He made his video after I finished this script, but Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria made a fantastic video delving into one of these sorts of comparisons. In it, he gets into some fantastic details about how one particular comparison DOES work, and how it DOES NOT. It's a fantastic look at exactly how the things I discuss in this video can applied: ua-cam.com/video/vTJ7sVqiDX4/v-deo.html Edit: Also, apparently "The Blitz" specifically refers to the bombing campaign after the Fall of France. Huh, who knew? Well it turns out a fair few people, just not me. I always conflated "Blitz" and "Blitzkrieg"
The shallow draft Viking boats, which could go swiftly upriver to cities, was devastating, for the same reason that the Hittite chariot was in Egypt. At first, the Vikings weren't interested in holding territory, but that happened within a generation. Vikings quickly became Normans. The Hittites lost their advantage when the Egyptians copied their chariots.
The blitz was the primer for the start of blitzkrieg. It is in the same way for the shock and awe. The idea is that prior to the start of the ground war you start with an air bombing to create gaps or opening for the ground. to weaken the enemy to respond in kind. go for their arty and airfield. After you smother the arty and airfield then you start the ground offense on a weak spot in the line that was either always there or created by the blitz. So air starts and then ground push through and then seek to go behind enemy lines and hit strategic location before enemy properly respond. anyway that is the simple idea of blitzkrieg.
I'm pretty sure the Blitz was a famous word for Luftwaffe bombings. I heard of it when I was about 11 years old or so. And knew nothing about the world wars back then.
@@patavinity1262 Ah, but is he? If you look at the German song Panzerlied, the second verse ends with 'Gerschwind wie die Blitz'; as fast as lightning! Clearly, this is a clever, multi-layered reference! ... And if it isn't, then I like my version better. :P
@@BrandonF This comment is exactly why you shouldn't worry too much about the less than good comparisons you have made in your videos. You have shown here (and several times in videos and other comments) that you are willing to be corrected and strive to do better next time.
I remember watching MajorSamm's Israeli Blitz - Lebanon '82 and thinking Blitz = blitzkrieg / lightning war now thanks to your comment scibus2593 i remember Blitz refers to ww2 german bombing of england. I think i learned what Blitz meant through Jay Foreman's older Unfinished London episodes. Thanks again.
@@dersuddeutschesumpf5444they do have some similarities, that being heavily armored, hard hitting and mobile unit often used to punch through enemy lines. That’s about it though.
"The knight/Spartan hoplite/war elephant was the TANK of the ancient world!" Seen it in so many historical discussions where it just adds nothing and distracts from the purpose. Thanks for covering this one, Brandon!
Okay, elephant isn't so bad, especially given that the tank has some pretty weird models like the Tsar tank, and the Mughals had elephants with cannons mounted on them, and covered them in excellent armour and the soldiers on them did too.
That would be terrifying especially when you know that war elephants Had a tendency to Go Wild , Just Imagine a Panzer Division being repelled by anti Tank artillery and all the Panzers roll Back full Speed ahead into the Schützenregimente ,No Wonder combined Arms warfare was lately used because Lord have Mercy when a Tiger goes wild or a maus
THANK you!! Nothing gives me a greater embodiment of disappointment than people who insist on comparing whatever in antiquity I'm talking about Hitlers armies. It's obnoxious, not like that at ALL, and you're not gonna learn history doing that.
No premodern army would stand a chance against a modern one. Modern ones are not only so much better equiped that they would mow down enemies like a scythe reaps grass but modern armies are also larger so they have a continuous frontline along the entire border and dont need to concentrate for a battle.
Combined army tactics had been around since before alexander and he definitely used them. So did hanabil and the Romans. Propaganda by the British to make excuses for why they got there teeth kicked in early in the war.
I think it might be a problem of also people not knowing that the idea of a large continuous front is still a relatively recent thing. The Romans didn't have to deal with pushing across a 1,000km front with 2 million men spread out along it.
Exactly, There was plenty of trench warfare in the American Civil War, Crimea, Boer wars, Russo-Japanese War, and New Zealand Land Wars, but those were still radically different and all about siege warfare on specific cities, not grand pushes over an entire nation. The 20th century is about mass mobilization and coordination to unprecedented levels.
The opening is absolutely perfect. You explained the sectarian division of an entire “fandom” (you can call it that at this point) with a single axiom.
The precision and speed of his thesis almost reminds one of the precision and speed of the German panzer divisions which blitzed into France in the spring of 1940.
I'm sure you won't read this but my channel focuses on my hometown of Worcester's history. The Worcestershire Regiment, amalgamated in the 19th century from the 29th and 36th regiments of foot are something I'd like to tackle. The 29th had a storied history in North America. I'd love to discuss a possible introspective in to their time there with you if you'd be amenable?
I like to call this the "History Channel Effect", the channel that launched thousands of Wehraboos, where virtually _every_ historical topic gets compared to the WWII. In addition, every tyrant gets compare to Hitler, every general gets compared to Rommel or Patton, or every regime gets compared to the Third Reich, although the History Channel has moved onto Americentrism, the damage is done, people have gotten comfortable with the idea that WWII can be shoehorned into any subject, "This is the Normandy of our time", "The carnage is like Omaha Beach", or "This is the second coming of Patton", this WWII oversaturaturation is one of my pet peeves. The Second World War is over folks, it's time to drop the nostalgia of trying to refight Iwo Jima, so study history in the context it was written in, not a decade from the twentieth century.
@@thegloryofromeiseternal I feel like referring to a fight as a "waterloo" has a different meaning because you're not actually talking about the circumstances of the battle itself when you say this - it's a term that means any kind of big final confrontation or ordeal that will put an end to a long struggle, and isn't necessarily about war at all. It has entered English as a colloquial phrase that has almost nothing to do with what any soldier or commander was doing on that day.
I never came across a comparison like that luckily but i get the frustration. The term "Blitzkrieg" wasn't even used by the Germans. It was just another form of "War of movement" or "Mobile warfare".
Yeah I do kinda get why they compare everything to it thou. Historical military development were and will be always be how to best apply existing technologies into conducting mobile warfare.
Watch old American History Channel. The whole bit he did at 1:20 are actual quotes from that period of the channel. You even had WW2 historians commenting on warfare from other periods.
" Blitzkrieg".itself was considered more of a theorlogical possiblity than actually. Poland had " a hard start" of the Blitz, and in France the tanks went way faster than the general staff, plannedm
It's people looking for a cheap easy way to relate to something that would normally take proper in depth analysis. If they haven't taken the time to study it themselves than they are left with surface impressions they pass on. WW2 was so prolific in literature and films it's something most people have seen something about and thus would be relatable to the most people.
I know I commented this on the deadliest warrior episode, but I’m like 90% sure they have an episode where they call the Macedonian Pike the “m16” of the ancient world
@@roomyhaddock3245 we could always call the Spartans navy seals or something. Or a horseman a tank, actually Im pretty sure they called a medieval knight a tank at one point
No, but they called the Roman Scorpion the Roman Machine Gun. And when they tested it they kinda disproved the whole thing. That was a bizarre and hilarious episode despite actually featuring two armored iron age professional soldiers for once and actually getting the winner right IMO.
Or the US and English Civil Wars. Last night talking with my cousin I somehow got from Queen to the rise and fall of the Tudors and Stuarts, the Catholic-Protestant wars and how the conflict happened in Britain, and the act of Union.
15:15 I love this image because it implies that Frederick was taller than Hindenburg, who in real life was 6'6". This means that in this universe, Frederick, Hitler and Hindenburg would be 5'2" and shorter. This is objectively hilarious.
Y E S. Different Periods of warfare are often so inherently different (easpeacialy pre Industrial vs Industrial) that comparisons are to be used very carefully.
Comparisons of concept are useful, because the fundamental tenets of warfare haven't changed in recorded history. But if someone compares the _physical execution_ of two different periods, you can safely ignore then.
The Most hillarious Thing is that some idiots believe that modern soldiers can outfight any soldiers in the past in melee, because they know kung für or some dumb Shit,Like they ignore that in the past before firearms Hand to Hand Combat was the primary way of fighting thats why they have Armor and Armor Piercing weapons.
@@me67galaxylife Absolutely wrong. If you take modern to mean using methods and hardware comparable to what is currently in service, even Vietnam doesn't count as modern. WWI is in every single regard bar aviation and telegraphy closer to the Thirty Years War than it is to a modern battlefield.
Little Timmy is gradually gaining more and more awareness. I’m invested in this saga. Godspeed, soldier… perhaps the fourth wall can be fully breached with a cavalry charge.
Man, Brandon coming in here with his videos, smashing through misconceptions like the Blitzkreig going through Europe. Just firing through the armour of tropes like an English longbow. 😇
The concentration of effort on the decisive point and combined arms are concepts known for the entirety of military history. The Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic era military theorists wrote extensively about this and the comparison should really be made the other way around, as German post-WW1 combined arms theorists were very much familiar with the previous theorists' works and building up on their principles, as well as using the experiences of WW1 as well as theories and experiments on modern combined arms doctrine from other countries.
This video is the same thing as Munich in '39. Brandon is nothing more than our modern Chamberlain, an appeaser. Don't abandon Czechoslovakia, Brandon.
Overcome by underestimating logistical issues and the political stability in their main opponent? Very brave of you to admit it. So many victims suffer in silence.
Try using the German terms "schnellkrieg" or "bewegungskrieg." "Fast war" and "war of movement" respectively. That should do it! The term "blitzkreig" was actually coined by the Brits if I'm not mistaken.
@@tomirk4404 Hey, it could have been. Who really knows for sure? I look at it this way, the British didn't call the Luftwaffe's version of unrban renewal on London the Blitz for nothing.
I love the direction your videos have taken over the last few years, but especially letting your sense of humour shine through. I actually lol’d at your plug for Altas coffee (be strong, Little Timmy!)
I just read some good books on how the Blitzkrieg itself got misinterpreted by both sides with an obsession with using new technology to make a schwerpunkt, when it was more about using numbers, logistics, and coordination on larger fronts. The Blitzkrieg itself has a lot of asterisks in the underline- it's not this magic tactic. It just got part of the whole cultural obsession with the Wehrmacht, missing how it was successful as well as allied mistakes. LOL at the Wehrabingo. An episode on Wehraboos would be fun. Timmy has the heart of a poet. "nobody can soldier without coffee."-Ebenezer Nelson Gilpin, Company E, 3rd Iowa Cavalry. There's an idea for a video- coffee and tea in military history. What was it like, how much did they drink, how did they make it, where did they get it, how important it was in rations, etc The way I see it is that the gladius is the closest thing to an iklwa, and the scutum-gladius combination is the closest to the iklwa-ishlangu combination, but that by no means makes them the same or even equivalent. The romans and zulus had roughly similar arms in javelins, short broad stabbing blades, and large shields, but had different organizations, tactics, martial style, etc . The English longbow is the closest European equivalent to a Yumi, and they were used in similar ways, but they're not equivalent either. It's just hard to study non-European weapons and tactics inside a Eurocentric paradigm. Sure there's a lot of things that are similar, but rodeleros and Teng Pai Shou had different duties in 16th century Pike and Shot. There's a big fight over whether the macuahuitl is a sword or a club, when it's both and neither. And as you point out, there's time period too. Frederick the Great is not Erwin Rommel- Rommel probably read Frederick but they had very different contexts and very different technology. Napoleon loved Caesar but their armies had nothing to do with each other- sure they had infantry, cavalry and artillery but technology forced very different action. Ah Deadliest Warrior: comparing sabers to smallswords, 15th century arming swords to naval cutlasses, the kusarigama combination sickle-with-a-chain weapon to a shield, machetes to grappling hooks and stone cavalry hammers, shovels and pickaxes to knives and of course, a ballista to a battle axe. Comparing wildly different armies and soldiers from time and history is a lot of fun, not gonna lie. I'm the guy going "Ah, but how did the Marathans approach war compared to the Lakota" or "what if Ntshingwayo and the Zulu Army invaded 15th century Mexico" or even Julius Caesar taking charge of the Italian Revolution . Thing is, it's important not to take it seriously. War's not a game, soldiers aren't robots who just mechanically shoot or swing swords, and history isn't actually knowing everything, and some things just can't be compared. I mean if the HMS Hood wound up at Trafalgar, or if Subotai and his army wound up at Platea, it'd be fun to read as a short story, but trying to tie it down to any reality is just ridiculous. And all too often it's just turned into stereotypes "nobody could stand up to the romans/mongols/Spartans/templars" . On Quora there was the question "what if Leonidas and his 7,000 replaced Spartacus and his roughly 50,000 at Silarus" and I just thought "who actually thought this would be remotely fair?"
What the...Blitzkrieg (term the Germans themselves never used) as a concept doesn't even make sense in a period before solid frontlines. The whole point is once you break through the frontline you can use you most mobile units to wreak havoc on the enemies rear areas, denying the enemy command and control and seriously messing up their logistics on an operational level. I guess it is sort of like using cavalry exploitation if you squint hard enough, but that's much more on the tactical level rather then operational.
The funny part is, technically, Blitzkrieg as a doctrine did not even exist. It's more like a confluence of Bewengungskrieg (maneuverwarfare) and Aufstragstratik (mission based tactics or mission command). The first doctrine centers on attacking the center of gravity of the enemy ( C&C, field kitchens, etc) with fast units like cavalry (later tanks). The second part means a commander only needs to state his intent when issuing orders. The subordinate will be in-charge of how to implement it.
I'm not sure I'd call it a shock tactic so much as an operational concept: Concentrating decisive combat power at a focal point in order to gain local superiority and enabling other assets to seize key terrain and strike at the enemy's centers of gravity.
I think "mission" might be a good comparison, what unit has the same mission. Interestingly, if I remember correctly, the pre ww2 US Army has a say on this regarding the cavalry: it's the mission (scouting, raiding, screeing force) and not the equipment (whether horse, armored car or tank).
The reason people still use the Blitzkrieg term is because WW2 is still the benchmark for wars. Maybe the solution is to have a 3rd one so that people can finally lay to rest WW2.
It’s utterly embarrassing to hear new arrivals to the topic of WW1 talk about 1918 tactics in relation to Blitzkreig. The topic is already misunderstood enough without ww2 fanboys muddying the waters.
Whenever I’m ranting about history I almost always end up at either Diocletian or the PLC. Like I can literally start with the American civil war and I’ll somehow end up talking about Diocletians military reforms.
Imo, the best way to approach comparisons is to keep them varied and to use them for illustrating extremely broad general principles and how consistent they stay in their essence while varying radically in relative importance due to technological, geographical and political factors.
Amazing video. It's a recurrent issue in pop military history that has a very rigid understanding of many military matters, as either being the result of "military revolutions" or tied down to an emblematic historical example or great innovator. That's how you get goofy stuff about iron weapons, stirrups, longbows, trenches and the blitzkrieg. Once you delve deeper into it however you start realizing that a lot of those historical archetypes held up as revolutionary or unique are actually quite mundane principles that persist throughout history, heck they might even be a RETURN to a previous idea rather than the development of a new one, like the trenches that literally were a requirement for sieges during the 17th-18th centuries, or as is the case with the myth surrounding the cold steel approach of the Swedish cavalry under Gustaf Adolf, which was in fact just a return to the lance shock tactics that had fallen out of favor by the 16th century. Not everything HAS to be "revolutionary" in war!
Not to mention the Swedes learned that from the Poles, who basically never got into the whole French "pistol cavalry" thing and kept things very medieval (even the world Uhlan comes from Turkish and Mongol for horse lancer, something 2000 years old). Likewise Swedish musket and artillery tactics were from the Dutch, who in turn were evolving them from the French and Spanish, etc.
nothing wrong with that, they'll eventually go down deeper in history. they're a far better being teenage wehraboos than tiktok toddlers since I know a wehraboo friend who atleast ended up studying central european history that isn't just WW2
13:23 "Blitzkrieg", as most people erroneously call "Bewegungskrieg" as, did not rely mostly on motorized transport though. Indeed it is folly to rely on something you do not have. The Germans relied mostly on horses. Yes, I am talking about WW2. They were technologically backwards compared to the allied nations when it comes to logistics.
They where not inferior in their Technology but their Resources. The problem was mostly that they simple lacked the Fuel and production Facilities to use more Motorized. Their Logistic itself was actualy way superior with the use of Planes Fuel Trucks and wirless Comunication for Logistics. This was one of the Reason they steamrolled France for example since France completly lacked modern Comunication between its Troops.
Wouldn't the better comparisons be based upon usage cases in the circumstances applied? Arrows early on were used like artillery, used to suppress and enemy and pin them down. Ballista are like siege artillery, and crossbows are like smart artillery. Cavalry is like the modern IFV or the old armored cars, used to harass the enemy and create flanking maneuvers. Tanks are like knights where they were used for breakthroughs and to pound an enemy as knights were extremely hard to take down as compared to a regular levy. Pikemen are like gun placements as waves of soldiers would be thrust upon them to break them up. Pikes were used as placements on the battlefield to hold hack or funnel an enemy into a certain area in the later years. Comparisons are useful, but I see where you'd find your issues with modern comparisons.
This did cause me to reflect on my sin of broad comparisons. Though never as bad as, "'The Deadliest Warrior' with computer whiz Max Giger," I have succumbed to the silly sin often. Thank you for the slap to the face and silent shouts of, "Dear God man, come to your senses!"
I feel like longbows are closer to mortars than machine guns, if we are trying to find a modern war comparison. The only reason it's compared to the machine gun is in a weird attempt to try and show the longbow outclassed the crossbow by so much it was like a machine gun compared to the slow silly crossbow.
The Longbow didn't outclass the Crossbow though? There's a good reason why crossbow mercenaries were far more popular even in the face of mercenaries using longbows
@@tandemcharge5114 It didn't they are very different weapons, the reason crossbows became popular is a combination of training times and climate/material. hence why I say [weird attempt to try and show] also not sure if there was a mercenary groups that used longbows, since longbow usage was largely limited to the British Isles while mercenaries are mostly continental.
To piggyback a bit on the "Blitzkrieg" argument: The term "Blitzkrieg" itself was not coined until after the Wehrmacht had overrun Poland within weeks. It was used to characterize the results. There was no war room discussion beforehand in Germany where a military commander presented a unified strategy and an at the end proclaimed "and we shall call this strategy ... Blitz-Krieg!".
Okay, but sometimes these comparisons are the only way to frame things. Maybe the corps system wasnt like stormtrooper tactics of the great war, gothic plate isn't chobham, and a lance isn't a 120mm cannon but there on conversations where that's the only reference point available to build shared understanding. I played hues and cues with my siblings and gave the clue "russian uniform" as a clue, they all picked bright communist red. My mother is an educator, when they moved her to 5th grade her only reference points for the American War of Independence beyond what she was taught in school decades ago were Johnny Tremain and The Patriot. These are real examples of people that need to hear "the longbow is like the maxim gun of its time" to be even close to understanding how the French lost at Crecy or Agincourt. These people were alive at the time of Desert Storm and watched Operation Iraqi Freedom on the news, but still have to reference Rommel's drive to the sea to understand how "Thunder Run" was successful.
“We don’t go around saying slings with machine guns of their age” I mean, you say that, but, I have in fact heard that fairly often from a lot of people. So, I don’t think anything is really safe from this, nothing is sacred. Nothing is not a machine gun.
Ah, Deadliest Warrior. I still am salty over them placing Joan of Arc against William the Bastard instead of someone more contemporary. I mean, how does someone in full plate not completely trounce a glorified viking...
hey im just commenting to say i like ur jacket :) and if ur holding back on wearing a tie then you should do it! i’d love to see what you have in your wardrobe.
Comparing a Napoleonic attack column to blitzkrieg is objectively nonsense. You *could* though, for example, make a reasonable comparison between the French defeat of Prussia in 1806 to the German invasions of Poland, France, Russia in 1939-41 (or for that matter to the Allied advance in 1918 after the failure of the Spring Offensive, as methods deployed on that occasion were the basis for the later German military theory). 'Blitzkrieg' in the most basic sense refers to using combined arms to overwhelm enemy forces and strike deep within their territory, severing lines of supply and communication, in order to achieve victory without the necessity of engaging the entirety of the enemy forces at once. There are plenty of historical campaigns which can be said to have been conducted in a broadly similar fashion.
Personally, my love for history has started as simply a fascination of purely military history when I was about 12 years old. I used to consider the political and social aspects of history as "the boring parts", and irrelevant to my interests in history. Back then, I would have been the type of person who cared more about the weapons than the humans carrying them. I was impressed by the effectiveness of battle tactics over the amount of training, logistics and chain of command required to excecute them. But slowly, as my understanding grew, I started to notice how the militaristic aspects of history cannot exist by themselves outside of the context of the surrounding social, economic, and political circumstances influencing them. I could list many examples, but noticeable ones include Brandon's videos on socket vs plug bayonets, and why line infantry soldiers didn't use covers tactics seen by us as "common sense". Questions like these made me consider the context of warfare, including why wars are fought (the politics involved, and how battles weren't simply 'kill the enemy' but to achieve some objective/purpose). It also made me consider how wars were actually fought, not just by soldiers, but by the entire nations/organisations involve (The economics and logistics required to manufacture and operate certain weapons and equipment). And so now, I find myself also interested in the political, economic, and social aspects of history I had once dismissed as irrelevant to military history, despite the fact that I was so wrong. Having gone through this journey, I completely understand why some people would only be interested in the purely militaristic aspects of history (I was ine of them). I think to best way is to approach these people is to share and educate how other non-militaristics aspects greatly influence how war was conducted throughout history.
14:25 the only thing that comes to mind, where strangely people regularily compare the modern thing to a far removed thing from the past is the air war of WW1. The knights of the sky. I get where they come from and a lot of people fighting that war where indeed trained cavalery men, groomed in a trade long lost to history, growing up thinking they where like the knights of old, who ended up a a subsection of war where, at least for a while, some aspects of honor and knightly values could be lived out. But the thing is the comparison basically ends there "Richthofen was a skilled rider and a nobleman and Boelke was a really decent Chap with values comparable to the romantisized version of a knightly codex. And everyone wanted to be like Boelke, Germans, Brits, the French. Heck, I'd like to be like Boelke. But I never heard someone in a 13th century documentary say something like "ah, see those blokes in the heavy Armour riding horses and swinging swords, while doing all the political stuff that comes with their status and such? Yeah, they are basically the Royal Flying Corp of the middle ages. (But I do think I will comment just that under any video about knight, I'll ever see)
Honestly great example why surface level comparisons can be really stupid Because all the comparisons Brandon says are no better than that While yours is just a fun joke people use that kinda comparison trying to be serious and it just doesn’t get anyone anywhere But yes that’s the best comparison
Tanks, Jeeps, Helicopters. To compared IT you have to Figure Out what the role of the cavalry was scouting, skirmishing and breaking Things that cannot be Made obsolete and for some Things you need more than a Speedy Guy in boots
Mr F. , i admire your conversation regarding this silliness of a certain military tactic being referenced in every battlefield situation , However , i shall continue doing this in order to satiate the Tomfoolery Gods
I find IT so hillarious about Blitzkrieg that IS mainly a term from foreigners and the tactic the Wehrmacht used IS nothing new besides the usuage of tanks
4:38 I would avoid this comparison even as an oversimplification. The "Blitzkrieg" was a strategic phenomenon, because it concerned the movement of armies over land. The column of attack was a tactic in battle. In fact, the swift movements of Napoleons Grande Armee in corps (march seperate, fight together) is a much better comparison to "Blitzkrieg".
People do it because it's all they were taught about in school so they use it as a lingua franca and shorthand based on the assumptions they were taught and never questioned so they assume no one else learned beyond that level either
Wow, clips from Fawlty Towers and Peep Show! You are a bigger fan of English (not British - these shows were both very 'English') culture than I am, and I'm English. And old enough to have watched Fawlty Towers when it was first shown. Not criticising - I love your videos Brandon. Keep them coming.
I really liked that picture of Hitler and Hindenburg with Fritz in the back, and hope that it's an actual Nazi propaganda piece, because they took the picture of Friedrich where he looks like he's in horror of what he sees. He looks like a man witnessing the moment where all he ever fought for and all he, his ancestors and his offspring have build up and worked so hard for being singend away and destroyed. Thus having rather the opposite effect than the one I presume the picture is intended to have. (That would be Friedrich giving his approval to this moment, but he isn't, look in his eyes...) It really feels more like a modern Meme, than actual propaganda. I'd like to have the same picture with the coronation of Wilhelm II. please :D
I’ve seen it debated just how much the Germans actually used blitzkrieg. So potentially it was even over used in its original context, let alone all of the painful attempts to categorise everything else as blitzkrieg as well.
He made his video after I finished this script, but Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria made a fantastic video delving into one of these sorts of comparisons. In it, he gets into some fantastic details about how one particular comparison DOES work, and how it DOES NOT. It's a fantastic look at exactly how the things I discuss in this video can applied: ua-cam.com/video/vTJ7sVqiDX4/v-deo.html
Edit: Also, apparently "The Blitz" specifically refers to the bombing campaign after the Fall of France. Huh, who knew? Well it turns out a fair few people, just not me. I always conflated "Blitz" and "Blitzkrieg"
Don't both machine guns and longbows have sights?
The shallow draft Viking boats, which could go swiftly upriver to cities, was devastating, for the same reason that the Hittite chariot was in Egypt.
At first, the Vikings weren't interested in holding territory, but that happened within a generation. Vikings quickly became Normans.
The Hittites lost their advantage when the Egyptians copied their chariots.
@@christal2641 the misnomer "Viking age" went on for 266 years and long after the foundation of Normandy. What do you mean "within a generation"?
The blitz was the primer for the start of blitzkrieg. It is in the same way for the shock and awe. The idea is that prior to the start of the ground war you start with an air bombing to create gaps or opening for the ground. to weaken the enemy to respond in kind. go for their arty and airfield. After you smother the arty and airfield then you start the ground offense on a weak spot in the line that was either always there or created by the blitz. So air starts and then ground push through and then seek to go behind enemy lines and hit strategic location before enemy properly respond. anyway that is the simple idea of blitzkrieg.
I'm pretty sure the Blitz was a famous word for Luftwaffe bombings. I heard of it when I was about 11 years old or so. And knew nothing about the world wars back then.
Brandon really told it to them in this one, quickly and effectively, just like the swiftness of the Blitz.
....okay this one's pretty good
You're confusing 'the Blitz' with 'blitzkrieg'. 'The Blitz' refers to the German bombing campaign over Britain in 1940.
Im enjoying this episode of little timmy goes forth except for the blitz and pictures of tanks and came to point that out
@@patavinity1262 Ah, but is he? If you look at the German song Panzerlied, the second verse ends with 'Gerschwind wie die Blitz'; as fast as lightning! Clearly, this is a clever, multi-layered reference! ... And if it isn't, then I like my version better. :P
@@diabolicwave7238 The word 'blitz' of course exists in German, but 'the Blitz', in English, as a proper noun, refers to said bombing campaign
Great video but it's my biggest tiny little irrational pet peeve when people confuse Blitzkrieg with The Blitz
Aha, fair enough! I actually hadn't thought of that distinction before. I will update the title.
@@BrandonF This comment is exactly why you shouldn't worry too much about the less than good comparisons you have made in your videos. You have shown here (and several times in videos and other comments) that you are willing to be corrected and strive to do better next time.
I remember watching MajorSamm's Israeli Blitz - Lebanon '82 and thinking Blitz = blitzkrieg / lightning war now thanks to your comment scibus2593 i remember Blitz refers to ww2 german bombing of england. I think i learned what Blitz meant through Jay Foreman's older Unfinished London episodes. Thanks again.
"The deadliest warrior approach to history" is such an accurate phrasing.
But Brandon…
I like deadliest warrior.
I miss that show. It was awful from a historic standpoint but... Man... It was so fun.
@@huntclanhunt9697 if you could reboot the show right now, what’s your episode 1 match up?
@@shibasaurus322 Hitler vs Stalin
@@huntclanhunt9697 pointless hub and I think the Metatron had videos on that show. Yup, it was entertaining.
"The mounted knight was the medieval tank" is my favorite.
One of the most useless comparisons for sure
I know. It's so common and expected now, it's like they just copy and past it into documentaries.
"The spoon is the steering wheel of cooking."
@@95DarkFire 😅😅😅
@@dersuddeutschesumpf5444they do have some similarities, that being heavily armored, hard hitting and mobile unit often used to punch through enemy lines. That’s about it though.
Do you know what makes a good soldier Mr. F? Ability to form a testudo against blitzing cavalry in any weather.
what about testudo cavalry?
It’s how the Greeks stopped the Mongol Armada.
Now that's soldierin'
civ 5 be like lol@@WhiteWolfeHU
"The knight/Spartan hoplite/war elephant was the TANK of the ancient world!" Seen it in so many historical discussions where it just adds nothing and distracts from the purpose. Thanks for covering this one, Brandon!
To be fair, Gatling gun and cannon elephants are similar to tanks
Okay, elephant isn't so bad, especially given that the tank has some pretty weird models like the Tsar tank, and the Mughals had elephants with cannons mounted on them, and covered them in excellent armour and the soldiers on them did too.
That would be terrifying especially when you know that war elephants Had a tendency to Go Wild , Just Imagine a Panzer Division being repelled by anti Tank artillery and all the Panzers roll Back full Speed ahead into the Schützenregimente ,No Wonder combined Arms warfare was lately used because Lord have Mercy when a Tiger goes wild or a maus
Zamburaks really were the SPGs of their time
no. They were not.
THANK you!! Nothing gives me a greater embodiment of disappointment than people who insist on comparing whatever in antiquity I'm talking about Hitlers armies. It's obnoxious, not like that at ALL, and you're not gonna learn history doing that.
10 quid says the person comparing the two doesn't even understand what "blitzkrieg" is in the first place.
No premodern army would stand a chance against a modern one. Modern ones are not only so much better equiped that they would mow down enemies like a scythe reaps grass but modern armies are also larger so they have a continuous frontline along the entire border and dont need to concentrate for a battle.
Combined army tactics had been around since before alexander and he definitely used them. So did hanabil and the Romans. Propaganda by the British to make excuses for why they got there teeth kicked in early in the war.
I think it might be a problem of also people not knowing that the idea of a large continuous front is still a relatively recent thing. The Romans didn't have to deal with pushing across a 1,000km front with 2 million men spread out along it.
Exactly, There was plenty of trench warfare in the American Civil War, Crimea, Boer wars, Russo-Japanese War, and New Zealand Land Wars, but those were still radically different and all about siege warfare on specific cities, not grand pushes over an entire nation. The 20th century is about mass mobilization and coordination to unprecedented levels.
The opening is absolutely perfect. You explained the sectarian division of an entire “fandom” (you can call it that at this point) with a single axiom.
The precision and speed of his thesis almost reminds one of the precision and speed of the German panzer divisions which blitzed into France in the spring of 1940.
@@ea.fitz216
God damnit! I chuckled at that.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher Me too
Brandon F making videos are like Blitzkrieg against military history myths.
My initial reaction to this was one of curious indifference until you mentioned Mark Corregan. Fair play
I'm sure you won't read this but my channel focuses on my hometown of Worcester's history. The Worcestershire Regiment, amalgamated in the 19th century from the 29th and 36th regiments of foot are something I'd like to tackle. The 29th had a storied history in North America. I'd love to discuss a possible introspective in to their time there with you if you'd be amenable?
I like to call this the "History Channel Effect", the channel that launched thousands of Wehraboos, where virtually _every_ historical topic gets compared to the WWII. In addition, every tyrant gets compare to Hitler, every general gets compared to Rommel or Patton, or every regime gets compared to the Third Reich, although the History Channel has moved onto Americentrism, the damage is done, people have gotten comfortable with the idea that WWII can be shoehorned into any subject, "This is the Normandy of our time", "The carnage is like Omaha Beach", or "This is the second coming of Patton", this WWII oversaturaturation is one of my pet peeves. The Second World War is over folks, it's time to drop the nostalgia of trying to refight Iwo Jima, so study history in the context it was written in, not a decade from the twentieth century.
I prefer "this is our waterloo"
Much of my early adult life has been learning what the History Channel and the like taught me that was wrong
@@thegloryofromeiseternal "Now, gentlemen, let tomorrow be their Waterloo!" - P. G. T. Beauregard
@@capt5656 well said
@@thegloryofromeiseternal I feel like referring to a fight as a "waterloo" has a different meaning because you're not actually talking about the circumstances of the battle itself when you say this - it's a term that means any kind of big final confrontation or ordeal that will put an end to a long struggle, and isn't necessarily about war at all. It has entered English as a colloquial phrase that has almost nothing to do with what any soldier or commander was doing on that day.
I never came across a comparison like that luckily but i get the frustration. The term "Blitzkrieg" wasn't even used by the Germans. It was just another form of "War of movement" or "Mobile warfare".
Yeah I do kinda get why they compare everything to it thou. Historical military development were and will be always be how to best apply existing technologies into conducting mobile warfare.
Watch old American History Channel. The whole bit he did at 1:20 are actual quotes from that period of the channel. You even had WW2 historians commenting on warfare from other periods.
The German term specifically for their doctrine is Bewegungskrieg, aka maneuver warfare in English
Basically WE Germans used IT First successfully and bamboozled the allies , the annoying Thing is they learned quickly to counter that
" Blitzkrieg".itself was considered more of a theorlogical possiblity than actually. Poland had " a hard start" of the Blitz, and in France the tanks went way faster than the general staff, plannedm
You see, I don’t fall into the trap of becoming obsessed by torturing myself by focusing on 1066-1914 because I hate myself and can’t pick a period.
1066??? Must be a paradox gamer
That's silly. 🤪
Everyone knows history Started in 1914
amateur, i focus on 100-1920
I'm like that except without the picking a period bit.
@@cakeonfrosting8105 nah, 1066 is the start date for Medieval 2 Total War
“Everyone else in my life is…normal” extremely relatable on several levels lol
Great video but you should probably change the title, the blitz and blitzkrieg are very different things in cultural history
It's people looking for a cheap easy way to relate to something that would normally take proper in depth analysis. If they haven't taken the time to study it themselves than they are left with surface impressions they pass on. WW2 was so prolific in literature and films it's something most people have seen something about and thus would be relatable to the most people.
I know I commented this on the deadliest warrior episode, but I’m like 90% sure they have an episode where they call the Macedonian Pike the “m16” of the ancient world
So was the Gladius the AK 47? Deadliest warrior is a gem
That is possibly the worst thing. Ever.
"The trebuchet was the intercontinental ballistic missile of its time!!!" is the dumbest sensationalist statement I can come up with just for goofs
@@roomyhaddock3245 we could always call the Spartans navy seals or something. Or a horseman a tank, actually Im pretty sure they called a medieval knight a tank at one point
No, but they called the Roman Scorpion the Roman Machine Gun. And when they tested it they kinda disproved the whole thing. That was a bizarre and hilarious episode despite actually featuring two armored iron age professional soldiers for once and actually getting the winner right IMO.
Let's be honest,
When _everyone_ here isn't thinking about the Roman Empire, we're thinking about World War II or Napoleon.
I think about Nelson and Kitchener!
Or I'm on about the FN-FAL for the fifth time this minute
Or the US and English Civil Wars. Last night talking with my cousin I somehow got from Queen to the rise and fall of the Tudors and Stuarts, the Catholic-Protestant wars and how the conflict happened in Britain, and the act of Union.
@Tareltonlives ,
Ah, yes! The Act of Union.
My Scottish friend and I love to laugh about the Scottish colony of Central America.
"On one hand we have a tradition of royal sovereignty and proud wars of independence. On the other we're bloody broke" @@fuferito
HOI4 Players in shambles
You called?
Hundreds of hours, wasted
EU4 and Vicky2 players when HoI4 players are mentioned: *Signature look of superiority*
15:15 I love this image because it implies that Frederick was taller than Hindenburg, who in real life was 6'6". This means that in this universe, Frederick, Hitler and Hindenburg would be 5'2" and shorter. This is objectively hilarious.
Y E S.
Different Periods of warfare are often so inherently different (easpeacialy pre Industrial vs Industrial) that comparisons are to be used very carefully.
Comparisons of concept are useful, because the fundamental tenets of warfare haven't changed in recorded history. But if someone compares the _physical execution_ of two different periods, you can safely ignore then.
The Most hillarious Thing is that some idiots believe that modern soldiers can outfight any soldiers in the past in melee, because they know kung für or some dumb Shit,Like they ignore that in the past before firearms Hand to Hand Combat was the primary way of fighting thats why they have Armor and Armor Piercing weapons.
@laisphinto6372 No one has said that. Ever.
However in *hand* to hand combat ? Well, technically, they’ve got handguns
You should say modern warfare as before ww1 even with industry, people were still fighting ranged battles
@@me67galaxylife Absolutely wrong. If you take modern to mean using methods and hardware comparable to what is currently in service, even Vietnam doesn't count as modern. WWI is in every single regard bar aviation and telegraphy closer to the Thirty Years War than it is to a modern battlefield.
Little Timmy is gradually gaining more and more awareness. I’m invested in this saga. Godspeed, soldier… perhaps the fourth wall can be fully breached with a cavalry charge.
Man, Brandon coming in here with his videos, smashing through misconceptions like the Blitzkreig going through Europe. Just firing through the armour of tropes like an English longbow. 😇
The concentration of effort on the decisive point and combined arms are concepts known for the entirety of military history. The Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic era military theorists wrote extensively about this and the comparison should really be made the other way around, as German post-WW1 combined arms theorists were very much familiar with the previous theorists' works and building up on their principles, as well as using the experiences of WW1 as well as theories and experiments on modern combined arms doctrine from other countries.
This video is the same thing as Munich in '39. Brandon is nothing more than our modern Chamberlain, an appeaser.
Don't abandon Czechoslovakia, Brandon.
Wait a minute, what
@@woaddragon I was making a false historical comparison
@@haraldisdead I see. I glad it was r/swish for me, then
My love life is a lot like WWII from the German perspective- notably, how they lost.
Overcome by underestimating logistical issues and the political stability in their main opponent? Very brave of you to admit it. So many victims suffer in silence.
You waste resources on dumb weapons?
@@llewelynshingler2173 I mean, the husband starting too many dumb projects is a pretty cliché way for relationships to start developing friction...
Okay, but nothing will ever stop my brain from to autmatically calling all fast warfare "Blitzing."
But, but, "élaning" !
Try using the German terms "schnellkrieg" or "bewegungskrieg."
"Fast war" and "war of movement" respectively. That should do it!
The term "blitzkreig" was actually coined by the Brits if I'm not mistaken.
Just add Bop to Blitzkreig or say they were Ramonzing in. Now you just sound like a big music fan.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 I thought it was an American journalist?
@@tomirk4404 Hey, it could have been. Who really knows for sure? I look at it this way, the British didn't call the Luftwaffe's version of unrban renewal on London the Blitz for nothing.
I love the direction your videos have taken over the last few years, but especially letting your sense of humour shine through. I actually lol’d at your plug for Altas coffee (be strong, Little Timmy!)
I just read some good books on how the Blitzkrieg itself got misinterpreted by both sides with an obsession with using new technology to make a schwerpunkt, when it was more about using numbers, logistics, and coordination on larger fronts. The Blitzkrieg itself has a lot of asterisks in the underline- it's not this magic tactic. It just got part of the whole cultural obsession with the Wehrmacht, missing how it was successful as well as allied mistakes.
LOL at the Wehrabingo. An episode on Wehraboos would be fun.
Timmy has the heart of a poet.
"nobody can soldier without coffee."-Ebenezer Nelson Gilpin, Company E, 3rd Iowa Cavalry. There's an idea for a video- coffee and tea in military history. What was it like, how much did they drink, how did they make it, where did they get it, how important it was in rations, etc
The way I see it is that the gladius is the closest thing to an iklwa, and the scutum-gladius combination is the closest to the iklwa-ishlangu combination, but that by no means makes them the same or even equivalent. The romans and zulus had roughly similar arms in javelins, short broad stabbing blades, and large shields, but had different organizations, tactics, martial style, etc . The English longbow is the closest European equivalent to a Yumi, and they were used in similar ways, but they're not equivalent either. It's just hard to study non-European weapons and tactics inside a Eurocentric paradigm. Sure there's a lot of things that are similar, but rodeleros and Teng Pai Shou had different duties in 16th century Pike and Shot. There's a big fight over whether the macuahuitl is a sword or a club, when it's both and neither. And as you point out, there's time period too. Frederick the Great is not Erwin Rommel- Rommel probably read Frederick but they had very different contexts and very different technology. Napoleon loved Caesar but their armies had nothing to do with each other- sure they had infantry, cavalry and artillery but technology forced very different action.
Ah Deadliest Warrior: comparing sabers to smallswords, 15th century arming swords to naval cutlasses, the kusarigama combination sickle-with-a-chain weapon to a shield, machetes to grappling hooks and stone cavalry hammers, shovels and pickaxes to knives and of course, a ballista to a battle axe.
Comparing wildly different armies and soldiers from time and history is a lot of fun, not gonna lie. I'm the guy going "Ah, but how did the Marathans approach war compared to the Lakota" or "what if Ntshingwayo and the Zulu Army invaded 15th century Mexico" or even Julius Caesar taking charge of the Italian Revolution . Thing is, it's important not to take it seriously. War's not a game, soldiers aren't robots who just mechanically shoot or swing swords, and history isn't actually knowing everything, and some things just can't be compared. I mean if the HMS Hood wound up at Trafalgar, or if Subotai and his army wound up at Platea, it'd be fun to read as a short story, but trying to tie it down to any reality is just ridiculous. And all too often it's just turned into stereotypes "nobody could stand up to the romans/mongols/Spartans/templars" . On Quora there was the question "what if Leonidas and his 7,000 replaced Spartacus and his roughly 50,000 at Silarus" and I just thought "who actually thought this would be remotely fair?"
A lot of military historians wont use blitzkrieg in the context of tactics and consider it as more of a brand name for a seam of nazi propaganda.
I don't know what the other response.was, but thank you for posting this.
Thank you! Love the no-nonsense, off the cuff dive into historiography and the importance of grounding our understanding in contemporaneous thought
What the...Blitzkrieg (term the Germans themselves never used) as a concept doesn't even make sense in a period before solid frontlines. The whole point is once you break through the frontline you can use you most mobile units to wreak havoc on the enemies rear areas, denying the enemy command and control and seriously messing up their logistics on an operational level. I guess it is sort of like using cavalry exploitation if you squint hard enough, but that's much more on the tactical level rather then operational.
Germanys invasion of the benelux and northern france is kinda like the blitz
It’s just always mobile warfare. Mobility is king in warfare.
@@LOL-zu1zr Not from 1915 to 1917. 🙂
We thought Panzers are stupid pure prussian boots should clear IT easily sadly there was a Lot of mud there....
We really need a chronological depiction of timmys struggles across all these videos
This is just like the Blitz
how could you do this
as a fellow history buff i agree with you on this
The funny part is, technically, Blitzkrieg as a doctrine did not even exist. It's more like a confluence of Bewengungskrieg (maneuverwarfare) and Aufstragstratik (mission based tactics or mission command).
The first doctrine centers on attacking the center of gravity of the enemy ( C&C, field kitchens, etc) with fast units like cavalry (later tanks). The second part means a commander only needs to state his intent when issuing orders. The subordinate will be in-charge of how to implement it.
Blitzkrieg is a type of shock, not the other way around.
I'm not sure I'd call it a shock tactic so much as an operational concept: Concentrating decisive combat power at a focal point in order to gain local superiority and enabling other assets to seize key terrain and strike at the enemy's centers of gravity.
@@jamesharding3459it’s called mobile warfare. It’s been conducted since organized warfare existed.
@@LOL-zu1zr Sort of.
But Brandon, it’s such a lovely gem of an RTS from 2003.
Time is literally a different country, to compare tactics and weaponry of different eras is all aesthetics. Don’t be Ridley Scott folks.
I think "mission" might be a good comparison, what unit has the same mission. Interestingly, if I remember correctly, the pre ww2 US Army has a say on this regarding the cavalry: it's the mission (scouting, raiding, screeing force) and not the equipment (whether horse, armored car or tank).
The reason people still use the Blitzkrieg term is because WW2 is still the benchmark for wars. Maybe the solution is to have a 3rd one so that people can finally lay to rest WW2.
It’s utterly embarrassing to hear new arrivals to the topic of WW1 talk about 1918 tactics in relation to Blitzkreig. The topic is already misunderstood enough without ww2 fanboys muddying the waters.
Whenever I’m ranting about history I almost always end up at either Diocletian or the PLC. Like I can literally start with the American civil war and I’ll somehow end up talking about Diocletians military reforms.
Merry Christmas from Romania.
And to you, as well!
But the American Revolution was totally like Vietnam, right?
Imo, the best way to approach comparisons is to keep them varied and to use them for illustrating extremely broad general principles and how consistent they stay in their essence while varying radically in relative importance due to technological, geographical and political factors.
That coffee ad was such a flanking move! A flanker if you will…
The average Mark Felton Production subscriber
Thank you for this, people comparing sometimes can be annoying
Amazing video. It's a recurrent issue in pop military history that has a very rigid understanding of many military matters, as either being the result of "military revolutions" or tied down to an emblematic historical example or great innovator. That's how you get goofy stuff about iron weapons, stirrups, longbows, trenches and the blitzkrieg. Once you delve deeper into it however you start realizing that a lot of those historical archetypes held up as revolutionary or unique are actually quite mundane principles that persist throughout history, heck they might even be a RETURN to a previous idea rather than the development of a new one, like the trenches that literally were a requirement for sieges during the 17th-18th centuries, or as is the case with the myth surrounding the cold steel approach of the Swedish cavalry under Gustaf Adolf, which was in fact just a return to the lance shock tactics that had fallen out of favor by the 16th century. Not everything HAS to be "revolutionary" in war!
Not to mention the Swedes learned that from the Poles, who basically never got into the whole French "pistol cavalry" thing and kept things very medieval (even the world Uhlan comes from Turkish and Mongol for horse lancer, something 2000 years old). Likewise Swedish musket and artillery tactics were from the Dutch, who in turn were evolving them from the French and Spanish, etc.
You may not know this, but Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is literally an allegory for Operation Barbarossa. Think about it.
Damn this video hit like the Blitz!
oh no
What do you mean that there's more to history than obsessive fixation to wars in general and WWII in particular?
Man, this hits like a Swordfish's torpedo to Bismarck's stern!
"I love history!"-kids in middle school were so often just kids who knew every single german tank name by heart lol
nothing wrong with that, they'll eventually go down deeper in history. they're a far better being teenage wehraboos than tiktok toddlers since I know a wehraboo friend who atleast ended up studying central european history that isn't just WW2
13:23 "Blitzkrieg", as most people erroneously call "Bewegungskrieg" as, did not rely mostly on motorized transport though. Indeed it is folly to rely on something you do not have.
The Germans relied mostly on horses. Yes, I am talking about WW2. They were technologically backwards compared to the allied nations when it comes to logistics.
They where not inferior in their Technology but their Resources. The problem was mostly that they simple lacked the Fuel and production Facilities to use more Motorized. Their Logistic itself was actualy way superior with the use of Planes Fuel Trucks and wirless Comunication for Logistics. This was one of the Reason they steamrolled France for example since France completly lacked modern Comunication between its Troops.
Wouldn't the better comparisons be based upon usage cases in the circumstances applied? Arrows early on were used like artillery, used to suppress and enemy and pin them down. Ballista are like siege artillery, and crossbows are like smart artillery. Cavalry is like the modern IFV or the old armored cars, used to harass the enemy and create flanking maneuvers. Tanks are like knights where they were used for breakthroughs and to pound an enemy as knights were extremely hard to take down as compared to a regular levy. Pikemen are like gun placements as waves of soldiers would be thrust upon them to break them up. Pikes were used as placements on the battlefield to hold hack or funnel an enemy into a certain area in the later years. Comparisons are useful, but I see where you'd find your issues with modern comparisons.
Great thumbnail
Can’t wait for more historical content!
I do believe you're a genius, keep it up
This did cause me to reflect on my sin of broad comparisons. Though never as bad as, "'The Deadliest Warrior' with computer whiz Max Giger," I have succumbed to the silly sin often. Thank you for the slap to the face and silent shouts of, "Dear God man, come to your senses!"
I feel like longbows are closer to mortars than machine guns, if we are trying to find a modern war comparison. The only reason it's compared to the machine gun is in a weird attempt to try and show the longbow outclassed the crossbow by so much it was like a machine gun compared to the slow silly crossbow.
The Longbow didn't outclass the Crossbow though? There's a good reason why crossbow mercenaries were far more popular even in the face of mercenaries using longbows
@@tandemcharge5114 It didn't they are very different weapons, the reason crossbows became popular is a combination of training times and climate/material. hence why I say [weird attempt to try and show] also not sure if there was a mercenary groups that used longbows, since longbow usage was largely limited to the British Isles while mercenaries are mostly continental.
To piggyback a bit on the "Blitzkrieg" argument: The term "Blitzkrieg" itself was not coined until after the Wehrmacht had overrun Poland within weeks. It was used to characterize the results. There was no war room discussion beforehand in Germany where a military commander presented a unified strategy and an at the end proclaimed "and we shall call this strategy ... Blitz-Krieg!".
What about the Clam Blitz gamemode in Splatoon?
Okay, but sometimes these comparisons are the only way to frame things. Maybe the corps system wasnt like stormtrooper tactics of the great war, gothic plate isn't chobham, and a lance isn't a 120mm cannon but there on conversations where that's the only reference point available to build shared understanding. I played hues and cues with my siblings and gave the clue "russian uniform" as a clue, they all picked bright communist red. My mother is an educator, when they moved her to 5th grade her only reference points for the American War of Independence beyond what she was taught in school decades ago were Johnny Tremain and The Patriot. These are real examples of people that need to hear "the longbow is like the maxim gun of its time" to be even close to understanding how the French lost at Crecy or Agincourt. These people were alive at the time of Desert Storm and watched Operation Iraqi Freedom on the news, but still have to reference Rommel's drive to the sea to understand how "Thunder Run" was successful.
I’ve never thought of comparison that way. I’ll certainly try to better myself with it. Excited for the book!
I have seen some very great comparisons. Ak47 to m16 during the Vietnam conflict. Or the Sopwith to fokker
“We don’t go around saying slings with machine guns of their age”
I mean, you say that, but, I have in fact heard that fairly often from a lot of people. So, I don’t think anything is really safe from this, nothing is sacred. Nothing is not a machine gun.
Ah, Deadliest Warrior. I still am salty over them placing Joan of Arc against William the Bastard instead of someone more contemporary. I mean, how does someone in full plate not completely trounce a glorified viking...
hey im just commenting to say i like ur jacket :) and if ur holding back on wearing a tie then you should do it! i’d love to see what you have in your wardrobe.
the Mongolian attacks on the world were like blitz in ww2
You're killing me
Comparing a Napoleonic attack column to blitzkrieg is objectively nonsense. You *could* though, for example, make a reasonable comparison between the French defeat of Prussia in 1806 to the German invasions of Poland, France, Russia in 1939-41 (or for that matter to the Allied advance in 1918 after the failure of the Spring Offensive, as methods deployed on that occasion were the basis for the later German military theory). 'Blitzkrieg' in the most basic sense refers to using combined arms to overwhelm enemy forces and strike deep within their territory, severing lines of supply and communication, in order to achieve victory without the necessity of engaging the entirety of the enemy forces at once. There are plenty of historical campaigns which can be said to have been conducted in a broadly similar fashion.
People we must help Brandon by buying his book
Faulty, I understood that reference!
Personally, my love for history has started as simply a fascination of purely military history when I was about 12 years old. I used to consider the political and social aspects of history as "the boring parts", and irrelevant to my interests in history.
Back then, I would have been the type of person who cared more about the weapons than the humans carrying them. I was impressed by the effectiveness of battle tactics over the amount of training, logistics and chain of command required to excecute them.
But slowly, as my understanding grew, I started to notice how the militaristic aspects of history cannot exist by themselves outside of the context of the surrounding social, economic, and political circumstances influencing them.
I could list many examples, but noticeable ones include Brandon's videos on socket vs plug bayonets, and why line infantry soldiers didn't use covers tactics seen by us as "common sense". Questions like these made me consider the context of warfare, including why wars are fought (the politics involved, and how battles weren't simply 'kill the enemy' but to achieve some objective/purpose).
It also made me consider how wars were actually fought, not just by soldiers, but by the entire nations/organisations involve (The economics and logistics required to manufacture and operate certain weapons and equipment).
And so now, I find myself also interested in the political, economic, and social aspects of history I had once dismissed as irrelevant to military history, despite the fact that I was so wrong.
Having gone through this journey, I completely understand why some people would only be interested in the purely militaristic aspects of history (I was ine of them). I think to best way is to approach these people is to share and educate how other non-militaristics aspects greatly influence how war was conducted throughout history.
I remember watching this program long time ago where they said the chariot was the Apache helicopter of its time lol
14:25 the only thing that comes to mind, where strangely people regularily compare the modern thing to a far removed thing from the past is the air war of WW1. The knights of the sky. I get where they come from and a lot of people fighting that war where indeed trained cavalery men, groomed in a trade long lost to history, growing up thinking they where like the knights of old, who ended up a a subsection of war where, at least for a while, some aspects of honor and knightly values could be lived out.
But the thing is the comparison basically ends there "Richthofen was a skilled rider and a nobleman and Boelke was a really decent Chap with values comparable to the romantisized version of a knightly codex. And everyone wanted to be like Boelke, Germans, Brits, the French. Heck, I'd like to be like Boelke.
But I never heard someone in a 13th century documentary say something like "ah, see those blokes in the heavy Armour riding horses and swinging swords, while doing all the political stuff that comes with their status and such? Yeah, they are basically the Royal Flying Corp of the middle ages. (But I do think I will comment just that under any video about knight, I'll ever see)
Alexander expanded across the achaemenid empire like an orange cat with the zoomies. Best analogy.
Honestly great example why surface level comparisons can be really stupid
Because all the comparisons Brandon says are no better than that
While yours is just a fun joke people use that kinda comparison trying to be serious and it just doesn’t get anyone anywhere
But yes that’s the best comparison
Thank you very much for this relevant topic I believe I fall under this category sadly
Hey, we all do sometimes.
We do hear discussion on the role of the cavalry and what is the current day equivalent of cavalry, don't we?
Tanks, Jeeps, Helicopters. To compared IT you have to Figure Out what the role of the cavalry was scouting, skirmishing and breaking Things that cannot be Made obsolete and for some Things you need more than a Speedy Guy in boots
Mr F. , i admire your conversation regarding this silliness of a certain military tactic being referenced in every battlefield situation ,
However , i shall continue doing this in order to satiate the Tomfoolery Gods
Short and brutal video, just like the Blitz... ehm, Agincourt! ;)
As an older military history buff, I'm now more interested in the men on the ground. What decisions did they make and why.
I find IT so hillarious about Blitzkrieg that IS mainly a term from foreigners and the tactic the Wehrmacht used IS nothing new besides the usuage of tanks
4:38 I would avoid this comparison even as an oversimplification. The "Blitzkrieg" was a strategic phenomenon, because it concerned the movement of armies over land. The column of attack was a tactic in battle.
In fact, the swift movements of Napoleons Grande Armee in corps (march seperate, fight together) is a much better comparison to "Blitzkrieg".
Thing is, that strategy could be applied to horses under Tiglath-Pilser or camels under Mohammad or elephants under Chandragupta.
Well those things shouldn't resemble the blitz if the don't want to be compared to them
People do it because it's all they were taught about in school so they use it as a lingua franca and shorthand based on the assumptions they were taught and never questioned so they assume no one else learned beyond that level either
This is the Blitzkrieg of youtube videos
Wow, clips from Fawlty Towers and Peep Show! You are a bigger fan of English (not British - these shows were both very 'English') culture than I am, and I'm English. And old enough to have watched Fawlty Towers when it was first shown.
Not criticising - I love your videos Brandon. Keep them coming.
How about I do anyway ?
That preview image is glorious
I really liked that picture of Hitler and Hindenburg with Fritz in the back, and hope that it's an actual Nazi propaganda piece, because they took the picture of Friedrich where he looks like he's in horror of what he sees.
He looks like a man witnessing the moment where all he ever fought for and all he, his ancestors and his offspring have build up and worked so hard for being singend away and destroyed. Thus having rather the opposite effect than the one I presume the picture is intended to have. (That would be Friedrich giving his approval to this moment, but he isn't, look in his eyes...)
It really feels more like a modern Meme, than actual propaganda.
I'd like to have the same picture with the coronation of Wilhelm II. please :D
This channel is the Deep Battle of military history content.
But how are they gonna get them clicks if they don't mention the Romans/Vikings/Samurai/Spartans/Wehrmacht? Huh, bro!? 😆😜💥
WOW, THIS VIDEO IS AWESOME!!!
THIS VIDEO FEELS LIKE THE SPEARTIP OF ENLIGHTENMENT, IT IS LIKE A BLITZKRIEG FOR EDUCATION...oh, wait...
🤣
I don't compare everything to WW2.. I do however compare everything to the Sharpe Series.
Now that's soldering.
To focus on the point about rifles: I'd argue that an ISO-standard assault rifle is the modern equivalent of a spear.
I’ve seen it debated just how much the Germans actually used blitzkrieg. So potentially it was even over used in its original context, let alone all of the painful attempts to categorise everything else as blitzkrieg as well.