Comments by "Julian Petkov" (@julianpetkov8320) on "Mongols VS Knights" video.

@me67galaxylife "At their full might they might have gotten past eastern europe but certainly not western." So why did they give Eastern Europe a pass then? Hello! 👋 Balkans here! Poland and Hungary were more in line with West Europe, in terms of warfare. Granted, the Kievans got decimated, they were not the entirety of "East Europe".
6
@me67galaxylife That should be clear enough - the Mongols bypassed most of East Europe and went for the West. Poland and Hungary may have been geographically in the East, but their warfare tech and affiliation at that time was Western.
5
@me67galaxylife What other crusades? Let me fix your confusion for you. The Trojans established the "Roman Empire". Yes? Yes! Was the Vatican located in Italy. Yes? Yes! Did those Roman Popes feel that Byzantium (where Troy is located) is rightfully theirs? Yes! So now the mystery of why the Vatican started a war to "rescue" a lifeless desert (the "Holy Land") but attacked Byzantium instead (the richest place in the world at that time), is not so confusing anymore.
4
@me67galaxylife The main difference between West and East Europe would have been - heavier and slower cavalry. This proved to be disastrous during the Crusades (which were essentially campaigns against Byzantium, but didn't do well in the Balkans). The greatness of the armored knights is just a romanticized Hollywood BS. Even when they decided to try their luck in the backwaters of Byzantium (aka "the Holy Land"), their performance was not very impressive against the Arabs who were greatly inferior to East Europe.
2
@xenotypos They were too heavy to be effective at anything in East Europe. Being slow and clumsy puts serious constraints in the strategy. Even the Arabs were running circles around them. Saladin was not a brilliant general, he fought against slow West European knights. The only time they were formidable is during the charge, provided anyone would hang around to take it. In actual battle, they were very easy to deal with hooks and pole arms. The only place they made sense is in West Europe, against other armored knights.
2
@me67galaxylife That's ok, low information living is a choice nowadays. We have a tower in my hometown where the crusader Baldwin of Flanders "Emperor of Byzantium", died imprisoned. But feel free to maintain your Hollywood fantasy.
1
@xenotypos The armor did get much better, but after the crusades when guns were making it obsolete. The other point most people are missing - the knights were not that invulnerable as the head could never be adequately protected. The wounds from the war of the roses shows that the English were going for the head most of the time. An axe or a claw hammer has no problem cutting through a helmet and a sword would knock a person out, with blunt force. The biggest selling point of armor was protection from arrows. In close combat it was just an invitation to get hit on the head. It wasn't cheap to make, it was hard to get in and out of, and it was restrictive. The knights had to shit and piss in their pants if the day got too long. That's why brigandines became so popular. So what could they have done against the Mongols. Not much in my opinion. The castles would have stood up, but the land around them would have been decimated.
1
"The Mongols knew that the most powerful countries were in the West of Europe." Completely untrue! The Crusaders had a hell of a time in the Balkans - their real target. Also another foolish thing - "They didn't want to attack Italy because the Pope would call on all the Orders." The fact of the matter is, the official narrative is extremely fraudulent. Modern historians shy away from explaining where the Mongols found the capital to finance a conquest. Who was financing and creating all the wars at that period? Um, that would have been the Italian city states, which were the banks and the arsenal of Europe. The Mohammedan, the Crusades, the Mongol and the Ottoman conquests were all financed by the Italian city states.
1