Collaboration sounds cool. If ratios were often similar and in favor of Muslims, what was the main factor for Christian wins/losses? Was it tactics? Terrain? Etc.
Saladin is crossing the Mississippi river in Kansas with 7.2 million men and 30 million trained caravan cats to carry equipment - Kingdom of Heaven 2 history sequel concept story.
@@RealCrusadesHistory great channel bro. Can you make some video about Bulgaria,we pretty underestimated in history. We saved in Europe in 718 and our army was more than 30k reaching 60k to 100k. We even captured Baldwin. In the battle of Anchialous we fought the Byzantines with 60k army and they had probably more than 100k and we won,after which they recognised us as empire. In those times,we even nearly destroyed the Byzantines,but our leader died. So we were really a world power,as well as the Eastern Romans and tye Arabs,but still ppl focus more on England and France,who were mearly that strong.
@Mazhar Imam Time periods matter too - The 1 st crusade army by the time it reached Jerusalem was probably the premier army in the world in terms of most battle hardened and experienced. The army the Mamluks faced was no where near as "tough", a lot of farmers and seditentary Knights - many who were fighting for the first time. Its like how Alexander the Greats army got better as it continued to fight in Asia, till it was as 1mposter would say "badasses". Plus the Mamluks had been fighting the Mongols for some years - so they probably had more experienced troops & no doubt some "badasses" / certainly Baibars himself deserves that title.
All these battles and numbers you mentioned make the background in Lord of the Rings, given by Tolkien, that much more plausible and well researched or estimated by him! At least concerning the Free People/Men of the West in he Ring War with Rohan as a whole being able to field 10.000-12.000 men in a best case scenario (ultimately only 6000 due to prior lost battles against Saruman, garrisoning, provisions and the time needed to travel from the last corner of the country) or Gondor being a large country with defending long borders and numerous cities being only able to field around 7500-10.000 on the Pelennor (5000 alone from the city of Minas Tirith)
Great video. If you could explain what it was about the economies of Classical Antiquity and the ancient world that allowed them to muster much greater forces than medievals could, that'd be great.
@@queenjayneapproximately At a certain moment slavery was the 'motor' of the ancient society. But later, slavery became the fall of the greatests empires.
@@ALLHEART_ By what? Primary sources? The same primary sources that disagree with one another and talk about millions-sized armies? You also have similar sources from the middle ages talking about gigantic armies, there is no reason to believe one over the other, it's simply bias.
Nice video, I’d also like to point out the importance of foraging to supplement supplies (unless you are including it as raiding) the second crusade is a great case study in the problems of supplying armies, it has it all! Highly recommend William of tyre, odo of deuil and niketas choniates accounts for some interesting reads!
Much smaller scale. Elite warrior class of born athletes. Human sized kinetic energy. Technology and Socialist Revolution democratised war, made war much more brutal, bigger, longer supply lines, longer lasting, noiser, isolated units, friendly fire, high stress, rapid death, long range, perma-danger, psyops, high impact, all terrain, all sea, all air, all classes, concentration camps. And when complex supply lines break you get death by mass starvation. Modern total war is so far removed from medieval battles it may not even fit in the same word or sense. The thing they have in common: people died in it. Thats it.
The thing I don't understand is why does the scale of battle seem to shrink in the medieval era? The Romans, Greeks and Carthage seem to have typically raised larger armies and had no problems maintaining them. Were historians just overestimating the size of armies back then or were the logistics of those empires just that much better for some reason that they could field those armies.
No since the fall of Rome no one had the population Rome had - Gauls, Britons, Iberians etc. They were still in infancy and not as numerous. Then in the Middle Ages they had lot of inter tribal wars. They lost many manpower, had no administrative setup and had disunity. That is the reason.
Too many historians are still claiming that during the Wars of the Roses at the Battle of Towton in 1461 that there were 28,000 dead. A ridiculous number based on a single letter written by an interested party who wanted Towton to sound like Cannae. The Lancastrians had come down from the north to London, and then Edward IV chased them back to York. All of this occurs during Lent, end of winter, so the land was peeled of supplies and the armies would need to bring food and fodder, and presumably ale. This would restrict the armies to 10-15,000 tops for each. Yet, Towton is still called the bloodiest battle on English soil. Even 4-7,000 dead after a retreat that involved collapsed bridges and drownings, quite horrible enough, would be a stretch for this very lean time of year for campaigning. Thank you for your most interesting contribution to this often ignored aspect.
Well, a Mongolian horde had roughly 300 000 soldiers. However, they were not in one place as they would starve to death, not to mention their horses that would eat all the grass. But, it is more than likely that the Mongols, at the height of their power, could concentrate 80-100 000 men, as needed and for a short period because of the supply issues. Probably only in China near the great rivers. If you drove 100 000 men with 300 000 horses into the Syrian desert, you would come out with 2000 men on foot.
For provisioning Fredrick Barbarossa was excellent. Also, Richard the Lionheart knew if he went to far inland he would lose his supply from port cities so he actually got a good deal from Saladin
Aye, gone were the days of huge scale armies of tens of thousands of Rome and Persia, etc. In their place were smaller skirmishes between lords and barons.
Once again great video! Love what you do. Even found my 10 year old son watching your previous edition, he’s really into guitar and he said to me “Dad, if you played guitar like him you wouldn’t be so boring” .....he’s the third son so won’t be inheriting the kingdom!
I was just complaining about this the other day. I've been listening to The Wheel of Time Books and they've got armies of hundreds of thousands of fighting men coming out of a place that's basically the Sonoran desert.
The bizantine army at their high where about 300k (the roman was about 400k at their peak) but divided on smaller armies (legions) along the territory that they controlled, that doesn't mean that they where capable to field all the 300k in a single a battle because of the supply issue, bringing all the 300k at the same place was impossible at that time.
It would be interesting to compare these numbers to Roman field armies from the time of Christ. What part did the Justian plague play in shaping the later armies sizes?
I don't know man, my army of the Holy Nordic Empire is about 65000 men atm. Although its extremely inconvenient, so I just use 5000. I wonder if their vassals were upset their liege wasn't the De Jure liege...
Modern historians are accustomed to huge armies so it's easy to imagine huge medieval forces. The reality, then and now, is quite contrary. An army has to first be fed and military rations didn't exist. Food had to be carried and foraged when that food was gone. Great video as always.
Yeah , they most likely were smaller. No medieval european state was ever as big and populous as the Roman Empire. 60 million people at its height ( France and the Holy Roman Empire had little more than 10 million each ), and also very centralised , while medieval kingdoms were decentralised due to feudalism. That doesn’t mean they were necessarily weaker than the Romans , medievals had , at least in the late medieval period , stirrups , better armour , castles , trebuchets , gunpowder weapons , crossbows , longbows etc.
I have to disagree with you. The Roman's documented everything with little exaggeration. Because of the road and bridge technology and the uniformity of units the Roman's routinely massed tens of thousands of legionaries when needed.
No it was a slaughter due to French fuckery. Agincourt wasn't amazing cause the English managed to win, its amazing because the French Managed to lose.
I love your channel! So much history and learning, thank you! Can you plz do video about Didgori battle? It has great story to it and is from same era as Crusaders! As I know, David used some crusaders in Didgori battle! Didgory battle video would be nice, it will show how crusaders actions helpd small Christian kingdoms, Geopolitics of Medieval era! A realy interesting topic I belive! Thank you again!
During the battle of Hattin , do you know if the castles in the kingdom were stripped of troops ? I can not find any information on this subject. Love the channel. Thank you for the great content
I don't have any sources handy at the moment but many historians have suggested that was the case. Considering how rapidly the majority of the Kingdom fell after the battle, it would make sense that Guy was only able to field the largest army Jerusalem had seen by stripping garrisons down to an absolute minimum.
I always figured that Hollywood and other various accounts were exaggerating the size of Medieval armies for dramatic purposes, Stephen, and you've provided what I think is the clearest explanation for exactly why Medieval armies did not get that big. I've got a couple questions for you about Crusader/Medieval armies though. First, were there ever any groups of warriors/soldiers in the Crusader and/or Medieval armies (on both sides) that could be considered "special forces"-in other words, men who received much more training and had much better weapons and gear than the rest of the army and used strategies that might be considered out of the ordinary by regular soldiers? Second, if you yourself were commanding an army during the Crusader/Medieval period, how would you divide that army up? In other words, what portion would be infantry, what portion would be archers, what portion would be cavalry, what portion would be cavalry archers, what portion would be mercenaries, etc. (those are kind of just examples, you can answer however you want)?
I'm not him, but I can answer only the first question. Regarding a 'special force' in the Middle Ages, the highest nobles can be this kind of ' Man of War' because they had money to pay for the best equipment. Further, they needed to train the belical arts to defend their own lands against others political powers. Another type of man that could be consider a elite troop, is the knights of Holy Orders.Unlike the secular knights, these knights didn't have(in thesis) worldly desires which could interfere in the internal discipline of a military organization. They were monks willing to fight for a holy cause.
you are describing the Knights, literally the elite force of ANY european army, and you would love to have as many knights as you can field, then comes heavy infantry , but that depends in availibity more than desired ratio
@@Woldemar94 Well, knights formed the social and military elite but there were some variations/ranks between them. For example, knights that were members of the ruler's personal retinue. Serving as bodyguards both in the court and on the battlefield. There were also the knights mentioned in the chronicles known as antesignani from Latin "ante signum" meaning "before/in front fo the banner. So basically the knights who were specifically chosen to form the first row of the banner as the best equipped and most experienced among other knights. Elite of the elite.
Were these conflicts also reflective of the types of numbers you woul see in mainland Europe between kingdoms, like in the prolonged conflicts between England and France?
The number of combatants in the conflict would depend on the region and time frame it took place in. The highest numbers of combatants were present during conflicts/battles that happen at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries like in battles of Nicopolis 1396, Grunwald 1410 and, Agincourt 1415 being among the biggest medieval battles.
The most obvious thing about this is simple, the worlds population was only a small fraction of what it is today. Thus everything would be smaller, armies, towns, schools and churches etc.
@Real Crusades History Approximately how large was the army lead by Godfrey of Bouillon (when he arrived in Constantinople)? I have read that his army was equal in size to the contingent lead by Robert Curthose, but I can’t find any estimates to the size of either.
Some of numbers seen in the civil wars of the Late Roman Empire were incredibly high some of the battles between Constantine and Licinius involved almost 300 thousand soldiers, those kind of numbers would not be seen again for centuries and centuries after the fall of Rome.
I'm curious, are Mongol numbers this exaggerated as European armies? Same deal with chinese, the later of which fielding armies in excess of two hundred thousand. Despite the fact that other nations could not field an army of that size until the industrial revolution.
Money was also a most important factor, at the time Louis XIV was the most powerful monarch in Europe the contemporaneous Mughal Emperor had a revenue between 4 to 8 times compared to that of Louis, the armies that these emperors could field far exceed anything seen in Europe at the time.
@@navinkumarpk86 Yep, in the areas we are looking at, Constantinople, Baghdad, Cairo, Cordoba. The Muslim world had most of the big cities at this time. When the Christians conquered cities like Toledo, Palermo, and Antioch during this period, these became the biggest cities in Latin Christendom.
@@g-rexsaurus794 I can't really comment on medieval China, but my understanding is that China had cities that were considerably larger and wealthier than anything that existed in medieval Christendom and Islam.
Armies were so large during Ancient Roman times/Antiquity. Hell, even the "Barbarian" armies were large. Compare that to medieval armies. Plus, the total wars fought during Antiquity as well.
Dont quote me on this but i think it was the way they raised solders, they had more land, better ways of getting wealth, and more global trade(which significantly increased money and food
The ancient Empires were far more sophisticated and organized than any medieval state. Ancient cities could be much larger than medieval ones. Cologne used to be the largest cities in medieval Germany with some 30.000 inhabitants. The ancient Greek city of Rhodes had 60.000 inhabitants and was just one in many Greek city states while in medieval Germany there seemed to be few other cities that came even near the size of Cologne. One other important factor for Rome was the the possession of Egypt and north Africa as sources of cheap food! The loss of North Africa to the Vandals was considered to be fatal to the West Roman Empire. Later the loss of Egypt to the Arabs had a major impact on the size of the remaining East Roman cities and their size!
Armies of Antiquity can draw recruits from heavily populated cities, unlike in most of the medieval era where most of the population are located in the countryside. And the world during the times of the Romans were more connected, the bigger and more accessible trade routes makes for easier managing of supply lines and with a wider range for Diplomatic relations means you have wider list of potential allies. It was also the time of vast Empires and Kingdoms, Rome for example can recruit Legions not just from Italy but from all over their territories and they can count on the support of vast Auxiliary troops from their clients and allies, Hannibal had troops from Northern Africa, Spain and Gaul, the Seleucid's can draw troops as far as the Indus; so on and so forth. Simply put the Armies of antiquity had wider and more populous recruiting pools alongside better financial and logistical capabilities to support them. They weren't as constrained as Feudal armies, as they can rely on their wealthy Polity's and States to provide for large standing armies, not just some few Noblemen that can only raise a limited number of men for a limited amount of time.
Support my work on Patreon: www.patreon.com/RealCrusadesHistory
Join me on my second channel: th-cam.com/users/romanlion
How are you handling the plandemic?
Collaboration sounds cool.
If ratios were often similar and in favor of Muslims, what was the main factor for Christian wins/losses? Was it tactics? Terrain? Etc.
Cud u do video about viking The Heathen Armys size how much was used how much they had and Ragnarssons leading them
And how much enemys had forces against Heathen Armys and what about Stoump bridge in england vikings vs englismen
You think Crusader armies were Superior to the Byzantine Army?
Saladin is crossing the Mississippi river in Kansas with 7.2 million men and 30 million trained caravan cats to carry equipment - Kingdom of Heaven 2 history sequel concept story.
lol
"Oui, an army can starve." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
"Ja, that can happen." -- Friedrich Paulus
"You are hungry? Go and take the Germans' food!" - Probable directive from Comrade Stalin
Could you make a video about the castles in the holy land?
Gosh I don’t know how you could “ improve “ your channel. It’s already awesome!
Hot bikini girls.
@@cobes11 on trampolines
Glad you enjoy it!
@@RealCrusadesHistory great channel bro.
Can you make some video about Bulgaria,we pretty underestimated in history. We saved in Europe in 718 and our army was more than 30k reaching 60k to 100k. We even captured Baldwin.
In the battle of Anchialous we fought the Byzantines with 60k army and they had probably more than 100k and we won,after which they recognised us as empire. In those times,we even nearly destroyed the Byzantines,but our leader died. So we were really a world power,as well as the Eastern Romans and tye Arabs,but still ppl focus more on England and France,who were mearly that strong.
In other words, the Christians were typically outnumbered 3:1 to 8:1 and typically won. And the Normans were badasses
@Mazhar Imam Time periods matter too - The 1 st crusade army by the time it reached Jerusalem was probably the premier army in the world in terms of most battle hardened and experienced. The army the Mamluks faced was no where near as "tough", a lot of farmers and seditentary Knights - many who were fighting for the first time. Its like how Alexander the Greats army got better as it continued to fight in Asia, till it was as 1mposter would say "badasses". Plus the Mamluks had been fighting the Mongols for some years - so they probably had more experienced troops & no doubt some "badasses" / certainly Baibars himself deserves that title.
1mp0ster the crusaders knights horses were trained to kick and bite the enemy, thus adding much needed fire power
@Baghatur Tarkhan 8:31 2700 vs 8000 and the Turks got whooped lol.
@@franciscomm7675 Yeah, obviously it wasn't always the case that they won lol. I need to look up that battle though.
1mp0ster imagine if they had even numbers they would have never lost. They were very unlucky, with a lot of things
All these battles and numbers you mentioned make the background in Lord of the Rings, given by Tolkien, that much more plausible and well researched or estimated by him!
At least concerning the Free People/Men of the West in he Ring War with Rohan as a whole being able to field 10.000-12.000 men in a best case scenario (ultimately only 6000 due to prior lost battles against Saruman, garrisoning, provisions and the time needed to travel from the last corner of the country) or Gondor being a large country with defending long borders and numerous cities being only able to field around 7500-10.000 on the Pelennor (5000 alone from the city of Minas Tirith)
Great video. If you could explain what it was about the economies of Classical Antiquity and the ancient world that allowed them to muster much greater forces than medievals could, that'd be great.
I'm not an expert but im guessing wide spread instituionalized slavery was part of it.
@@queenjayneapproximately At a certain moment slavery was the 'motor' of the ancient society. But later, slavery became the fall of the greatests empires.
Who says they did? You can't theorize when you don't have confidence in the figures to begin with.
@@g-rexsaurus794 I do have confidence. Ancient armies came in the tens to hundreds of thousands. This is well established.
@@ALLHEART_ By what? Primary sources? The same primary sources that disagree with one another and talk about millions-sized armies?
You also have similar sources from the middle ages talking about gigantic armies, there is no reason to believe one over the other, it's simply bias.
You're spot on that the first reason is logistics. Armies carried provisions but those were were gone quickky.
Could you do a video on the castles and fortifications put together by the Templars/Hospitlars etc. like Krak de Chevalier
Thats a great idea!
Nice video, I’d also like to point out the importance of foraging to supplement supplies (unless you are including it as raiding) the second crusade is a great case study in the problems of supplying armies, it has it all! Highly recommend William of tyre, odo of deuil and niketas choniates accounts for some interesting reads!
Thanks for the info!
You mean when the knights started eating their horses?
I'm looking forward to it too. Your excellent narrations and more great graphics are a win-win for me. all the best.
I love his choice of illustrations, it adds to the glory
Much smaller scale. Elite warrior class of born athletes. Human sized kinetic energy.
Technology and Socialist Revolution democratised war, made war much more brutal, bigger, longer supply lines, longer lasting, noiser, isolated units, friendly fire, high stress, rapid death, long range, perma-danger, psyops, high impact, all terrain, all sea, all air, all classes, concentration camps.
And when complex supply lines break you get death by mass starvation.
Modern total war is so far removed from medieval battles it may not even fit in the same word or sense.
The thing they have in common: people died in it. Thats it.
Actually Asia already had mass warfare.
Loved the video. The Byzantine armies at most fielded no more than 20,000, though on at least 2 occasions they had 30,000
The thing I don't understand is why does the scale of battle seem to shrink in the medieval era? The Romans, Greeks and Carthage seem to have typically raised larger armies and had no problems maintaining them. Were historians just overestimating the size of armies back then or were the logistics of those empires just that much better for some reason that they could field those armies.
No since the fall of Rome no one had the population Rome had - Gauls, Britons, Iberians etc. They were still in infancy and not as numerous. Then in the Middle Ages they had lot of inter tribal wars. They lost many manpower, had no administrative setup and had disunity. That is the reason.
Hey that was a good short video. Dig your channel been a sub for a few yrs now.
Awesome, thank you!
Too many historians are still claiming that during the Wars of the Roses at the Battle of Towton in 1461 that there were 28,000 dead. A ridiculous number based on a single letter written by an interested party who wanted Towton to sound like Cannae. The Lancastrians had come down from the north to London, and then Edward IV chased them back to York. All of this occurs during Lent, end of winter, so the land was peeled of supplies and the armies would need to bring food and fodder, and presumably ale. This would restrict the armies to 10-15,000 tops for each. Yet, Towton is still called the bloodiest battle on English soil. Even 4-7,000 dead after a retreat that involved collapsed bridges and drownings, quite horrible enough, would be a stretch for this very lean time of year for campaigning. Thank you for your most interesting contribution to this often ignored aspect.
J. Steven Roberts!!!! Great to see this!!! I hope you’re well!!!!!💥💥💥
It is said: an army marches on its stomach. Very interesting video.
Well, a Mongolian horde had roughly 300 000 soldiers. However, they were not in one place as they would starve to death, not to mention their horses that would eat all the grass. But, it is more than likely that the Mongols, at the height of their power, could concentrate 80-100 000 men, as needed and for a short period because of the supply issues. Probably only in China near the great rivers. If you drove 100 000 men with 300 000 horses into the Syrian desert, you would come out with 2000 men on foot.
For provisioning Fredrick Barbarossa was excellent. Also, Richard the Lionheart knew if he went to far inland he would lose his supply from port cities so he actually got a good deal from Saladin
Thanks for bringing some clarity to this topic.
One reason numbers were exaggerated was to make the victors accomplishment even more even greater in the eyes of history and the general public
Exactly. "We defeated 300,000 men! There were only 200 of us!" Yeah, sure... :)
Certainly true! On the other hand it might be even more important not to give away the real number of troops your side could muster!
Aye, gone were the days of huge scale armies of tens of thousands of Rome and Persia, etc. In their place were smaller skirmishes between lords and barons.
Once again great video! Love what you do. Even found my 10 year old son watching your previous edition, he’s really into guitar and he said to me “Dad, if you played guitar like him you wouldn’t be so boring” .....he’s the third son so won’t be inheriting the kingdom!
I was just complaining about this the other day. I've been listening to The Wheel of Time Books and they've got armies of hundreds of thousands of fighting men coming out of a place that's basically the Sonoran desert.
I just taught the Song of Roland, and that text also describes armies being in the 10s of thousands
The bizantine army at their high where about 300k (the roman was about 400k at their peak) but divided on smaller armies (legions) along the territory that they controlled, that doesn't mean that they where capable to field all the 300k in a single a battle because of the supply issue, bringing all the 300k at the same place was impossible at that time.
i was always curious about the actual number not only the large scale battels but also minor ones thank you
It would be interesting to compare these numbers to Roman field armies from the time of Christ. What part did the Justian plague play in shaping the later armies sizes?
I don't know man, my army of the Holy Nordic Empire is about 65000 men atm.
Although its extremely inconvenient, so I just use 5000.
I wonder if their vassals were upset their liege wasn't the De Jure liege...
Can you do a video on Knights and their retainers and the numbers they would need to produce for a muster call??
0:36 thats realistic because most of time,even generals think enemy army like 200.000 or something
Battle of Grunwald 1410, 40.000 combatants:
Teutonic knights - 15.000 💥
Polish knights - 17.500 💥
Lithuanian light troops - 7.500
Modern historians are accustomed to huge armies so it's easy to imagine huge medieval forces. The reality, then and now, is quite contrary. An army has to first be fed and military rations didn't exist. Food had to be carried and foraged when that food was gone. Great video as always.
Medieval armies weren’t smaller than ancient armies. Ancient sources wildly inflated/over-exaggerated their numbers.
They were all smaller than Xerxes’ army of ten million, right? (kidding)
1mp0ster yeah and don’t forget the half a million men who were killed at Cannae :D
This, even when you revise down the figures, you end up with countries such as 3rd century BCE Rome sending as many around as Napoleonic France...
Yeah , they most likely were smaller. No medieval european state was ever as big and populous as the Roman Empire. 60 million people at its height ( France and the Holy Roman Empire had little more than 10 million each ), and also very centralised , while medieval kingdoms were decentralised due to feudalism. That doesn’t mean they were necessarily weaker than the Romans , medievals had , at least in the late medieval period , stirrups , better armour , castles , trebuchets , gunpowder weapons , crossbows , longbows etc.
I have to disagree with you. The Roman's documented everything with little exaggeration. Because of the road and bridge technology and the uniformity of units the Roman's routinely massed tens of thousands of legionaries when needed.
Very informative. Thanks.
Must agree with Catlaina
Can't wait for next vidéo.
How the hell Crusaders beat much larger armies on field? I mean it's nearly impossible to defeat a real person on Total War if odds are 1:2.
God
@@noelyanes2455 It's not an answer. Why God didn't help in Battle of Maritsa, Yarmuk or others?
@@niccolomachiavelli6371 he did not will it. God’s thoughts are not your thoughts.
There was a lot of exaggeration but Agincourt was a slaughter due to weapons technology
No it was a slaughter due to French fuckery.
Agincourt wasn't amazing cause the English managed to win, its amazing because the French Managed to lose.
I love your channel! So much history and learning, thank you! Can you plz do video about Didgori battle? It has great story to it and is from same era as Crusaders! As I know, David used some crusaders in Didgori battle! Didgory battle video would be nice, it will show how crusaders actions helpd small Christian kingdoms, Geopolitics of Medieval era! A realy interesting topic I belive!
Thank you again!
During the battle of Hattin , do you know if the castles in the kingdom were stripped of troops ? I can not find any information on this subject. Love the channel. Thank you for the great content
I don't have any sources handy at the moment but many historians have suggested that was the case. Considering how rapidly the majority of the Kingdom fell after the battle, it would make sense that Guy was only able to field the largest army Jerusalem had seen by stripping garrisons down to an absolute minimum.
I always figured that Hollywood and other various accounts were exaggerating the size of Medieval armies for dramatic purposes, Stephen, and you've provided what I think is the clearest explanation for exactly why Medieval armies did not get that big. I've got a couple questions for you about Crusader/Medieval armies though. First, were there ever any groups of warriors/soldiers in the Crusader and/or Medieval armies (on both sides) that could be considered "special forces"-in other words, men who received much more training and had much better weapons and gear than the rest of the army and used strategies that might be considered out of the ordinary by regular soldiers? Second, if you yourself were commanding an army during the Crusader/Medieval period, how would you divide that army up? In other words, what portion would be infantry, what portion would be archers, what portion would be cavalry, what portion would be cavalry archers, what portion would be mercenaries, etc. (those are kind of just examples, you can answer however you want)?
I'm not him, but I can answer only the first question. Regarding a 'special force' in the Middle Ages, the highest nobles can be this kind of ' Man of War' because they had money to pay for the best equipment. Further, they needed to train the belical arts to defend their own lands against others political powers.
Another type of man that could be consider a elite troop, is the knights of Holy Orders.Unlike the secular knights, these knights didn't have(in thesis) worldly desires which could interfere in the internal discipline of a military organization. They were monks willing to fight for a holy cause.
Remember that he talks only about the High middle ages. European armies would grow in size quite a bit during the late Middle Ages.
you are describing the Knights, literally the elite force of ANY european army, and you would love to have as many knights as you can field, then comes heavy infantry , but that depends in availibity more than desired ratio
@@Woldemar94 Well, knights formed the social and military elite but there were some variations/ranks between them.
For example, knights that were members of the ruler's personal retinue. Serving as bodyguards both in the court and on the battlefield.
There were also the knights mentioned in the chronicles known as antesignani from Latin "ante signum" meaning "before/in front fo the banner. So basically the knights who were specifically chosen to form the first row of the banner as the best equipped and most experienced among other knights. Elite of the elite.
Armies don't get much bigger, if at all, in the Late Middle Ages. The numbers are very much comparable. 30,000 was still a very large army.
Very Good
Can you discuss command and control
The motivation of 'Good' will always win over the motivation of 'Want' :-)
Were these conflicts also reflective of the types of numbers you woul see in mainland Europe between kingdoms, like in the prolonged conflicts between England and France?
The number of combatants in the conflict would depend on the region and time frame it took place in. The highest numbers of combatants were present during conflicts/battles that happen at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries like in battles of Nicopolis 1396, Grunwald 1410 and, Agincourt 1415 being among the biggest medieval battles.
The most obvious thing about this is simple, the worlds population was only a small fraction of what it is today. Thus everything would be smaller, armies, towns, schools and churches etc.
@Real Crusades History Approximately how large was the army lead by Godfrey of Bouillon (when he arrived in Constantinople)? I have read that his army was equal in size to the contingent lead by Robert Curthose, but I can’t find any estimates to the size of either.
Keep making vids...we love them!!
Can you please make more videos about medieval Spanish society
Would you be able to do a video on the sizes on the Christian military orders that fought in the crusades. Such as how big were the Tectonic Knights.
The largest was the Knight of the Pacific Plate.
@@julias2704 He meant Teutonic
Did Alfonso VI have 2500 or 25,000? I think I misunderstood…
2500.
I thought in ancient and classical times armies were larger than those in later the medieval times...
Maybe, but we never have concrete figures.
Some of numbers seen in the civil wars of the Late Roman Empire were incredibly high some of the battles between Constantine and Licinius involved almost 300 thousand soldiers, those kind of numbers would not be seen again for centuries and centuries after the fall of Rome.
I'm curious, are Mongol numbers this exaggerated as European armies? Same deal with chinese, the later of which fielding armies in excess of two hundred thousand. Despite the fact that other nations could not field an army of that size until the industrial revolution.
Money was also a most important factor, at the time Louis XIV was the most powerful monarch in Europe the contemporaneous Mughal Emperor had a revenue between 4 to 8 times compared to that of Louis, the armies that these emperors could field far exceed anything seen in Europe at the time.
King Richard came with 140,000,000 Knights didn't you know including 140,00,000 nobles
lol
Witch was the biggest city in the world, and in Europe at the time of the First Cruzade and the Reconquista?
Probably Constantinople, Baghdad, Cairo or Cordoba...
@@navinkumarpk86 Or some Chinese city, Xian, Kaifen, Beijing, Nanjing, Hangzhou..
@@navinkumarpk86 Yep, in the areas we are looking at, Constantinople, Baghdad, Cairo, Cordoba. The Muslim world had most of the big cities at this time. When the Christians conquered cities like Toledo, Palermo, and Antioch during this period, these became the biggest cities in Latin Christendom.
@@g-rexsaurus794 I can't really comment on medieval China, but my understanding is that China had cities that were considerably larger and wealthier than anything that existed in medieval Christendom and Islam.
The Battle of Agincourt was 6000-9000 English vs 12,000--36,000 French
Speak about the high middle ages , saxons and charlemagne !!
Armies were so large during Ancient Roman times/Antiquity. Hell, even the "Barbarian" armies were large. Compare that to medieval armies. Plus, the total wars fought during Antiquity as well.
That was BEFORE the plagues.
There was more cavalry than ancient times.
You forgot to say before the Medieval period it was different.
How did the Roman and achaemenid armies consistently outnumber medieval armies then?
Dont quote me on this but i think it was the way they raised solders, they had more land, better ways of getting wealth, and more global trade(which significantly increased money and food
Huge cities. Then the plagues came.
The ancient Empires were far more sophisticated and organized than any medieval state.
Ancient cities could be much larger than medieval ones. Cologne used to be the largest cities in medieval Germany with some 30.000 inhabitants. The ancient Greek city of Rhodes had 60.000 inhabitants and was just one in many Greek city states while in medieval Germany there seemed to be few other cities that came even near the size of Cologne.
One other important factor for Rome was the the possession of Egypt and north Africa as sources of cheap food! The loss of North Africa to the Vandals was considered to be fatal to the West Roman Empire. Later the loss of Egypt to the Arabs had a major impact on the size of the remaining East Roman cities and their size!
What were the numbers at the Battle of Hastings
I get why medieval armies were so small, but how did antique armies manage a 10x size?
Armies of Antiquity can draw recruits from heavily populated cities, unlike in most of the medieval era where most of the population are located in the countryside. And the world during the times of the Romans were more connected, the bigger and more accessible trade routes makes for easier managing of supply lines and with a wider range for Diplomatic relations means you have wider list of potential allies. It was also the time of vast Empires and Kingdoms, Rome for example can recruit Legions not just from Italy but from all over their territories and they can count on the support of vast Auxiliary troops from their clients and allies, Hannibal had troops from Northern Africa, Spain and Gaul, the Seleucid's can draw troops as far as the Indus; so on and so forth.
Simply put the Armies of antiquity had wider and more populous recruiting pools alongside better financial and logistical capabilities to support them. They weren't as constrained as Feudal armies, as they can rely on their wealthy Polity's and States to provide for large standing armies, not just some few Noblemen that can only raise a limited number of men for a limited amount of time.
@@ChocorocK thank you, great explanation!
What were the reasons for regular Christian victories while being outnumbered?
God
God
1:50 and as we all know, a large group of hungry men become a large group of dangerous men
Well, maybe. Or they can become very ineffective.
Real Crusades History maybe “unruly and desperate” would have been a better description
For the general, certainly. Ask Julian the Apostate about that....
N there was alot less people during that time
YOU'RE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE. DID YOU MAJOR IN HISTORY ?
Why were Roman-era armies so much larger?
Because of feudalism
They had a much smaller population, so the army and or "military".
Roman Empire had and marched hundreds of thousands.
Nouce
So what you're saying is that men lie about the size of their armies too? Say it isn't so! Lol!