All of this discussion is irrelevant including the economic aspect since all dont talk about the elephant in the room at the scene of every crime the Catholic church. Revising history has this effect.
What you didn't mention was the change in army *size*. They got bigger in the late medieval period, similar to how the general population grew. The size of the nobility however stayed more-or-less the same, thereby limiting the number of knight/men-at-arms available. It therefore seems natural that armies would have a lower _proportion_ of heavy cavalry, even if the _absolute number_ of heavy cavalry stayed the same. As armies become more infantry heavy, they changed the equipment and tactics accordingly, which further increased their efficacy, and the whole thing snowballed. Specifically, the large number of infantry soldiers serving multiple years (something that only knights would have done before) was a prerequisite for longbow volley tactics or pike squares to be able to develop. I think the problem with the Infantry Revolution paradigm is that it sounds like infantry replaced cavalry. Instead, I favour more the view that infantry augmented and eventually outnumbered cavalry
A lot of smaller countries and city states also can't deploy heavy cavalry in sizable quantities in the first place like the Swiss, Flemish, Scotts, and Italian cities. They ended up deploying anti cavalry tactics which diminishes the effectiveness of cavalry overall.
You're on the right track there I think with your observation, but I'd take it a step further and say that the origins of the "revolution" as it were begins when the nobility and peasants were heavily decimated in the Black Death. While the Peasant population and those of the lower to lower-middle classes grew in relative proportion to the nobility, the nobility's numbers didn't really recover to the proportions they were prior to the black death. a smaller noble base would have lowered the amount of active knights in armies relative to their, relatively underequipped infantry counterparts, and just as states became more centralized and pressed administrative burdens on the poor through higher taxes for war. Then, seeing the costs in raising trained armies, most states looked for the most efficient means of raising larger hosts (brought about in part to the higher manpower pools available to them in the mid 15th to early 16th centuries), as fast and as cost effective as they could do so, which led to the rise of pike squares compared to a return to the status quo of before. As a note inbetween, as to why they didn't go back to men-at arms, it probably had to do with the lower amount of nobility and middle-class workers compared to before the black death, and it was easier and cheaper to train peasants in a simple but effective form of combat compared to the cost of maintaining standing companies and armies of men-at-arms. More bang for the buck, as it were. As another note, the overall decrease in nobility as a result of the black death, and the administrave changes going on in centralized and centralizing states in europe might have led to the nobility taking on more civic duties and officer duties compared to becoming armored knights. When it comes to why pike squares, I can think of no better cause than the swiss (as SandRhoman said, a bunch of peasants) BTFO'ing (no better way to describe it really) one of the most powerful european states at the time with a relatively quick 1-2-3 punch. After Charles of Burgundy, one of the wealthiest and most powerful kings of europe at the time, lost, everyone with the money to do so wanted to emulate or purchase the winners to see if their tactics had any merit, and seeing as how the french, one of the most powerful European states at the time after Burgundy's Fall, used them as much as humanly possible to great success; from there pikes in western-central europe spread like wildfire. After that look to the Spanish at Cerignola and the structural changes brought by de Cordoba and the quote "revolution" is complete. I might have a good portion of this wrong, so do feel free to correct me wherever you see flaws in my way of thinking. I will respond to them as I can.
This is the kind of content I need. No dramatized or romanticized nonsense. Just the opinions of prominent historians and their arguments submitted with as little bias as possible, and on a subject that is criminally underrepresented on youtube. Subscribed.
People often forget the use of composite bows instead of longbows, which is much more common in Eastern Europe. Testing has been shown that the composite bows are more powerful than the english longbow, with equivalent gpp. The thumb release with khatra also helps increase arrow speed so more testing should be done on composite horn bows verses european armor.
@@RagingRugbyst A quick study of the location of English speaking countries will demonstrate why, my unknown Citizen of the World. The US is not surrounded by a dozen language groups, it’s neighbors are Canada (English speaking except Quebec), and Mexico. As a Texan, I can assure you that Spanish is spoken here and is rapidly becoming more integrated into society. England, New Zealand, and Australia are all islands, separated from other languages by oceans. Furthermore, the dominance of English (for better or for worse) as a world language ensures that many Americans do not have the necessity to learn a second language that others might. Learning a second language anywhere takes practice and commitment, both of which are in short supply when nobody you know speaks a second language or needs to. As I’m sure you know, learning a language is not about intelligence, but effort and willingness.
Can we just take a minute to appreciate that this guy is able to speak English, German, Spanish ,Dutch, French, Italian, Polish and Swedish in a very correct way as if he was a native speaker I think all the Europeans watching this think the same as me
Well, pronunciation of some Polish names and surnames was strange in the videos I have seen :). Of course it is not critique. Still some were really good and it was better then what is done often with Polish words in many other videos, media or movies :). I understand that it is very hard to find on the internet a proper pronunciation of such things like names of some small towns or even villages at which were battles or names of commanders.
3 language groups too, that's not like me learning Valencian which is very similar to Spanish. I would bet he'd understand a lot of other languages too which he hasn't learned!
Never ceases to amaze me when people speak multiple languages fluently. I trained 2 guys from Chad who spoke 8 languages and a guy from Bosnia who spoke 7 and it blew me away. I took a year each of French and Spanish in school and 2 years of German but I could probably only get by in Germany.
Because most people do not want to hear nuanced positions about military history. They usually want simplified fancy topics which in the end could be summerized with a catchphrase.
As a military historian, I must say that I was amazed by the quality of your video. You use your bibliographical sources well, you take time to discuss the theories, and the illustrations and your tactical representations are well-designed. Congrats !
I think it's by far the best way to go about it. It's already got to be difficult and time consuming. Reusing models is absolutely adequate to keep things visually interesting, and I think that the more you can focus your time and energy on what you're passionate about, the better off your channel will be for it.
@@rustyspurs771 absolutely, SR shouldn't need to worry about being busted, my other favourite channel Historia Civilis uses the same square with like 6 different colours for everyone. With these vids it's just like spotting a cool Easter egg when one you've seen before shows up
I'm perpetually blown away by the quality of these historical documentaries. Once you've had enough of these you just can't go back to any TV/Netflix format documentaries that tend to perpetually repeat themselves over and over to pad the air time. Super job.
Very interesting the combined analysis taking into account cost of war, socio economic aspects and purely military considerations. Great work once again.
Wow, great video. I feel this channel is a cut above most since you actually talk about larger trends in context rather than isolated wars or battles. The use of historical debates and disagreements with sources actually mentioned in the video, so we can get a feeling of the latest scholarship, is a great touch too.
I love how your videos go into depth about the socio-economic aspects of history. I find it far more interesting than a simple retelling of events in battles.
I'm so glad more history channels on youtube are including economic, cultural and political context and not just fetishizing the specific battles or warrior types or weapons or whatever.
It's amazing that even during WW1 Cavalry still had so much influence on tactical thinking that Generals like Haig refused to a accept that Cavalry would not deal the decisive blow in Battles.
i feel that ww1 was more that technology had advanced quickly and there had not been a major international clash with the new technology before. I mean machine guns and artillery meant you could easily deny any advances, but previously armies were not using these weapons against each other, rather against underequipped armies. Also cavalry did evolve into the tank.
@@checker297 ironically tho there were two note worthy wars that used modern weaponry that the Europeans just seemed to ignore. The American Civil war and the Russo-Japanese war. Both had rapid firing guns, artillery, modern metal ships, etc. It was already obvious that cavalry was becoming a thing of the past and that mass body charges wouldn't work against machine guns. The Civil war also had trench warfare too, yet the European leadership treated WWI like it would be a traditional field battle like in the Napoleonic era or something.
@@Ukraineaissance2014put a Maxim gun on a cart and you got a Tachanka, very effective for driving out imperial white russian forces from Ukraine (unfortunately, reds were no better).
do not forget that the plate todd tested was considered "best case" scenario, it did not accounts for probably a good deal of french knights who were poorer, and did not have the best more modern or thick or well maintained gear
The fact that pikes had to developed, adopted, and fielded in such large numbers always made it clear to me that cavalry was always important throughout the middle ages since such expense had to be taken just to counter their threat. I mean if they didnt effectively field a wall of pikes then it would be just like earlier parts of the age.
@Paulo Ramos Yes they are cheaper but they had to develop their own tactics since they werent using a phalanx. Europeans had to start from scratch more or less since pikes weren't heavily used by any of their ancestors really.
Cavalry was important until the 20th century even, when the Polish tried to stop Hitler with that medieval nostalgia (and failed, of course). But it was truly important up to well into the 19th century anyhow. It was not armored anymore because it was utterly pointless against superior gunpowder, but it had shock and pursue value anyhow. It was replaced by bayonettes, later by tanks and airplanes.
The thing that always charms me in Your channel, is (apart from the quality of content) Your manner of leaving references to the sources in the video description.
Their sense of complete surety in their cobbled together information and unwillingness to accept other ideas, information and points can make someone slap their foreheads successively.
Excellent content as always; but I would like to suggest a video about how the Ottomans were able to beat early modern European armies in the Balkans, Hungary and at the doorsteps of the Holy Roman Empire. I think it's a very interesting topic to discuss and is in tune with the content you already brought to the channel.
Felipe if you want the reason, is because the only real super power in Europe was the ERE. The only reason the ottomans defeated them, was because the 4th crusades. There was an intense jealousy of romaninity in Europe, hence why the germans proclaimed themselves romans due to an evolving anger of being seen as barbarians, and the want to be considered civilized (aka roman).
The Ottomans were only able to beat the Balkans and Hungary because the west wanted the collapse of Byzantine empire and also they were much busy with their own wars. As in this video mentioned the wars cost of lots of money and when the Ottomans appeared the Byzantine empire was exhausted by fighting with Arabs and Persians.
You could argue that longbowmen were semi-professional soldiers of their time, definitely not cheap. Also if tactically outsmarted, they would generally lose to French cavalry e.g. battle of Patay
Yeah, the "infantry revolution" was largely a matter of pikes. Even the (never mentioned) early infantry daredevils, the almogavars, clearly very able to face off heavy cavalry in open field, were eventually defeated by the Navarrese Company at Thebes, which was AFAIK pike-heavy (also engineer-heavy and had some unusual Gascon mounted archers).
As an archery myself, I can tell you they were def semi pro. You need to practice and build up your strength to fire that bow w any kind of accuracy. The draw weight was around 100 lbs with no let off like a modern compound bow. I shoot my bow about 3 times a week and I can honestly say I wouldn't be able to draw that bow to full draw.
@@jeffreytoman5202 100lbs seems pretty light for a battle field, I believe english war bows of the time were more in the 150-180 ish range weren't they?
@@psavar97 tricky, because the only bows we know, are from the merry rose, not from the 100 years war. In the late medieval era, the soldiers we're semi professional to professional. Mercenarys were well paid, well equipped and well trained.
@@narzoggash The strategic genius of the English move towards longbowmen is that you got a semi professional population for a fraction of the cost of mercenaries. It was a sweet spot between giving healthy volunteers a spear at muster and paying top dollar for the professionals who, in the missile department at least, werent exactly head and shoulders above the longbowment
can we please skip the nonsense of near eastern cavalry being always light. In the area where the crusades took place heavy cavalry was around since antiquity an the persians and eatern roman armies were using horse armor for nearly a millenia when the crusades just began. The arabs adopted this fighting style very soon.
Chain mail gear is not heavy armor by the middle ages. The Celts invented it almost 2000 years prior. It was outdated, and Cataphracts were left in the dust bin of History.
@@hia5235 Interestingly up until the late 13th/early 14th century mail armour was the standard for all knights/MAA/heavy infantry and cavalry and often horses were unbarded or wore lighter barding than the Cataphractii. That said, you are right. The nature of warfare in the Middle East had changed and heavy cavalry were left by the wayside, to be replaced by lighter cavalry for the most part.
@@hia5235 Cataphracts were still effective, the main reason they got abandoned is that the ERE got weak economically and militarily, first due to corruption and later due to the further loss of land. No land -- > No way to pay expensive cataphracts -- > No more cataphracts. The second reason is that Alexios abandoned the theme system for the Pranoia system in order to be able to raise armies faster, since the thematic armies got obliterated fighting both the Turks and Normans and lacked manpower.
Yes, exactly. The Met and several other museums have 4,000+ pieces of cavalry equipment in their near eastern collection and around 1,500 has been rated as part of a 'heavy' ensemble. Steppe and near eastern armies have much larger contingents of cavalry compared to western Europe that the very real presence of heavy cavalry is often ignored because it seemed to form a small proportion of the total cavalry in any given army. France in the high middle ages might have over-shadowed most of the world in the numbers of heavy cavalry included in its armies but already before the Renaissance, the proportions were already changing around the increase in infantry and due to other structural reason of how armies were raised campaigned.
armour does not mean heavy cavalry, atleast not in western (especially english) definition. European light cavalry of the medieval period for example is often well armoured, often being depicted in full plate armour themselves (such as this from the Spiezer Chronik i.pinimg.com/564x/21/00/5d/21005de2f5d3ca26bfa6717604cd7698.jpg), while to move out of the medival period we see that heavy cavalry had little to no armor. skirimish/harassing troops are usually defined as 'light' and shock troops as 'heavy', with those able to both sometimes being 'medium', but just as often as which type of fighting was their primary purpose. you should have instead emphasized that shock cavalry tactics was used, not that armour was used
I like this kind of discussion. I think it is a lot of combined factors; many you mention here. One thing also seems to be a subtle but larger impact. During the big infantry revolution there was a cultural revolution where the common person started to realize they were important as common people. Cities were on the rise and the throwing off of Catholic rule was spreading. People were becoming important, not just elites... Also, many countries had laws requiring the common classes to supply their own arms and armor. You could put more infantry on the battlefield at a cheaper price and the infantry class had an investment in showing up. They were the new noble and the old noble became more exclusive and more reclusive. It was the rise of the common man fighting for something he believed was his own interests or the size of his society, that was also present. This would change the equipment and tactics and compositions of armies. the larger the social identity the larger the number of social players. Large ideas and large city states brought large numbers of soldiers. less sweeping ideology and smaller cities had fewer players. This explains the late middle ages and the classical era similarities. Fewer players also emphasized the importance of one man because one man, numerically speaking, would make a larger difference with smaller scale armies. The larger the army the more dominant the infantry. the smaller the army the more dominant the cavalry. Combine longer range pole arms, missiles and powder and it accelerates the transition from single players (The Knight) to the collective (the Common Man Infantry)
Can you guys do a video on the militart routing in battle and what happens afterwards. So often its talked about the soldiers routing, but not how long pursuits could last. Nor do we know did bands of them trickle back. If they were in enemy territory were local peasents attacking them? would they use stolen loot to buy passage home of they were in deep enemy territory? How common was ditching their armor and weapons for speed in the rout, or to blend in with locals? Were returning routed soldiers ostricized for cowardice or punished? Or did the lords who commanded them get the blame? Were unpaid soldiers more likely to rout or were soldiers with plenty of loot more likely due to the risks not being worth it when you have your riches already?
The route was the most chaotic and variable stage of medieval battles, and there are few generalizations that can be made about it. Sometimes the pursuit lasted several days but could be just a few hours. Generally nightfall lead to a halt in pursuit for obvious reasons. Withdrawal might be a fighting retreat in good order or a panicked flight. The amount and type of cavalry available on the winning side was a big factor in effectiveness of the chase. Soldiers would almost never throw away their weapons and armor, because these items were very expensive. A sword, suit of armor, and horses were valuable enough that you would have fought to the death to keep them. Also, you would want to retain the ability to defend yourself. Some of the worst routes were against the Mongols who had fast, light cavalry that could pursue almost indefinitely. I agree it is an interesting topic. But there were not really any “rules” in this area - you have to read accounts of the aftermaths of individual battles. Some beaten armies withdrew in good order. Others were nearly annihilated. It all depended on circumstances and particularities. Also, knights and nobles would often surrender, as they could be ransomed. This became less common as ideas of chivalry and honor were superseded by more practical considerations. I have even read accounts of knights or nobles who were spared and promised not to return to fight based their word. On the other hand, depending on the level of animosity, even a king could be slain on the battlefield. Again, there was lot of variability based on the time period and parties involved. You also have to remember that there were tactical dangers from a premature pursuit. The Mongols were famous for withdrawing, seemingly in defeat, only to turn around and devastate pursuers using skirmisher tactics. I have read accounts of several battles where this type of feigned retreat was used to bait an opponent into a vulnerable tactical position. As tactics became more sophisticated into the early modern era, dedicated units were used in the pursuit, basically light cavalry with sabers and pistols. Infantry units would instead maintain their formations. Generally horsemen were the ones doing the pursuing, because running in full battle kit as an infantryman is a pretty awkward business.
Regarding socio-economic changes, I often put out an argument about the relative balance of power. During the medieval period almost all the power was centered around the control of the land. Whoever had more land was more powerful. Later on the trades and crafts became significantly more important, since the food production improved and there was more surplus. The power of Venice was not centered around land, just for example. The knights were fighting in person, in order to keep their top position in the society. Why would they want to fight in order to keep some wealthy merchant in business? They wouldn't. So it's not a surprise, that the Winged Hussars phenomenon happened in a country which prosperity was based on food production and where cities and fortresses were relatively weak. The landed knights had all the reasons in the world to go out there and fight. They considered themselves to be equal to a king himself. It's also not a surprise, that Western cavalry fared much worse against pike formations. What I'm trying to say here, is that without sufficient motivation, there was less training going on, less money spent on equipment and also much less determined performance during the actual battles. Those changes in military prowess are attested in period sources. No matter how effective a heavy lancer can be, if you simply do not have those people any more.
Worth noting as well, that whilst it definitely is not the only, or even main factor; terrain played a role in the continued mass use of cavalry in central/eastern Europe (e.g. Poland-Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Moscow, Cossack Hosts, Hungary and the various Tatar Hordes). There are very few natural obstacles in Eastern Europe save for the Carpathians, the Swamps of North East Poland and Belarus plus a handful of huge rivers. Hungary being mostly on the Pannonian plain and the others on the Central Eurasian plain/steppe, these vast open spaces needed mobility to stop encirclement or being outmanouevered, as well as generally lending itself to charges better than say the Alps or Pyrenees, though the Winged Hussars had still charged and won fighting in all sorts of uneven ground. Another one is that these, especially Poland-Lithuania and Hungary, were still highly aristocratic societies until their collapse (though by the 18th century they seldom participated in wars anymore); and in the case of Poland-Lithuania, the nobility was about 10% of the population compared to 1-3% in most of the rest of europe. Meaning there was a much larger martial elite for longer. Beyond that they were fighting different opponents and full blown England/France-style war was a bit less common, but fighting was constant even in times of 'peace' due to Tatar/Cossack raiding so mobility was key.
@@adamb162 Since we go that deep, I'd like to add that in a sparsely populated area, with few and not very good roads, cavalry was actually necessary for sieges. Sieges take time, army needs provisions. An infantry heavy army would likely starve, where an army focused more on cavalry had a chance of gathering enough provisions to continue the siege. Anyway, I'm glad we seem to agree that infantry, even with firearms, wasn't simply better suited for war.
@@bakters 100% agree, the logistics and context around conflict in the area effectively forced warfare to be waged differently than in the western portion of the continent. Though only thing i'll say is that Poland and Hungary proper were actually pretty densely populated for the time (though still overwhelmingly agrarian), the areas east of there though... not so much.
@@adamb162 "areas east of there" That's where most of the fighting was happening, wasn't it? Germany was divided, Austria still under Ottoman pressure, so before Sweden showed up in the North, the majority of conflicts were fought in a fairly sparsely populated areas with few and bad roads.
@@bakters Yeah, exactly that. Most of the clashes between the PLC/Tatars/Muscovites/Cossacks/Ottomans & co happened in modern day Ukraine, Belarus, Western Russia and to a lesser extent the Baltic states, areas which never really recovered fully from the Mongol invasion (hence the sparse population/shit roads); until Sweden set everything on fire during the Deluge and Northern Wars and then after that Poland proper was the battleground, especially following the partitions. In the case of Hungary, most of their conflicts happened around modern day Serbia, Slovakia Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia which suffered from similar problems though nowhere near as drastic as it was a much smaller area and more connected to major traderoutes (also worth noting are their conflicts with Austria and Bohemia). Similarly, after the collpase of Hungary to the Ottomans/Austrians, Hungary proper became the battleground.
This was a very good and well researched vide. some points I would like to make >Arrows vs armour: from what I have seen most accounts of arrows piercing armour come from before the 15th century, when full harness as we know it was typically adopted. Earlier armour was lighter and did not offer as good protection. It may be that arrows could more easily penetrate the earlier armour whereas they had a hard time doing anything to later harness. >Change in tactics: A lot of the tactics used changed in the late 14th century. Field fortifications become a lot more common and a lot of the officers begin to adopt tactics designed to defeat cavalry. look at Agincourt where the French plan was to use heavy cavalry to drive the English archers from the field then threaten the centres flanks whilst the footknights charged, it was a good plan but was hampered by the English deployment that made the use of cavalry untenable. In addition, as you noted, infantry formations became deeper and more professional. this last one is massive. Men who are well drilled and disciplined and professionally trained will perform a lot better than raw conscripts or levies, and will stand up to cavalry charges far better. Other tactics such as the use of ranged units in close support (or intermingled with) infantry and the use of dedicated anti-cavalry measures such as War Wagons and fieldworks all hampered shock cavalry by disrupting the charge, the thing that they most relied on. Shock cavalry need that charge to break the enemy, its the solid mass of horse and lance hitting the enemy that breaks them and shatters their formation and will to fight on. If that charge is disrupted and the impact taken from it then the shock cavalry are put at a huge disadvantage and can allow infantry to overcome them. I put that an increase in the use of professional soldiers, anti cavalry tactics and fieldworks to disrupt the charge gradually brought an end to the reign of cavalry in the West, although it was still a potent force when used correctly.
I very much like your panels and illustrations you bring in. They come in at the right moment and help me better visualize what you're saying. Not to mention the accent and pronunciation. I'm no native English speaker, but I like the rythm you give and how you pronounce French and German words. Overall, great job with the channel, and keep up with the good work!👍
I like the way you scientifically challenge the point of view of medieval authorities, that you are able to link the dotts that many dont see:" different socio economical situation leads to surprising military outcome leading to surpising changes on a socio-political level" history is as nuanced as current days
The one thing about the theory of the Infantry Revolution and the discussion surrounding it that always bothered me is how Bohemian Hussites, Ottoman Janissaries, and Hungarian Black Army always seem to be left out. The extreme western-centrism of some of the historians participating in this discussion makes me view such theories as regional phenomena rather than a pan-European process. This is bad since we can certainly see that the effects of the so-called infantry revolution were visible around Europe but were achieved in various ways. This topic begs for more complex studies and overview.
I agree with you. I have always been interested in how the Slavic peoples came to dominate much of Europe in the Dark Ages, but it is hard find many western historians who wrote about this.
I think it has much to do with the cultural dominance of the angloshpere in the public. For that reason the focus is often focussed only on England, France and a bit of the surrounding territories. The Iberian peninsula gets ignored, Italy with its citizen militias gets ignored as well and as you said Eastern europe and the Balkans which are a huge region and very important get also ignored.
@@Xfire209 I once read that popular history is basically a thousand years of English propaganda. That is obviously hyperbole but it has like grain of truth.
I always remember that Sandrhoman is swiss and have the irrational hope of meeting him in my hometown at some point. I know I don't know what he looks like but I just would love to sit down and discuss some of my favourite topics with him. Just in private, not for yt or anything.
Why nobody talks of the almogavars (since 12th century), very especially when discussing this cavalry to infantry transition? They are one of the first infantry troops to be very deadly to cavalry. Instead everybody talks about the "English" (Welsh) longbow at Agincourt (15th century), what is almost the Modern Age already. Nowadays it has become a bit more common to discuss Swiss and Scottish pike innovations in the 13th century and that's very good but there was a previous moment when the almogavars scared the heck out of both Angevine and Byzantine knights because of their anti-horse fighting style that rendered cavalry nearly useless and armored knights at a disadvantage when having to fight on foot against much more nimble unarmored yet very dexterous fighters.
Wow this was like sitting in some of my best lectures in undergrad. Really enjoyable to hear an intelligent account on a topic I've only ever heard in military pop-historical terms. Your scholarship is excellent.
Can you show us some eastern european battles between 14th-18th century while talking about how and why Ottomans first gained the upper hand but started losing in the early modern period?
@@mikespearwood3914 My guess is that internal corruption slowly made the Ottomans less and less capable of maintaining their empire. They didn't become the sick man of Europe by accident.
@@mikespearwood3914 Exactly. It is a pattern in history, nothing to do with Turks. 1). States get comfortable with the status quo. 2). A vigorous and innovative new ruler builds an empire. 3). The successors of said ruler no longer need to be vigorous nor innovative. etc.etc
Nice discussion. I believe that in addition to these changes in tactics, one of the main things that lead to centralization and the rise of Kingly power over that of the nobility is the high cost of siege weapons. Cannon could now break down any castle but they were costly so that the king usually had more and better of them.
EXCELLENT, video and information. Just perfection. PLEASE keep the standard of your videos. This is amazing.
3 роки тому+1
Probably, this is the most complete video i seen, of all you uploaded in the last months. I like it very much how you explain the research and the examples. I will expect anxiously the next one. XD
I think the socio-economic changes lead to change in structure of an army, like emphasys on infantry. These things happened before in history: the city-state of ancient Greece was more egalitarian and concentrated around the hoplites, unlike Mycenean Greece, which was more aristocratic and the most effective instrument of war was the war charriot in that period
It can also be the other way: it's a chicken or egg first dilemma. Anyhow, you have aristocratic realms like Sparta or Macedon using infantry massively, and also Rome later on, so it's not so simple. An argument can be made for both Greeks and Romans never really being cavalry/chariot heavy because they fought primarily in rugged terrain that was not adequate for the hit and run tactics of cavalry/chariots. However they also used those infantry-heavy tactics in flatter terrains with great success. The late Roman Empire relied growingly on specialist cavalry forces by design because they had less wealth and probably even less manpower to defend such a huge territory. Here lays another advantage of cavalry: much greater mobility, being able to strike at distant points in relatively faster times.
I think this is begging the question of how "egalitarian" ancient Greece actually was, Athens is usually held as an example of an early democracy but not only did they keep slave only the wealthy elite of the city could participate in this democracy, regular workers and such were barred from participating and even within this class the wealthiest had the most power. Not only that but Athens is also famous for literally coming up with the motto "Might makes right". Like this is similar to Hong Kong today where the wealthiest actually get more votes (though even there everyone can vote) and China constantly interferes in elections and none of us consider that a real democracy and usually we think of it more as a place where people are trying to create a democracy. I think associating army types with government form is a bad idea because they aren't directly correlated, the same forces influence both, but they are not directly correlated. For example infantry armies in Europe grew far beyond their late medieval and early modern period sizes in the 1600s and 1700s which was the period of absolute monarchy, and if we go later still into the error of industrialization some of the most authoritarian states had enormous infantry based armies. These days the association seems to be the exact opposite where more democratic states tend to have smaller but very professional and well equipped armies whereas more authoritarian states have large conscripted armies. Basically there is a third factor here being missed and that's the socioeconomic realities of the states in question. What we can probably say is that infantry armies tend to be associated with population surpluses and these same population surpluses can also introduce pressures that lead to political changes, if one class grows significantly it can exert new pressure onto the current ruling class and perhaps overtake it. But things can also go in different directions where if a state becomes large enough it adopts more authoritarian policies to maintain control over larger areas.
@@hedgehog3180 - Pericles' Era Athens was as egalitarian as it could get for that kind of society surely. Around 1/3 of all inhabitants of Attica had the right to vote, 2/3 if we consider adult men only. Slaves and foreigners (metecs) were excluded but still all free native men were entitled to vote and had a responsibility in the affairs of the state (even if by lottery, as officers were often elected that way). AFAIK there were three class-oriented districts: the city (dominated by the proletariat), the coast (dominated by the mercantile class or bourgeoisie) and the countryside (dominated by the always conservative aristocrats), but as decisions were made in presential assembly (and not as in Rome by class-rigged voting system), the lower classes had a lot to say (and there's where you can insert the aristocratic criticisms of Plato and the treason of Socrates, who was clearly hated for being pro-tyranny and pro-Sparta, both phlosophers were close associates of the most hated of the Thirty Tyrants: Critias). In that context slavery was largely a matter of miners (Athens owed much of its power to some nearby silver mine where life expectancy was very low) and domestic service. Farm work was generally done by free workers AFAIK. So it was a slaver society but not as slave-heavy as would later be Rome or the European colonies in America for example, or even Early Middle Ages' Europe (some of my sources claim that the vast majority were slaves in Italy and Germany, but "only" 40% in France for some reason, also no clear difference between slave and serf at that point). Athenian proletarians, who could not afford war equipment, served as rowers in the military ships and drew a great deal of pride from that military service (consider that rowers were essential in proper success of ramming tactics). It was a mixed bag for our modern standards but it was clearly much better in terms of democracy than any other contemporary society we have records of. It did not produce a better infantry however (the phalanx relied on heavy infantry, which was drawn from the upper middle class), but it did produce a better navy. This probably brings us to the heavy infantry troops being not so much proletarian troops but rather middle class type. That's also probably true for the Swiss pike. However it may change somewhat once the state professionalizes the soldiering, as did Marius in Rome or the Spanish Crown with their tercios. Once the soldier does not have to pay the costs of soldiering but rather lives from that job specialization, it becomes much more accessible to the working classes (and also less interesting for the well-off ones). The culmination of this process of state-ization of the military came since the French Revolution, which allowed France to suddenly have huge and oddly efficient armies, and was thus imitated widely till present day. If anything what we have witnessed in recent decades is that draft has been replaced by more reduced but well equipped and heavily trained professional armies, at least in the West.
@@LuisAldamiz Honestly, I suspect that the random tribes in Anatolia that Xenophon raided were more egalitarian than Greek city-states. Lightly armored guys throwing Javelins...
@@hypothalapotamus5293 - They were certainly more egalitarian and democratic than Xenophon's second home of Sparta. I would not use the word "tribes", that's a colonialist and civilizitationist word, but as they used to say in those days: "nations". Probably the Kurds were quite participative. Why?
Excellent. I studied early modern war and society as part of my degree and you have caught the essence of the debate nicely! My person take was that it was both of these things in a mutuly reinforcing cycle that caused rapid evolution rather than revolution per se. Each demonstration of the efficacy of one drove people to the other.
I think that the "infantry revolution" question was caused by a correction directed against the over-emphasis of the heavy knight. Other states had a more balanced approach to warfare and this "revolution" doesn't make sense outside of Western Europe. The Ottomans are a very good example since the late Middle Ages in Europe coincided with the peak of their military success. They conquered a vast empire and bested western European expeditions but did not employ very heavy troops. Nor did various Arab states or East Asian powers. Heck, even Eastern Europe was distinct enough.
I agree, especially in France, they had armies with too much cavalry and so were beaten. This wasn’t infantry becoming more effective, the tactics used were around from Philip of Makedon but Europe loved knights too much. When the Swiss realised they could take advantage of that they did and like magic it looks like infantry got better
Yeah, France is overemphasized. There are good reasons to do so, because it was by far the most densely inhabited (and thus wealthiest) part of Europe at the time but a bit of de-frenchization would not be bad either.
Very good video! Regarding the importance of footsoldiers during the High Middle Ages I would like to add that there is not one specific type High Medieval army. Fighters on foot often played a bigger part in those battles in which militia forces of larger towns took part. Like Steppes in 1213, Bouvines in 1214 or Hausbergen in 1262. But often armies were mostly made up of the retinues of noblemen and those lacked footsoldiers with sufficient cohesion, motivation, equipment and training. I would say there was no general reliance on "cavalry" or "infantry" but on warriors you could expect to hold their own. And in many battles during the High Middle Ages the only reliable fighters were knights and their companions. But when leaders had robust footsoldiers in sufficient numbers at their disposal, they did use them in a more prominent role. In many cases alongside of knights. This leads back to the socioeconomic factors you mentioned. Also to be a bit nit-picky: You are one of the very few channels who integrate the viewpoints of actual historians into their videos and that is absolutely great. But I don't agree with your opinion that Delbrück was too gullible regarding the sources. In fact Delbrück is still known for being the first military historian who was especially critical towards ancient and medieval sources, using his concept of "Sachkritik" to determine if certain passages were believable or not. I would say he was more cautious in this regard than some military historians today. The problem with Delbrück is more that he compared medieval tactics with those of ancient and early modern times instead of looking at them in their own specific context. If you compare the actions of medieval armies on the battlefield with those of the 18th century the Middle Ages will always look primitive and rudimentary.
What is to say about long-bows: A test from some 40-year-old dude or even a fit 20-year-old does not tell you anything about the power of longbows. Because there are a lot of mentions that even knights, the athletes of their time, had struggle shooting a real english war longbow. Those guys were trained every week from childhood and they could much, much more power into their bows then some tester today. Even competition bows today, really do not need that much strength when compared to medieval long-bows. Because if its not this massive training, but instead you can buy a long-bow give someone a few hours of shooting lessons and he could then penetrate armour, well...then everybody would have had a longbow army. Because even if it did not penetrate armour it can still fuck up any cavallry or lightly-armoured infantry charge. So maybe its not just for shits and giggles that the english crown made it mandatory for every men to shoot the bow after church.
Not only they have the real longbow, they have no proper archer, they're shooting only a single arrow at a standing piece of armor with modern steel at 90º now add all those things to the equation: the guy is moving toward a wave of arrows, unknown speed, the arrows doesn't necessarily have to kill him to take him out of combat, and so many other things. Real life has always something you wouldn't expect in tests.
You don't need a man to test the bow, put it on a bench, like a big crossbow and measure the force that is needed to pierce an armor. That way you know if a man can do it.
One thing with the armor vs. Longbow argument that I talk about often is how even if the arrows didn't often pierce the armor of the knights they would still be highly effective. It may not kill the knights or even cause severe damage, but think if the ballistic vests the military uses currently. A 5.56 or 7.62mm round may not penetrate the plates, but the wearer will still suffer bruising, often broken ribs, and traumatic blunt force injuries. American Football players wear shoulder pads and helmets, but still suffer from shoulder and head injuries. Boxers still suffer damage and stamina loss from punches even with the padded gloves. Arrows from long bows and even crossbow bolts will have similar effects on a plate armored knight. Many knights may have survived, but they would have probably been licking their wounds.
The arrows would have a kind of suppressive effect but were almost totally ineffective against late medieval full plate aside from a lucky shot. Of course, no medieval army ever had even close to a majority of its units kitted out in full plate armor, as it was insanely expensive and had to be custom made for a particular person. What I have read from multiple sources is that horses were extremely vulnerable to arrows as it is quite difficult and, again, expensive to fully armor such a large animal. And you can imagine the kind of chaos that would ensue when they are wounded and thrashing around almost uncontrollably. That seems to be why knights would often dismount and attack on foot. If they charged at the beginning of a battle against a mass of archers their mounts would essentially be shot out from underneath them. Early English victories in the Hundred Years War can be partially attributed to this. On this note, this is also why in many medieval battles cavalry weren’t committed until late in the battle when ammunition was depleted and they could maneuver more freely. Kinda strange to think about it this way but archers were in some sense an anti-cavalry weapon in that they were most effective at killing horses rather than people, at least heavily armored ones.
What about the Battle of Tours (732), when Frankish heavy infantry defeated the much larger Arab invasion force... although it can be argued that the Basque-Aquitanian cavalry had a decisive role when it raided the enemy camp? It's like we can't just go back to the Crusades, infantry was important all the time.
@@meanmanturbo - Before the 11th century cavalry was not dominant and since the 13th century or so it was rapidly being replaced by infantry? That's a very narrow window for cavalry supremacy, especially when we add up the almogavars (mounted infantry that terrorized knights and cataphracts), who appear precisely in the 11th century. Also the stirrup is older than what you claim. At least from the 7th century in Europe. > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup
Yeah but the Frank in that battle were in the forest: A very good deterrent for any Calvary. I don’t really know how Arab heavy Calvary works, but I do know that the Sassanid Persian heavy cataphract were responsible for the destruction of multiple Roman armies. Despite what most people would have you believe; heavy Calvary is one of the most effective heavy infantry counters and was almost universally the crack units of early to high medieval armies( Persians, Eastern Romans, Franks, Chinese, Arab, Turks, Mongols). It was essentially the king of the battlefield along with horse archery.
@@theverysupercman97 - Martell chose that position because they were apparently in disadvantage by numbers and that (positional defense) was a tactic they were drilled in. It's not clear that the Arab army was cavalry-heavy because the Basques were able to circumvent them with their cavalry in the right moment, and it's not even fully correct to imagine them as "Arabs", rather Berbers for the greatest part, judging on the genetics of Muslim cemeteries in Narbonne and North Iberia in that period (surely mostly hosting the bodies of soldiers and their families), there would be Arab leaders but the bulk of te troop were surely Berbers, maybe also Hispano-Romans (but still Christian at that time so buried separately). My point was that, while knights get the hype, in those days they often fought on foot, rather as mounted infantry than as heavy cavalry (they were not yet that much burdened by the heavy armor of later periods). Even in the Northern European flatlands, back in those days forests were almost as dominant as in the days of Teutoburg, only as the Middle Ages moves on the area gets really cleard for farmlands. Gaul was surely somewhat more open (more people lived there) but would still be rather forested. The Arabs apparently used heavy cavalry a lot in the early days of Islamic expansion but of course the bulk of a large army such as the one of Al Gaffiqi, the largest one the Ummayad Caliphate ever mustered in Europe without doubt, was necessarily largely made up of infantry and lighter types of cavalry.
@@LuisAldamiz Cavalry was important from at least the early Middle Ages all the way into the Napoleonic Era and basically up to WWI. Before mechanized warfare, cavalry was the preeminent tool for flanking due to speed and impact from the charge. This is why in so many medieval battles commanders would carefully choose their position so that their flanks were protected. A large unit of horsemen getting around and then behind a force into its rear was devastating. Cavalry also had a huge advantage in the route and pursuit phase of medieval battles, as they could easily chase down unmounted troops. The Mongols used their bows from horseback with devastating impact. You can tell cavalry has always been a key element of warfare since ancient times since so many infantry weapons like spears and polearms are specifically designed to counter mounted warriors. Alexander the Great won most of his battles by flanking with cavalry or routing the enemy with direct charges, and this was the era before stirrups. Mounted warriors also have a distinct advantage in small engagements, which you don’t read about as much, but occurred frequently during the medieval period. This is because only a mass of infantry can effectively defend against competent mounted warriors. Horses were also indispensable for raiding, striking fast and hard, doing a lot of damage, and then getting out. I wouldn’t say they have really enjoyed periods of absolute dominance, but this is more a logistical issue than anything. Horses are costly to maintain. This is why prototypical mounted troops in medieval Europe came from the nobility. Peasants or even those in what passed for the middle class could generally not afford horses, and if they could, they were not going to risk getting them killed in a pitched battle. Knights on the other hand fielded multiple horses. Same with the Mongols - each warrior tended to have two or more horses. Because they are animals and tire out, get injured, etc.
Tactics did not affect the plagues that plagued Europe, but the plagues affected the tactics for sure. Plagues similarly affected structure of society and centralization as there were less people, which streamlined the government. As the people multiplied, ppl started to expand the middle management at a same rate because foreign conquests were rarer than in the 6th-11th centuries. Ofc you trust same language guys better than say if you happened to be french speaking and your subjects were speaking proto-English.
5:37 "To what extent..." That phrase right there is a mark of quality, especially for history. SandRhoman, your channel is a godsend for us history buffs who are fed up with all the pop history out there.
Great show. You can certainly imagine that the motivation and rewards vs risks would be very different for lower class infantry forces and upper class mounted cavalry. And this is a fluid dynamic, changing from place to place and time to time, depending on many factors like the success of crops or the marriage of your cousin to your enemy or ally. Another factor is the popularization of knights would probably be influenced by story tellers and troubadours who would be strongly influenced by the people who could pay the best.
Discipline and battle training cannot be understated: knight cavalries always have been "unruly", depending on impetus to break the enemy line, but was always difficult to coordinate. It had lost the Dark Age fencing ability to a "one shot steamrolling role. The defeats against Saladin and the Mongols, showed the limitation of undrilled cavalrymen in tactical warfare. Heavy infantry calls for tight formations ,(phalanx), where a soldiers feels more secure, and slow pacing movement, which makes it easier to manage from a tactical PoW with crude headquarter assets. The British line in the HYW was basically turning battles into sieges, where cavalry was less of an asset, but was a very crude tactic, adopted to counter the superior french cavalry, basing everything on its inability to act "tactically". Formations were still made up by unruly and undrilled units which were shaped to exploit to their instincts in battle. The longbow was effective, but stakes were winning the battles. This is why crossbows were always preferred to Longbows outside of France. The Swiss and the Flemish turned infantries into offensive weapons, which evolved in the Spanish Tercio when crossbows were switched to fire weapons. The evolution of cannons from siege weapons to tactical assets in battle made the pikemen obsolete during the 30Y war, as professional mercenary armies had been mowed down by attrition and the need for large levy units arose, to keep the armies fighting. Only during the Napoleonic wars hand to hands combat become widespread again, while, since late XVI century, Cavalry was relegating to a maneuvering role, to probe and destabilise the enemy lines.
man, I love the research you (and a team?) do!!! Really informative and interesting, even for a layman! also, digging the improved editing and battlefield animations. great stuff!!!
I was never really into the late Middle Ages as a topic of study, but I find this interesting and well made. The inclusion of the sources of information is key to establishing legitimate historical works. Well done
I deeply belive that Czech Husites warfare influence infantry revolution in cetral Europe. Onely problem is that is overlook by western historiography. But it doesn´t mean it was not important. Also Otomans has strong infantry core.
The Hussites broke with the medieval thinking when they did not call the citizens to defend a feudal lord or the church, but to participate in the defense of an elected provisional government of their country.
It irks me that medieval history in the western world is basically just England and France. I wish there was more talk of Eastern Europe and the Middle-East
Exactly. The influence was enormous as Hussites relied on pikemen, gunpowder (words pistol and howitzer comes from Czech language from this era) and war wagons, that in many battles consistently managed to defeat the best cavalry forces of Europe. All during and around 1420s. That is exactly the reason why so many changes appeared "around 1430" as the video says.
@@sirlagged I agree. The only channel I know that covers those areas is this one. At least he does a good job of introducing people like me to the history of central and east Europe.
In a completely unrelated not to the actual content of this video, does anyone else find the sound of the little units cracking when they get killed just sound so satisfying? Hahaha I love it
I’d love to see you doing more of tying military history into the broader framework of social and political changes that were happening in the early modern period.
As much as i enjoy the likes of lindy beige and shadiversity, they never achieve this level of thoroughness because they are tunnel-visioned, focusing solely on technical/tactical concerns. Military history is so much more..... Great job SandRhoman!
Now I really want you to make a video about the transition from the 17th century warfare to the 18th century warfare Cuz in the 17th century the pike and shot warfare was the tactic used in the battlefield but suddenly in the 18th century we have line infantry with gun weapons and bayonets and the pikes disappeared from the battlefield So i am really curious and want to know what happened that caused this much change or how the transition was made
Good suggestion. I'm intrigued too, although SR may have mentioned this to some extent in the context of the Wars of Religion, as the Swedish tactics were distinct from the Imperial ones and did produce at least a first change of tactics that favored the line (still pike-heavy) over the square.
Bayonets are what happened basically. The invention of the bayonet and improvements in artillery and muskets made pike squares suicidal. I mean it's literally a massive mass of men. 1 canon shot could kill or injury 10+ men with 1 shot. In an infantry line you can take out 2 or 3
@@lovablesnowman - Squares were still being used against cavalry in the Napoleonic era. They were bayonette squares. I can agree that bayonettes were a game changer but in the sense that they allowed a single type of infantry to be at the same time shooter and "spearman" of sorts. Infantry still had to keep formation for either shooting or (more loosely, just general cohesion) for charges as well and that made them targets for firepower (both artillery and infantry). I think it has more to do with very large armies able to entrench themselves along extremely long frontlines that did not exist in previous times (in which maneuvre was much more important) and also with the development of war machines such as tanks and airplanes. WWII really saw the end of cavalry.
@@LuisAldamiz I wonder how on the one hand modern warfare (20th century major wars) has more or less no pitched battles but does have fronts, which were not a thing before for some reason, and sparsely spread skirmishers along these fronts armed with bolt-action rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, semi-automatic and automatic rifles, but on the other hand in what seemingly is contradictory to all these powerful weapons where a single man can wipe out a company or even a battalion of men in a single battle, is that force concentration is a thing as well. Perhaps the latter applies at an operational level or scale and not at a tactical scale? Otherwise it seems nonsensical to send more and more into a certain battle, at least as long as the enemy has the mobility and intel to respond in time with the MINIMUM required reserves to send in to reinforce the front line. So the reason why world war 1 style wave tactics probably were successful in the end is probably due to the enemy not being fast enough to respond with reinforcements.
@@AttilaKattila - WWI is very transitional, tanks and air forces made such tactics obsolete just a few years later. What kind of fortification can you use against that kind of forces when concentrated? It's back to mobility or to "invisible" guerrilla playing hide and seek against superior but less legitimate forces. Or to all-out nuclear war which is a total game breaker. WWII had pitched battles (Montecasino, Stalingrad, Normandie, etc.) but they were part of larger fronts (either seeking their collapse or trying to reject the consequences of front collapse (stupid Hitler's "fortress" defensive strategy).
Longbowman is cheaper than knights or footmen, All they need is training with a bow, little metal to make arrows, and can be massed produced. Later on, crossbow would come to take over the bow then after that muskets and rifles.
As a child, I remember being taught that the Middle Ages were quite backward, but not primitive like the Dark Ages. I also rejected that teaching, because I was also taught about the building of Gothic Cathedrals. Gothic Cathedrals are obviously the most advanced stone constructions ever. They were the pinnacle of stone architecture. For the first time in history, stone was made to look as light as a flower. The people of the Middle Ages were not primitive. Such luminaries as Roger Bacon and St. Thomas Aquinas were in the Middle Ages. That was not an age of fools. Those who think the Middle Ages were lacking in learning and intelligence, just show their lack of learning and intelligence.
@@mudshovel289 thats the point: the technological reality does not mean there iss a backward OR forward. While the cities in the middle ages were smaller than the roman "mega-cities" and had no sewage system, the overall use of waterpower and industrial-like manufacturing was indeed widely used in the middle ages outscaling by far the roman manufacturing capabilities
@Ahtalon it seems we’re all just taught a only a negative view of the Middle Ages. How Europe was knocked back into the dark ages and had a renaissance when they rediscovered the knowledge of the past. In reality they were making their own advances.
Love the way the video was wrapped up at the end..it all depends on circumstances.. no point having cavalry amongst a star fort unless they come out when starved..but if they are fed by the boats and given resources then cavalry might as well go home.. Then infantry have never been given enough credit for what they do..especially veterans engaged in a seige or standing inbetween rookies telling them to stay calm amongst mayhem..there is no price for that kind of mentality..then again quickly train peasants put them in the right position and circumstances and they can hammer and anvil.. Different scenarios ultimately call for different types of units/strategies/tactics.!! Horses have this stigma that they were only used medieval times..but they were still used in the 1st world war..blows me away that mentality lol Love the channel..many thanks 🙏
Infantry, Cavalry (Heavy and light) and ranged contingents always worked together as to form an effective fighting force. The size of the differing contingents may have varied but they all had an Important role to play.
22:10 What? A complete upset military success that no one saw coming, that was hugely misreported and romanticised at the time? Nooooooo **laughs in blitzkrieg/bewegungskrieg/Rommel's cirkus 1940**
@@LonelyKnightess from what I've read, as is often the case, it was a mix. He did some really clever things and some really dumb things, and some of the allied commanders and units facing him handled that well and others handled it poorly. I vaguely recall a series of battles back and forth over the same bit of ground because both sides were being kind of absurd with regards to their logistics. They were quite capable of taking the place at the other end if the strip, but not of getting the logistical support to keep it before the other side could counter attack. Mind you, I came across the relevant things some years ago, now, so I wouldn't be surprised if I was misremembering.
@@laurencefraser Rommel himself (or possibly one of the other Panzer corps generals) said that the battle of France just should never have worked. They were incredibly lucky. But I think that in part, they made their own luck by taking a lot of **calculated** risks.
@@laurencefraser Yeah I am over exaggerating Rommel's stupidity in reaction to the much more common exaggeration of his competence. He was a skilled tactical commander and fine enough as a general but was nowhere near as competent as the Allies (and revisionists since) have said, and if the Allies weren't sort of bumbling their way through the front half of the war then he'd never have been anywhere near as successful.
The biggest issue in these kinds of historical debates is that all of these factors in warfare and state systems are incredibly well interconnected that neither one factor can be named the reason for a victory, defeat, or change on the battlefield or at home. Clausewitz tributaries analysis shows this well. If anything all of the factors named contribute to a change or outcome of an event.
I think the rise of the infantry revolution from cavlry warfare is less abbout ability. Fundamentally, well placed, braced and disciplined infantry could still knock cavalry out in both middle ages and after. And cavalry could still smash armies in both middle ages and later if handled properly. The fundamental difference between the 2 period is more akin of how warfare was fought more than effectiveness of the units. In the middle ages, warfare was constant raiding mostly. Every year there was a chance of attack, raid and siege. You always had to prepare for war and quickly respond to enemy raids. Cavalry was the only method to effectively respond and deal with enemy incursion into one's own territory. Just look at the example of the roman emperor Gallienus and his mobile cavalry core to quickly deal with oncoming barbarian armies in the past. Furthermore It allowed you to also effectively raid enemy territory overland, be less burdened by supplies, quickly combat the reaction force or quikly get away with plunder. And finally because in the middle ages states were less centralized and smaller, infantry weren't as useful as they couldn't be mantained in training and small noble retinues of cav were much more viable than large expensive bodies of trained infantry. Still it's telling that even in this period most armies were largely composed of infantry. Even battles like Legnano in 1176 showed that infantry could stand up to cav. Later on, with centralization of states, Armies grew with more and more infantry as part of them. Actual diplomacy also lessened the state of war being nation and lessened the ability of local border nobles to raid into the other countries land
Knights are probably one of the worst units for plundering, raiding etc. The pure cost of their equipment... They didn't even use the horse they were using for travel in battle. Warhorses aren't that mobile, they are a weapon itself and relatively fast tired. Just imagine waging a "small war" in your neighbors lands while having to feed 4 horses for each knight, while being chased by much faster and lighter horses... Furthermore you would need "support staff" so there will be even more people to feed and to hide, some of them might not even be capable of fighting. It's literally like using tanks against partisans in the woods. Of course your general idea is true but it's wrong to think that the horses value is merely its speed. Which of course is important.
@@user-xq4st9ie7r I disagree. The tactic of the Chevauchee was used quite often. The most famous case was done by the black prince in southern france (though accompanied by infantry. The term literally mean the cavalry run. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e.
@@andreascovano7742 Chevauchees are differently equipt then knights! Exactly for that reason And the fact that the black prince is famous for it should show that its not that common and to say that medieval warfare was basicly "permanent raiding party exchange" is a oversimplification
@@user-xq4st9ie7r Hard disagree. The black prince wasn't famous for but the chevauchee itself was (It led to the battle of crecy). The spanish had a similar term (cabalgada). In spain this raiding was everpresent. I'm not saying medieval warfare was only permanent raidning. But a very vergy large part of EARLY medieval warfare was raiding and harassing the enemy. Especially if not done by a state (though even then it wasn't uncommon). Big setpiece battles were quite rare.
Maybe but it's a well known fact that the Frankish cavalry forces were absolutely unable to stop the raids of the Vikings for example (hiring some Vikings, thereafter known as Normans, was instead). In Iberia the way to counter raids was usually to fortify heavily and also organize counter-raids, as well as to pay tribute in order not to be raided. I don't have the impression that cavalry was so important in the Iberian wars generally gathered under the term "Reconquista". The pattern of state centralization was also quite unequal. Germany and Italy went from centralized to decentralized, while France did the opposite (before it was recentralized again in the Modern Age already). Some major actors in the "infantry revolution" were small and decentralized (but not or less feudal) polities like Switzerland itself.
11:23 Man, the French just have a habit of sending a bunch of knights charging at enemies who have a superior position and getting bogged down in the mud and getting wrecked by light infantry.
Great video! Did Army structure influence a change in tactics or vice a versa? Whenever the study of history/social phenomena are framed seemingly in this sort of either/or causal relationship, many simply choose a side. Great job of showing how both influenced the other! Whenever history or social science is framed in this way it is usually a phenomenon with complex causes/effects that is being studied. Great presentation! Very informative/stimulating! Requires further reading for me....
Longbows and xbows dont pierce plate armour but they can pierce chainmail. What made them fantastic however, was the higher rate of fire, range, and numbers that the english fielded. It'a not fun advancing on an enemy position when you are getting peppered with high rof projectiles. To add to this, heavy cavalry was extremely effective at punching through unorganised amateurish lines that tended to be fielded by feudal realms that worked off conscripts and levies. The main French defeats in the 100 years war all involved them running up a hill in stupid conditions at a disciplined english lines whilst having arrows shot at them. When one looks at the main losses of the French in the conflict, mst of them come down to really poor decision making due to pressure from external factors such as pride. After the 100 years war France fielded a professional army and used the lessons learnt from the war such as using field artillery to counter the english reliance on bows. They also set up an archery program to have men practice archery on their days off. Right after you have the era of pike and shot where heavy cavalry became redundant as gunfire and pikes werent exactly horse friendly. What I've found from my limited research is that a lot of over reliance on one type of weapon such as the longbow, horse archer or heavy cavalry only really worked against poorly disciplined troops in the days before professionalism of armies. When one looks at the Romans and The Mongols (the 2 greatest old empires IMO) one can see that strategy, logistics, discipline, command structure, and persistent training were what mattered and that internal politics are what ultimately brought those empires down. Heck, the mongols won so many victories from feigned retreats and causing enemy formations to break purely from pissing them off with horse archers that battle wise it showed how one dimensional they were with their main strengths coming from extraordinary information gathering and terror tactics.
None of those historical sources specifies what kind of armour was defeated by longbows, whether it was mail, brigandine or full plate, and indeed whether that was hardened steel or soft iron. All those sources tell us was there was some types of armour used at the time that was vulnerable to arrows. And The King is such a terrible source of info for medieval warfare I don't think using that clip made any sort of point... The guy on foot didn't fight back AT ALL, nor was he defended by stakes and archers or even carry a relatively short pole weapon like a pollaxe.
An arrow shot from a longbow does have a tremendous amount of force and could punch through all but quality plate armor. It can definitely puncture chain mail. Many of the troops in large medieval battles wouldn’t have even had any kind of full body armor. Most melee infantry would just have had helmet and shield and possibly a breastplate and maybe elbow and knee protection. Full suits of armor were too expensive and laborious to produce for most of the troops to have worn them.
@@Loyal_Lion Have you seen this series on Longbows vs Armour by Tod's Workshop? ua-cam.com/video/DBxdTkddHaE/v-deo.html If not, highly recommended. I think while it's evident from the video that the "longbow" has a lot of energy & momentum behind it, both "longbow" and "armour" and the balance between the 2 probably changed quite a lot over that period, but we have limited points of reference. For instance the only surviving longbows we have, is a single group that dates from some time just before 1545 (when the Mary Rose sank). But this is what is commonly cited when longbows are talked about. But the "late medieval" period, while not having a fixed date, is somewhere between 1250 & 1500 AD (but could be as little as 1300 - 1450 AD, depending on who you ask, what country or region, even what discipline) but either way, 1545 is still very much in the Rennaissance period & could be as much as 300 years removed from the earlier end of the "late medieval" period. As for armour, even what counted as a "suit of armour" changed over time. We know from Tod's testing, that the plate armour available c.1400 AD, that wasn't yet heat treated, but was at least made of steel, rather than iron (roughly analogous to plain medium-carbon steel) was pretty much proof against the "longbow" (at least against contemporary arrows fired by a bow from ~130 years later so likely a bit more powerful), at least from ~50m. I think this would have been considered "good quality" plate armour for the nobility & other rich people around the middle of the late medieval period, but not by the end. Late period brigandines, thought to be worn by infantry, have, in many cases, been found to be made from old pieces of armour, cut up into smaller plates. Obviously, this would not be as effective as a single plate, but that's late "late medieval", earlier it might have been a gambeson & mail, or just the padded jacket (& always a helmet) was at the earlier end of that period, probably considered "armour" for the command infantryman. Then there is range to consider. What might be defeated by arrows when fired flat, at close range, like a soldier wearing mail over padded textile with a kettle hat, is likely relatively well protected from arrows when fired at long ranges where the arrows have both lost a lot of their energy & also are coming down at a much steeper angle so more likely to hit at an angle. The point is context is everything & we shouldn't just go by 1 source in isolation.
The military history scholarship on this channel is superb and has sound ideals a doesn't follow a certain form historiography rather both sides. Well done
@@kevinschmidt8101 they don't even use fancy complicated square tercos formation, instead they spamming lots of teppo gunnners protected by yari spear infantry. Maybe their tactic is similar to linear pike and shot of gustavus adolphus or maurice nassau, but much more simple and more defensive than gustavus because they use bamboo palisade to protect gunners from cavalry charge. They use volley too and I guess they are more linear than deeper. I said linear because gunner in linear create more shocks and maximize firepower per shot, otherwise battle of Nagashino result will be different I guess. Guns produced in japan at that time are a lot than total guns in europe and they even don't learn from europe to form their own yari and teppo tactic I guess and their tactic were successful in Imjin war, at least in pitch land battle or defensive sieges.
The heavy cavalry in the medieval times most likely was like the armored forces nowadays. Each knight was usually expected to bring with himself a retinue of warriors and not all of them equipped in a very expensive plate armor. The very limiting factor was probably not even the personal armor, it was the HORSES. I know more about later heavy cavalry (winged hussars) but the same/similar very likely applied to the medieval period: the trained war horse was VERY EXPENSIVE and usually these costs were borne entirely by the knight himself (that was definitely the case with winged hussars). Given the theater of the war characteristics it is also not surprising that there was no "Infantry Revolution" in the Central and Eastern Europe. This may even saved the neck of the Western Europe from the Mongol invasion (what happened in 13th century was really a reconnaissance campaign). Moreover there is good evidence that even in Central and Eastern Europe battles and wars were fought using BOTH cavalry and infantry.
I don't know if the Infantry Revolution can be entirely associated with centralization, considering that the Swiss Confederacy was highly decentralized and yet was a pioneer in it.
1) The energy expenditure available to a general is measured, before machines are available, in food ("an army marches on its stomach"). This energy may be supplied from home - limited by available supply route capacity - or it may be plundered or bought from the locals - limited by local abundance, travel time for foraging parties (effective area being foraged) and willingness for the locals to take steps to retain their food. There is evidence that the latter may have been more common, sometimes (often?) as an army's sole method of energy gathering. Whatever your limit may be; adding forces beyond it is more of a hindrance than an asset - your available energy hasn't increased; you're just inviting hunger and poor morale. This means it's important you only bring people who are good. 2) Regarding local foraging: Soldiers can't eat grass (or a whole host of other plants). Herbivores can. For this reason, bringing animals along makes a lot of sense: it allows you to exploit an abundant energy source that would otherwise not be used. This leaves you two choices for how to spend this "extra" energy: either bring livestock as food for the soldiers (adding infantry) or as fighting units themselves (cavalry). The second option is arguably more attractive, since it avoids the "food chain penalty" (as a rule of thumb, each level in the ecological pyramid only pass on 10% of absorbed energy). This means that a certain cavalry contingent is essentially "free". Sure, the horses may be monetarily expensive to buy (and do cost considerably in the long run in the form of land needing to be used for fodder), but on the march they hardly tax your foraging energy budget at all. Up to a point. So: a horseman need not really be that much more effective than an infantryman on the battlefield. In fact... they probably weren't. Horses are big, dumb and prone to panic. They are easy to hit with spear or bow, and will be a considerable hindrance to a rider who's thrown off. They do not trigger the "don't kill your fellow man" instinct of people in a hot state that a man will. Their sole advantage is speed: they can scout, forage and they get to pick where and when to fight. The men could always dismount and fight as infantry when the situation called for it. In the age of poor roads and almost 100% foraging, this means that cavalry or dragoons are likely to make up a relatively large part of any "regular" (ie. state sponsored) army. Once communications improve, this equation change. Increasingly, it becomes possible to resupply armies from home. Here, you generally see almost 100% infantry support (grain) chosen over cavalry support. Thus, we tend to see that up to a point, cavalry to infantry may be around 1:1, lending a considerable advantage to cav and their ability to locally overwhelm a portion of the enemy. With improved communications allowing supplies to brought from a centralized staging area, the armies tend to add infantry: the cav detachments stay the same size or at least grow far more slowly, and it is no longer realistic for these (relatively) smaller cavalry forces to carry a large enough portion of the line to force a mass rout without heavy infantry support. I will grant that there are some records of forces willingly being "cav heavy", ie. choosing to trade _away_ infantry to get more cavalry (early Khanite armies being the poster child for this). This does give them considerable strategic mobility advantages, but it almost always ends in them being heavily dependent on atrociously destructive over-foraging of the land to remain competitive with a comparable more infantry-heavy adversary. Fighting this way you may win, but the price is that you gain very little worth having besides a devastated wasteland.
You have not got it quite right on the advantages of cavalry. The sole advantage is not just speed but mass and hence greater impact coming off the charge than an infantryman, hence the use of lances, which are the cavalryman’s version of an infantry polearm. Also, the horses used for medieval battle were not skittish and panicky and were trained for battle. They were nasty and aggressive and would ride through and over opponents. They were combatants in their own right. Of course, you couldn’t effectively charge horsemen into a wall of polearms wielded by competent infantry. But your idea that they were flighty and unreliable like modern horses people breed for light riding is not at all accurate. Also, “speed” is rather an understatement because what cavalry also provides is mobility, both on and off the battlefield. Cavalry typically inflicted most of its damage from pursuit after a route. Additionally, mounted warriors excelled at “hit and run” or raiding tactics, which occurred frequently, even if the large pitched battles get most of the attention. I have also read that cavalry were frequently used in sallies from a besieged castle to raid attackers and then quickly withdraw. They probably do get too much hype, but there is a reason cavalry is always a topic of discussion. If not totally dominant on the battlefield, mostly due to logistics, mounted warriors were always a threat that had to be dealt with and considered,
@@Loyal_Lion Rather than disagree with you, I will say that I totally agree that given certain circumstances, the ability to charge home with cavalry could be decicive. On the other hand, most warfare seems to have revolved around either outright sieges, or forces occupying some strong point. The type of field battle where the weight of a cavalry charge would be decicive is relatively rare. I maintain that rapid movement was their _real_ strength. As for skittish... You aren't wrong, but there is a limit to what you can train them to accept. Modern day police horses are trained in pretty much exactly the same way (you expose them to gradually increasing stressors until they learn to accept them), and as this video shows, that allows police to charge down noisy people throwing sticks (no doubt potentially both scary and painful to the horses), but they end up increasingly spending more and more of their concentration controlling the horses, until they lose cohesion and have to pull back. One of the horses also decides to nope out and bolts, throwing its rider. ua-cam.com/video/hLWm60hEgRU/v-deo.html&ab_channel=GuardianNews In a real battle you could of course try to go in even harder and try to crush people. I don't really think that was very common though, since the horse is almost certain to loose its footing and fall, leaving the rider prone and sorrounded by enemy infantry.
The discussion seems somewhat meaningless. While the relative importance of cavalry and infantry have changed up and down until the truly modern era, it almost always was a question of combined arms.
CuriosityStream link: curiositystream.com/sandrhoman
Do you like this kind of discussion of scholarly controversies? Yay or nay?
Yae!
Yes indeed I like to hear different view points of a scholary subject.
All of this discussion is irrelevant including the economic aspect since all dont talk about the elephant in the room at the scene of every crime the Catholic church. Revising history has this effect.
_Yea... Verily: Yea_
YAY
This is some of the highest quality content on military history out there. Congratulations on the outstanding work.
Completly agreed. I must say that I regard it as reliable as Milllitary History Visulized which is not an easy thing to do.
He sounds like that same Germanic nutjob on Milllitary History Visualized channel always trying to refight WW2
And all from cartoons as well. Cool man.
my question is how come this guy sounds like skalligrim... what if it is this guy?
Exactly was i was thinking! Just found out about this channel, amazing work.
What you didn't mention was the change in army *size*. They got bigger in the late medieval period, similar to how the general population grew. The size of the nobility however stayed more-or-less the same, thereby limiting the number of knight/men-at-arms available. It therefore seems natural that armies would have a lower _proportion_ of heavy cavalry, even if the _absolute number_ of heavy cavalry stayed the same. As armies become more infantry heavy, they changed the equipment and tactics accordingly, which further increased their efficacy, and the whole thing snowballed. Specifically, the large number of infantry soldiers serving multiple years (something that only knights would have done before) was a prerequisite for longbow volley tactics or pike squares to be able to develop.
I think the problem with the Infantry Revolution paradigm is that it sounds like infantry replaced cavalry. Instead, I favour more the view that infantry augmented and eventually outnumbered cavalry
A lot of smaller countries and city states also can't deploy heavy cavalry in sizable quantities in the first place like the Swiss, Flemish, Scotts, and Italian cities. They ended up deploying anti cavalry tactics which diminishes the effectiveness of cavalry overall.
Hmm medieval manuals show they could train a pikemen in 6 days.
Pikes were both cheap and effective.
He said it around the 12th minute...
You're on the right track there I think with your observation, but I'd take it a step further and say that the origins of the "revolution" as it were begins when the nobility and peasants were heavily decimated in the Black Death. While the Peasant population and those of the lower to lower-middle classes grew in relative proportion to the nobility, the nobility's numbers didn't really recover to the proportions they were prior to the black death. a smaller noble base would have lowered the amount of active knights in armies relative to their, relatively underequipped infantry counterparts, and just as states became more centralized and pressed administrative burdens on the poor through higher taxes for war. Then, seeing the costs in raising trained armies, most states looked for the most efficient means of raising larger hosts (brought about in part to the higher manpower pools available to them in the mid 15th to early 16th centuries), as fast and as cost effective as they could do so, which led to the rise of pike squares compared to a return to the status quo of before.
As a note inbetween, as to why they didn't go back to men-at arms, it probably had to do with the lower amount of nobility and middle-class workers compared to before the black death, and it was easier and cheaper to train peasants in a simple but effective form of combat compared to the cost of maintaining standing companies and armies of men-at-arms. More bang for the buck, as it were. As another note, the overall decrease in nobility as a result of the black death, and the administrave changes going on in centralized and centralizing states in europe might have led to the nobility taking on more civic duties and officer duties compared to becoming armored knights.
When it comes to why pike squares, I can think of no better cause than the swiss (as SandRhoman said, a bunch of peasants) BTFO'ing (no better way to describe it really) one of the most powerful european states at the time with a relatively quick 1-2-3 punch. After Charles of Burgundy, one of the wealthiest and most powerful kings of europe at the time, lost, everyone with the money to do so wanted to emulate or purchase the winners to see if their tactics had any merit, and seeing as how the french, one of the most powerful European states at the time after Burgundy's Fall, used them as much as humanly possible to great success; from there pikes in western-central europe spread like wildfire.
After that look to the Spanish at Cerignola and the structural changes brought by de Cordoba and the quote "revolution" is complete.
I might have a good portion of this wrong, so do feel free to correct me wherever you see flaws in my way of thinking. I will respond to them as I can.
He said as much if not explicitly at least implicitly.
Hussites be like when they see someone charged their caravans:
"Call the apothecary, call the apothecary."
*Whips out pistala*
"But not for me."
Im weak 😂😂
Hilarious
I got that reference.
@@cm275 I didn't. Could you tell me what he was referencing?
Edit: nvm, I found the meme he was talking about lol
Nice
This is the kind of content I need. No dramatized or romanticized nonsense. Just the opinions of prominent historians and their arguments submitted with as little bias as possible, and on a subject that is criminally underrepresented on youtube.
Subscribed.
So true. Most UA-cam "Historians" don't even site any primary sources. All they do is animate someone who is narrating a the notes from a Wiki entry.
People often forget the use of composite bows instead of longbows, which is much more common in Eastern Europe. Testing has been shown that the composite bows are more powerful than the english longbow, with equivalent gpp. The thumb release with khatra also helps increase arrow speed so more testing should be done on composite horn bows verses european armor.
So did heave cavalry loose importance in East Europe before in West Europe?
Impressive the way the host can rightly speak any word from any language
Sounds swiss
It's called not being a lazy American that's accustomed to every other people learning their language.
His Spanish needs a bit of work but it's still very very good, better than 90% of those I've heard
@@RagingRugbyst A quick study of the location of English speaking countries will demonstrate why, my unknown Citizen of the World. The US is not surrounded by a dozen language groups, it’s neighbors are Canada (English speaking except Quebec), and Mexico. As a Texan, I can assure you that Spanish is spoken here and is rapidly becoming more integrated into society.
England, New Zealand, and Australia are all islands, separated from other languages by oceans. Furthermore, the dominance of English (for better or for worse) as a world language ensures that many Americans do not have the necessity to learn a second language that others might. Learning a second language anywhere takes practice and commitment, both of which are in short supply when nobody you know speaks a second language or needs to.
As I’m sure you know, learning a language is not about intelligence, but effort and willingness.
@@RagingRugbyst it is not a lazy American.
Can we just take a minute to appreciate that this guy is able to speak English, German, Spanish ,Dutch, French, Italian, Polish and Swedish in a very correct way as if he was a native speaker I think all the Europeans watching this think the same as me
el habla español increíblemente bien
Well, pronunciation of some Polish names and surnames was strange in the videos I have seen :). Of course it is not critique. Still some were really good and it was better then what is done often with Polish words in many other videos, media or movies :). I understand that it is very hard to find on the internet a proper pronunciation of such things like names of some small towns or even villages at which were battles or names of commanders.
3 language groups too, that's not like me learning Valencian which is very similar to Spanish. I would bet he'd understand a lot of other languages too which he hasn't learned!
Kortrijk was Uhm.. not so accurate dutch
Never ceases to amaze me when people speak multiple languages fluently. I trained 2 guys from Chad who spoke 8 languages and a guy from Bosnia who spoke 7 and it blew me away. I took a year each of French and Spanish in school and 2 years of German but I could probably only get by in Germany.
SandRhoman is definitely one of the most underrated history channels on UA-cam.
He is growing that thing rapidly though.
He needs to change its channel name and get a proffesional logo 😜
Because most people do not want to hear nuanced positions about military history. They usually want simplified fancy topics which in the end could be summerized with a catchphrase.
Yes, I don't get why everybody likes the kings and generals channel so much more. Since its content is so biased and simplified.
👍👍👍
As a military historian, I must say that I was amazed by the quality of your video. You use your bibliographical sources well, you take time to discuss the theories, and the illustrations and your tactical representations are well-designed. Congrats !
thanks for the nice comment!
I love how you reincorporate all the little dude models in later videos. I'd recommend an ongoing game of "can you spot the Gustavus Adolphus?"
haha, busted I guess :P
I think it's by far the best way to go about it. It's already got to be difficult and time consuming. Reusing models is absolutely adequate to keep things visually interesting, and I think that the more you can focus your time and energy on what you're passionate about, the better off your channel will be for it.
@@rustyspurs771 absolutely, SR shouldn't need to worry about being busted, my other favourite channel Historia Civilis uses the same square with like 6 different colours for everyone. With these vids it's just like spotting a cool Easter egg when one you've seen before shows up
@@Eamonshort1 fun fact for ya, those squares are actually the international military symbols for their respective units
You find him, you drink!
I'm perpetually blown away by the quality of these historical documentaries. Once you've had enough of these you just can't go back to any TV/Netflix format documentaries that tend to perpetually repeat themselves over and over to pad the air time. Super job.
Wow. Seriously love videos that do the
"Here's what different experts think about. Here's the history and evolution of their arguments."
Great job!
Very interesting the combined analysis taking into account cost of war, socio economic aspects and purely military considerations. Great work once again.
Wow, great video. I feel this channel is a cut above most since you actually talk about larger trends in context rather than isolated wars or battles. The use of historical debates and disagreements with sources actually mentioned in the video, so we can get a feeling of the latest scholarship, is a great touch too.
I love how your videos go into depth about the socio-economic aspects of history. I find it far more interesting than a simple retelling of events in battles.
SandRhoman: “Crecy and Agincourt happened 69 years apart.”
Audience: Nice
😎👌
SandRhoman stops talking for a moment: *I can't say it, I just can't say it, I have a serious history channel*
Audience: He is secretly saying NOICE
Kevin Malone: "Hahahaha this is too much!"
I'm so glad more history channels on youtube are including economic, cultural and political context and not just fetishizing the specific battles or warrior types or weapons or whatever.
It's amazing that even during WW1 Cavalry still had so much influence on tactical thinking that Generals like Haig refused to a accept that Cavalry would not deal the decisive blow in Battles.
i feel that ww1 was more that technology had advanced quickly and there had not been a major international clash with the new technology before. I mean machine guns and artillery meant you could easily deny any advances, but previously armies were not using these weapons against each other, rather against underequipped armies. Also cavalry did evolve into the tank.
Cavalry were extremely effective on ww1 eastern front
@@checker297 ironically tho there were two note worthy wars that used modern weaponry that the Europeans just seemed to ignore. The American Civil war and the Russo-Japanese war. Both had rapid firing guns, artillery, modern metal ships, etc. It was already obvious that cavalry was becoming a thing of the past and that mass body charges wouldn't work against machine guns. The Civil war also had trench warfare too, yet the European leadership treated WWI like it would be a traditional field battle like in the Napoleonic era or something.
@@Ukraineaissance2014put a Maxim gun on a cart and you got a Tachanka, very effective for driving out imperial white russian forces from Ukraine (unfortunately, reds were no better).
do not forget that the plate todd tested was considered "best case" scenario, it did not accounts for probably a good deal of french knights who were poorer, and did not have the best more modern or thick or well maintained gear
The fact that pikes had to developed, adopted, and fielded in such large numbers always made it clear to me that cavalry was always important throughout the middle ages since such expense had to be taken just to counter their threat. I mean if they didnt effectively field a wall of pikes then it would be just like earlier parts of the age.
True, but spears and pikes are EXCELLENT against infantry. It's not necessarily aan anti cavalry weapon.
@Paulo Ramos Yes they are cheaper but they had to develop their own tactics since they werent using a phalanx. Europeans had to start from scratch more or less since pikes weren't heavily used by any of their ancestors really.
Cavalry was important until the 20th century even, when the Polish tried to stop Hitler with that medieval nostalgia (and failed, of course). But it was truly important up to well into the 19th century anyhow. It was not armored anymore because it was utterly pointless against superior gunpowder, but it had shock and pursue value anyhow.
It was replaced by bayonettes, later by tanks and airplanes.
@@LuisAldamiz The polish didn't use cavalry to try to stop hitler that is just bullshit
The thing that always charms me in Your channel, is (apart from the quality of content) Your manner of leaving references to the sources in the video description.
Armchair historians are BIG on Reddit too. Us history teachers are constantly shaking our heads.
Their sense of complete surety in their cobbled together information and unwillingness to accept other ideas, information and points can make someone slap their foreheads successively.
Excellent content as always; but I would like to suggest a video about how the Ottomans were able to beat early modern European armies in the Balkans, Hungary and at the doorsteps of the Holy Roman Empire. I think it's a very interesting topic to discuss and is in tune with the content you already brought to the channel.
first modern standing army at europe was ottomans, so basically Ottomans saw European troops as training target for their cannons and rifles.
Felipe if you want the reason, is because the only real super power in Europe was the ERE. The only reason the ottomans defeated them, was because the 4th crusades. There was an intense jealousy of romaninity in Europe, hence why the germans proclaimed themselves romans due to an evolving anger of being seen as barbarians, and the want to be considered civilized (aka roman).
The Ottomans were only able to beat the Balkans and Hungary because the west wanted the collapse of Byzantine empire and also they were much busy with their own wars. As in this video mentioned the wars cost of lots of money and when the Ottomans appeared the Byzantine empire was exhausted by fighting with Arabs and Persians.
You could argue that longbowmen were semi-professional soldiers of their time, definitely not cheap.
Also if tactically outsmarted, they would generally lose to French cavalry e.g. battle of Patay
Yeah, the "infantry revolution" was largely a matter of pikes. Even the (never mentioned) early infantry daredevils, the almogavars, clearly very able to face off heavy cavalry in open field, were eventually defeated by the Navarrese Company at Thebes, which was AFAIK pike-heavy (also engineer-heavy and had some unusual Gascon mounted archers).
As an archery myself, I can tell you they were def semi pro. You need to practice and build up your strength to fire that bow w any kind of accuracy. The draw weight was around 100 lbs with no let off like a modern compound bow. I shoot my bow about 3 times a week and I can honestly say I wouldn't be able to draw that bow to full draw.
@@jeffreytoman5202 100lbs seems pretty light for a battle field, I believe english war bows of the time were more in the 150-180 ish range weren't they?
@@psavar97 tricky, because the only bows we know, are from the merry rose, not from the 100 years war. In the late medieval era, the soldiers we're semi professional to professional. Mercenarys were well paid, well equipped and well trained.
@@narzoggash The strategic genius of the English move towards longbowmen is that you got a semi professional population for a fraction of the cost of mercenaries. It was a sweet spot between giving healthy volunteers a spear at muster and paying top dollar for the professionals who, in the missile department at least, werent exactly head and shoulders above the longbowment
can we please skip the nonsense of near eastern cavalry being always light. In the area where the crusades took place heavy cavalry was around since antiquity an the persians and eatern roman armies were using horse armor for nearly a millenia when the crusades just began. The arabs adopted this fighting style very soon.
Chain mail gear is not heavy armor by the middle ages. The Celts invented it almost 2000 years prior. It was outdated, and Cataphracts were left in the dust bin of History.
@@hia5235 Interestingly up until the late 13th/early 14th century mail armour was the standard for all knights/MAA/heavy infantry and cavalry and often horses were unbarded or wore lighter barding than the Cataphractii. That said, you are right. The nature of warfare in the Middle East had changed and heavy cavalry were left by the wayside, to be replaced by lighter cavalry for the most part.
@@hia5235 Cataphracts were still effective, the main reason they got abandoned is that the ERE got weak economically and militarily, first due to corruption and later due to the further loss of land. No land -- > No way to pay expensive cataphracts -- > No more cataphracts. The second reason is that Alexios abandoned the theme system for the Pranoia system in order to be able to raise armies faster, since the thematic armies got obliterated fighting both the Turks and Normans and lacked manpower.
Yes, exactly. The Met and several other museums have 4,000+ pieces of cavalry equipment in their near eastern collection and around 1,500 has been rated as part of a 'heavy' ensemble.
Steppe and near eastern armies have much larger contingents of cavalry compared to western Europe that the very real presence of heavy cavalry is often ignored because it seemed to form a small proportion of the total cavalry in any given army.
France in the high middle ages might have over-shadowed most of the world in the numbers of heavy cavalry included in its armies but already before the Renaissance, the proportions were already changing around the increase in infantry and due to other structural reason of how armies were raised campaigned.
armour does not mean heavy cavalry, atleast not in western (especially english) definition. European light cavalry of the medieval period for example is often well armoured, often being depicted in full plate armour themselves (such as this from the Spiezer Chronik i.pinimg.com/564x/21/00/5d/21005de2f5d3ca26bfa6717604cd7698.jpg), while to move out of the medival period we see that heavy cavalry had little to no armor.
skirimish/harassing troops are usually defined as 'light' and shock troops as 'heavy', with those able to both sometimes being 'medium', but just as often as which type of fighting was their primary purpose.
you should have instead emphasized that shock cavalry tactics was used, not that armour was used
The most balanced, thoughtful, rational and clearly illustrated history channel on UA-cam
Now that I'm out of school and don't have to do tests and homework, I've found that history (especially with military) is absolutely fascinating
I like this kind of discussion. I think it is a lot of combined factors; many you mention here. One thing also seems to be a subtle but larger impact. During the big infantry revolution there was a cultural revolution where the common person started to realize they were important as common people. Cities were on the rise and the throwing off of Catholic rule was spreading. People were becoming important, not just elites... Also, many countries had laws requiring the common classes to supply their own arms and armor. You could put more infantry on the battlefield at a cheaper price and the infantry class had an investment in showing up. They were the new noble and the old noble became more exclusive and more reclusive.
It was the rise of the common man fighting for something he believed was his own interests or the size of his society, that was also present. This would change the equipment and tactics and compositions of armies. the larger the social identity the larger the number of social players. Large ideas and large city states brought large numbers of soldiers. less sweeping ideology and smaller cities had fewer players. This explains the late middle ages and the classical era similarities. Fewer players also emphasized the importance of one man because one man, numerically speaking, would make a larger difference with smaller scale armies. The larger the army the more dominant the infantry. the smaller the army the more dominant the cavalry. Combine longer range pole arms, missiles and powder and it accelerates the transition from single players (The Knight) to the collective (the Common Man Infantry)
Can you guys do a video on the militart routing in battle and what happens afterwards. So often its talked about the soldiers routing, but not how long pursuits could last. Nor do we know did bands of them trickle back. If they were in enemy territory were local peasents attacking them? would they use stolen loot to buy passage home of they were in deep enemy territory? How common was ditching their armor and weapons for speed in the rout, or to blend in with locals? Were returning routed soldiers ostricized for cowardice or punished? Or did the lords who commanded them get the blame? Were unpaid soldiers more likely to rout or were soldiers with plenty of loot more likely due to the risks not being worth it when you have your riches already?
neat idea. I'll add it to our (way too long) list of potential topics.
you chase after the enemy until; he crosses the magical red lines and you can no longer attack him
@@internetenjoyer1044 oh right, I forgot about that part. lol
The route was the most chaotic and variable stage of medieval battles, and there are few generalizations that can be made about it. Sometimes the pursuit lasted several days but could be just a few hours. Generally nightfall lead to a halt in pursuit for obvious reasons. Withdrawal might be a fighting retreat in good order or a panicked flight. The amount and type of cavalry available on the winning side was a big factor in effectiveness of the chase. Soldiers would almost never throw away their weapons and armor, because these items were very expensive. A sword, suit of armor, and horses were valuable enough that you would have fought to the death to keep them. Also, you would want to retain the ability to defend yourself. Some of the worst routes were against the Mongols who had fast, light cavalry that could pursue almost indefinitely. I agree it is an interesting topic. But there were not really any “rules” in this area - you have to read accounts of the aftermaths of individual battles. Some beaten armies withdrew in good order. Others were nearly annihilated. It all depended on circumstances and particularities.
Also, knights and nobles would often surrender, as they could be ransomed. This became less common as ideas of chivalry and honor were superseded by more practical considerations. I have even read accounts of knights or nobles who were spared and promised not to return to fight based their word. On the other hand, depending on the level of animosity, even a king could be slain on the battlefield. Again, there was lot of variability based on the time period and parties involved.
You also have to remember that there were tactical dangers from a premature pursuit. The Mongols were famous for withdrawing, seemingly in defeat, only to turn around and devastate pursuers using skirmisher tactics. I have read accounts of several battles where this type of feigned retreat was used to bait an opponent into a vulnerable tactical position. As tactics became more sophisticated into the early modern era, dedicated units were used in the pursuit, basically light cavalry with sabers and pistols. Infantry units would instead maintain their formations. Generally horsemen were the ones doing the pursuing, because running in full battle kit as an infantryman is a pretty awkward business.
Regarding socio-economic changes, I often put out an argument about the relative balance of power. During the medieval period almost all the power was centered around the control of the land. Whoever had more land was more powerful. Later on the trades and crafts became significantly more important, since the food production improved and there was more surplus. The power of Venice was not centered around land, just for example.
The knights were fighting in person, in order to keep their top position in the society. Why would they want to fight in order to keep some wealthy merchant in business? They wouldn't.
So it's not a surprise, that the Winged Hussars phenomenon happened in a country which prosperity was based on food production and where cities and fortresses were relatively weak. The landed knights had all the reasons in the world to go out there and fight. They considered themselves to be equal to a king himself. It's also not a surprise, that Western cavalry fared much worse against pike formations.
What I'm trying to say here, is that without sufficient motivation, there was less training going on, less money spent on equipment and also much less determined performance during the actual battles. Those changes in military prowess are attested in period sources. No matter how effective a heavy lancer can be, if you simply do not have those people any more.
Worth noting as well, that whilst it definitely is not the only, or even main factor; terrain played a role in the continued mass use of cavalry in central/eastern Europe (e.g. Poland-Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Moscow, Cossack Hosts, Hungary and the various Tatar Hordes). There are very few natural obstacles in Eastern Europe save for the Carpathians, the Swamps of North East Poland and Belarus plus a handful of huge rivers. Hungary being mostly on the Pannonian plain and the others on the Central Eurasian plain/steppe, these vast open spaces needed mobility to stop encirclement or being outmanouevered, as well as generally lending itself to charges better than say the Alps or Pyrenees, though the Winged Hussars had still charged and won fighting in all sorts of uneven ground.
Another one is that these, especially Poland-Lithuania and Hungary, were still highly aristocratic societies until their collapse (though by the 18th century they seldom participated in wars anymore); and in the case of Poland-Lithuania, the nobility was about 10% of the population compared to 1-3% in most of the rest of europe. Meaning there was a much larger martial elite for longer.
Beyond that they were fighting different opponents and full blown England/France-style war was a bit less common, but fighting was constant even in times of 'peace' due to Tatar/Cossack raiding so mobility was key.
@@adamb162 Since we go that deep, I'd like to add that in a sparsely populated area, with few and not very good roads, cavalry was actually necessary for sieges.
Sieges take time, army needs provisions. An infantry heavy army would likely starve, where an army focused more on cavalry had a chance of gathering enough provisions to continue the siege.
Anyway, I'm glad we seem to agree that infantry, even with firearms, wasn't simply better suited for war.
@@bakters 100% agree, the logistics and context around conflict in the area effectively forced warfare to be waged differently than in the western portion of the continent. Though only thing i'll say is that Poland and Hungary proper were actually pretty densely populated for the time (though still overwhelmingly agrarian), the areas east of there though... not so much.
@@adamb162 "areas east of there"
That's where most of the fighting was happening, wasn't it? Germany was divided, Austria still under Ottoman pressure, so before Sweden showed up in the North, the majority of conflicts were fought in a fairly sparsely populated areas with few and bad roads.
@@bakters Yeah, exactly that. Most of the clashes between the PLC/Tatars/Muscovites/Cossacks/Ottomans & co happened in modern day Ukraine, Belarus, Western Russia and to a lesser extent the Baltic states, areas which never really recovered fully from the Mongol invasion (hence the sparse population/shit roads); until Sweden set everything on fire during the Deluge and Northern Wars and then after that Poland proper was the battleground, especially following the partitions.
In the case of Hungary, most of their conflicts happened around modern day Serbia, Slovakia Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia which suffered from similar problems though nowhere near as drastic as it was a much smaller area and more connected to major traderoutes (also worth noting are their conflicts with Austria and Bohemia). Similarly, after the collpase of Hungary to the Ottomans/Austrians, Hungary proper became the battleground.
This was a very good and well researched vide. some points I would like to make
>Arrows vs armour: from what I have seen most accounts of arrows piercing armour come from before the 15th century, when full harness as we know it was typically adopted. Earlier armour was lighter and did not offer as good protection. It may be that arrows could more easily penetrate the earlier armour whereas they had a hard time doing anything to later harness.
>Change in tactics: A lot of the tactics used changed in the late 14th century. Field fortifications become a lot more common and a lot of the officers begin to adopt tactics designed to defeat cavalry. look at Agincourt where the French plan was to use heavy cavalry to drive the English archers from the field then threaten the centres flanks whilst the footknights charged, it was a good plan but was hampered by the English deployment that made the use of cavalry untenable. In addition, as you noted, infantry formations became deeper and more professional. this last one is massive. Men who are well drilled and disciplined and professionally trained will perform a lot better than raw conscripts or levies, and will stand up to cavalry charges far better. Other tactics such as the use of ranged units in close support (or intermingled with) infantry and the use of dedicated anti-cavalry measures such as War Wagons and fieldworks all hampered shock cavalry by disrupting the charge, the thing that they most relied on. Shock cavalry need that charge to break the enemy, its the solid mass of horse and lance hitting the enemy that breaks them and shatters their formation and will to fight on. If that charge is disrupted and the impact taken from it then the shock cavalry are put at a huge disadvantage and can allow infantry to overcome them.
I put that an increase in the use of professional soldiers, anti cavalry tactics and fieldworks to disrupt the charge gradually brought an end to the reign of cavalry in the West, although it was still a potent force when used correctly.
I very much like your panels and illustrations you bring in. They come in at the right moment and help me better visualize what you're saying. Not to mention the accent and pronunciation. I'm no native English speaker, but I like the rythm you give and how you pronounce French and German words. Overall, great job with the channel, and keep up with the good work!👍
I like the way you scientifically challenge the point of view of medieval authorities, that you are able to link the dotts that many dont see:" different socio economical situation leads to surprising military outcome leading to surpising changes on a socio-political level" history is as nuanced as current days
It’s awesome when a UA-camr do his research. I can use this video and the quotes in it at University.
ivo bednar - he does use citation and respected sources really well along side of some more modern studies
The one thing about the theory of the Infantry Revolution and the discussion surrounding it that always bothered me is how Bohemian Hussites, Ottoman Janissaries, and Hungarian Black Army always seem to be left out.
The extreme western-centrism of some of the historians participating in this discussion makes me view such theories as regional phenomena rather than a pan-European process. This is bad since we can certainly see that the effects of the so-called infantry revolution were visible around Europe but were achieved in various ways. This topic begs for more complex studies and overview.
History of European military is not history of French and English wars which were regional and insignificant in the context of whole continent.
I agree with you. I have always been interested in how the Slavic peoples came to dominate much of Europe in the Dark Ages, but it is hard find many western historians who wrote about this.
I think it has much to do with the cultural dominance of the angloshpere in the public. For that reason the focus is often focussed only on England, France and a bit of the surrounding territories. The Iberian peninsula gets ignored, Italy with its citizen militias gets ignored as well and as you said Eastern europe and the Balkans which are a huge region and very important get also ignored.
@@Xfire209 I once read that popular history is basically a thousand years of English propaganda. That is obviously hyperbole but it has like grain of truth.
@@hansoskar1911 Anglos like to pretend that they're the protagonist of all history, British and Americans alike
Dr. Rogers was my professor for Warfare in the Medieval Age at West Point. Can confirm, dude loved the longbow
The English definitely lagged behind others in replacing archers with arquebusiers and that's very understandable.
I always remember that Sandrhoman is swiss and have the irrational hope of meeting him in my hometown at some point. I know I don't know what he looks like but I just would love to sit down and discuss some of my favourite topics with him. Just in private, not for yt or anything.
Why nobody talks of the almogavars (since 12th century), very especially when discussing this cavalry to infantry transition? They are one of the first infantry troops to be very deadly to cavalry.
Instead everybody talks about the "English" (Welsh) longbow at Agincourt (15th century), what is almost the Modern Age already. Nowadays it has become a bit more common to discuss Swiss and Scottish pike innovations in the 13th century and that's very good but there was a previous moment when the almogavars scared the heck out of both Angevine and Byzantine knights because of their anti-horse fighting style that rendered cavalry nearly useless and armored knights at a disadvantage when having to fight on foot against much more nimble unarmored yet very dexterous fighters.
Almogavars are definitely interesting. The Great Catalan Company made quite an impression on the Byzantine world.
@Hernando Malinche - Am I, I don't believe we are acquainted but maybe we just have similar tastes, I guess.
The vast majority of the longbows were not welsh, they were English.
Why i watch SandRhoman History, 1: he teaches me something 2: hes voice is so calming, accurate history.
Lovely made and well understandable explanation of an insanely complex debate. Well done!
Wow this was like sitting in some of my best lectures in undergrad. Really enjoyable to hear an intelligent account on a topic I've only ever heard in military pop-historical terms. Your scholarship is excellent.
Can you show us some eastern european battles between 14th-18th century while talking about how and why Ottomans first gained the upper hand but started losing in the early modern period?
Second that!
The Ottomans just had too huge an empire, and too many enemies, probably. It was hard to maintain that size I would assume.
@@mikespearwood3914 My guess is that internal corruption slowly made the Ottomans less and less capable of maintaining their empire. They didn't become the sick man of Europe by accident.
@@TheEvertw True, but it's hard to maintain. How did the British go against the Germans and the Japanese at the same time in WW2?
@@mikespearwood3914 Exactly. It is a pattern in history, nothing to do with Turks.
1). States get comfortable with the status quo.
2). A vigorous and innovative new ruler builds an empire.
3). The successors of said ruler no longer need to be vigorous nor innovative.
etc.etc
Cavalry gets owned by archers and cannons. Source: total war
Aren't archers supposed to be owned by cavalry? (At least that's how it works in Shogun2)
in Age of Empires it's vice versa
You have to charge them quickly.
How have you been using your cavalry? Anything would be owned by archers if you just park them like target practice.
Nice discussion. I believe that in addition to these changes in tactics, one of the main things that lead to centralization and the rise of Kingly power over that of the nobility is the high cost of siege weapons. Cannon could now break down any castle but they were costly so that the king usually had more and better of them.
Did....did that guy actually just take a horse charge??
Your channel is criminally underrated... very impressive work
EXCELLENT, video and information. Just perfection. PLEASE keep the standard of your videos. This is amazing.
Probably, this is the most complete video i seen, of all you uploaded in the last months. I like it very much how you explain the research and the examples. I will expect anxiously the next one. XD
I think the socio-economic changes lead to change in structure of an army, like emphasys on infantry. These things happened before in history: the city-state of ancient Greece was more egalitarian and concentrated around the hoplites, unlike Mycenean Greece, which was more aristocratic and the most effective instrument of war was the war charriot in that period
It can also be the other way: it's a chicken or egg first dilemma. Anyhow, you have aristocratic realms like Sparta or Macedon using infantry massively, and also Rome later on, so it's not so simple.
An argument can be made for both Greeks and Romans never really being cavalry/chariot heavy because they fought primarily in rugged terrain that was not adequate for the hit and run tactics of cavalry/chariots. However they also used those infantry-heavy tactics in flatter terrains with great success.
The late Roman Empire relied growingly on specialist cavalry forces by design because they had less wealth and probably even less manpower to defend such a huge territory. Here lays another advantage of cavalry: much greater mobility, being able to strike at distant points in relatively faster times.
I think this is begging the question of how "egalitarian" ancient Greece actually was, Athens is usually held as an example of an early democracy but not only did they keep slave only the wealthy elite of the city could participate in this democracy, regular workers and such were barred from participating and even within this class the wealthiest had the most power. Not only that but Athens is also famous for literally coming up with the motto "Might makes right". Like this is similar to Hong Kong today where the wealthiest actually get more votes (though even there everyone can vote) and China constantly interferes in elections and none of us consider that a real democracy and usually we think of it more as a place where people are trying to create a democracy.
I think associating army types with government form is a bad idea because they aren't directly correlated, the same forces influence both, but they are not directly correlated. For example infantry armies in Europe grew far beyond their late medieval and early modern period sizes in the 1600s and 1700s which was the period of absolute monarchy, and if we go later still into the error of industrialization some of the most authoritarian states had enormous infantry based armies. These days the association seems to be the exact opposite where more democratic states tend to have smaller but very professional and well equipped armies whereas more authoritarian states have large conscripted armies.
Basically there is a third factor here being missed and that's the socioeconomic realities of the states in question. What we can probably say is that infantry armies tend to be associated with population surpluses and these same population surpluses can also introduce pressures that lead to political changes, if one class grows significantly it can exert new pressure onto the current ruling class and perhaps overtake it. But things can also go in different directions where if a state becomes large enough it adopts more authoritarian policies to maintain control over larger areas.
@@hedgehog3180 - Pericles' Era Athens was as egalitarian as it could get for that kind of society surely. Around 1/3 of all inhabitants of Attica had the right to vote, 2/3 if we consider adult men only. Slaves and foreigners (metecs) were excluded but still all free native men were entitled to vote and had a responsibility in the affairs of the state (even if by lottery, as officers were often elected that way). AFAIK there were three class-oriented districts: the city (dominated by the proletariat), the coast (dominated by the mercantile class or bourgeoisie) and the countryside (dominated by the always conservative aristocrats), but as decisions were made in presential assembly (and not as in Rome by class-rigged voting system), the lower classes had a lot to say (and there's where you can insert the aristocratic criticisms of Plato and the treason of Socrates, who was clearly hated for being pro-tyranny and pro-Sparta, both phlosophers were close associates of the most hated of the Thirty Tyrants: Critias).
In that context slavery was largely a matter of miners (Athens owed much of its power to some nearby silver mine where life expectancy was very low) and domestic service. Farm work was generally done by free workers AFAIK. So it was a slaver society but not as slave-heavy as would later be Rome or the European colonies in America for example, or even Early Middle Ages' Europe (some of my sources claim that the vast majority were slaves in Italy and Germany, but "only" 40% in France for some reason, also no clear difference between slave and serf at that point).
Athenian proletarians, who could not afford war equipment, served as rowers in the military ships and drew a great deal of pride from that military service (consider that rowers were essential in proper success of ramming tactics).
It was a mixed bag for our modern standards but it was clearly much better in terms of democracy than any other contemporary society we have records of. It did not produce a better infantry however (the phalanx relied on heavy infantry, which was drawn from the upper middle class), but it did produce a better navy.
This probably brings us to the heavy infantry troops being not so much proletarian troops but rather middle class type. That's also probably true for the Swiss pike. However it may change somewhat once the state professionalizes the soldiering, as did Marius in Rome or the Spanish Crown with their tercios. Once the soldier does not have to pay the costs of soldiering but rather lives from that job specialization, it becomes much more accessible to the working classes (and also less interesting for the well-off ones).
The culmination of this process of state-ization of the military came since the French Revolution, which allowed France to suddenly have huge and oddly efficient armies, and was thus imitated widely till present day. If anything what we have witnessed in recent decades is that draft has been replaced by more reduced but well equipped and heavily trained professional armies, at least in the West.
@@LuisAldamiz Honestly, I suspect that the random tribes in Anatolia that Xenophon raided were more egalitarian than Greek city-states. Lightly armored guys throwing Javelins...
@@hypothalapotamus5293 - They were certainly more egalitarian and democratic than Xenophon's second home of Sparta.
I would not use the word "tribes", that's a colonialist and civilizitationist word, but as they used to say in those days: "nations".
Probably the Kurds were quite participative. Why?
Excellent. I studied early modern war and society as part of my degree and you have caught the essence of the debate nicely! My person take was that it was both of these things in a mutuly reinforcing cycle that caused rapid evolution rather than revolution per se. Each demonstration of the efficacy of one drove people to the other.
I think that the "infantry revolution" question was caused by a correction directed against the over-emphasis of the heavy knight. Other states had a more balanced approach to warfare and this "revolution" doesn't make sense outside of Western Europe. The Ottomans are a very good example since the late Middle Ages in Europe coincided with the peak of their military success. They conquered a vast empire and bested western European expeditions but did not employ very heavy troops. Nor did various Arab states or East Asian powers. Heck, even Eastern Europe was distinct enough.
I agree, especially in France, they had armies with too much cavalry and so were beaten. This wasn’t infantry becoming more effective, the tactics used were around from Philip of Makedon but Europe loved knights too much. When the Swiss realised they could take advantage of that they did and like magic it looks like infantry got better
Yeah, France is overemphasized. There are good reasons to do so, because it was by far the most densely inhabited (and thus wealthiest) part of Europe at the time but a bit of de-frenchization would not be bad either.
Very good video! Regarding the importance of footsoldiers during the High Middle Ages I would like to add that there is not one specific type High Medieval army. Fighters on foot often played a bigger part in those battles in which militia forces of larger towns took part. Like Steppes in 1213, Bouvines in 1214 or Hausbergen in 1262. But often armies were mostly made up of the retinues of noblemen and those lacked footsoldiers with sufficient cohesion, motivation, equipment and training.
I would say there was no general reliance on "cavalry" or "infantry" but on warriors you could expect to hold their own. And in many battles during the High Middle Ages the only reliable fighters were knights and their companions. But when leaders had robust footsoldiers in sufficient numbers at their disposal, they did use them in a more prominent role. In many cases alongside of knights. This leads back to the socioeconomic factors you mentioned.
Also to be a bit nit-picky: You are one of the very few channels who integrate the viewpoints of actual historians into their videos and that is absolutely great. But I don't agree with your opinion that Delbrück was too gullible regarding the sources. In fact Delbrück is still known for being the first military historian who was especially critical towards ancient and medieval sources, using his concept of "Sachkritik" to determine if certain passages were believable or not. I would say he was more cautious in this regard than some military historians today. The problem with Delbrück is more that he compared medieval tactics with those of ancient and early modern times instead of looking at them in their own specific context. If you compare the actions of medieval armies on the battlefield with those of the 18th century the Middle Ages will always look primitive and rudimentary.
What is to say about long-bows: A test from some 40-year-old dude or even a fit 20-year-old does not tell you anything about the power of longbows. Because there are a lot of mentions that even knights, the athletes of their time, had struggle shooting a real english war longbow. Those guys were trained every week from childhood and they could much, much more power into their bows then some tester today. Even competition bows today, really do not need that much strength when compared to medieval long-bows. Because if its not this massive training, but instead you can buy a long-bow give someone a few hours of shooting lessons and he could then penetrate armour, well...then everybody would have had a longbow army. Because even if it did not penetrate armour it can still fuck up any cavallry or lightly-armoured infantry charge. So maybe its not just for shits and giggles that the english crown made it mandatory for every men to shoot the bow after church.
Not only they have the real longbow, they have no proper archer, they're shooting only a single arrow at a standing piece of armor with modern steel at 90º
now add all those things to the equation:
the guy is moving toward a wave of arrows, unknown speed, the arrows doesn't necessarily have to kill him to take him out of combat, and so many other things.
Real life has always something you wouldn't expect in tests.
You don't need a man to test the bow, put it on a bench, like a big crossbow and measure the force that is needed to pierce an armor. That way you know if a man can do it.
@@ighmur And now you only need to find a bow that is still working after laying around for hundred of years :D
@@SergeantAradir I didn't say it was easy.
One thing with the armor vs. Longbow argument that I talk about often is how even if the arrows didn't often pierce the armor of the knights they would still be highly effective. It may not kill the knights or even cause severe damage, but think if the ballistic vests the military uses currently. A 5.56 or 7.62mm round may not penetrate the plates, but the wearer will still suffer bruising, often broken ribs, and traumatic blunt force injuries. American Football players wear shoulder pads and helmets, but still suffer from shoulder and head injuries. Boxers still suffer damage and stamina loss from punches even with the padded gloves. Arrows from long bows and even crossbow bolts will have similar effects on a plate armored knight. Many knights may have survived, but they would have probably been licking their wounds.
The arrows would have a kind of suppressive effect but were almost totally ineffective against late medieval full plate aside from a lucky shot. Of course, no medieval army ever had even close to a majority of its units kitted out in full plate armor, as it was insanely expensive and had to be custom made for a particular person. What I have read from multiple sources is that horses were extremely vulnerable to arrows as it is quite difficult and, again, expensive to fully armor such a large animal. And you can imagine the kind of chaos that would ensue when they are wounded and thrashing around almost uncontrollably. That seems to be why knights would often dismount and attack on foot. If they charged at the beginning of a battle against a mass of archers their mounts would essentially be shot out from underneath them. Early English victories in the Hundred Years War can be partially attributed to this. On this note, this is also why in many medieval battles cavalry weren’t committed until late in the battle when ammunition was depleted and they could maneuver more freely. Kinda strange to think about it this way but archers were in some sense an anti-cavalry weapon in that they were most effective at killing horses rather than people, at least heavily armored ones.
What about the Battle of Tours (732), when Frankish heavy infantry defeated the much larger Arab invasion force... although it can be argued that the Basque-Aquitanian cavalry had a decisive role when it raided the enemy camp? It's like we can't just go back to the Crusades, infantry was important all the time.
Well, that was before the advent of true heavy cavalry (no stirrup). Before the 11th century cavalry was not dominant.
@@meanmanturbo - Before the 11th century cavalry was not dominant and since the 13th century or so it was rapidly being replaced by infantry? That's a very narrow window for cavalry supremacy, especially when we add up the almogavars (mounted infantry that terrorized knights and cataphracts), who appear precisely in the 11th century.
Also the stirrup is older than what you claim. At least from the 7th century in Europe. > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup
Yeah but the Frank in that battle were in the forest: A very good deterrent for any Calvary. I don’t really know how Arab heavy Calvary works, but I do know that the Sassanid Persian heavy cataphract were responsible for the destruction of multiple Roman armies. Despite what most people would have you believe; heavy Calvary is one of the most effective heavy infantry counters and was almost universally the crack units of early to high medieval armies( Persians, Eastern Romans, Franks, Chinese, Arab, Turks, Mongols). It was essentially the king of the battlefield along with horse archery.
@@theverysupercman97 - Martell chose that position because they were apparently in disadvantage by numbers and that (positional defense) was a tactic they were drilled in. It's not clear that the Arab army was cavalry-heavy because the Basques were able to circumvent them with their cavalry in the right moment, and it's not even fully correct to imagine them as "Arabs", rather Berbers for the greatest part, judging on the genetics of Muslim cemeteries in Narbonne and North Iberia in that period (surely mostly hosting the bodies of soldiers and their families), there would be Arab leaders but the bulk of te troop were surely Berbers, maybe also Hispano-Romans (but still Christian at that time so buried separately).
My point was that, while knights get the hype, in those days they often fought on foot, rather as mounted infantry than as heavy cavalry (they were not yet that much burdened by the heavy armor of later periods). Even in the Northern European flatlands, back in those days forests were almost as dominant as in the days of Teutoburg, only as the Middle Ages moves on the area gets really cleard for farmlands. Gaul was surely somewhat more open (more people lived there) but would still be rather forested.
The Arabs apparently used heavy cavalry a lot in the early days of Islamic expansion but of course the bulk of a large army such as the one of Al Gaffiqi, the largest one the Ummayad Caliphate ever mustered in Europe without doubt, was necessarily largely made up of infantry and lighter types of cavalry.
@@LuisAldamiz Cavalry was important from at least the early Middle Ages all the way into the Napoleonic Era and basically up to WWI. Before mechanized warfare, cavalry was the preeminent tool for flanking due to speed and impact from the charge. This is why in so many medieval battles commanders would carefully choose their position so that their flanks were protected. A large unit of horsemen getting around and then behind a force into its rear was devastating. Cavalry also had a huge advantage in the route and pursuit phase of medieval battles, as they could easily chase down unmounted troops. The Mongols used their bows from horseback with devastating impact.
You can tell cavalry has always been a key element of warfare since ancient times since so many infantry weapons like spears and polearms are specifically designed to counter mounted warriors. Alexander the Great won most of his battles by flanking with cavalry or routing the enemy with direct charges, and this was the era before stirrups.
Mounted warriors also have a distinct advantage in small engagements, which you don’t read about as much, but occurred frequently during the medieval period. This is because only a mass of infantry can effectively defend against competent mounted warriors. Horses were also indispensable for raiding, striking fast and hard, doing a lot of damage, and then getting out.
I wouldn’t say they have really enjoyed periods of absolute dominance, but this is more a logistical issue than anything. Horses are costly to maintain. This is why prototypical mounted troops in medieval Europe came from the nobility. Peasants or even those in what passed for the middle class could generally not afford horses, and if they could, they were not going to risk getting them killed in a pitched battle. Knights on the other hand fielded multiple horses. Same with the Mongols - each warrior tended to have two or more horses. Because they are animals and tire out, get injured, etc.
Tactics did not affect the plagues that plagued Europe, but the plagues affected the tactics for sure. Plagues similarly affected structure of society and centralization as there were less people, which streamlined the government. As the people multiplied, ppl started to expand the middle management at a same rate because foreign conquests were rarer than in the 6th-11th centuries. Ofc you trust same language guys better than say if you happened to be french speaking and your subjects were speaking proto-English.
5:37
"To what extent..."
That phrase right there is a mark of quality, especially for history. SandRhoman, your channel is a godsend for us history buffs who are fed up with all the pop history out there.
I am really glad you are doing a thorough overview of the debates and sources for your conclusions.
Would love to see some English Civil War stuff - the Western Campaign particularly.
no thx, for once some channel is not focusing entirley on the british leave it that way.
@@baozenfhei9076 ah shut it ye bellend
I would like to second this. It was the English Civil War that got me into this entire period of history in the first place.
@@baozenfhei9076 what? Most channels don’t focus on British history? Why would you even say that
@@lesdodoclips3915 Because is true?
Great show. You can certainly imagine that the motivation and rewards vs risks would be very different for lower class infantry forces and upper class mounted cavalry. And this is a fluid dynamic, changing from place to place and time to time, depending on many factors like the success of crops or the marriage of your cousin to your enemy or ally.
Another factor is the popularization of knights would probably be influenced by story tellers and troubadours who would be strongly influenced by the people who could pay the best.
Here's a little suggestion for the next video: Cataphracts
Not really his preferred time period.
People often confuse that they are meant to fight infantry not chasing horse archer.
@@ieuanhunt552 He like Roman stuff.
Cataphracts and how the almogavars devastated them.
Discipline and battle training cannot be understated: knight cavalries always have been "unruly", depending on impetus to break the enemy line, but was always difficult to coordinate.
It had lost the Dark Age fencing ability to a "one shot steamrolling role. The defeats against Saladin and the Mongols, showed the limitation of undrilled cavalrymen in tactical warfare. Heavy infantry calls for tight formations ,(phalanx), where a soldiers feels more secure, and slow pacing movement, which makes it easier to manage from a tactical PoW with crude headquarter assets. The British line in the HYW was basically turning battles into sieges, where cavalry was less of an asset, but was a very crude tactic, adopted to counter the superior french cavalry, basing everything on its inability to act "tactically". Formations were still made up by unruly and undrilled units which were shaped to exploit to their instincts in battle. The longbow was effective, but stakes were winning the battles. This is why crossbows were always preferred to Longbows outside of France. The Swiss and the Flemish turned infantries into offensive weapons, which evolved in the Spanish Tercio when crossbows were switched to fire weapons.
The evolution of cannons from siege weapons to tactical assets in battle made the pikemen obsolete during the 30Y war, as professional mercenary armies had been mowed down by attrition and the need for large levy units arose, to keep the armies fighting. Only during the Napoleonic wars hand to hands combat become widespread again, while, since late XVI century, Cavalry was relegating to a maneuvering role, to probe and destabilise the enemy lines.
Best channel!
Do you have Instagram?
@@RadaloGSC They have a Swiss bank account.
Thank you.
This my new favorite history channel. Such high quality content on lesser covered sections of history
Informations : +++ ; Illustrations : +++ ; Animations : +++ , Pleasure to watch : 😍😍😍...Thanks!
Thanks again!
man, I love the research you (and a team?) do!!! Really informative and interesting, even for a layman!
also, digging the improved editing and battlefield animations. great stuff!!!
Watching all videos on this channel now feels even more rewarding. It is like all just came together. Man I love this channel.
I was never really into the late Middle Ages as a topic of study, but I find this interesting and well made. The inclusion of the sources of information is key to establishing legitimate historical works. Well done
I deeply belive that Czech Husites warfare influence infantry revolution in cetral Europe. Onely problem is that is overlook by western historiography. But it doesn´t mean it was not important. Also Otomans has strong infantry core.
This. This is what I want to see and hear and learn about. I have no interest in watching another goddamn video about Rome.
The Hussites broke with the medieval thinking when they did not call the citizens to defend a feudal lord or the church, but to participate in the defense of an elected provisional government of their country.
It irks me that medieval history in the western world is basically just England and France. I wish there was more talk of Eastern Europe and the Middle-East
Exactly. The influence was enormous as Hussites relied on pikemen, gunpowder (words pistol and howitzer comes from Czech language from this era) and war wagons, that in many battles consistently managed to defeat the best cavalry forces of Europe. All during and around 1420s. That is exactly the reason why so many changes appeared "around 1430" as the video says.
@@sirlagged I agree. The only channel I know that covers those areas is this one. At least he does a good job of introducing people like me to the history of central and east Europe.
In a completely unrelated not to the actual content of this video, does anyone else find the sound of the little units cracking when they get killed just sound so satisfying? Hahaha I love it
I’d love to see you doing more of tying military history into the broader framework of social and political changes that were happening in the early modern period.
As much as i enjoy the likes of lindy beige and shadiversity, they never achieve this level of thoroughness because they are tunnel-visioned, focusing solely on technical/tactical concerns. Military history is so much more..... Great job SandRhoman!
Now I really want you to make a video about the transition from the 17th century warfare to the 18th century warfare
Cuz in the 17th century the pike and shot warfare was the tactic used in the battlefield but suddenly in the 18th century we have line infantry with gun weapons and bayonets and the pikes disappeared from the battlefield
So i am really curious and want to know what happened that caused this much change or how the transition was made
Good suggestion. I'm intrigued too, although SR may have mentioned this to some extent in the context of the Wars of Religion, as the Swedish tactics were distinct from the Imperial ones and did produce at least a first change of tactics that favored the line (still pike-heavy) over the square.
Bayonets are what happened basically. The invention of the bayonet and improvements in artillery and muskets made pike squares suicidal. I mean it's literally a massive mass of men. 1 canon shot could kill or injury 10+ men with 1 shot. In an infantry line you can take out 2 or 3
@@lovablesnowman - Squares were still being used against cavalry in the Napoleonic era. They were bayonette squares.
I can agree that bayonettes were a game changer but in the sense that they allowed a single type of infantry to be at the same time shooter and "spearman" of sorts. Infantry still had to keep formation for either shooting or (more loosely, just general cohesion) for charges as well and that made them targets for firepower (both artillery and infantry).
I think it has more to do with very large armies able to entrench themselves along extremely long frontlines that did not exist in previous times (in which maneuvre was much more important) and also with the development of war machines such as tanks and airplanes. WWII really saw the end of cavalry.
@@LuisAldamiz I wonder how on the one hand modern warfare (20th century major wars) has more or less no pitched battles but does have fronts, which were not a thing before for some reason, and sparsely spread skirmishers along these fronts armed with bolt-action rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, semi-automatic and automatic rifles, but on the other hand in what seemingly is contradictory to all these powerful weapons where a single man can wipe out a company or even a battalion of men in a single battle, is that force concentration is a thing as well. Perhaps the latter applies at an operational level or scale and not at a tactical scale? Otherwise it seems nonsensical to send more and more into a certain battle, at least as long as the enemy has the mobility and intel to respond in time with the MINIMUM required reserves to send in to reinforce the front line. So the reason why world war 1 style wave tactics probably were successful in the end is probably due to the enemy not being fast enough to respond with reinforcements.
@@AttilaKattila - WWI is very transitional, tanks and air forces made such tactics obsolete just a few years later. What kind of fortification can you use against that kind of forces when concentrated? It's back to mobility or to "invisible" guerrilla playing hide and seek against superior but less legitimate forces. Or to all-out nuclear war which is a total game breaker.
WWII had pitched battles (Montecasino, Stalingrad, Normandie, etc.) but they were part of larger fronts (either seeking their collapse or trying to reject the consequences of front collapse (stupid Hitler's "fortress" defensive strategy).
I- Feel, very wised after this.
Really interesting to see someone link these changes to the wider social and economic developments of the time. Thanks for that
Longbowman is cheaper than knights or footmen, All they need is training with a bow, little metal to make arrows, and can be massed produced. Later on, crossbow would come to take over the bow then after that muskets and rifles.
As a child, I remember being taught that the Middle Ages were quite backward, but not primitive like the Dark Ages.
I also rejected that teaching, because I was also taught about the building of Gothic Cathedrals.
Gothic Cathedrals are obviously the most advanced stone constructions ever.
They were the pinnacle of stone architecture.
For the first time in history, stone was made to look as light as a flower.
The people of the Middle Ages were not primitive.
Such luminaries as Roger Bacon and St. Thomas Aquinas were in the Middle Ages.
That was not an age of fools.
Those who think the Middle Ages were lacking in learning and intelligence,
just show their lack of learning and intelligence.
I read that Medieval castles were a huge improvement over Roman fortifications. There were some advances but in others they were set back.
@@mudshovel289 thats the point: the technological reality does not mean there iss a backward OR forward. While the cities in the middle ages were smaller than the roman "mega-cities" and had no sewage system, the overall use of waterpower and industrial-like manufacturing was indeed widely used in the middle ages outscaling by far the roman manufacturing capabilities
@Ahtalon it seems we’re all just taught a only a negative view of the Middle Ages. How Europe was knocked back into the dark ages and had a renaissance when they rediscovered the knowledge of the past. In reality they were making their own advances.
Great video! With many reenactors I find that much more attention is focused on a micro scale, rather than more influential societal changes going on.
Wait, is that a german quotation mark I see in the title?
He is Swiss, also known as “high” German.
@@jonathanwells223 Sand Rhoman sounds not Germanic to me. Is he Romanche Swiss maybe?, French Swiss?
@@LuisAldamiz He sounds dutch to me.
@@LuisAldamiz Dunno, sounds like a swiss german accent to me. Especially noticable in the way he rolls the R.
I am 100% sure that this is a Swiss german accent
I am german and live in Switzerland, trust me on this one 💁🏼♂️
Love the way the video was wrapped up at the end..it all depends on circumstances..
no point having cavalry amongst a star fort unless they come out when starved..but if they are fed by the boats and given resources then cavalry might as well go home..
Then infantry have never been given enough credit for what they do..especially veterans engaged in a seige or standing inbetween rookies telling them to stay calm amongst mayhem..there is no price for that kind of mentality..then again quickly train peasants put them in the right position and circumstances and they can hammer and anvil..
Different scenarios ultimately call for different types of units/strategies/tactics.!!
Horses have this stigma that they were only used medieval times..but they were still used in the 1st world war..blows me away that mentality lol
Love the channel..many thanks 🙏
The Spanish:" Hippity Hoppity, Tercios are my specialty"
Infantry, Cavalry (Heavy and light) and ranged contingents always worked together as to form an effective fighting force.
The size of the differing contingents may have varied but they all had an Important role to play.
22:10 What? A complete upset military success that no one saw coming, that was hugely misreported and romanticised at the time? Nooooooo **laughs in blitzkrieg/bewegungskrieg/Rommel's cirkus 1940**
Rommels Circus might be the best way to describe it I have ever heard.
Guy’s Charisma Must have been through the roof.
@@michimatsch5862 More like the Allies desperate desire to convince everyone they weren't incompetent enough to be beaten by an incompetent.
@@LonelyKnightess from what I've read, as is often the case, it was a mix. He did some really clever things and some really dumb things, and some of the allied commanders and units facing him handled that well and others handled it poorly. I vaguely recall a series of battles back and forth over the same bit of ground because both sides were being kind of absurd with regards to their logistics. They were quite capable of taking the place at the other end if the strip, but not of getting the logistical support to keep it before the other side could counter attack. Mind you, I came across the relevant things some years ago, now, so I wouldn't be surprised if I was misremembering.
@@laurencefraser
Rommel himself (or possibly one of the other Panzer corps generals) said that the battle of France just should never have worked. They were incredibly lucky. But I think that in part, they made their own luck by taking a lot of **calculated** risks.
@@laurencefraser Yeah I am over exaggerating Rommel's stupidity in reaction to the much more common exaggeration of his competence. He was a skilled tactical commander and fine enough as a general but was nowhere near as competent as the Allies (and revisionists since) have said, and if the Allies weren't sort of bumbling their way through the front half of the war then he'd never have been anywhere near as successful.
The biggest issue in these kinds of historical debates is that all of these factors in warfare and state systems are incredibly well interconnected that neither one factor can be named the reason for a victory, defeat, or change on the battlefield or at home. Clausewitz tributaries analysis shows this well. If anything all of the factors named contribute to a change or outcome of an event.
I think the rise of the infantry revolution from cavlry warfare is less abbout ability. Fundamentally, well placed, braced and disciplined infantry could still knock cavalry out in both middle ages and after. And cavalry could still smash armies in both middle ages and later if handled properly. The fundamental difference between the 2 period is more akin of how warfare was fought more than effectiveness of the units.
In the middle ages, warfare was constant raiding mostly. Every year there was a chance of attack, raid and siege. You always had to prepare for war and quickly respond to enemy raids. Cavalry was the only method to effectively respond and deal with enemy incursion into one's own territory. Just look at the example of the roman emperor Gallienus and his mobile cavalry core to quickly deal with oncoming barbarian armies in the past. Furthermore It allowed you to also effectively raid enemy territory overland, be less burdened by supplies, quickly combat the reaction force or quikly get away with plunder. And finally because in the middle ages states were less centralized and smaller, infantry weren't as useful as they couldn't be mantained in training and small noble retinues of cav were much more viable than large expensive bodies of trained infantry. Still it's telling that even in this period most armies were largely composed of infantry. Even battles like Legnano in 1176 showed that infantry could stand up to cav.
Later on, with centralization of states, Armies grew with more and more infantry as part of them. Actual diplomacy also lessened the state of war being nation and lessened the ability of local border nobles to raid into the other countries land
Knights are probably one of the worst units for plundering, raiding etc. The pure cost of their equipment... They didn't even use the horse they were using for travel in battle. Warhorses aren't that mobile, they are a weapon itself and relatively fast tired.
Just imagine waging a "small war" in your neighbors lands while having to feed 4 horses for each knight, while being chased by much faster and lighter horses... Furthermore you would need "support staff" so there will be even more people to feed and to hide, some of them might not even be capable of fighting.
It's literally like using tanks against partisans in the woods.
Of course your general idea is true but it's wrong to think that the horses value is merely its speed. Which of course is important.
@@user-xq4st9ie7r I disagree. The tactic of the Chevauchee was used quite often. The most famous case was done by the black prince in southern france (though accompanied by infantry. The term literally mean the cavalry run. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e.
@@andreascovano7742 Chevauchees are differently equipt then knights!
Exactly for that reason
And the fact that the black prince is famous for it should show that its not that common and to say that medieval warfare was basicly "permanent raiding party exchange" is a oversimplification
@@user-xq4st9ie7r Hard disagree. The black prince wasn't famous for but the chevauchee itself was (It led to the battle of crecy). The spanish had a similar term (cabalgada). In spain this raiding was everpresent.
I'm not saying medieval warfare was only permanent raidning. But a very vergy large part of EARLY medieval warfare was raiding and harassing the enemy. Especially if not done by a state (though even then it wasn't uncommon). Big setpiece battles were quite rare.
Maybe but it's a well known fact that the Frankish cavalry forces were absolutely unable to stop the raids of the Vikings for example (hiring some Vikings, thereafter known as Normans, was instead). In Iberia the way to counter raids was usually to fortify heavily and also organize counter-raids, as well as to pay tribute in order not to be raided. I don't have the impression that cavalry was so important in the Iberian wars generally gathered under the term "Reconquista".
The pattern of state centralization was also quite unequal. Germany and Italy went from centralized to decentralized, while France did the opposite (before it was recentralized again in the Modern Age already). Some major actors in the "infantry revolution" were small and decentralized (but not or less feudal) polities like Switzerland itself.
11:23 Man, the French just have a habit of sending a bunch of knights charging at enemies who have a superior position and getting bogged down in the mud and getting wrecked by light infantry.
Great video! Did Army structure influence a change in tactics or vice a versa? Whenever the study of history/social phenomena are framed seemingly in this sort of either/or causal relationship, many simply choose a side.
Great job of showing how both influenced the other! Whenever history or social science is framed in this way it is usually a phenomenon with complex causes/effects that is being studied. Great presentation! Very informative/stimulating! Requires further reading for me....
Longbows and xbows dont pierce plate armour but they can pierce chainmail. What made them fantastic however, was the higher rate of fire, range, and numbers that the english fielded. It'a not fun advancing on an enemy position when you are getting peppered with high rof projectiles.
To add to this, heavy cavalry was extremely effective at punching through unorganised amateurish lines that tended to be fielded by feudal realms that worked off conscripts and levies.
The main French defeats in the 100 years war all involved them running up a hill in stupid conditions at a disciplined english lines whilst having arrows shot at them. When one looks at the main losses of the French in the conflict, mst of them come down to really poor decision making due to pressure from external factors such as pride. After the 100 years war France fielded a professional army and used the lessons learnt from the war such as using field artillery to counter the english reliance on bows. They also set up an archery program to have men practice archery on their days off. Right after you have the era of pike and shot where heavy cavalry became redundant as gunfire and pikes werent exactly horse friendly.
What I've found from my limited research is that a lot of over reliance on one type of weapon such as the longbow, horse archer or heavy cavalry only really worked against poorly disciplined troops in the days before professionalism of armies. When one looks at the Romans and The Mongols (the 2 greatest old empires IMO) one can see that strategy, logistics, discipline, command structure, and persistent training were what mattered and that internal politics are what ultimately brought those empires down. Heck, the mongols won so many victories from feigned retreats and causing enemy formations to break purely from pissing them off with horse archers that battle wise it showed how one dimensional they were with their main strengths coming from extraordinary information gathering and terror tactics.
None of those historical sources specifies what kind of armour was defeated by longbows, whether it was mail, brigandine or full plate, and indeed whether that was hardened steel or soft iron. All those sources tell us was there was some types of armour used at the time that was vulnerable to arrows.
And The King is such a terrible source of info for medieval warfare I don't think using that clip made any sort of point... The guy on foot didn't fight back AT ALL, nor was he defended by stakes and archers or even carry a relatively short pole weapon like a pollaxe.
An arrow shot from a longbow does have a tremendous amount of force and could punch through all but quality plate armor. It can definitely puncture chain mail. Many of the troops in large medieval battles wouldn’t have even had any kind of full body armor. Most melee infantry would just have had helmet and shield and possibly a breastplate and maybe elbow and knee protection. Full suits of armor were too expensive and laborious to produce for most of the troops to have worn them.
@@Loyal_Lion Have you seen this series on Longbows vs Armour by Tod's Workshop?
ua-cam.com/video/DBxdTkddHaE/v-deo.html
If not, highly recommended.
I think while it's evident from the video that the "longbow" has a lot of energy & momentum behind it, both "longbow" and "armour" and the balance between the 2 probably changed quite a lot over that period, but we have limited points of reference.
For instance the only surviving longbows we have, is a single group that dates from some time just before 1545 (when the Mary Rose sank). But this is what is commonly cited when longbows are talked about. But the "late medieval" period, while not having a fixed date, is somewhere between 1250 & 1500 AD (but could be as little as 1300 - 1450 AD, depending on who you ask, what country or region, even what discipline) but either way, 1545 is still very much in the Rennaissance period & could be as much as 300 years removed from the earlier end of the "late medieval" period.
As for armour, even what counted as a "suit of armour" changed over time. We know from Tod's testing, that the plate armour available c.1400 AD, that wasn't yet heat treated, but was at least made of steel, rather than iron (roughly analogous to plain medium-carbon steel) was pretty much proof against the "longbow" (at least against contemporary arrows fired by a bow from ~130 years later so likely a bit more powerful), at least from ~50m. I think this would have been considered "good quality" plate armour for the nobility & other rich people around the middle of the late medieval period, but not by the end.
Late period brigandines, thought to be worn by infantry, have, in many cases, been found to be made from old pieces of armour, cut up into smaller plates. Obviously, this would not be as effective as a single plate, but that's late "late medieval", earlier it might have been a gambeson & mail, or just the padded jacket (& always a helmet) was at the earlier end of that period, probably considered "armour" for the command infantryman.
Then there is range to consider. What might be defeated by arrows when fired flat, at close range, like a soldier wearing mail over padded textile with a kettle hat, is likely relatively well protected from arrows when fired at long ranges where the arrows have both lost a lot of their energy & also are coming down at a much steeper angle so more likely to hit at an angle.
The point is context is everything & we shouldn't just go by 1 source in isolation.
The military history scholarship on this channel is superb and has sound ideals a doesn't follow a certain form historiography rather both sides. Well done
In the other continent, Ashigaru beats samurai by giving them pointy sticks and order them to yari wall 😂😂
These guys are absolutely yarimazing! 😂
@@kevinschmidt8101 they don't even use fancy complicated square tercos formation, instead they spamming lots of teppo gunnners protected by yari spear infantry. Maybe their tactic is similar to linear pike and shot of gustavus adolphus or maurice nassau, but much more simple and more defensive than gustavus because they use bamboo palisade to protect gunners from cavalry charge. They use volley too and I guess they are more linear than deeper. I said linear because gunner in linear create more shocks and maximize firepower per shot, otherwise battle of Nagashino result will be different I guess. Guns produced in japan at that time are a lot than total guns in europe and they even don't learn from europe to form their own yari and teppo tactic I guess and their tactic were successful in Imjin war, at least in pitch land battle or defensive sieges.
@25:41 Strategy changed based on socio political movement, from this the change in tactics flow.
Great video ! Still waiting for the Sebastian de Vauban eassay tho.
The heavy cavalry in the medieval times most likely was like the armored forces nowadays. Each knight was usually expected to bring with himself a retinue of warriors and not all of them equipped in a very expensive plate armor.
The very limiting factor was probably not even the personal armor, it was the HORSES. I know more about later heavy cavalry (winged hussars) but the same/similar very likely applied to the medieval period: the trained war horse was VERY EXPENSIVE and usually these costs were borne entirely by the knight himself (that was definitely the case with winged hussars).
Given the theater of the war characteristics it is also not surprising that there was no "Infantry Revolution" in the Central and Eastern Europe. This may even saved the neck of the Western Europe from the Mongol invasion (what happened in 13th century was really a reconnaissance campaign).
Moreover there is good evidence that even in Central and Eastern Europe battles and wars were fought using BOTH cavalry and infantry.
i like your content
i like turtles.
I don't know if the Infantry Revolution can be entirely associated with centralization, considering that the Swiss Confederacy was highly decentralized and yet was a pioneer in it.
Commenting for the algorithm because I love this channel.
1) The energy expenditure available to a general is measured, before machines are available, in food ("an army marches on its stomach"). This energy may be supplied from home - limited by available supply route capacity - or it may be plundered or bought from the locals - limited by local abundance, travel time for foraging parties (effective area being foraged) and willingness for the locals to take steps to retain their food. There is evidence that the latter may have been more common, sometimes (often?) as an army's sole method of energy gathering.
Whatever your limit may be; adding forces beyond it is more of a hindrance than an asset - your available energy hasn't increased; you're just inviting hunger and poor morale. This means it's important you only bring people who are good.
2) Regarding local foraging: Soldiers can't eat grass (or a whole host of other plants). Herbivores can. For this reason, bringing animals along makes a lot of sense: it allows you to exploit an abundant energy source that would otherwise not be used. This leaves you two choices for how to spend this "extra" energy: either bring livestock as food for the soldiers (adding infantry) or as fighting units themselves (cavalry). The second option is arguably more attractive, since it avoids the "food chain penalty" (as a rule of thumb, each level in the ecological pyramid only pass on 10% of absorbed energy).
This means that a certain cavalry contingent is essentially "free". Sure, the horses may be monetarily expensive to buy (and do cost considerably in the long run in the form of land needing to be used for fodder), but on the march they hardly tax your foraging energy budget at all. Up to a point.
So: a horseman need not really be that much more effective than an infantryman on the battlefield. In fact... they probably weren't. Horses are big, dumb and prone to panic. They are easy to hit with spear or bow, and will be a considerable hindrance to a rider who's thrown off. They do not trigger the "don't kill your fellow man" instinct of people in a hot state that a man will. Their sole advantage is speed: they can scout, forage and they get to pick where and when to fight. The men could always dismount and fight as infantry when the situation called for it. In the age of poor roads and almost 100% foraging, this means that cavalry or dragoons are likely to make up a relatively large part of any "regular" (ie. state sponsored) army.
Once communications improve, this equation change. Increasingly, it becomes possible to resupply armies from home. Here, you generally see almost 100% infantry support (grain) chosen over cavalry support. Thus, we tend to see that up to a point, cavalry to infantry may be around 1:1, lending a considerable advantage to cav and their ability to locally overwhelm a portion of the enemy. With improved communications allowing supplies to brought from a centralized staging area, the armies tend to add infantry: the cav detachments stay the same size or at least grow far more slowly, and it is no longer realistic for these (relatively) smaller cavalry forces to carry a large enough portion of the line to force a mass rout without heavy infantry support.
I will grant that there are some records of forces willingly being "cav heavy", ie. choosing to trade _away_ infantry to get more cavalry (early Khanite armies being the poster child for this). This does give them considerable strategic mobility advantages, but it almost always ends in them being heavily dependent on atrociously destructive over-foraging of the land to remain competitive with a comparable more infantry-heavy adversary. Fighting this way you may win, but the price is that you gain very little worth having besides a devastated wasteland.
You have not got it quite right on the advantages of cavalry. The sole advantage is not just speed but mass and hence greater impact coming off the charge than an infantryman, hence the use of lances, which are the cavalryman’s version of an infantry polearm. Also, the horses used for medieval battle were not skittish and panicky and were trained for battle. They were nasty and aggressive and would ride through and over opponents. They were combatants in their own right. Of course, you couldn’t effectively charge horsemen into a wall of polearms wielded by competent infantry. But your idea that they were flighty and unreliable like modern horses people breed for light riding is not at all accurate.
Also, “speed” is rather an understatement because what cavalry also provides is mobility, both on and off the battlefield. Cavalry typically inflicted most of its damage from pursuit after a route. Additionally, mounted warriors excelled at “hit and run” or raiding tactics, which occurred frequently, even if the large pitched battles get most of the attention. I have also read that cavalry were frequently used in sallies from a besieged castle to raid attackers and then quickly withdraw.
They probably do get too much hype, but there is a reason cavalry is always a topic of discussion. If not totally dominant on the battlefield, mostly due to logistics, mounted warriors were always a threat that had to be dealt with and considered,
@@Loyal_Lion Rather than disagree with you, I will say that I totally agree that given certain circumstances, the ability to charge home with cavalry could be decicive. On the other hand, most warfare seems to have revolved around either outright sieges, or forces occupying some strong point. The type of field battle where the weight of a cavalry charge would be decicive is relatively rare. I maintain that rapid movement was their _real_ strength.
As for skittish... You aren't wrong, but there is a limit to what you can train them to accept. Modern day police horses are trained in pretty much exactly the same way (you expose them to gradually increasing stressors until they learn to accept them), and as this video shows, that allows police to charge down noisy people throwing sticks (no doubt potentially both scary and painful to the horses), but they end up increasingly spending more and more of their concentration controlling the horses, until they lose cohesion and have to pull back. One of the horses also decides to nope out and bolts, throwing its rider. ua-cam.com/video/hLWm60hEgRU/v-deo.html&ab_channel=GuardianNews
In a real battle you could of course try to go in even harder and try to crush people. I don't really think that was very common though, since the horse is almost certain to loose its footing and fall, leaving the rider prone and sorrounded by enemy infantry.
The discussion seems somewhat meaningless. While the relative importance of cavalry and infantry have changed up and down until the truly modern era, it almost always was a question of combined arms.