composite bow had roughly the same amount of power. The difference was that the longbow was easier to maintain than the composite bow and the composite bow was harder to draw. Same accuracy same distance. The crossbow was known for its ease. No training required. Longbow and Composite bow you had to train with for years to be effective with it.
@PompeusMagnus One last difference. The crossbow had shorter range but had a definite greater power. The crossbow bolts was known to puncture mail and partial plate, even some early shields. The composite had a much greater difficulty with partial plate-mail. It was extremely fortunate that western armor was hard to distribute and to make. Only Nobles and Knights qualified for them. The other poor suckers were stuck with that chain-mail. This is why the cross-bow is known as the Knight-Slayer.
@ralphyboy1 I do not know the exact power released. However with all bows, as soon as it is released the power greaty falls. At about 100 or 50 yards(i know thats a big difference but I cannot remember all the details) a Mongol or Hun Composite Bow my friend shot only embedded about three inches in his wooden target(it takes about two inches of penetration into the human chest to kill a man via heart).
@DanMarik I think horse archers shoot at pretty close range. Also ground archers, if you know about mongol shooting they purposely shoot high so the arrow will come downward to hit more weaker spots. I think theres videos here on youtube about it.
@ralphyboy1 Part 2 Sorry my pc crashed while making the second msg.
As I was saying lets say we have a typical French Knight wearing standard Milanese made armor (popular with nobles). A man of Knightly station usually has partial or full plate armor, a steel helmet, either a sergeants, or kite shield, chain-mail, and of course leather padding. Now we all know archers aimed for the belly of knights or the joints were the metal was weaker.
@ralphyboy1 Part 3, an arrow would be able to pierce the armor or at least make a dent, already the power of the shot has been reduced drastically, then if the arrow is lucky it will make it to the chain-mail and pierce it, now we are at the last defense the leather padding, from the majority of shots the arrows would've dented the armor. A bolt which was made for medium range combat was designed to pierce armor. Making the crossbow effective against heavy infantry.
@DanMarik I dont think you were you read I said most horseback archers would probably shoot from closer range than a ground archer. It is proven that recurve composite bows which had up to 200lbs of draw power can pierce plate, as well as chainmail and any other silly padded leather armor. I know what your thinking but only british longbows had that much draw weight no they did not, they also had shorter range. Theres tests on youtube.
@ralphyboy1 Part 4, Mongols were warfare genius's, once they conquered a people they would assimilate their combat, (Turkish Sword, Polish War-hammer Etc) However they nearly only fought in plains and all their enemies were very lightly armored. So for the area of where they were at they were very deadly. But lets put them in near the Swiss alps. They would've been torn apart. (Little horse advantage, and archers on the high-grounds)
@ralphyboy1 Last one I swear lmao. They tactic of raining their arrows is a basic tactic of distraction. They shot their arrows two ways at once (inforce) about 2/3 would shot straight at the enemy, 1/3 (aflame or not) would very straight up into the air, this was made to reduce the advantage of the shield.
@DanMarik Just saying most people on youtube think the english longbow is 10x stronger than a composite recruve. I understand most people let their racial prejudice affect their judgement.
@ralphyboy1 They aren't, the composite bow is much deadlier. However I do favor the Yew Longbow. I do have a video of an iron tipped arrow being shot at 20 yards away with 150 pds of force just barely penetrating the soft spot of a Milanese Plate. ( i may be wrong on some of the details its been awhile). Its from the show Weapons master. Its called Longbow vs Plate Armour.
@DanMarik Didnt the mongols invent an arrow that was made specifically for piercing armor such as chainmail, and plate? Did they invent bodkin arrows or was that someone else? They also had an arrow that looked really sharp and skinny which was perfect for chainmail I think.
@ralphyboy1 The bodkin point was an ancient designed created by the roman empire. Unfortunately these heavy arrows were inaccurate and had to be shot from half the distance.
@ralphyboy1 I got to look that up. I'm more about armor and swords but if you give me the time I may find it. Mongols were THE masters of war, if they fought the westerners in mountainous land they would most likely would have lost. But I would bet anything that they would've been back 10 years later with new tactics and may have dissolved many great western powers.
@DanMarik I read the mongols did have troubles in mountain areas like the balkans but they still won they just took heavier casualties, Even if they were in mountain areas, or areas where they cant use horses they still had stolen chinese weapons like bombs, poison gas, and maybe even cannons.
@ralphyboy1 The mongol empire lost on two western fronts. The Mamluks from the middle-east and Polish-Hungary from Eastern Europe. The Mamluks was actually the greater loss on the two fronts. So we can thank the Mamluk Dynasty for saving us from the mongol hordes. The Mongols quickly adapted the Turkish Naphtha grenades and the Chinese rocket. The rocket however was a waste of resources except of-course for the moral effect. It was the Mountain that conquered the Mongol.
@DanMarik Erm the mongols didnt loose on the eastern from they recalled back when the khan died. The only people who beat the mongols were the mamluks of egypt i dont consider them western one bit. Also those gernades were chinese im sure not turkish, those same gernades were used by chinese forces under the command of the khan to invade japan.
@ralphyboy1 Naphtha is a Turkish flammable substance. And to the Ilkanate the Mamluks Dynasty were westerners. They lost many men to Eastern Europe though they did defeat them. Not only do you need to have enough men to conquer, you also need enough men to defend those conquered lands.
@DanMarik Your spelling is confusing. Also like I said the mongols didnt use Naphtha they used something called gunpowder lol. Also I dont think they lost many men to Eastern Europe you should look these statistics up every one of their battle was a complete win except for battle of mohi which they won just took more casualties than other battles. The mongol kill to death ratio was probably 1 mongol for every 20 europeans/eastern europeans. Also they had plenty of men to hold Europe.
@ralphyboy1 How is my spelling confusing? I know the way I word myself may be off but I know they are correct. The mongols did lose less men but they didn't have the diplomatic ability or the man power to hold their territories. I hate to use wiki as a source.. but they do have a great map of the mongol empire, showing that they didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't conquer the Poles and Magyars. And you statistics is a little biased. It definitely wasn't 1:20.
@DanMarik Well if it wasnt 1:20 it mustve been 1:10 Look at battle of Legnica, the mongols took almost no casualties and that was only a scout force, they also had gunpowder, and poisonous gas weapons. Also the mongols always recruited from other cvilizations like tatars, tuvarians, russians, and plenty of places outside of central asia. The entire polish/eastern europe army was decimated they had almost no men left.
@ralphyboy1 The ratio of the Polish-Hungarian campaign was 1:6. They always outnumbered their enemy for the mongols ( which gained my respect) sent spies into Europe 15 years prior to learn everything they can (Diplomatically, Strength, Weaknesses, and for their map). The Polish army was decimated yes but the mongol couldn't hold the lands and just made Poland a tributary state, The Hungarians also became a tributary state but they still had a decent sized army left over.
@ralphyboy1 One more thing you need to know. The mongols didn't attack everyone. They attacked the diplomatically outcasted, those who would be left on their own to face a giant empire. This is why they never even considered entering German lands.
@ralphyboy1 No help from France except the men in the Knight Hospitaller and Templar. Both orders together produced 500 men of different nationalities they also had help from two minor german states (the HRE was not one faction). Also another point to put is that when the Bohemian army of 50,000 was two days away from assisting Henry II the Pious (who died in battle) the mongols pulled out of Poland. I found the strengths. Poland 25,000, Mongol 10,000, German States and Knightly Orders 5000.
@DanMarik Hm everyone knows the mongol scout force had atleast 20k men. Also Poland was being supported by the rest of christiandom, and the pope. Just because they didnt have spare men to send didn't mean they were left by themselves.
@ralphyboy1 Ok i had to do a bit online searching to find it and unfortunately the only site that was similar to my book was wiki. The mongols invaded Poland with one "Tumen" (10,000 strong army) (to distract the north-eastern Europeans from Hungary)(The Ilkhanate invaded Hungary with two Tumens Poland had help from Bavaria and Hapsburg in the Holy Roman Empire and 500 knights from military orders.
@ralphyboy1 Also they were getting support of 50,000 men of Bohemia but the mongols retreated from Poland. When the Bohemians decided to assist Hungary against the 2 Tumens and the remaining Tumen (from Poland), Hungary surrendered and the mongols only got the Hungarian controlled Cumans. The mongols were great warriors but they were not as great as many people make them to be.( Same thing thats going on with the Spartans)
@DanMarik Im by no means overassagerating the mongols, but you keep forgetting how many battles won and the death ratio, they also had gunpowder, and more advanced weapons. Im sure of the bohemians fought on the same battlefield they would have lost too unless they had intel on the last battle.
@ralphyboy1 No, The Bohemian were much better armoured than the polish whom wore leather with shields and the occasional chainmail. The 500 Order Knights who fought all over Poland only lost 30-40 men of their ranks. The firearm did exist however it was to few to make a difference. The mongols didn't have more advance weapons they just knew how to use them. In-fact in terms of military tech the mongols were a couple decades behind.
i don't know what the fuck is wrong here but i recommend you all shut the hell up and try commenting the vid and not watever the fuck is on your shity mind!
hmmm would be very short, depends when you consider it starts but it's around 1850, to 1918? It would look a lot like Empire you know? Apart from some mechanized units that would be added
You were facing an army consisting of longbows and heavy armor. And you didn't even deploy cavalry archers! Man, you should've been born in the Middle Ages.
historian246 3 months ago
@historian246 well he didnt know what army his opponent would have...
Jwk1706 2 months ago
NO COMMENTARY AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrJonathan82001 4 months ago
In real life i would hope England would win !
xprinceofspainx 4 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de PrinceofMacedon
i love chasing the men that flee in battles
mrelmokills 5 months ago
Why are you not commenting?
snickerz395 6 months ago
did you ever lose?
KFY133 6 months ago
@KFY133 he has lost look up Russia Vs Portugal I think it's battle 23
Im12AndWhatIsDis 6 months ago
You could beat anybody with your TW skills! you are so good at this game!!!l
jrnoss 7 months ago
@jrnoss He lost to his friend luke in his Russia vs Portugal vid dude look it up
Im12AndWhatIsDis 6 months ago
how do you record the battle videos off your computer? Please respond!!!!
WhoisEman 8 months ago
@WhoisEman
he uses a program called FRAPS. you activate it while you're playing and it will record your game.
icexiangwu 7 months ago
make more videos!
extrememark13 9 months ago
@xFoxxY1995 Samurai would win hands down,
reasons being Knights wore very heavy armour with a heavy sword making them slow, a samurai has a sword just as good and lighter and wears lighter armour, and overall the training is much better for Samurai's
JoshuaStephenHutt 10 months ago
@JoshuaStephenHutt Have you actully seen a knight's sword and armor (I mean a real one, not a fake movie one)? They are NOT heavy. We have instances of knights doing CARTWHEELS and other acrobatics in full armor before a battle and they were NOT tall tales. The swords only weighed 1 or 2 US pounds. The German greatsword (forgot it's real name) was only 5 pounds max! The training for Samurai was not better at combat, it was better recorded! Most European martial arts are now forgotten.
1Celebrindor 10 months ago
@1Celebrindor It wouldnt be easy for them to do cartwheels considering the armour on the region of the shoulder would restrict how high the can lift there arms to do such an act, also knights where noble men who spent quite some time training but the also did many other activities like hunting, meeting in court, getting drunk, looking after there estates and many other things, where as the samurai practically devoted there life to training everyday with there blade and to master the arts
JoshuaStephenHutt 10 months ago
@JoshuaStephenHutt actually no it wouldnt, the armour evolved after centuries of design to make them as useable as wearing cloth.
personally i would predict that it depends on the person inside after all even a samurai sword would have trouble cutting through steel chain and leather in one swipe and if the knight gets one hit in the sam is dead and remember knights use poleaxes not swords in england for instance
jwinlesta 8 months ago
@jwinlesta fucking knowitall
jimmy425109 8 months ago
i belive you misspelled now
SgtPepper135539 10 months ago
MAKE SOME SHOGUN 2 VIDEOS NAAAOOOO
Trampden 10 months ago
@Trampden shogun 2 total war is extremely boring
PirateZnBrigandZ 9 months ago
@PirateZnBrigandZ i agree it is boring
warriorofkurdistan 9 months ago
@warriorofkurdistan :P all the units are the same except different colors, its like empire: total war with better graphics
PirateZnBrigandZ 9 months ago
@PirateZnBrigandZ worse than empire coz it has very small map but the only thing good in it is archers they made them much better
warriorofkurdistan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PirateZnBrigandZ worse than empire coz it has very small map but the only thing good in it is archers they made them much better
warriorofkurdistan 9 months ago
i realize why video game voices are so lame. I once had an audition for one, but another dip shit got the job. We were both a pair of losers to be sure, and to think..... if I had have gotten the job, the Germans in some first person shooter war game would have sounded even fucking stupider than they do today. Yiiiiiiiip!
Floodlezoot 11 months ago
is this like history class or something?
Gomer189 1 year ago
@Gomer189 In fairness, you are watching a medieval battle twixt longbowmen and cavalry. It's not exactly a place that history buffs are going to avoid. Incidentally, the heavy plated battle knights will defeat the hordes, indeed.
Floodlezoot 11 months ago
@Floodlezoot You realize the average mongol bow was 160lbs if not more, *also the design of the bow storing more energy" i'm sure they could pierce plate. Theres a reason why they used recurve bows till the 1600s in Eastern Europe.
RalphyGreene 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DanMarik Actually, the Mongols had decent armor. They used good scale plating, of course not as good as Knights, but certainly powerful. Also, their arrows were very good at punching through anything. They massacred the Russian knights who had VERY heavy armor...
icedragon2225 1 year ago
@DanMarik Actually, the Mongols had decent armor. They used good scale plating, of course not as good as Knights, but certainly powerful. Also, their arrows were very good at punching through anything. They massacred the Russian knights who had VERY heavy armor...
icedragon2225 1 year ago 3
Mongols were the best. Ever.
icedragon2225 1 year ago
At 4:29 it makes a perfect S
haydnr01 1 year ago
U no the Mongols would have bytchred those English mongolians did not use heavy eyrupean armor that's y they slaughtered all of Europe.
cslewis623 1 year ago
All of Europe? Parts of Eastern Europe yes but they didn't "slaughter" the whole lot of Europe.
Equaliser34 1 year ago
All of Europe? Parts of Eastern Europe yes but they didn't "slaughter" the whole of Europe.
Equaliser34 1 year ago
@Equaliser34 yea bro, all of Europe, well they almost did, if Tsubodai (spelling varies) hadn't been called back from his campaign after the death of Ogedai Khan (spelling varies again), the Mongols most likely would have conquered all of Europe, as they had been so dominant in previous encounters there were not any armies feasibly big enough to stop them...it is one of the biggest but least known turning points in history.
spongewiggle51094 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 yeah, i dont disagree with that. its amazing how many turning points there arre in history, like if charlemange had lived a few more years he might have been able to unify the holy roman empire and the carolingian empire.
Equaliser34 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 Doubtful. You are right that the Mongol army was larger and more powerful than any nation in europe could muster at the time but the Mongols could simply not control an area that large while still expanding. One is the fact that the European armies though mostly disorganized and factional were still well armored and disciplined the Mongols would be constantly taking casualties moving west. Eventually attrition would cut the Mongol numbers down. (continue in next post)
micah9639 1 year ago
@micah9639 Also you should take into account rebellions. The mongols would have to control entirely different groups of people under different national flags and worshipping different religions. Some peoples would have been much too proud to be under the Mongol boot heel especially if there were not enough troops to enforce it. China is a prime example.Rebellions would force troops in the west to come east to defend their conquests. Other rebel groups would be the Catholic Church or Persians
micah9639 1 year ago
@micah9639 Actually, historically speaking during the reigns of Ghengis and Ogedai, the Mongol's conquered lands gave them very little trouble, they were very merciful towards cities which surrendered to them unconditionally as soon as they arrived, and where they didn't the Mongols were merciless, not only that but conquered peoples were allowed to keep their religions and traditions, and were even ruled by the same governors in all places except China. Cont next post.
spongewiggle51094 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 Mongols didn't worry themselves with keeping peace, they used the local rulers, fear and mercenary armies to do it for them. They threatened whoever was in charge, so peace was kept for them. Mongols were always out numbered but had startling results against the armor of the Hungarians and the Russians. Most organised European resistance was crushed during this time, and left Europe mostly defenseless. One more post after this
spongewiggle51094 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 Not only this but Tsubodai, the Khans' leading general, never lost a battle during his lifetime, so with their innovative fighting style, governing style, and a genius leading the army there is little doubt that the Mongols would have conquered at least most of Europe. Maintaining it would be another matter though, as the Mongol system of lineage was primitive at best, and saw them slip into mediocrity after 4 or 5 generations.
spongewiggle51094 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 Ya but they couldn't hold most of their land. Most of their land were tributary states that paid a sum to keep them from attacking them. Their is alot of doubt that they would have conquered most of Europe, They conquered the steppes because of their tactics with Horse archers however this bonus leaves them as soon as they leave the steppes. Cont....
DanMarik 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 The Hungarians and the Poles were the only Heavily armored foes that the mongols had to face and they didn't possess alot of armor. If they every got into the hill/forested lands of the germanic lands and against their Knights I doubt a Mongol would be able to outmaneuver them effectively. Cont....
DanMarik 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 Part 3. The only piercing weapons the mongols widely used were the tipped arrows and spears (not as common). A typical Germanic Knight had full Chain-mail, partially plated, and a shield. They already tested tipped arrows on Plated Armor and it pierced 1 1/2 inches at the most, you need a 2 1/2 inch pierce to damage major arteries, put chain-mail behind that and you got virtually no broken skin. A Shield forget would hold the arrow by itself. Cont...
DanMarik 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 Part 4 this is assuming every fielded mongol had tipped arrows. The Elite Milanese-Armored Germans would be walking tanks, Now that they lost their arrow advantage put them in melee combat. As both Germans and Mongols are both very deadly fighters the point would have to go the the one with more armor. Also because the Mongol only had the Talwar and Hammer-Nail, the Talwar has no Piercing value and the Hammer-Nail is very very heavy. Easily blocked. Cont...
DanMarik 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094 Part 5. The Mongols were anything but merciful. Two polish cities that surrendered unconditionally were sacked, women raped, every other man killed and the Lord was paraded down the street, as a head on a pike. No the only way the Polish citizens escaped the wraith of the Mongols was to leave the town and hide in the forest. And on many occasion the survivors were forced to pay a ridiculously tax.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@spongewiggle51094
Actually the Mongols were cruel to the people who surrendered and were even more cruel to the people who didn't. For example the mayor and a couple families fled to the mountain near their village because they thought that the mongols would kill them even if they surrendered. They saw the mongols go in and when they were coming out they were drunk and carried a load of gold from the churches so the mayor shot the man who seemed to be the leader.Part 1
HeavyMetalorRockfan9 11 months ago
@spongewiggle51094
And a city which did not surrender at first sight was blocked off and they catapulted cows with deadly illnesses into the city and when they saw the guards die they just grabbed their battering rams went inside killed all the people who weren't dead stole the riches raped the women enslaved the surviving children stole the treasures of the city and then burned it to the ground. So if anything the mongols were cruel, ruthless, horrible, deceiving people. Part 2 of 2
HeavyMetalorRockfan9 11 months ago
@HeavyMetalorRockfan9 man, so the mongols did the exact same thing as EVERYONE else who pillaged?
id say dont hate them, but what they did was horrible, just like the rest of the world, who could muster a big enough army.
mattezh92 11 months ago
@micah9639
That's why they slaughtered everyone in the cities.. they simply did not need to keep peace, because their own people moved to the conquered towns and occupied it after the Mongols had exterminated the native population.
TheRoopeKonna 1 year ago
@TheRoopeKonna Exterminated if the city in question did not put up resistence. Plus the fact that they slaughtered cities not whole populations. There are plenty of records of Mongols sparing many populations. Though complacent at the time of conquest they would eventually have risen up when they saw signs of weakness or complacency from their conquerors. The Mongol Empire was an empire forged entirely out of conquest. It was already dividing even while it was being built
micah9639 1 year ago
@micah9639
What do they care if the city puts up a resistance xD they just exterminated them, they had weapons and the citizens didn't. Yeah empire forged out of conquest true, they are never bound to last long
TheRoopeKonna 1 year ago
i see this is not the stronger mongol's units than your fighing againest
MultiStendhal 1 year ago
best archers faction in the world fighting ? :D
cjandgunner35 1 year ago 27
@cjandgunner35 the archers from Crete are the best but aarent in medieval
Elendil395 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cjandgunner35 Sicilian Moslem Archers can kill them all :D
Primaszwari 1 week ago
Respect to the mongols and their short long-lived empire that broke up faster than it formed.
DanMarik 1 year ago
I have always watched you and I liked it when when you talked
jakthemak 1 year ago
Wow... he must have a bad defencive mind to be flanked that easily.
ForksForMe27 1 year ago
since when do mongols speak english? xD or greeks? or egyptians? or incans? xD and all other....
BGMafiaDMX 1 year ago
I cant believe that i saw english archers killing mongol horsemen... Bah! Thats b..s...
danielf17 1 year ago
@danielf17 how is that b.s.? an arrow kills anyone it hits; if hit in the right place; they aren't immune to arrows
markusthefarkus 1 year ago
The greatest horselords in history, Comanche Nation, Mongols and Huns
lion3p0 1 year ago
nice 1
Pitzfirez 1 year ago
Can you play as the mongols on campaign in medieval 2? It was really disappointing in RTW when you couldn't play the campaign with the scythians.
kaelim888 1 year ago
@kaelim888 u can play as anyone after you beat the game
254core 1 year ago
@254core
not true, timurids, mongols, and the papal states are off limits. they don't start out in the 1080's like the other factions and the papal states don't have princes or kings, so they don't count due to inconsistancy.
zexion4real 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The specific origin of the Mongolic languages and associated tribes is unclear. Some researchers have proposed a link to languages like Tungusic and Turkic, which are often included alongside Mongolic in a hypothetical group called Altaic languages, but this grouping is controversial." Wikipedia o r g
reference it or shut it will u?
nezihlevent2009 1 year ago
Interesting battle that never happened.
Nimnoms 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VERY tight battle, man. it could've gone either way, but you pulled through!
Metalbrain89 1 year ago
VERY tight battle, man. it could've gone either way, but you pulled through!
Metalbrain89 1 year ago
Did u use low graphics or something cause the graphics seem to sucks. Oddly only my rome total war can be high graphics without lag, other total war games, especially napolean total war i need to put lowest graphics or it will lag like hell... mayeb thats cause i hav vista
menpower1 1 year ago
@menpower1 No, thats because Napoleon Total War runs on more advanced graphic..I mean how stupid can you be?
devons1ck 1 year ago
@devons1ck Cant be that goddamned advance, seriously the lag makes the game unplayable even when i set the graphics to so low that my inf looks like stick figures.
menpower1 1 year ago
I'm fed up with ppl who say Mongols related to Turks. They might be related each other only because all people on this world related each other. Plus historically Turkic people migrated from Mongolia were Mongoloid people. Today Turkish people are not real Turkish people. They're mixed with Europeans and Arabic people.
nonioko 1 year ago
@nonioko You didn't make any sense.
You're fed up with people saying they're related, but than you say how they are...
cooliodmg 1 year ago
@cooliodmg How about if comment on the everything related Russia as Mongolian? Does it make sense to you?
nonioko 1 year ago
@nonioko I just don't understand what you're trying to say...
cooliodmg 1 year ago
where is the commentary prince??
the commentarys make battles much easier to follow
PatriotGabe 1 year ago
remember it is really hard to remember all battles he has maked, all people need a brake you now:)
torfason2 1 year ago
I wish you put commentary.... but still, good game
Jakub2610 1 year ago
u are really smart prince of macedon .
aszkanfederation28 1 year ago
looks fun^^
darsus19 1 year ago
Which faction is the best cuz io like Mongoly cuz they have the best horses and there commander of the horses is Gengiz Khan..
MWdemon 1 year ago
novrogood dvor ha for the winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
bringerofrest 1 year ago
Some of Turks were Mongol descent but not 100% like European people they come from Jewish,Danish,English descent it is that simple .
The Mongols invaded turkey in the 12th century and many of them reverted to Islam and practice the middle eastern tradition like Kublai Khan
aszkanfederation28 2 years ago
mongols were turkish and not turks mongol
in the game its the golden horde and they were from the kipcak group so they are turkish !!!!!
milliyetgee 2 years ago
Why didn't he talk? O well and "Turks" is the short form for the "Turkish" people not potatoe chips!
DawnofRTS 2 years ago
Turks? what is that? some kind of potato chip?
GizmoMofo7 2 years ago
Jesus can all you turks shut the fuck up
These are mongols from ASIA, you know, Mongolia, the country above China
Ericthefilo 2 years ago
@Ericthefilo
Man I cant believe u guys can be so arrogant and ignorant. Turks and mongols were together in the past against china. read the stories well or u shut up cuze u are making urself someone looking really weird and odd... or simply go check up turks in wikipedia and stop daydreaming...
nezihlevent2009 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
mongols are turks.
same the hun turks :D
metinozbas 2 years ago
@metinozbas are u stupid ? Mongols are not Turks .. I know it is hard for u to underestand but they're not
Roebuckify 2 years ago
these are mongols not turks
XristosQ1 2 years ago 23
@XristosQ1
After the fall of Liao Dynasty in 1125, the Mongols became a leading steppe tribe. However, their wars with the Jin Dynasty and Tatars weakened them severely. In the 13th century, it grew into an umbrella term for a large group of Mongolic and Turkic tribes united under the rule of Genghis Khan under a same identity (mostly cultural)
so basically speaking, u need to read some books not FHM magazines..
nezihlevent2009 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nezihlevent2009
wikipedia . o r g
nezihlevent2009 1 year ago
@nezihlevent2009 Don't act like you know Mongol History. Who told you that Mongols were weakened because of the wars with Tatars and Jin? That's a big lie. You should better to read some history books from different sources.
MongolPeace 1 year ago
@XristosQ1 you can tell because there eyes xD
powersmalik 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"TURKS ARE SUPERPOWER!"
And we'll stop right there. As it's completley wrong :P
Anyway, nice battle :D
PappaRykov 2 years ago
Mongols are better horse rider and archer than the most countries of the world!
gangadarits 2 years ago 18
@gangadarits perhaps, but look where they are now
midgiemelendez 1 year ago
@gangadarits
What did you say?
We Hungarians have the same horse rider and archer skills.
We Hungariasn are descedants of Attila the Hun.
MiracleKD18 1 year ago
@MiracleKD18
Not of atilla the hun,
Of the Magyars, a tribe from the Ural Area
Guitarvirtuoso666 1 year ago
@MiracleKD18 Atilla the hun was turkish Hungarians are slavic
ultranety 1 year ago
@ultranety
Stupid. Hungarians are NOT slavic. Most people think we are finno.ugric, but I disagree.
Hungarians are turks, too.
MiracleKD18 1 year ago
@MiracleKD18 most hungarians have forgotten there finno ugric origins and btw how are they turk plz explain.
ultranety 1 year ago
@ultranety
How are they turks? Hungarian language is very smilar to Turish, escapaly Old, early-Medieval Hungarian (in the 11th century).
Also. Let's compare the Huns and the Hungarians:
Both of them were warlike nomads. Both of them realy liked horses, bows and swords. Both of them invaded Europe.
But the Hungarians were more effective: the Huns perished after Attila's death, while the Hungarians stayed in Europe.
MiracleKD18 1 year ago
@gangadarits Yeah well, id love to see those powerfull mongolian archers attacking a M1A1 Abrahams
pedarikarhu 1 year ago
@pedarikarhu You can't compare those two. That's like fighting a swordsman with paper
wolfe336 1 year ago
@wolfe336 Well no shit?
pedarikarhu 1 year ago
@gangadarits This guy is right like English Longbowman MY ASS! Like mongolian and huninc bows (composite) have 2x more strength then Yew Bows... And more acuraccy, cause they shoot from horseback witch is a lot more difficult!
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus Dont let all the angry white people hear you say that lol. You are right though the mongol composite is stronger I dont know why people wont admit it.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Lol... It's just pride... Like im Portuguese and one of the greatest battles that we won against Spain (Battle of Aljubarrota), where the English faught on our side with 500 Longbowman, though i don't understand why the english are so proud of the Longbowman since they where Welsh and not British... Though the Mongols where superior ... Like they had practicly the same power of a crossbow witch they could shoot 10 times faster then us...
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus lol yah werent the welsh and normans at war for a long? Also were the european crossbows in the 1200s really as strong as a composite i mean they were tiny lol. They were very effective though considering you could hide behind a shield *forgot the name of it* and fire, also I believe crossbow teams came in 2 or 3 so one guy would reload and keep handing a fresh crossbow.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1Dude like... I didn't say they had the same power i said practicly... The shield name is Pavise... And the shield is not a excuse, like Mongols would shoot at galloping speed, while you where "stuck" in meanings of mobility with a Pavise that was heavy and on stationary position... So Mongols - Individual skirmisher, faster reloader, manouverability and power... Crossbowman- Lots of power, needs more then one man, poor manouverability and slow reloading per capita...
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus Yah I guess your right, Maybe if they set the Pavises in a phalanx lol jk. I read at the battle of mohi the hungarian/european forces inflicted heavy casaulties on the mongols with crossbows, but I think they were also crossing a long bridge. Im just wondering but do you know if crossbow men could also fight or were they mostly just squires and stuff?
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 There was a few crossbow teams consisting of two shooters and one loader with about 4 crossbows between them. But later on they figured a quick and effective way for 1-man crossbowmen. They added a foot bar on the front of the crossbow to greatly decrease reload time.(I think it was either the France or Northern Italian States that developed this.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik When was that invented I couldve sworn they had those foot step things for a long time loading a crossbow would be difficult if you didnt have one unless it was weak.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Very early Crossbows were very ineffective and were twice as large. Look up Alexander the great's Gastraphetes. Which was shot from the belly.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus Welsh are British as of now. British is a collection of the people of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland(now only Northern Ireland) and the Isle of Mann. The Welsh did developed the longbow but the English perfected it in terms of quality and the men who used them. In medieval England it was by law that all twelve year old boys practice the Yew Longbow everyday until they came of age for atleast two hours a day.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus Also your mistaking the power and true nature of the crossbow. English-Welsh Longbow and the composite bow had roughly the same amount of power. The difference was that the longbow was easier to maintain than the composite bow and the composite bow was harder to draw. Same accuracy same distance. The crossbow was known for its ease. No training required. Longbow and Composite bow you had to train with for years to be effective with it.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus One last difference. The crossbow had shorter range but had a definite greater power. The crossbow bolts was known to puncture mail and partial plate, even some early shields. The composite had a much greater difficulty with partial plate-mail. It was extremely fortunate that western armor was hard to distribute and to make. Only Nobles and Knights qualified for them. The other poor suckers were stuck with that chain-mail. This is why the cross-bow is known as the Knight-Slayer.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Im pretty sure a composite bow with the average 150lb draw can pierce plate easily from the 1200s lol.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 I do not know the exact power released. However with all bows, as soon as it is released the power greaty falls. At about 100 or 50 yards(i know thats a big difference but I cannot remember all the details) a Mongol or Hun Composite Bow my friend shot only embedded about three inches in his wooden target(it takes about two inches of penetration into the human chest to kill a man via heart).
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik I think horse archers shoot at pretty close range. Also ground archers, if you know about mongol shooting they purposely shoot high so the arrow will come downward to hit more weaker spots. I think theres videos here on youtube about it.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Part 2 Sorry my pc crashed while making the second msg.
As I was saying lets say we have a typical French Knight wearing standard Milanese made armor (popular with nobles). A man of Knightly station usually has partial or full plate armor, a steel helmet, either a sergeants, or kite shield, chain-mail, and of course leather padding. Now we all know archers aimed for the belly of knights or the joints were the metal was weaker.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Part 3, an arrow would be able to pierce the armor or at least make a dent, already the power of the shot has been reduced drastically, then if the arrow is lucky it will make it to the chain-mail and pierce it, now we are at the last defense the leather padding, from the majority of shots the arrows would've dented the armor. A bolt which was made for medium range combat was designed to pierce armor. Making the crossbow effective against heavy infantry.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik I dont think you were you read I said most horseback archers would probably shoot from closer range than a ground archer. It is proven that recurve composite bows which had up to 200lbs of draw power can pierce plate, as well as chainmail and any other silly padded leather armor. I know what your thinking but only british longbows had that much draw weight no they did not, they also had shorter range. Theres tests on youtube.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Part 4, Mongols were warfare genius's, once they conquered a people they would assimilate their combat, (Turkish Sword, Polish War-hammer Etc) However they nearly only fought in plains and all their enemies were very lightly armored. So for the area of where they were at they were very deadly. But lets put them in near the Swiss alps. They would've been torn apart. (Little horse advantage, and archers on the high-grounds)
DanMarik 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Last one I swear lmao. They tactic of raining their arrows is a basic tactic of distraction. They shot their arrows two ways at once (inforce) about 2/3 would shot straight at the enemy, 1/3 (aflame or not) would very straight up into the air, this was made to reduce the advantage of the shield.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Just saying most people on youtube think the english longbow is 10x stronger than a composite recruve. I understand most people let their racial prejudice affect their judgement.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 They aren't, the composite bow is much deadlier. However I do favor the Yew Longbow. I do have a video of an iron tipped arrow being shot at 20 yards away with 150 pds of force just barely penetrating the soft spot of a Milanese Plate. ( i may be wrong on some of the details its been awhile). Its from the show Weapons master. Its called Longbow vs Plate Armour.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Didnt the mongols invent an arrow that was made specifically for piercing armor such as chainmail, and plate? Did they invent bodkin arrows or was that someone else? They also had an arrow that looked really sharp and skinny which was perfect for chainmail I think.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 The bodkin point was an ancient designed created by the roman empire. Unfortunately these heavy arrows were inaccurate and had to be shot from half the distance.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Do you know about the arrow head that looks like a skinny spike?
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 I got to look that up. I'm more about armor and swords but if you give me the time I may find it. Mongols were THE masters of war, if they fought the westerners in mountainous land they would most likely would have lost. But I would bet anything that they would've been back 10 years later with new tactics and may have dissolved many great western powers.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik I read the mongols did have troubles in mountain areas like the balkans but they still won they just took heavier casualties, Even if they were in mountain areas, or areas where they cant use horses they still had stolen chinese weapons like bombs, poison gas, and maybe even cannons.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 The mongol empire lost on two western fronts. The Mamluks from the middle-east and Polish-Hungary from Eastern Europe. The Mamluks was actually the greater loss on the two fronts. So we can thank the Mamluk Dynasty for saving us from the mongol hordes. The Mongols quickly adapted the Turkish Naphtha grenades and the Chinese rocket. The rocket however was a waste of resources except of-course for the moral effect. It was the Mountain that conquered the Mongol.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Erm the mongols didnt loose on the eastern from they recalled back when the khan died. The only people who beat the mongols were the mamluks of egypt i dont consider them western one bit. Also those gernades were chinese im sure not turkish, those same gernades were used by chinese forces under the command of the khan to invade japan.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Naphtha is a Turkish flammable substance. And to the Ilkanate the Mamluks Dynasty were westerners. They lost many men to Eastern Europe though they did defeat them. Not only do you need to have enough men to conquer, you also need enough men to defend those conquered lands.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Your spelling is confusing. Also like I said the mongols didnt use Naphtha they used something called gunpowder lol. Also I dont think they lost many men to Eastern Europe you should look these statistics up every one of their battle was a complete win except for battle of mohi which they won just took more casualties than other battles. The mongol kill to death ratio was probably 1 mongol for every 20 europeans/eastern europeans. Also they had plenty of men to hold Europe.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 How is my spelling confusing? I know the way I word myself may be off but I know they are correct. The mongols did lose less men but they didn't have the diplomatic ability or the man power to hold their territories. I hate to use wiki as a source.. but they do have a great map of the mongol empire, showing that they didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't conquer the Poles and Magyars. And you statistics is a little biased. It definitely wasn't 1:20.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Well if it wasnt 1:20 it mustve been 1:10 Look at battle of Legnica, the mongols took almost no casualties and that was only a scout force, they also had gunpowder, and poisonous gas weapons. Also the mongols always recruited from other cvilizations like tatars, tuvarians, russians, and plenty of places outside of central asia. The entire polish/eastern europe army was decimated they had almost no men left.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 The ratio of the Polish-Hungarian campaign was 1:6. They always outnumbered their enemy for the mongols ( which gained my respect) sent spies into Europe 15 years prior to learn everything they can (Diplomatically, Strength, Weaknesses, and for their map). The Polish army was decimated yes but the mongol couldn't hold the lands and just made Poland a tributary state, The Hungarians also became a tributary state but they still had a decent sized army left over.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 One more thing you need to know. The mongols didn't attack everyone. They attacked the diplomatically outcasted, those who would be left on their own to face a giant empire. This is why they never even considered entering German lands.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Yah considering the poles were not left on there own and had help from france, and germany lol.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 No help from France except the men in the Knight Hospitaller and Templar. Both orders together produced 500 men of different nationalities they also had help from two minor german states (the HRE was not one faction). Also another point to put is that when the Bohemian army of 50,000 was two days away from assisting Henry II the Pious (who died in battle) the mongols pulled out of Poland. I found the strengths. Poland 25,000, Mongol 10,000, German States and Knightly Orders 5000.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Hm everyone knows the mongol scout force had atleast 20k men. Also Poland was being supported by the rest of christiandom, and the pope. Just because they didnt have spare men to send didn't mean they were left by themselves.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Ok i had to do a bit online searching to find it and unfortunately the only site that was similar to my book was wiki. The mongols invaded Poland with one "Tumen" (10,000 strong army) (to distract the north-eastern Europeans from Hungary)(The Ilkhanate invaded Hungary with two Tumens Poland had help from Bavaria and Hapsburg in the Holy Roman Empire and 500 knights from military orders.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 Also they were getting support of 50,000 men of Bohemia but the mongols retreated from Poland. When the Bohemians decided to assist Hungary against the 2 Tumens and the remaining Tumen (from Poland), Hungary surrendered and the mongols only got the Hungarian controlled Cumans. The mongols were great warriors but they were not as great as many people make them to be.( Same thing thats going on with the Spartans)
DanMarik 1 year ago
@DanMarik Im by no means overassagerating the mongols, but you keep forgetting how many battles won and the death ratio, they also had gunpowder, and more advanced weapons. Im sure of the bohemians fought on the same battlefield they would have lost too unless they had intel on the last battle.
ralphyboy1 1 year ago
@ralphyboy1 No, The Bohemian were much better armoured than the polish whom wore leather with shields and the occasional chainmail. The 500 Order Knights who fought all over Poland only lost 30-40 men of their ranks. The firearm did exist however it was to few to make a difference. The mongols didn't have more advance weapons they just knew how to use them. In-fact in terms of military tech the mongols were a couple decades behind.
DanMarik 1 year ago
@gangadarits Most countries of the world are have way better education than the mongols !
dexter9ex2 1 year ago
@dexter9ex2
what r u trying to say
u r a 14 year old i guess
u son of biaotch
gangadarits 1 year ago
@gangadarits
Yes, I tried to fight them with cavalry when I played the campaign as egypt.. because with Cav. I beated most of the other Nations and Crusaders^^
But it was an epic fail and I lost so many men..
RkPhil0794 1 year ago
@gangadarits good thing the rest of the world has tanks:P
DethklokDudE691 1 year ago 26
@DethklokDudE691
lol funny
michaelperez44 1 year ago
@DethklokDudE691 good thing the inheritors of those archery skills scored the longest ever tank kill!
jwinlesta 8 months ago
i don't know what the fuck is wrong here but i recommend you all shut the hell up and try commenting the vid and not watever the fuck is on your shity mind!
sock1235 2 years ago 2
nice battle, although the zoom sometimes didn't let me know what the army as a whole was trying to do... gg
Zahtarah 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TURKS ARE SUPERPOWER!
ACCEPT THE REALITIY ENGLISH BASTARD:)
we fucked u always in hiostory and in 2050 we will fuck u again:) hahahahaha
ohh is the english colonial union only after some decades destroyed? ohhhh :))
hahahahahahaah
looser THE TINIEST TURKISH EMPIRE LASTED OVER 400 YEARS OVER TERITORIES GREATER THAN ANY OVER NON TURKISH EMPIRE!
TimeTimer3000 2 years ago
That looked like a tough battle...
LucasXVI 2 years ago
hey they could make a total war where it starts off in the middle of the industrial age and ends at the end of WW1
lordofthenachos 2 years ago 2
hmmm would be very short, depends when you consider it starts but it's around 1850, to 1918? It would look a lot like Empire you know? Apart from some mechanized units that would be added
slayer887x 2 years ago
yeah your right
lordofthenachos 2 years ago
i think england will win but this player chosesome stupid attacking reason if he played defesive england will win @!
squirle2009 2 years ago
thats so boring
Olifootbal 2 years ago
dey made it so real that mongolian soldier really look like ancient mongolian soldier .good job man
mondoisme 2 years ago
what level had u sat for the fight , when u began the campaine.. ?
zagtaga 2 years ago
This is an online battle... there's no difficulty.
No campaign. Raed the description nex time ^^
TheRoopeKonna 2 years ago
hahaha...
eastspring123 2 years ago