Mongol Weapons and Armour, 1200-1250

[@tarantulathree-one8013]

There is a saying among the infantry. It goes as this: "Privates talk shit about their individual issued weapons and TA-50. NCOs and Leaders talk shit about piss poor logistics and planning." You can have the best armor and weapons in the world. Piss poor tactics and logistics will turn the best soldiers into casualties long before they meet the enemy.

[@joeltsetseg5004]

I'm Mongolian and this is pretty cool, keep up the work lad!

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

I am very pleased you enjoyed it! Thank you, I shall keep at it!

[@chnb517]

baingin uzegch umu da haha

[@ciasuang4139]

me too

[@bruhbruh1339]

Joel Flower

[@patricko1486]

Torilla tavataan

[@horuslupercal2385]

Thank you for sharing this! I play White Scars in Warhammer 40k, so this has given me some great ideas to give my army some unique Mongol flavour 👍

[@tulgatulgaldo6241]

Another great video. But you forgot to mention "The Mongol invasions of Japan facilitated a change in the designs of Japanese swords. Thin tachi and chokutō-style blades were often unable to cut through the boiled leather armour of the Mongols, with the blades often chipping or breaking off. "

[@kirovzeppelin6299]

That would be more of a japanese history.

[@Daylon91]

@Michael Terrell II yea Japanese swords have been overrated for awhile now. Too long really

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Boiled leather is great at stopping sword cuts. And swords were really bad at engaging armored targets.

[@ikarly2898]

@@Daylon91 I agree, but what makes Japanese swords stand out in my opinion, compared to other swords is the fact that they were made from low quality ores, and if that wasn't enough, minerals in general are hard to come by in Japan.

[@dagayisi25]

Because they were meant for cutting the limbs and chopping the head off! But their Armor were so though the Japanese katanas never even pierced them..

[@andkonblack]

Look up (historical archery) for Mongolian bows

[@EngiinDerveehei]

I absolutely love your work, keep it up! Can you provide information about mongol forge and blacksmiths? I get your idea that most of weapons mongolian soldiers used were scavenged. But somehow they had to produce new weapons, and repair old ones?

[@man-yp1gb]

They also used a mace and battle axes that are well depicted on paintings.

[@atune2682]

thank you sir, for uploading!

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

My pleasure! I am glad you enjoyed it!

[@nazar5323]

Nice one mate

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Thank you!

[@ErichVonCartmann]

Very interesting. Thank you for confirming my hunch. I just assumed that since the Mongols were a Nomadic people, that most of the weapons, clothing, and armor of the soldiers were individually/family made, just like it is with most Nomadic people. I wonder though, as their conquest of territories became more frequent, did they NOT eventually acquire skilled Engineers and Manufacturers so they could manufacture Armor and Weapons in Factories on a mass scale?

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Ah ha, you are on to a good point. They were famous for transporting skilled workers and craftsmen across the empire as they needed from conquered territories into 'artisan communities,' to supply them with various materials. Further, we do have reference to Ogedai and Mongke taking initiatives to supply their soldiers. It however, unclear how far this went. Arrows seem to have been a part of this, which makes sense since the army could go through a copious amount easily enough. Weapons which required less metal to produce yet were still effective (spears, axes, maces etc.) were likely mass produced as well. As well, base equipment such as ropes, riding equipment, survival materials were supplied. But whether full sets of armour or swords were? That's harder to say, as it would be very expensive to do so, even for the Great Khans, particularly since the light cavalry arm was so relied upon in comparison to heavy cavalry. Further, it seems that as the empire incorporated more sedentary populations, these conquered peoples became larger parts of the armies, and took on the roles that required heavy armour or exposure to enemy projectiles (such as Khitans and Bulghars for heavy cavalry, Chinese for infantry) which kept the actual Mongols in less direct danger and less need for armour. So in short, the Mongols did have 'mass production,' of a sorts (at the very least, purchasing from a large number of craftsmen at once), but it is unclear exactly what all was mass produced beyond arrows or basic equipment, and how wide this was.

[@ErichVonCartmann]

I love all your videos, even this one! (even though it is NOT your favorite). Great tutorial on what types of armor and weapons they used.

[@arystanbeck914]

It is vey narrow point of view. Nomadic people doesn't mean that there were no settlements and cities. Nomadism simply means moving from summer to winter locations and back. Of course, there were settlements, mostly wintering locations where there were smiths. Also, routes from wintering to summering locations were not that long, mostly steppe to mountains. Of course, nomadic societies had smiths who produced armour. Even ancient (e.g., Saka or Huns) were known as blacksmiths and gold-smiths. Gokturks, for instance, who founded the fist Turkic Kaganate before rising to their power were known as blacksmiths who had and advanced methods of casting and were producing weapons for neighbouring peoples.

[@ErichVonCartmann]

@@arystanbeck914, I gave your comment a thumbs up. However, you need to understand the term "Mass Production". Look it up amd then get back to me. ❤

[@arystanbeck914]

@@ErichVonCartmann almost every term related to human studies has relative connotation. Mass production as we think of it now was achieved only after the industrial revolution with development of factories. You don't think that supply of weapons in sedentary societies in medieval times came from factories, right? Unfortunately, studies of nomadic societies were neglected for centuries (to be fair they are also hard due to relative scarcity of written sources), and then were almost completely decimated for political and ideological reasons during Soviet times. However, recent archaeological findings suggest that there was an adequate production of metals and even silk in areas that are considered nomadic. But of course, some weapons and armory were expensive, were hereditary and were treated as family treasures depending on a wealth level. But isn't it the same for European knights of that time, for instance?

[@unknownunanimous2160]

Very informative thank you sir 💖💖

[@serhansali]

love your vids ,waiting to see more

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Thank you! Work is already well underway for the next one

[@jamesdeek7039]

I always listen to throat singing when at the gym, I've gotten so swol

[@AngryHistorian87]

Very interesting and informative. I also like that first image!!!!

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Thank you, it was a fun one to make and see them all together!

[@sebastian.tapia.v]

very interesting, liked and subscribed!

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

My latest video series, looking at blacksmithing in the Eurasian steppes: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHO0pol4iLuZr7s Historical Realm: m.facebook.com/HistoricalRealm/

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

@Nick Hahn no sir. I live in Canada with European ancestry. I've been interested in this area for close to a decade now, developed through academic works from specialists in this area rather than a personal or cultural connection. I intend to go on to do a Masters and hopefully a PhD on this topic.

[@93xxlolxx]

You need goreliks books?

[@franzliszt3851]

No doubt your channel will become popular in the future. I hope your research is fruitful in this category because the real art of mongolian bowmaking is lost during around 17th century. The traditional bows Mongolians use today is way too big from the findings in the museums. If you see from the ancient horse archer pictures the bow is quite small and is probably made that way to give the archer the mobility it needs on a horseback during hit and run tactics. So it would be really interesting to see if the original can be remade. Possibly trying with it Esuungei's legend.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

I make Vids of Mongolian archery if your interested

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

@Abu Troll al cockroachistan I don't recall precisely what I said in this video, so my current thought may be a bit different from the explanation here. But anyways: 1) Mongol arrow heads for war are generally smooth with sharp angles; personally, I think most substances coated on it would be basically blown off as it went through the air. Whatever is left has to then not be lost when puncturing shields, armour etc. 2) What substance is being used to coat it, and how is it applied? Perhaps at the outset of battle they can stop and prep a few arrows, but in the midst of fighting while on a galloping horse, I can't imagine them trying to apply a poisonous liquid (?) to the arrowhead, atleast with it not spilling all over you. 3) We should note that some sources do mention poisoned arrows used by the Mongols: Japanese sources, 1 or 2 passages from the Secret History of the Mongols sometimes taken to imply poisoned arrows, and I think maybe a mention in an account of European travelers. But the Persian and Chinese sources, which had the longest contact and fighting with the Mongols, make no mention to my knowledge of poison arrows. Considering they talk about Mongol tactics in quite some detail, such an omission is notable. The Mongols had no issues using whatever gave them a tactical or strategic edge and certainly had few qualms about "honour" in battle. If this was a regular feature of their armies, we'd have way more mentions of it. 4) I don't see them being that much of a tactical difference. To be any use and make a difference, quite a number of soldiers are going to need access to it. But what are they collecting in enough quantities to poison atleast several arrows per soldier (this is easily thousands of arrows) but deadly enough to, in small quantities, several incapacitate or kill a man? Chances of infection from a battle injury at this time are already very high, and as you said, arrow injuries will already maim someone. If you're already hitting them with your arrow, is going to the effort to poison them to worth the extra effort? Now I won't say they were never used (I already mentioned the Japanese source) nd if you happen to come across actual references to their use, I'd love to see them. But there is a reason that poisoned equipment is never widespread among large armies.

[@kaybevang536]

I hear some mongols wore armor from the Chinese and Jurchen armor they invaded especially the helmets of the Yuan Dynasty

[@grimgoreironhide9985]

After they wore Islamic Persian armour from the Kwarizmians. Mongol soldiers used armaments from the regions they ruled.

[@zoedivision9660]

At that time the Mongols had the largest iron """industry""" . Proved by archeology. Already from the Huns time. What Mongols have used have been very unique. That's obvious,

[@kaybevang536]

@@zoedivision9660 Most common armor not Mongol armor that are often worn by mongol heavy Calvary is Cuman Kipchak face masks and Jurchan style Helmet face guards especially

[@zoedivision9660]

@@kaybevang536 There is ample evidence of how Mongols even mixed copper with iron back then, how can this world be conquered, in every story the one says that one had something. So wait and see. All Mongolian arheology is open. Not enough researched and excavated. So you and I do not decide and pleasend judge

[@zoedivision9660]

@@kaybevang536 And Jurchin aimag was also Nomad Turk-Mongol people you know? Nothing Chinese .We Mongols and Turks have nothing to do with Chinese culture and languages for thousands of years. The Chinese have always been and always will be completely different settled people. We Mongols honor nature and animals and live together respectfully. Always will be. We don't eat dogs cats and Rats and flying mice. Even the birds no. We have certain animals to eat that have been well treated for thousands of years in our culture, so we live in harmony with nature. so you have to understand nomadic people roughly. That is for all Mongols to Chinese people to say. We all under TENGRI , This World is not only Chiniese CCP people

[@KnightlyNerd]

Do you have any information on the shields they used? I know they used the small shield that’s essentially like a Turkish kalkan, but what about that one that shows up at 4:03 on the left? My understanding is that a lot of the infantry weapons and shields the mongols employed came from Chinese/korean auxiliaries, and they sometimes used large shields inappropriate for horseback or great two handed swords.

[@ragnarlothbrok7973]

Omg 😱 your so underrated

[@tonger7018]

2:12 first off there were different breeds of horses, some of which larger than others. And second off mongol ponies/horses have fairly stout legs and can 100% carry armor and an armored horseman, even the smaller breeds. Another thing is most mongol riders of the time were not very heavy even with their armor. So your doubts are correct.

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Some of these aspects were dealt with in a new video series I just started on this topic the other week: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaandmmva9J9as0

[@wolvenedvard3049]

Could somebody show me what a Mongolian axe looks like?

[@oliverzurcher2241]

Love the drawing and the info thank you soo much

[@Daylon91]

Poisoned arrows were used by the Scythians. It means even a graze is deadly. More effective than just the point

[@henriquebitencourt4280]

The only "characteristic " weapon they had was the bow(even that was used by other tribes/anterior nomadic hordes) ,the other equipments were looted/based on other peoples like the chinese(khitan,tangut,jurchen,han),the turkic tribes(who used sassanid inspired armory and clothing) and the persians(khwarezmians).The mongols were highly adaptable so they had no shame in "plagiarizing"/lifiting clothings and armory.

[@Alejandro-te2nt]

I love your videos so fucking much brother! this was awesome

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Thank you for the kind words! Seeing such responses are the best incentive to continue my work

[@husam-al-din-baybars]

Did they wear gambesons? Under the mail or lamilar?

[@smalltarpan]

Great video, Sir! May you could answer to some questions. I´m a Magyar horse archer and I´m planning my own leather armour. I´m thinking about lamellar or laminar or a combination. What´s the difference in effectiveness between lamellar and laminar? Does lamellar armour allow better mobility? Does laminar also overlap upwards? What about the red armour at 1:40? The pieces don´t overlap, are just placed next to each other. They must be attached to a cloth or thin leather? What´s the advantage of this one? Flexibility? Why wouldn´t the chest area of a lamellar armour be replaced by two layers of bigger breast plates, as it would be easier to make. Lot of questions but I´m trying to think practically and stay authentic. I would appreciate your help!

[@judok1426]

I'll try to help you out, give me a few weeks. Since covid I have spare time and i find this stuff interesting.. So to start, wouldn't you prefer a more traditional Hunnic or east european style armour? It seems like it would be more authentic for your portrayel? Also what time period are you portraying?

[@szilvesztercseke2244]

@@judok1426 thanks for your answer! I'm potraying the Hungarian conquest period (9-10th ct.) but there aren't any archaeological findings or depictions of armour. I think, to orientate along East-European lamellar armour would be a good idea, or maybe Avar. I have no information on Hunnic armour.

[@judok1426]

@@szilvesztercseke2244 I just quickly went about looking at depictions. The leather helmets and hats ringed with fur seem to be a common theme, much like the Kievien Rus and Khazars are depicted in. If leather hats where common we could suppose leather armour was also fairly common among those who could afford it. I will see if there are any professors who have more to read on the topic.

[@szilvesztercseke2244]

@@judok1426 yes the leather hats ringed with fur must have been common, I just think they didn't serve protective purposes. Of course, those who couldn't afford armour, supposedly wore these in battle also. I want to make mine of leather (not metal) that's for sure. I'm considering the type - fully lamellar, or bigger pieces for the shoulder and the chest. As far as I know one Magyar metal helmet was found and it has a conical shape, similar to those of the 16th century. I also want to make a helmet of leather with down-hanging parts of lamellar for the neck.

[@judok1426]

@@szilvesztercseke2244 According to wikipedia Magyars moved west from the dnieper region, and in 800ad the Khazars where a regional power of the time. The byzantines describes the magyars as "turcois" (turks) To leave out the debate on genetic origins, anything that the byzantines described the khazars wearing would be things that the magyars also would be familiar with being at the very least neighbours.. If it wasn't common you could still argue a soldier looted it from a neighbouring tribe. It appears chainmail, lamellar leather breastplates and shoulder guards, iron conical shaped helmets with the rus point or the khazarian horse hair would all be fairly historically accurate. They have chainmail coifs and iron helmets or leather helmets with leather and wool felt flaps. Honestly it almost seems like maybe the Rus adopted alot of their armour from the nomadic tribes of the region, a Kieven Rus lamellar leather jerkin looks identical to all depictions of khazars and later cumans(with exception of cuman facemasks) for the most part. A lamellar leather breastplate would probably be more comfortable than chainmail or studded leather for shooting and riding your horse, what do you think?

[@marcusfridh8489]

dont forget that the medeival mongol bow was shorter than the precent mongol bow that became larger after the influece of the manchurians. and the mongol saber was most likely a version of the chinese daosword.

[@TheAfghan72]

Sabre's existed before the Mongols had contact with China so unlikely. The Dao is more Mongol influenced due to the curved edge but they were most likely straight edged before the establishment of the Yaun dynasty.

[@TheAfghan72]

It is indeed Mongol influenced, you can google it.

[@neniAAinen]

@@TheAfghan72 well, mongols always were in contact with China. But it's true that mongol saber drastically altered appearance of chinese daos during Yuan/Ming dynasties, essentially displacing native design.

[@alohasnackbar3544]

Chinese those time werent using dao but rather a single edge straight blade. I think mongol in the 11-13th century were also using slight curved swords

[@Sultan_Of_Rum]

How to you draw these guys? It looks so cool

[@egillskallagrimson5879]

Question, 1:08 the first depiction at the left side, I've seen plenty of customs in movies and tvshows of Qing's royal staff depicted the same way, or in a very similar fashion, is this coincidence? is there any anacronism? why is it?

[@GreaterAfghanistanMovement]

Mongol recurved bows were actually derivatives of the Scyhtian bow

[@anlyasinoguz6373]

thanks for this video. which book do you suggest for these details?

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Hi! The full list of works I used for this video is in the description. Unfortunately, it was not easy to find the detailed information I was looking for all in one place, most works often only providing a few small details. It is my understanding that there are much more detailed books and articles on this topic in Russian (Mokhail Gorelik's name in particular was repeatedly mentioned) in particular, but I was unable to find translations of those works. So I can't really recommend a single book for this whole topic. But let me know what specific aspect you are interested in and I'll try and point you in a good direction. For bows, I heard that historian Mike Loades has just recently released a book called 'War Bows' has good information on composite bows, including Mongolian but also Turkish and Chinese bows for a wider comparison perhaps. He also has book entirely on composite bows as well.

[@anlyasinoguz6373]

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory i am studying history and i generally focus on history of eurasia steppe. My native language is turkish and there are some researches in turkish but it is not enough and i have found no research about armours, bows and arms for history of Gokturk Khaganate and pre-mongol era. Thomas barfield states that gokturk khaganate has not decimal military system but he doesnt give footnote. İ am looking for military equipment and order of pre-mongol epoch.

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Do you have an e-mail? I have some articles I think you may find useful I can send to you directly. I have some places I use for finding materials as well, and I will see if I can find some other useful stuff for you. If you haven't already look at them, I would recommend trying to find some reports on Kipchak-Cuman burials. There has been quite a number found in quite good condition. I've seen some images from one which had armour pieces such a chain-maille shirts, swords helmets and battles masks and even greaves. While not as early as the Gokturks, they would provide some pre-Mongol information and take you back to at least the 11th century. I'll see if I can find anything detailed on that to send. In regards to decimal system and military organization, that is certainly much more difficult. Off the top of my head I know the Chinese record decimal organization present from the Xiongnu to the Khitans, so there is certainly a long precedent for it on the steppe. I've seen it suggested as a common means for organizing steppe armies, but that seems too conjectural for me. I don't know the Gokturks well enough to suggest much for sources on them: the primary sources I am most familiar with wrote centuries after the Gokturks and wouldn't be very reliable on specifics like their military organization. One possible place to check may be the Orkhon inscriptions: I don't know what they have all written on them, but if you can find a transcription or translation of them, it's possible you may be able to find some reference to 'groups of ten, hundreds, thousands, or ten thousands,' perhaps not directly, but if they are demonstrating that people are being organized in that manner in at least some respect, one could potentially assume they also applied that to their armies. Perhaps for modern books, look for those which cover the army of Tang Dynasty China, and their interaction with the Gokturks. Emperor Taizong of Tang was famous for his wars with them and from what I understand, was influenced by them and adopted some of their practices. If you can find a book detailed that subject, you may find some useful information for Gokturk miltiary organization. I may be able to find a part of the Cambridge History of China/The Tang Dynasty which I might be able to send to you.

[@dagayisi25]

Kardeşim Türkçe kaynaklara baksana niye İngilizce bakıyorsun. Çok daha detaylı çalışmalar var. Ara yeter ki bulursun.

[@anlyasinoguz6373]

@@dagayisi25 haahahahaha

[@ElBandito]

Last words of a Khwarezmid general 500 meters away from battle line -- "Don't worry lads, those Mongol arrows can't hit an elephant at this distance." :p

[@FenrirSrpski]

Fantastic video and greate chanel !!!

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Thank you sir! I aim to please

[@alohasnackbar3544]

I think the mongols were not using extreme curved swords but rather straight or slightly curved single edge blade similar to chinese.

[@GreaterAfghanistanMovement]

Even the Turks didn't use extremely curved swords but only slightly curved. But the Mongols definitely used curved swords since they belonged to the same culture as the Turks.

[@alohasnackbar3544]

@@GreaterAfghanistanMovement mongol didnt used extremely curved sword for sure. Their swords are slightly curved but broader than Turks and similar to Chinese 2 handed saber. Good for chopping down heavy steppe cavalry.

[@GreaterAfghanistanMovement]

@@alohasnackbar3544 Re-read my comment again.

[@aizawl2007]

Nice to hear the emperor's name pronounced correctly.

[@burymycampaignatwoundedkne3395]

Awesome video. Did the Mongols ever use war picks? The Scythians did and I assume the mongols would have to do to them both being in some of the same areas and having a somewhat similar lifestyle.

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Thank you! In regards to picks, not that I've read. Not impossible though: since much of our information on Mongol weapons comes from non-Mongolian sources, if the writer or the writer's population as unfamiliar with the pick, they may simply have called it an axe and we wouldn't know. Images from Persian works of the period aren't always reliable either, as they'll often over represent swords and full suits of heavy armour at expense to what would be more commonly worn by the average soldier. Further, as the pick doesn't require much iron and would be relatively simply to make and maintain, its benefits to nomadic societies with limited blacksmiths are quite apparent. The caveat I would add though, is that the centuries separating the Scythians and the Mongols makes a lot of the continuity that is seemingly between them illusory. The Scythians, it should be noted, didn't even have access to the stirrup, which was central to the way the Mongols practiced their horse archery and mounted combat. A long spear or lance is much easier to use when you can brace your weight on stirrups, and Mongol mounted archery was done mainly by standing in the stirrups. This is just a small example, but the point is that while there can be a number of similarities (as is natural for steppe nomads reliant on their horses and bows), the actual equipment can change dramatically in the centuries. I'll keep an eye open in my research though, as now my curiosity is piqued.

[@judok1426]

It would be unlikely. Scythians and Mongols didn't face the same types of foes nor did they originate from the same cultural group. Mongols in the steppe often fought skirmishes against lightly armoured horsemen like the kipcheks in the early conquests. Picks are more effectively used for piercing armour, like chainmail. And from Horseback a pick would have limited range, comparative to a lance and obviously the bow. From what I know of historic battles, when mongols where fighting hand to hand with swords it was often at their own expense. But we can't forget that mongols where raiders and looters, and I imagine whatever weapons they would have found, they potentially would have used.

[@alohasnackbar3544]

War pick extinct in eastern battlefield long before the mongol rise. Ancient chinese did use long war picks which has 2m length and use on horse chariot.

[@GreaterAfghanistanMovement]

Scythian's and Mongols were different people and the former were mainly more civilized and settled.

[@oliverZ433]

Do you know where I can find your art

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Multiple places! Looking up Jackmeister: Mongol History on Instagram, Deviant Art, Facebook or on my Patreon page, and you'll find where I've uploaded and made available for download. Not all of it's been uploaded, but lots of it has and I can always put up specific pieces if there's one in a video you want a better look at.

[@BarnesTheNoble]

Ghost of Tsushima brought me here.

[@davidjacobs8558]

it is also claimed that Japanese sword became curved after Mongol invasion.

[@levinb1]

Another really interesting video. May I ask the background music for this video?

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

Certainly. Both tracks used here are from KZbin's audiolibrary (where I get all the music and sound effects for the videos) the one in the first few seconds is "Black and White," by Max Surla and the rest is "Sao Meo " by Doug Maxwell.

[@legendarykairock3461]

Lets go Mongolia 🇲🇳 🇲🇳 🇲🇳

[@flatearthfatboy9589]

I heard Arrows literally used to bounce off laminar. How true?

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

I've never heard of it being that effective, although the curvature of laminar would make it easier for an arrow to glance off rather than land directly, creating an image of 'bouncing off.' But such things would depend on range, the arrow and arrowhead used, quality of the bow and archer, if the target was moving and on horseback etc. All could impact if the shot landed true or of it glanced off, and even at close range it is difficult for most armours to stop an arrow from one of these bows.

[@bogdanbogdanoff5164]

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory What about plate armor? There's a huge disagreement as to whether the english longbow could at any point do damage to it. How does the kinetic power of the two designs look?

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

​@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 Just so I am clear- are you asking how does plate compare to laminar or lamellar in comparison to resistance against arrows? I am happy to do a detailed response, but I want to make sure I am answering your question before I write several paragraphs. I can't speak too much on the physics of the matter, but in short, as is my understanding from historians and experts, advanced, fully body plate armour of the 15th and 16th centuries is generally pretty effective at resisting arrow penetration from range, provided it lands in the breastplate and not a joint or some point. The curvature of the breastplate would be such that it could bounce off, but there are caveats and a lot more details here. Let me know if that is in fact your question though, and I'll provide a response as soon as I can. Cheers!

[@bogdanbogdanoff5164]

@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I was mostly asking about the draw weight (forgot the term) of an average composite bow compared with a longbow. I guess composite has at least a slight edge and I wonder if it would make a difference when mongol archery met with european armor for example at Legnica or during the Hungarian campaign. What do you think about Crecy or Agincourt by the way, were the arrows an annoyance first and foremost and injured mostly horses (this is a theory I read) or the weak points were more numerous on body armor too? It's something I'd more expect from a design with smaller plates sewn together, but it's just a feeling due to how "complete" especially later plate armors look. You say that heavy armor-piercing arrows were shot at ranges as small as 30 meters, I'm surprised that a speed bleed of an arrow is so sharp that a few dozen meters does such a difference.

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 My understanding is this (and I should prefix this with two things, 1) the english longbow and 14th-15th century western European warfare is something I have a workable understanding of, but is much weaker than my knowledge in Central Asia and the Mongols, and 2) weapons and armour are not my main interest in history, so someone with more specialized knowledge could offer much more): Say we have a 120 pound draw weight English longbow, and a 120 draw weight Mongol composite bow. Assuming both are well crafted, no defections and well maintained (i.e for the sake of the experiment, being essentially equal) then my understanding is that the Mongol bow would release with more power, due to the composite reflex design. The 'ears' of the bow (siyah in arabic) which give the bow that signature extra curve (the reflex) provide more strength on release (also, interesting enough, make it easier to draw a higher weight bow, so a skilled archer would have an easier time drawing a 120 lb Mongol bow than 120 lb english longbow). So in theory, for two bows of the same draw weight you are getting extra power with a composite bow. The real question, which I cannot answer, is how much extra power, range etc. this provides. There is not, as far as I have been able to tell, proper tests on authentic 13th century Mongol bows compared to 14th century English Longbows. Modern reproductions not using the same materials or techniques as the Medieval equivalents will behave differently, even if they give a rough idea. Further, the arrows themselves can make quite the difference, their weight, material, arrow head etc. And they used different length of arrows (a longbow arrow being, if I recall, about a yard/metre in length, while a Mongol arrow was around 2 feet) which adds to weight and drag (even fletching can make an impact: one theory as the Mongols using asymmetrical fletching, causing greater spin on the arrows and increasing penetration)It's likely too that the English archers would have had greater access to iron arrowheads than the average Mongol archer, which can make all the difference. If you have two powerful bows, then one with the better arrowhead will preform better. We must remember as well, that when the Mongols were fighting in eastern Europe in the 1240s they were encountering men wearing maille, not heavy plate. Maille is effective and excellent protection, but not impervious to arrows in the way plate can be. Maille was worn by the Russians and peoples across Central Asia, the Caucasus and Middle East (and lesser extent in China), and did not, as far as the sources describe, give the Mongols extra trouble. Superior tactics and strategy (particularly mobility), and siege techniques, won out over superior personal armours. But interestingly, at Mohi one detail that does come to us is that a unit of crossbowmen, protect at a chokepoint (a bridge, if my memory serves correct) gave the Mongols a good deal of trouble, more than the knights were described as doing. In this case, the Mongols tendency to wear little or less armours made them particularity vulnerable in a place where their mobility could be neutralized. The former theory for Agincourt is the one I lean to more. I think it is often forgotten though, that arrows striking your armour at that power would still hurt considerably even with padding, the closer you got to the archers. What this would do is harm the impetus of the charge, increasing the time it takes the cavalry to meet the enemy (giving the english more time to shoot arrows at them) while lessening the impact of that inevitable cavalry crash. Agincourt and Crecy both at exterior factors at play though: at Crecy the French mercenary crossbowmen had their effectiveness decreased due the affect of humidity on their crossbows, which also then obstructed the French charge. Agincourt was also famous for the mud and tight formations slowing the French. A skillful use of terrain and advantages on the part of the English!

[@kevinhuxley9252]

❤

[@arda213]

The important question is, were they inferior or superior to their western knight counterparts in terms of armor? If they were the ones who introduced brigandine into Europe, I would say that they were superior.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

The heaviest shock elements would have been more heavily armored than contemporary western heavy cavalry. Both men and horse were clad in arrow proof/resistant armor.

[@astartesfanboy5294]

@@majungasaurusaaaa so were europeans my guy, the mail and gambeson were extremely good at stopping arrows, not even talking about coat-of-plates or other armor.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

​@@astartesfanboy5294 Mail and gambeson were indeed very much arrow resistant, stopping pretty much any broadhead and even bodkins fired from avg bows. By 1200, it was the armor of choice for heavy cavalrymen west of Constantinople. Coat of plates would still be a century away. Body armor of the riders capped at around 30kg for all factions from England to Japan. The difference lies in horse armor. Mail barding was rare as mentioned in the crusades. Most western heavy lancers had quilted caparisons. Even by the time of the battle of Argincourt in the early 1400s, many French heavy cavalrymen's horses were hit in their unarmored backs by arrows, indicating that full coverage was often not the case. The shock cataphracts of Jurchen/Khitan style invested more in horse protection with leather lamellar and even steel lamellar/laminar. Coverage was extensive to the point of pikes and crossbow volleys were often not being able to break up their charge. The Song fielded heavy infantry with cutting polearms/2 handed swords to target the horse's lower legs, the only unarmored part sticking out. After looting the armories of the Xi Xia, Jin and Khwarzm the Mongols had all the armor they wanted. How much they decided to put on depended on their mission, not wealth at that stage.

[@astartesfanboy5294]

@@majungasaurusaaaa thanks but uh, *I think such a response would be better served for the person who thinks that mail and gambeson couldnt stop arrows*

[@Nikola95inYT]

I think mongol armor must've been much weaker and lighter compared to european ones. However it didn't matter much because organization and tactics of mongols were far superior compared to european knights which had almost no coordination with each other after the battle starts. Like in this battle when mongols defeated Templar knights en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica

[@borgilbatbaatar4949]

Some Mongol bow effective in 1 kilometer

[@lordoftheedge3212]

no thats unrealistic

[@chengkuoklee5734]

With light arrow and right wind direction, possible but don't expect it has decent penetration power.

[@oscartango8234]

Kirin Ichiban

[@math_hw]

Im not sure but when the mongol empire splitted one of them became turkey

[@Glht000]

Yisungge hit the target not just firing.

[@joelciantar347]

Gonna compare this to ghost of Tsushima

[@happyman1463]

Question: there were Mongolian empire tool named .........X, and now Russian army use this tool too and they call this tool ........ just like Mongolians but without X at the last of the word, so, what is this tools name?

[@cypt6411]

Me: Time to make a good comment The Jackmeister: Mongol History- I’m going to like almost every single comment yeah

[@ondrisy]

I'm pakistany but my mom's side has Mongolian in it they are also pakistany so this is cool

[@GreaterAfghanistanMovement]

You Hazara?

[@ondrisy]

@@GreaterAfghanistanMovement im not sure because were pashtun its very confuising. just dont mind this

[@GreaterAfghanistanMovement]

@@ondrisy Pashtuns don't mix with Mongols or Hazaras, which part in Pakistan are you from? I am guessing you are Punjabi.

[@gheeshin]

Thank you so much for posting sources. I'm so tired of the inaccurate mommy's basement historians.

[@abinaslimbu3057]

Cha ku tarbal Horse Archer Infentry unit

[@BekolopsRoyOfficial]

They only had 1 weapon and it is very dangerous. Unity

[@andersonz8117]

i really want to buy a mongolian sword.

[@strawzgaming6153]

In medieval era..eastern warrior, weapon, armor are my stronger than western

[@cyrilchui2811]

Mail armour was imported from the west as early as the Han dynasty via the Silk Road. Since it was imported, only the rich could afford it. For unknown reason Chinese armies never favoured mail armour hence never tried to produce it locally. Mongol would have captured a lot of Mail armour as they advanced towards Europe.

[@sergelengerelmaa2450]

I smell bullshit , wheres the source?

[@henriquebitencourt4280]

Brigandine was also inported from the west

[@ANTSEMUT1]

We know why, 1 they preferred lamellar armour because it performed better against arrows and crossbow bolts. 2. Lamellar armour was cheaper to produce for the centralised Chinese dynastic state ( Rich Feudal lords of Europe only had to provide armour for their own forces and not a whole states worth)

[@Hi-mr8pn]

Weird I've seen a video of Japanese using chainmail before sengoku jedai around like 1200's I think they wouldve already knew this and so the Chinese. It there is not alot of proof that I know of Chinese ever copying chainmail from westerners. They didn't use I know for a fact because it was really difficult to make links and took days and months just to make a portion of a shirt out of mail same for the Europeons, just look up videos of some white people making mail the old way before there was machines it took alot of time that's why they use plated armor too.

[@cyrilchui2811]

@@Hi-mr8pn I don't think difficulty is any obstacle if chainmail was a superior armour. We know chainmail was imported into Han Dynasty through traders, but only owned by the rich. It was never re-produced in subsequent dynasties, not even the rich Sui / Tang. Rich/Generals prefer the plate armour (heavy but OK on horse back), with document on ZhuGe Lang stating the plate hammered 5 times (possibly using Damascus steel). While common soldier used lamella, possibly for mass production. Anthony Ngu made a good explanation on this theory.

[@мишам-ю8с]

Автор ПЕРЕВОД ПЕРЕВОД ПЕРЕВОД где

[@khurtsbelegjavhlan6669]

Зөв хийжээ

[@isaacnickel]

Did the guard use face masks? Or household knights?? 🙄

[@brettalizer3271]

mongol bows are not as efficient as ottoman bows for flight shooting lighter arrows but the ottomans have flight shooting records of archers shooting arrows over 800 meters the record is 845 m so i don't think 500+m is unlikely for a mongol war bow. www.turkishculture.org/lifestyles/turkish-culture-portal/turkish-flight-arrows-554.htm

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

A fair point: the Ottoman flight shooting was quite phenomenal. I don't see the Mongols putting up a stone inscription for an arrow shot unless it was really remarkable, although as Igor de Rachewiltz suggested, the distance may have been exaggerated by Yisungge (if his theory of it being erected later is correct, in which case it may have been to 'glorify' his exploit). Not fabricated, but in the manner of how stories of a large fish being caught will gradually increase the size of the fish. 500 metres as a distance in battle however, seems unlikely to me. At that distance, the ability to penetrate armours or induce an incapacitating shot would be minimal.

[@brettalizer3271]

totally we should always take these things with pinch of salt and war arrows are longer heavier and have larger fletchings and so more drag so it is probably unlikely in a battlefield scenario but i dont think its entirely unlikely with the right bow and arrow. but i think some people play up archery in medieval combat to much sometimes it seems most of the time archers were used to wear down demoralize and distract the opponent so the heavy lancers in this case can finish them off rather than archers outright killing them not that that didn't happen but arrows don't have the same stopping power as bullets. i was just looking through a 14th century mamluk archery manual and the translator reckons that military archers could shoot up to 400 yards but then that is still short so that would probably be unlikely. unfortunately other cultures did not record their distances like the ottomans did like so much in history its all just speculation. thanks for the reply and another great video! pgmagirlscouts.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/saracen_archery.pdf

[@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory]

I agree completely. We simply don't get a great depiction of exact tactics, such as how archers were actually utilized in battle, from the sources. Did the Mongols try to aim every shot? Or was it just shooting off in the direction of the enemy in clouds? Some lines in sources suggest the former, some the later. And if either, at what distances? We can speculate that it varied on the situation, but at the end of the day that is what it comes down to: speculating, often based on writings off of other steppe peoples. Timothy May in his "Mongol Art of War," has an interesting point on training of the Mongols. In short, we know next to nothing about how the medieval Mongol warrior was trained beyond the nerge and the general fact that he grew up as a nomad practicing archery. We can however, compare to the training of Khitans in the Liao Dynasty, Mamluks and modern practices in Mongolia, and make an inference off of that. I am glad you enjoyed the video, and I look forward to taking a look through the archery manual! The year is interesting on it: ca. 1368, the year the Yuan Dynasty was pushed from China by the Ming.

[@brettalizer3271]

wow strange coincidence considering the subject thanks it's good to have a meaningful discussion in the yt comments for once! enjoy the manual the techniques are still practical and work well after 600+ years they helped me learning thumb release but there's a lot of interesting historical info anyways.

[@borgilbatbaatar4949]

Misleading

[@oghuz_kaghan]

turks from alibaba

[@gobangs1117]

100 to 150 lbs is truly ridiculous. I don't claim to be an expert but am a nationally accredited coach in field archery and consistently hear and read this nonsense. Especially when the use of said bows was mostly on horseback. I challenge any human being to get on a horse and draw a bow with that weight and fire it accurately, not going to happen. Archery on horseback is a relatively close quarters affair and negates the necessity for such insane weights. I am 6ft plus,100 kilos and shoot a 50 lb recurve and 70 lb compound, these are realistic weights.

[@miniweeddeerz1820]

I know it does sound ridiculous, after all, as a very strong English longbow is around 130lbs draw weight but what do you think of this article? www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm Also consider that Mongols began to develop their back and arm muscles from a very early age, so by the time they are 16, they are incredibly strong and can probably draw one of these incredible 160 lb compound bows. I just read the article very carefully, and it gives a detailed description of how the bow was made to be so powerful. It also includes images near the bottom with description of how the bow looked strung, unstrung and ready to fire. They also trained in horsemanship and horse archery for years, using smaller, shaggier 'pony-like' horses that were bread to have incredible stamina and can ride for eight hours straight a day, speed of 25-32 miles per hour, covering up to 250miles per day. They are not like stallions built for the charge, which of course they can do, but built for their endurance and stamina. The way the Mongols invaded is as they were nomads, they lived in yurts, basically very large tents where families lived and kept their belongings. These yurts were made of felt, fabric and supported by a lattice of flexible wood. These yurts were portable and could be mounted on horses. The yurt carrying horses, the mothers and the children rode behind, and at a slower pace than the multiple Mongol hordes who rode head in armour to attack, on the horses just described. Here is a link for more info on the Mongolian horse: www.theadventurists.com/updates/-horses/ I know all this sounds insane, but this is why the Mongols were the people who conquered a sixth of the whole world, the biggest empire in the world, dwarfing both the persians and the Romans. They expanded into Arabia, Russia, china and some parts of Europe very quickly. The Mongols easily defeated the Russian Teutonic knights, who were said to be some of the best knights in the world at that time and in fact the only reason the Mongols didn't conquer basically the whole of Russia and Europe is because their khan, ogedai, died due to his weak heart and that after his death, the generals and their armies had to return to swear loyalty to the new khan. The final fall of the empire was after the death of Kublai khan, where the empire split into I think 5 different empires, similar to the splitting of the Roman empire, except the sheer size of the empire is shown by it splitting into five, and not two pieces. In this link, near the top, there is a diagram showing the Mongol expansion of the world. It may surprise you. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_and_conquests Sorry for the long text, just wanted to show, how incredible and underrated the Mongols were. Somehow English longbows and French knights and the Romans are given so much credit when the true conquerers were the Mongols.

[@gobangs1117]

Your opinion is quite obviously solely derived from the few scraps of written accounts which are usually exaggerated, because only superhuman warriors wielding bows of immense weight with accuracy of an eagle could possibly defeat the noble god fearing Christian and Muslim armies. No they were not superhuman with 100lb plus bows, they had superior tactics and strategy. How many Mongolians do you know that shoot 100lb+ bows of any description? Please inform me of these individuals. I doubt that Mongolian physiology has changed drastically for hundreds of years. Archery is still present in Mongolia and they have traditional bows made the same way with horn and wood and bone and sinew and hide glue. The only information that we have is what is leftover from accounts of individuals who actually interacted with Mongols, in Particular Friar William of Rubruck who travelled to Batu Khan and then Monkge Khan. Also The Journey of Friar Giovanni DiPlano Carpini to Guyuk Khan. These I consider the most accurate and least exaggerated with regards to the Mongols themselves. Virtually every time a statement of the Mongol's humungous bows is made it is done so by authors who have never even held a bow let alone a genuine Mongol bow in there hand! Authors both in the past and recently! Reciting their nonsense gives credence to you name.

[@arda213]

@@gobangs1117 Archery of todays Mongolia was taken from China later on. Mongols lost that ancient Mongolian archery technique. Because one Chinese emperor forbade it for a while. Also obviously Mongols arent raised today same way they were raised 1000 years ago. They are also introduced the benefits of modern world.

[@gobangs1117]

@@arda213 Good to see you mention benefits of the modern world, like better nutrition, better health care, longer life spans and the facility for scientific analysis of preposterous claims made by people sitting on their arses putting together videos comprised of material gleaned from unsupported myths and legends! Sorry for the sarcasm but I base my opinion on the matter from credible evidence not rehashed propaganda. I have many books ( because that is all that there is ) on the Mongols and Central Asian cultures and nowhere, I repeat nowhere is super human archery ability a serious subject. Yes if you constantly practice something you will be good but the nonsense has for some reason proliferated without any opposition, I am that opposition! The 2 main books are by 2 separate monks, William of Rubruck and Giovanni Di Plano Carpini who travelled to the Khan's court through the Central Asian steppe. Besides being envoys they were also spies who's job it was to document any and all military aspects to do with the Mongols. Nothing there about super human archery! Please read them. Andrew of Longjemeau's book has as far as I know not been translated into English and published so I cannot comment on that. As far as certain writtings by individuals such as Juwaini and his ilk I do not regard as credible because of obvious bias( people who have been slaughtered and decimated don't usually write accurately, e.g. they beat us because they had super human abilities, help from Satan etc!) So If you can come up with any credible documentation of these lost talents please do so because I have been looking for it for a long time. I'm serious, please let me know where to look. Cheers.

[@arda213]

@@gobangs1117 ''the nonsense has for some reason proliferated without any opposition, I am that opposition! '' You go my man!

[@elliejelly8815]

Laminar was made of metal

[@freemind3333]

More simplicity please. Not all of us are experts, you know...!?

[@temberd9095]

Hey I'm Mongolian huh its not true okay guys

[@fuckboiinc.8695]

What's not true?

[@moogiibat5845]

What is not true, are you a troll?

[@reez4910]

Stfu