There isn't really any evidence that vikings worse Gambesons (which are a quite specific type of armor that develops a lot later) or any other type of textile armor. It's more a thing of "Well, such armor wouldn't survive very well and it sounds practical from our modern perspective on the time, so they maybe probably used it?" But generally, until the development of proper plate armor the armor you wear on your body is not your primary defense, your shield is. Something like the mail of the richer vikings was just a "well, maybe when I fail to properly use my shield, it will turn a fatal blow into an injury I could survive". So like... maybe the poorer vikings didn't wear any armor besides their shields at all. Or maybe they just wore thicker clothing with a few layers more than normal. But nothing like a proper gambeson. Gambesons mostly developed as (first not overly thick) second layer of armor to be worn under mail in the time where full mail armor and coats of plates transitioned to a precursor of brigandines and then became thicker and became something that was worn on its own or above mail (because it was at that point to thick to be worn underneath; the textiles would get compressed and turn you into a michelin man). I would also be critical of the idea that all vikings wore helmets. Yes, many people complain about vikings in movies not wearing helmets and such, but the thing is... we don't really have that many surviving helmets and the ones that were found and can be reconstructed are quite fancy. So maybe, after spear and shield it would be the first thing you would buy, but there were probably a lot of "newcomers" who literally had just grabbed a spear and shield. Also, the duality when it comes to viking arms is not "sword or axe". They didn't really have one-handed fantasy axes. The axes would if anything replace the spear as a proper long-reaching battle weapon. The sword was mostly a sidearm and a symbol of status. The alternative to a proper sword would be an one-edged Seax, but even some richer people would choose a seax over a sword. Charlemagne for example could've used a seax (later sources refered to it as a hunting knife, because late medieval people didn't know what a saex is). There are some archaeologists who argue that axes weren't even that typical of a proper viking weapon, because many depictions and mentions are not really about vikings doing raiding but about proper Skandinavian armies having actual battles. And I like my strict definition of vikings, not "every Scandinavian between 800 and 1066 who does anything outside of Scandinavia while wearing a weapon". Like don't come to me with your King Harolds and whatnot, if you are a king and you come over with a huge army to conquer land, you're just doing normal European nobility stuff, not viking stuff. Also, the kind of axes that were used to fight were specific battle axes and were not very useful against wood in any way.
I appreciate the clarifying comment. It's hard to mention everything in a short time only to then forget to mention the importance of the shield in most historic armies, including the Vikings. - And I appreciate the name.
I usally incorporate Realism and fantasy elements in my fantasy armies, if they're inspired off a real army (say for example the vikings inspiring the Space Wolves) I would blend real historical aspects such as a highly decorated viking being seen as more experianced so i incorporate that into the space wolves where they're decorated with nicer looking helmets, gold trims on their pauldrons, trophies and accessories.
@@worldbuildingsage Maybe it isnt to difficult to create a realistic fantasy army ? Maybe its very difficult to integrate Fantasy elements , that they make sense and dosnt get overpowered! I think its maybe more a High Fantasy Problem!
I am one of those who tends to focus on realism for a fantasy army. Don't get me wrong - the rule of cool still applies for me, but I am one of those who wants to look at an army and go, "You know, it would be _really_ cool if this army could exist in real life and not just in media or cosplay." In fairness, the real devil in the detail - and thus what makes or breaks an army's coolness factor - is its organizational and command structure. Warchiefs, while perfectly valid, are a bit oversaturated. And of course, realism is not actually needed - this is just a personal preference of mine. For me at least, an army comprised of all of the fantasy races, with no majority of one race over the others, outfitted with modern Earth-style weapon and employing modern tactics, complete with special forces, while still utilizing any possible natural advantages certain races might have, moves past the Rule of Cool and into the Law of Awesome. Here are some examples: • Dragons swoop over an army with a pass of their flame breaths. As they rise back into the air, large humps on their backs lift to reveal that they are riders, wearing modern camo fatigues that are patterned to match the dragon's scales and wielding high-capacity assault rifles for rapid follow-ups and precision attacks. • Dragonewts and harpies glide in through a high-altitude-high-opening (HAHO) jump under the cover of night. They very quietly land with no parachute being left behind to mark their arrival and then proceed with their mission. • Mermaids race up to a ship. Some move to sabotage the ship while others use their speed to catapult raiders on-board to storm through the crew. • Alraunes and dryads weave perfect natural foliage around them as they settle in for long-endurance observation with the occasional sniping involved. Granted, I can only speak for myself, but that kind of army sounds awesome to watch in action and downright terrifying to be on the receiving end of said action from.
There is nothing wrong with either. It should fit to the style of their world. It's weird if your world is mostly realistic and suddenly your whole armies are on the rule of cool side of things. And I wouldn't want to stand on the wrong side of that army either.
If your armies are fighting in a medieval fantasy setting, there's only one fact that decides the realism vs. the rule of cool question. A few dozen peasant conscripts are never going to defeat a dragon. Bronze and Iron Age warfare had pretty standard strategies and production methods when it came to the kinds of units every nation could muster. Cavalry, spear/pikemen, archers, siege weapons/artillery. These strategies went out the window whenever anyone showed up to the battle with a bunch of elephants. Elephant cavalry changed warfare in the era before cannons entered common use. That only becomes even more blatant once you throw fantasy beasts and non tamable animals into the mix. Rhino mounted knights. Dragon Air Force. Indricothere cavalry. Griffon or wyvern mounted knights. Hill giant infantry. Then you have magic users, and all hope of realistic military tactics goes out the window. Which side was able to call in a favor from the mage academy? Which ruler made a deal with a hag coven? Who brought a lich to the battle? What do you mean all of our dead soldiers got up and joined the enemy army? When it comes to tabletop gaming, lots of people try to make compelling rules for mass combat that you really don't need. Sure, mention the cool special units that set the army on the PC's side apart from just peasants with sticks. Have the PCs recruit those units. Make them quest to get three dragons on their side. Quest to gain the loyalty of a legendary craftsman who makes magic weapons for the army. Extract an NPC from an enemy prison who knows the secret of taming special beasts. At the end of the day, the battle itself is less important. The outcome needs to be decided by the players' choices. You don't need an extra round of dice rolls and minigames when the battle is decided by the PCs sneaking into the enemy base for a decapitation strike.
The Thing is Fantasy armies dont have to make Sense in the real world but they should make Sense in the Fantasy world you create, If you introduce some new Thing that makes Sense Just for spectactle IT Ruins all the previous established Things Like the hyperspace ramming in TLJ that in Star wars established Lore makes Not much Sense since hyperspace IS Something you have to carefully calculate its Not a Nitro Button and IT shouldnt BE that effective because IT calls the question why Nobody Just uses hyperspace Cruise missles, the TROS was worse with the hyperspace jumping and the death Star destroyers that somehow all can destroy planets and also have No shields for some reason. There should BE logical consistency within your world unless people will tune Out when you dont Care about Logic in your story
Thing is, the Hyperspace Ram _could_ work if you actually put a little more thought into it. Like, for example, the First Order Ship has this fancy new scanner that can track someone in Hyperspace. So, in this hypothetical scenario, it makes it particularly vulnerable. The functionality of the Ram itself is fine. The calculations mentioned are specifically stated to be so you can avoid gravity wells of stellar mass objects and large planets. That's irrelevant if you're just jumping blind with the intention to ram. This solves the issue of why no one else used it before. The new scanner didn't exist before then, and now that the problem of the new scanner is known, the First Order will either try to fix the flaw or just stop using the Hyperspace scanners all together.
@@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim No it shouldn't for the simple fact that it should ruin everything that came before. Why exactly did the Empire build the death star if it can be destroyed by one Corvette? Why did the rebels send men to die to make an attack run on a low probability weakness when they can just send a robot on a ship? Maybe the First Order can have come up with a solution, but why hasn't it been used against the Empire that is older?
I very much agree with this take. I was about to make my own comment, but you said it already. When you talk about fantasy settings, you can have both realism and rule of cool. What matters is not how realistic it is to our real world. What matters is if it is realistic in he fantasy world where different pressures existed. Maybe guns were invented in order to give a cheap alternative to magic users. Magic users are stronger, but it takes years to train them.
@@Cloud_Seeker Once Again, I already explained it in my comment, so I _know_ you didn't read it past "The Hyperspace Ram can work." I will Italicize and capitalize for Emphasis. _THE FIRST ORDER'S HYPERSPACE TRACKING TECHNOLOGY MADE THEIR FLAGSHIP UNIQUELY VUNERABLE TO THIS TACTIC. THE EMPIRE DID NOT HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY, NEITHER DID THE REPUBLIC BEFORE IT. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A VALID TACTIC BEFORE HAND._
@@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim Again. I said it can't work because it should have been invented BEFORE if it was. I read your comment. The problem is that your comment is shit because you make a MASSIVE mistake. You say "the First Order Ship has this fancy new scanner that can track someone in Hyperspace" and "it makes it particularly vulnerable." - Okay. But why are they vulnerable when they have the ability to track things through hyperspace? That is like saying you are vulnerable by being able to track a rocket when it is fired at you. Now I am no military genius or anything. But I am pretty sure you are MORE vulnerable when you can't see something flying towards you then when you can. So this is just faulty logic. "This solves the issue of why no one else used it before. The new scanner didn't exist before then," - I am sorry but what? No mate. You make a big deal out of this "scanner" thing when it is irrelevant. What literally happens with the RAM is literally "jumping blind with the intention to ram". If you miss, you do not die and can try again. You also fail to understand that this "scanner" do not exist. The target was within VISUAL RANGE. You need no scanner when you can see the ship with your eyes. The First Order is no less vulnerable to this then ANYTHING the Empire had. The Hyperspace Ram is just a Kamikaze attack but optimized. Fly within regular old scanner range and start the hyperdrive. THAT is the attack. You need no fancy scanner or be able to track anything. The whole issue with your enitre comment is that the First Order is UNIQUELY able to defend themselves against it. They are not less vulnerable then anyone else, but actually has a defensive edge if your assumption is correct. FFS mate. Do some basic thinking. The problem with the hyperspace RAM is that it was a more valid tactic the further back in time you go as the countermessures to it doesn't exist. The only reason the hyperspace ram tactic works is because it assumes everyone (especially the military) never once considered it even as a desperation move. It should be like that no one consider just filling old fighter plans with explosives and fly them into enemy ships during WW2 when they are out of options.
The armies of the Dwarves in my D&D campaigns are based heavily on the Anglo-saxon fyrds. The High Elves use slave armies heavily based on the mamluks, and it works better for the Elves because their mamluks have limited magical resources and must rely on their Elven masters to supply any (for now).
In my setting, many of the major cities will use mandatory conscription as an anti vagrantcy measure. So if your homeless, you could be made to fight the kingdom's enemies. (I sometimes call them the murder hobo's guild.) And if they're are no wars to be fought, you'll be fighting in the coliseum for the amusement of the citizens.
I don’t feel like you should choose between being cool and realistic, I mean, just look at the pike and shit tactic, that might actually be the coolest shit I’ve seen
I can't say much about the other armies, but when it comes to Napoleon, constant suicide charges probably wouldn't reach the top 10 of stupidest things the man could have gotten his army to perform without risk of mutiny
They usually need to have some form of magic that keeps them from crumbling, and they need to be equipped in most cases, even if it's just scrap metal. And the undead army has to get from point a to b. Might not be worth it to go through the dangerous mountains even if your army is technically immortal.
@@worldbuildingsage For the example the english Longbow archers just worked with very special tactics after preperation times , after my knowledge when they where used by foreign armys as mercenarys they didnt usually archive much! The Battle of Morat 1476 for Example was mostly a Infantery Battle but the English Longbow archers where overun by Lorraine Knights! I have read That even by the Battle of Roosebeeke 1382 there where some english Longbow archers on the side of the flamish , but they hade no real possitiv impact ! Even the English wasnt even always succesfull by using them for example by Battle of Patay 1429 and Pointvallain 1370,battle of la Brossniere 1423 where the archers defeeted!
@@killerkraut9179 Crescy, Poitiers, and Agincourt on the other hand show different results. During the Hussite Wars the Hussites decimated the German knights with their infantry. Or the Italians during their wars against the Germans. It's no black and white of course, and I mostly featured that line as a joke, but in many conditions the cross- and longbows did indeed pierce the knights to death.
@@worldbuildingsage Did not Poitiers not end with a English cavalry Charge? I dont deny the Performance of the poitiers in agincourt ! Agincourt its true , But what did the English archers do awsome after Agincourt? The Hussites used a very strange Wagenburg tactic often combined with Firearms but i admite they used often crossbows as well! The Wagenburg was a very strange transitional war tactics what rised with the Blackpowder and did fall with Blackpowder weapons! And after my knowledge the Italians where one of the Bigest heavy cavalry users!
@@killerkraut9179 The Genoese were known for their crossbows, as were other Northern Italian Cities. And I'd say that Crescy and French crossbows are superior to English longbows and agincourt anyway :^) And the Hussites used Crossbows mostly at first and developed more and more blackpowder over the years yeah.
There isn't really any evidence that vikings worse Gambesons (which are a quite specific type of armor that develops a lot later) or any other type of textile armor. It's more a thing of "Well, such armor wouldn't survive very well and it sounds practical from our modern perspective on the time, so they maybe probably used it?" But generally, until the development of proper plate armor the armor you wear on your body is not your primary defense, your shield is. Something like the mail of the richer vikings was just a "well, maybe when I fail to properly use my shield, it will turn a fatal blow into an injury I could survive". So like... maybe the poorer vikings didn't wear any armor besides their shields at all. Or maybe they just wore thicker clothing with a few layers more than normal. But nothing like a proper gambeson.
Gambesons mostly developed as (first not overly thick) second layer of armor to be worn under mail in the time where full mail armor and coats of plates transitioned to a precursor of brigandines and then became thicker and became something that was worn on its own or above mail (because it was at that point to thick to be worn underneath; the textiles would get compressed and turn you into a michelin man).
I would also be critical of the idea that all vikings wore helmets. Yes, many people complain about vikings in movies not wearing helmets and such, but the thing is... we don't really have that many surviving helmets and the ones that were found and can be reconstructed are quite fancy. So maybe, after spear and shield it would be the first thing you would buy, but there were probably a lot of "newcomers" who literally had just grabbed a spear and shield.
Also, the duality when it comes to viking arms is not "sword or axe". They didn't really have one-handed fantasy axes. The axes would if anything replace the spear as a proper long-reaching battle weapon. The sword was mostly a sidearm and a symbol of status. The alternative to a proper sword would be an one-edged Seax, but even some richer people would choose a seax over a sword. Charlemagne for example could've used a seax (later sources refered to it as a hunting knife, because late medieval people didn't know what a saex is).
There are some archaeologists who argue that axes weren't even that typical of a proper viking weapon, because many depictions and mentions are not really about vikings doing raiding but about proper Skandinavian armies having actual battles. And I like my strict definition of vikings, not "every Scandinavian between 800 and 1066 who does anything outside of Scandinavia while wearing a weapon". Like don't come to me with your King Harolds and whatnot, if you are a king and you come over with a huge army to conquer land, you're just doing normal European nobility stuff, not viking stuff.
Also, the kind of axes that were used to fight were specific battle axes and were not very useful against wood in any way.
I appreciate the clarifying comment. It's hard to mention everything in a short time only to then forget to mention the importance of the shield in most historic armies, including the Vikings. - And I appreciate the name.
I see Worldbuilding Sage and I click.
I appreciate this a lot
"Realism or Rule of Cool?" Answer: Yes.
Fair.
I usally incorporate Realism and fantasy elements in my fantasy armies, if they're inspired off a real army (say for example the vikings inspiring the Space Wolves) I would blend real historical aspects such as a highly decorated viking being seen as more experianced so i incorporate that into the space wolves where they're decorated with nicer looking helmets, gold trims on their pauldrons, trophies and accessories.
Yeah, that's usually my approach as well.
@@worldbuildingsage Maybe it isnt to difficult to create a realistic fantasy army ?
Maybe its very difficult to integrate Fantasy elements , that they make sense and dosnt get overpowered!
I think its maybe more a High Fantasy Problem!
I am one of those who tends to focus on realism for a fantasy army. Don't get me wrong - the rule of cool still applies for me, but I am one of those who wants to look at an army and go, "You know, it would be _really_ cool if this army could exist in real life and not just in media or cosplay."
In fairness, the real devil in the detail - and thus what makes or breaks an army's coolness factor - is its organizational and command structure. Warchiefs, while perfectly valid, are a bit oversaturated. And of course, realism is not actually needed - this is just a personal preference of mine.
For me at least, an army comprised of all of the fantasy races, with no majority of one race over the others, outfitted with modern Earth-style weapon and employing modern tactics, complete with special forces, while still utilizing any possible natural advantages certain races might have, moves past the Rule of Cool and into the Law of Awesome. Here are some examples:
• Dragons swoop over an army with a pass of their flame breaths. As they rise back into the air, large humps on their backs lift to reveal that they are riders, wearing modern camo fatigues that are patterned to match the dragon's scales and wielding high-capacity assault rifles for rapid follow-ups and precision attacks.
• Dragonewts and harpies glide in through a high-altitude-high-opening (HAHO) jump under the cover of night. They very quietly land with no parachute being left behind to mark their arrival and then proceed with their mission.
• Mermaids race up to a ship. Some move to sabotage the ship while others use their speed to catapult raiders on-board to storm through the crew.
• Alraunes and dryads weave perfect natural foliage around them as they settle in for long-endurance observation with the occasional sniping involved.
Granted, I can only speak for myself, but that kind of army sounds awesome to watch in action and downright terrifying to be on the receiving end of said action from.
There is nothing wrong with either. It should fit to the style of their world. It's weird if your world is mostly realistic and suddenly your whole armies are on the rule of cool side of things.
And I wouldn't want to stand on the wrong side of that army either.
Your voice is so beautiful. Can't wait to listen to more videos.
Thank you!
If your armies are fighting in a medieval fantasy setting, there's only one fact that decides the realism vs. the rule of cool question.
A few dozen peasant conscripts are never going to defeat a dragon.
Bronze and Iron Age warfare had pretty standard strategies and production methods when it came to the kinds of units every nation could muster. Cavalry, spear/pikemen, archers, siege weapons/artillery.
These strategies went out the window whenever anyone showed up to the battle with a bunch of elephants.
Elephant cavalry changed warfare in the era before cannons entered common use. That only becomes even more blatant once you throw fantasy beasts and non tamable animals into the mix.
Rhino mounted knights.
Dragon Air Force.
Indricothere cavalry.
Griffon or wyvern mounted knights.
Hill giant infantry.
Then you have magic users, and all hope of realistic military tactics goes out the window.
Which side was able to call in a favor from the mage academy?
Which ruler made a deal with a hag coven?
Who brought a lich to the battle? What do you mean all of our dead soldiers got up and joined the enemy army?
When it comes to tabletop gaming, lots of people try to make compelling rules for mass combat that you really don't need. Sure, mention the cool special units that set the army on the PC's side apart from just peasants with sticks. Have the PCs recruit those units. Make them quest to get three dragons on their side. Quest to gain the loyalty of a legendary craftsman who makes magic weapons for the army. Extract an NPC from an enemy prison who knows the secret of taming special beasts.
At the end of the day, the battle itself is less important. The outcome needs to be decided by the players' choices. You don't need an extra round of dice rolls and minigames when the battle is decided by the PCs sneaking into the enemy base for a decapitation strike.
The answer is really only just, do what you want, as long as it makes sense and has good reasoning
Most stories completly ignore the tross, which was vital for amcient and medieval armies.
The Thing is Fantasy armies dont have to make Sense in the real world but they should make Sense in the Fantasy world you create, If you introduce some new Thing that makes Sense Just for spectactle IT Ruins all the previous established Things Like the hyperspace ramming in TLJ that in Star wars established Lore makes Not much Sense since hyperspace IS Something you have to carefully calculate its Not a Nitro Button and IT shouldnt BE that effective because IT calls the question why Nobody Just uses hyperspace Cruise missles, the TROS was worse with the hyperspace jumping and the death Star destroyers that somehow all can destroy planets and also have No shields for some reason. There should BE logical consistency within your world unless people will tune Out when you dont Care about Logic in your story
Thing is, the Hyperspace Ram _could_ work if you actually put a little more thought into it.
Like, for example, the First Order Ship has this fancy new scanner that can track someone in Hyperspace. So, in this hypothetical scenario, it makes it particularly vulnerable.
The functionality of the Ram itself is fine. The calculations mentioned are specifically stated to be so you can avoid gravity wells of stellar mass objects and large planets.
That's irrelevant if you're just jumping blind with the intention to ram.
This solves the issue of why no one else used it before. The new scanner didn't exist before then, and now that the problem of the new scanner is known, the First Order will either try to fix the flaw or just stop using the Hyperspace scanners all together.
@@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim No it shouldn't for the simple fact that it should ruin everything that came before. Why exactly did the Empire build the death star if it can be destroyed by one Corvette? Why did the rebels send men to die to make an attack run on a low probability weakness when they can just send a robot on a ship? Maybe the First Order can have come up with a solution, but why hasn't it been used against the Empire that is older?
I very much agree with this take. I was about to make my own comment, but you said it already.
When you talk about fantasy settings, you can have both realism and rule of cool. What matters is not how realistic it is to our real world. What matters is if it is realistic in he fantasy world where different pressures existed.
Maybe guns were invented in order to give a cheap alternative to magic users. Magic users are stronger, but it takes years to train them.
@@Cloud_Seeker Once Again, I already explained it in my comment, so I _know_ you didn't read it past "The Hyperspace Ram can work."
I will Italicize and capitalize for Emphasis.
_THE FIRST ORDER'S HYPERSPACE TRACKING TECHNOLOGY MADE THEIR FLAGSHIP UNIQUELY VUNERABLE TO THIS TACTIC. THE EMPIRE DID NOT HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY, NEITHER DID THE REPUBLIC BEFORE IT. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A VALID TACTIC BEFORE HAND._
@@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim Again. I said it can't work because it should have been invented BEFORE if it was.
I read your comment. The problem is that your comment is shit because you make a MASSIVE mistake.
You say "the First Order Ship has this fancy new scanner that can track someone in Hyperspace" and "it makes it particularly vulnerable."
- Okay. But why are they vulnerable when they have the ability to track things through hyperspace? That is like saying you are vulnerable by being able to track a rocket when it is fired at you.
Now I am no military genius or anything. But I am pretty sure you are MORE vulnerable when you can't see something flying towards you then when you can. So this is just faulty logic.
"This solves the issue of why no one else used it before. The new scanner didn't exist before then,"
- I am sorry but what? No mate. You make a big deal out of this "scanner" thing when it is irrelevant. What literally happens with the RAM is literally "jumping blind with the intention to ram". If you miss, you do not die and can try again. You also fail to understand that this "scanner" do not exist. The target was within VISUAL RANGE. You need no scanner when you can see the ship with your eyes.
The First Order is no less vulnerable to this then ANYTHING the Empire had. The Hyperspace Ram is just a Kamikaze attack but optimized. Fly within regular old scanner range and start the hyperdrive. THAT is the attack. You need no fancy scanner or be able to track anything. The whole issue with your enitre comment is that the First Order is UNIQUELY able to defend themselves against it. They are not less vulnerable then anyone else, but actually has a defensive edge if your assumption is correct.
FFS mate. Do some basic thinking. The problem with the hyperspace RAM is that it was a more valid tactic the further back in time you go as the countermessures to it doesn't exist. The only reason the hyperspace ram tactic works is because it assumes everyone (especially the military) never once considered it even as a desperation move. It should be like that no one consider just filling old fighter plans with explosives and fly them into enemy ships during WW2 when they are out of options.
The armies of the Dwarves in my D&D campaigns are based heavily on the Anglo-saxon fyrds. The High Elves use slave armies heavily based on the mamluks, and it works better for the Elves because their mamluks have limited magical resources and must rely on their Elven masters to supply any (for now).
I like the game of thrones style. Mostly realistic battles and armies with some fantasy elements
The magic of low magic
HEY WICKIE HEY !!!
So true
In my setting, many of the major cities will use mandatory conscription as an anti vagrantcy measure. So if your homeless, you could be made to fight the kingdom's enemies. (I sometimes call them the murder hobo's guild.)
And if they're are no wars to be fought, you'll be fighting in the coliseum for the amusement of the citizens.
I don’t feel like you should choose between being cool and realistic, I mean, just look at the pike and shit tactic, that might actually be the coolest shit I’ve seen
Picking something in the middle ground is the point of the video, yeah!
Can somebody please tell me where the ophenian magocracy from the 10:20 timestamp is from?
It's my own world lmao
@@worldbuildingsage Is there lore on it anywhere?
@@daksheshghildiyal On my computer and mostly in german.
Besides that it's only within several videos of mine!
I'm not convinced the Napoleonic army is realistic. Who would charge into volley fire at the head of a column? /s
Also why would they dress so fabulously instead of wearing protection and practical clothing when going to battle?????
I can't say much about the other armies, but when it comes to Napoleon, constant suicide charges probably wouldn't reach the top 10 of stupidest things the man could have gotten his army to perform without risk of mutiny
This is assuming armies are composed by living beings....
Undead armies have the same questions for each. Even when thinking about their logistics their are questions to ask for them.
@@worldbuildingsage dont have to worry about them getting paid,fed,sleeping or high morale for example
They usually need to have some form of magic that keeps them from crumbling, and they need to be equipped in most cases, even if it's just scrap metal. And the undead army has to get from point a to b. Might not be worth it to go through the dangerous mountains even if your army is technically immortal.
@@Elia-fn8jvstill have their equipment to maintain, replace those put out of actions, the way order are transmitted if there is, etc
Longbows and Crossbows wasnt realy Superior to Knights!
It depended on the battle but knights on horseback in armor are heavily overrated *nodnod*
@@worldbuildingsage For the example the english Longbow archers just worked with very special tactics after preperation times , after my knowledge when they where used by foreign armys as mercenarys they didnt usually archive much!
The Battle of Morat 1476 for Example was mostly a Infantery Battle but the English Longbow archers where overun by Lorraine Knights!
I have read That even by the Battle of Roosebeeke 1382 there where some english Longbow archers on the side of the flamish , but they hade no real possitiv impact !
Even the English wasnt even always succesfull by using them for example by Battle of Patay 1429 and Pointvallain 1370,battle of la Brossniere 1423 where the archers defeeted!
@@killerkraut9179 Crescy, Poitiers, and Agincourt on the other hand show different results. During the Hussite Wars the Hussites decimated the German knights with their infantry. Or the Italians during their wars against the Germans.
It's no black and white of course, and I mostly featured that line as a joke, but in many conditions the cross- and longbows did indeed pierce the knights to death.
@@worldbuildingsage Did not Poitiers not end with a English cavalry Charge?
I dont deny the Performance of the poitiers in agincourt !
Agincourt its true , But what did the English archers do awsome after Agincourt?
The Hussites used a very strange Wagenburg tactic often combined with Firearms but i admite they used often crossbows as well!
The Wagenburg was a very strange transitional war tactics what rised with the Blackpowder and did fall with Blackpowder weapons!
And after my knowledge the Italians where one of the Bigest heavy cavalry users!
@@killerkraut9179 The Genoese were known for their crossbows, as were other Northern Italian Cities.
And I'd say that Crescy and French crossbows are superior to English longbows and agincourt anyway :^)
And the Hussites used Crossbows mostly at first and developed more and more blackpowder over the years yeah.