An excellent video, it's criminal that it hasn't garnered more views! As an American, it really scratches the itch for an often overlooked part of history on this side of the pond. I've been scrambling to learn all I can about the civil wars after finding Colonel John Hutchinson on my family tree. Cheers!
The beauty of a potage is that it makes the large quantity of bread (the mainstay of the ration) endurable. The WW2 Wehrmacht did the same as midday meal from the mobile field kitchens was always a soup made communally so somethings perhaps don’t change that much over time. Why were the trousers tied below the knee.
I always find this time period funny because firearms largely rendered armor less effective, and armor rendered arrows less effective. But if you encountered an army armed like the musketeers with no armor crossbows and bows would actually arguably be MORE effective. Just a weird balance act going on.
Muskets had far better range than longbows. Muskets have big muzzle energy than longbow. Training with longbow is hard you must have big stamina. Even after 12 shot you will get tired shooting arrows from longbows. Flintlock muskets also have bayonets another advantage over longbows. A battalion with muskets can defeat bowmen. Even native Americans adopt muskets. Equipping large numbers of soldiers with longbows and arrows are bad for economy and logistics. Please refer to military historians. Watch videos below from historians. 2 videos btw. 1. ua-cam.com/video/XwgNpNEzyzI/v-deo.htmlsi=aTp3UPWCrYwVHRKh 2. ua-cam.com/video/-uRDFhLZhDQ/v-deo.htmlsi=O0rsCwYPYMKZYNTK
@adanadanyou Brandon self admittedly has no knowledge of medieval warfare and states musket engagements were 1-200m max in that video if my memory serves (correct me if im wrong) and he is referencing later muskets over matchlocks also no? That is well within the range of archers. A archer group firing a volley at a line of musket men would surely be devastating. Yes you didn't see it, and obviously muskets replaced bows that is clear, but my point was it's an odd turn that if they theoretically revived an archer company from the not too distant history it would've matched well vs the especially early arquebusers and matchlock infantry. Don't get me wrong I understand it didn't really happen alot or at least not to my knowledge. I'm just saying a volley of arrows against matchlock men who take that long to fire and wear no armor would be devastating.
@vgamedude12 the answer is actually not that complicated.. because guns are more powerful than bows. the reason military archers died out even though armor fell out of favour was despite all the pop history channels tend to only speculate on this topics, their are many accounts of arquebusiers facing archers (and won most of the time), arquebus were praised for its superior accuracy and power over bow and arrows by contemporary sources.
@@dolsopolar They are more powerful but my question is how much does such a thing matter if someone is unarmored? I know for example in late 1500s Japan the bow and gun were both used, and I know possibly earlier both were also used in europe, and I cannot imagine firearms advanced all that much in that timespan of like 50 years or so especially if were talking about matchlocks still
@@vgamedude12 your question is why didn't the decline of armor bring back archery in large number again since nobody wear armor so gun's penetration power doesn't matter.. again, the answer is simple: because guns aren't only better at armor penetration. as I stated previously that arquebuses were praised for it's accuracy and power. so what did I mean by that? the answer is that bullets travel much much faster than arrows, and being faster means more stopping power, penetration power, cause more serious wounds, reaching target faster, less affected by winds and much flatter trajectory, all of this vastly improve accuracy and effective range. arrows also can be easily being blocked by simple defenses like shields or wooden walls while muskets require much more complex system of earthworks and heavier immobile defenses.
2 Pounds of bread, a pound of "meat", a Potle of wine and constant pay per day, was one of recruiting points of the New Model Army. Almost screams "give me scurvy", doesn't it?
@@LivingHistoryUKWow! That’s seems like a shocking paucity of ammo. So the 12 Apostles that soldiers wore were just enough powder for one shot per “Apostle”?
Great that this underrated war is getting some coverage
Great vid! Good for research
Thanks 😃
An excellent video, it's criminal that it hasn't garnered more views! As an American, it really scratches the itch for an often overlooked part of history on this side of the pond. I've been scrambling to learn all I can about the civil wars after finding Colonel John Hutchinson on my family tree. Cheers!
Thanks for your kind words. Really pleased to hear you enjoyed the episode and great family history by the way!
The beauty of a potage is that it makes the large quantity of bread (the mainstay of the ration) endurable. The WW2 Wehrmacht did the same as midday meal from the mobile field kitchens was always a soup made communally so somethings perhaps don’t change that much over time.
Why were the trousers tied below the knee.
Was it to keep the stockings up?
A great video! It really brings history to life to know how ordinary people lived and what they ate
A really fabulous video, gentlemen!! 👏🏻
Thanks Lance, glad you enjoyed it.
I always find this time period funny because firearms largely rendered armor less effective, and armor rendered arrows less effective. But if you encountered an army armed like the musketeers with no armor crossbows and bows would actually arguably be MORE effective. Just a weird balance act going on.
Muskets had far better range than longbows. Muskets have big muzzle energy than longbow. Training with longbow is hard you must have big stamina. Even after 12 shot you will get tired shooting arrows from longbows. Flintlock muskets also have bayonets another advantage over longbows. A battalion with muskets can defeat bowmen. Even native Americans adopt muskets. Equipping large numbers of soldiers with longbows and arrows are bad for economy and logistics. Please refer to military historians. Watch videos below from historians. 2 videos btw.
1. ua-cam.com/video/XwgNpNEzyzI/v-deo.htmlsi=aTp3UPWCrYwVHRKh
2.
ua-cam.com/video/-uRDFhLZhDQ/v-deo.htmlsi=O0rsCwYPYMKZYNTK
@adanadanyou Brandon self admittedly has no knowledge of medieval warfare and states musket engagements were 1-200m max in that video if my memory serves (correct me if im wrong) and he is referencing later muskets over matchlocks also no? That is well within the range of archers. A archer group firing a volley at a line of musket men would surely be devastating.
Yes you didn't see it, and obviously muskets replaced bows that is clear, but my point was it's an odd turn that if they theoretically revived an archer company from the not too distant history it would've matched well vs the especially early arquebusers and matchlock infantry.
Don't get me wrong I understand it didn't really happen alot or at least not to my knowledge. I'm just saying a volley of arrows against matchlock men who take that long to fire and wear no armor would be devastating.
@vgamedude12 the answer is actually not that complicated.. because guns are more powerful than bows.
the reason military archers died out even though armor fell out of favour was despite all the pop history channels tend to only speculate on this topics, their are many accounts of arquebusiers facing archers (and won most of the time), arquebus were praised for its superior accuracy and power over bow and arrows by contemporary sources.
@@dolsopolar They are more powerful but my question is how much does such a thing matter if someone is unarmored? I know for example in late 1500s Japan the bow and gun were both used, and I know possibly earlier both were also used in europe, and I cannot imagine firearms advanced all that much in that timespan of like 50 years or so especially if were talking about matchlocks still
@@vgamedude12 your question is why didn't the decline of armor bring back archery in large number again since nobody wear armor so gun's penetration power doesn't matter.. again, the answer is simple: because guns aren't only better at armor penetration.
as I stated previously that arquebuses were praised for it's accuracy and power. so what did I mean by that? the answer is that bullets travel much much faster than arrows, and being faster means more stopping power, penetration power, cause more serious wounds, reaching target faster, less affected by winds and much flatter trajectory, all of this vastly improve accuracy and effective range. arrows also can be easily being blocked by simple defenses like shields or wooden walls while muskets require much more complex system of earthworks and heavier immobile defenses.
Great video as always, lads, thank you 👍
Cheers Chris, glad you enjoyed it.
2 Pounds of bread, a pound of "meat", a Potle of wine and constant pay per day, was one of recruiting points of the New Model Army. Almost screams "give me scurvy", doesn't it?
Fresh meat can prevent scurvy
@@rhedges9631 if it's raw especially liver
So how many rounds would the infantryman at the beginning have on him. In Iraq and Afghanistan I carried 210-270 rounds of 5.56 for example.
Averages at about 12, but it really does depend - they made musket balls themselves and powder was a scarce commodity.
@@LivingHistoryUKWow! That’s seems like a shocking paucity of ammo. So the 12 Apostles that soldiers wore were just enough powder for one shot per “Apostle”?
@@bombfog1 yes 👍
So it's basically English risotto
What's the name of the gentleman who wrote the books they talk about while cooking?
@@Henchman34 Stuart Peachey. Some of his books are for sale here:-
www.middleton-hall.co.uk/category/all-products
@LivingHistoryUK your reply is only visible on newest comments mode
👍
No blueberries! They were not grown in Britain until the 1950s!
PEASANTS!!!!!
Came to the comments for something specific. Very disappointed. Maybe I am just mean. I’m not so I won’t say. Thanks.
Thick accents? I scrolled looking for any fellow yanks who also needed a translator for parts 😂
Great 😊 job guys very necessary work and contribution