One thing I like about the history lessons on this channel is the unbiased explanation. As an Englishman, it is easy to carry on a superiority agenda when explaining something like this (an English victory). This channel is one of my favorites because history doesn't have an agenda. Thanks for the time, Matt!
Thank you, I try to avoid bias as much as possible. Though in this case, I am part Scottish as well and ancestors of mine fought for Robert the Bruce, so I think that knowledge helps add to my relative neutrality.
@@lozloz7418 the Jacobite rebellions were not England v Scotland they were civil wars. More Englishmen rose for the Stuarts in 1716 than they did in Scotland, especially in the Catholic North, Tynedale in Northumberland alone raised 10,000 men. There were more Scots on the Government Army at Culloden than there were in the Jacobite army and some of the most zealous and vicious officers who enforced the King's writ in the Highlands after the '45 were Scots, especially a notorious frigate captain who happily hanged anyone with a pocket knife let alone a broadsword and dirk.
Surrey moving around the hill to cut off the Scots line of retreat was a masterstroke. The Scots artillery couldn't be re targeted effectively and the ground that James had to fight on suddenly wasn't of his own choosing. No real excuse for giving up his defensive advantage though. You're spot on about the mud being a factor. I read that a lot of the Scots dead had discarded their shoes in an attempt to get a better grip. James IV had a great sense of chivalry and refused to attack the English when they were strung out and not in battle order. He also wrote to Henry advising that he was going to invade and inviting him to respond. Rumour was that James was reluctant to invade until the French queen sent him a silk scarf with a note requesting him to be her champion, and being the old school chivalrous guy he was, he started to mobilise as a point of honour. James was a fine king, and he was a real renaissance powerhouse so the loss at Flodden was such a blow to Scotland that we've never really recovered (also see Darien scheme)🏴
As someone half English half Scottish I do sometimes wonder why missile troops weren't a bigger priority until the civil war, you would think crossbows could be mass production at least.
@@riverraven7359 crossbows were popular in the 16th C in the Borders. Longbows dropped out of use by all but professional soldiers by 1513, in previous centuries men on both sides of the border trained in archery every Sunday, as the proscriptions against football by English and Scottish Kings demonstrate. By 1513, certainly in Scotland, weak government prior to James IV had removed such controls and the Scots didn't have the archers. Much of Surrey's army was semi pro/ most of James's was the traditional Scottish levy with some warlike Highlanders and Border Reivers interposed. James ultimately failed his nation (I am a Scot with Scottish, English, French and Norse ancestry) and put Scotland back 100 years with the Flodden defeat,. He put far too much faith in technology - swiss pikes, cannon, Europe's largest warship and as a renaissance man, thought that technology would win through. Problem was the implementation of he technology: attempting to train Scottish levies in Swiss mercenary tactics, insisting on pikes over bills resulted in a shortage of suitable seasoned poles so green wood was used, and sliced through by the English bill. He didn't have to fight this war, his previous relationship with Henry had been good, hell he was happily married to his sister. He spent his reign modernising Scotland, in getting control over the recalcitrant nobility, and he threw it all away. Surrey gave him a short very sharp and fatal lesson in the real life of the hand to hand battlefield.
Wow. This was fascinating. Yes, it was a little long, but I enjoyed every second. I started off only vaguely interested and by the halfway mark I was hooked. Well done, and thanks for a fan who has been watching the channel for YEARS now.
Excellent. And yes, I thought of the boggy ground around Waterloo too the instant you mentioned it. There's too little done on the Battle of Sluys, which I believe is so critically important not just for Edward III but for the entire 100 years war.
This period of Scottish history is actually one of my main interests, and this battle in particular. Glad to see it finally getting a little more attention recently from a couple folk. Unfortunately there's alot of misconceptions and misinformation about Scottish history so I'm glad that people who have the respect to properly research the topic are interested in it
That was hugely interesting and I learned a lot. I knew that Flodden was a terrible battle for the Scots, but didn't really know why and how. So it was the land again which played such major role. Your references to Waterloo were very apt because Wellington was a past master at 'reading' the land and using it to his advantage in battle. Thanks for the history lesson!
Love this video. Matt sets the scene, gives all the necessary context for the battle and then goes into a step-by-step description of the battle itself. Those are the kinds of long-format, detailed videos I am here for.
Great video, Flodden is one of my favourite border battlefields to visit, and is always a poignant visit too. You missed out James IV being chivalrous and sending word to England that he intended to raid them. Also Etal is pronounced with a long E, as Eetal. The captured Scottish guns ended up at Etal castle after Flodden, and you can still see the patched up stonework where they knocked a hole in the side of the keep to get the guns inside because they were too big for the door.
I love battle docus like this, also because you are unbiased and have weapon and armor knowledge which is more than most mainstream documentaries. Love these!!! More wars of the roses battles would be nice too.
Great video matt, iv been to flodden a few times. Fascinating battle. Always shocks me the earl of Surrey won this victory for the tudors, after losing his father to them at bosworth and being wounded there too. Went on to make his peace with his father's killer... and then brings his son a victory like this. That dude does not hold a grudge haha.
@kingmaker2865: He was pretty typical. Over time, his interests shifted just like those of a lot of nobles did. Most of them were all about what they saw as the long term interests of the family and the well being of their heirs, not settling scores. Unless the two things coincided.
Flodden is the kind of battle that makes you wonder at first glance "How did they manage to lose that?" and only reveals the possible reasons layer by layer.
There's always so many fine details in major defeats and routs to unpack when you get in them, especially the unexpected defeats. Pop history simplifying the causes the super-generals or wunderwaffe or Our Fine Lads really do history a disservice.
Cannons: Neil Oliver and Battlefield Detectives team identified the Scottish cannon redoubts at Flodden. If I recall correctly, they found oak timber baulks which would have formed the floor of the redoubt allowing the cannons to be manouvered so pre explosive shells, the ground you were firing at had a large effect on your results. By the early 19th C field artillery had perfected the technique of skipping the solid shot into the enemy lines, in order to do this you need to be shooting on as near as a level to the target as you can. Now you also, ideally want, firm ground at the enemy's end because otherwise your balls just get stuck in the mud. So in this instance, a hill mounted cannon shooting down on soft ground... not good results, the English guns shooting upihll against dry ground... good because they can skip the shot. . Recall the Siege of Gibraltar where the British guns were famously mounted on vertical carriages to allow them to shoot down the face of the rock, this worked ok because the surrounding ground was hard and rocky. From what I recall reading a PHD paper about 30 years ago about James IV's artillery train is that it was primarily large naval guns (which would usually have been on the Great Michael) where used as siege pieces, which is why they needed redoubts built. Surrey's army was using the precursors to the field pieces of the 17th C, light, high velocity, rapidly reloading guns, many of which would have been breach loaded rather than muzzle loaded, you can see these at the Mary Rose museum, where a gun would come with multiple breach blocks, which would have already been primed with powder and sealed with dried mud, an early reusable cartridge. Fire, sponge, remove the breach block, load a new ball, insert charged breach block, wedge in place with an oak wedge, aim, fire. With 4 or 5 blocks an experienced team could fire 3 times a minute. Although refilled blocks would rely on wadding and lack the power of a mud sealed block. James's siege guns would have been lucky to get a shot off every 15 mins. Mons Meg at Edinburg Castle is a good example of the type of Siege gun the Scots were using at this time, although by 1513 it was already likely obsolete and was used for castle defence. James's pieces were likely to have been more in line with the heavy guns from Mary Rose. Incidentally, James built a large navy including the largest warship in Europe at the time, the Great Michael, which was primarily used to enforce his writ in the Isles. The Michael was 1000 tonnes and had 60 guns, twice the size of Mary Rose, Henry VIII built Henri Grace a Dieu in response, which was a similar size and was probably larger. James and Margaret met the French Ambassador on the Michael in 1512, where they fatefully endorsed the alliance that eventually killed James.
The largest guns James had at Flodden were 5 of "the seven sisters" - bronze guns cast in 1500 for the half moon battery at Edinburgh Castle. They were smaller than Mons Meg. A further 12 large guns followed, 2 culverins (probably the other 2 Edinburgh guns), 6 demi-culverins, and 4 sakers. The Scottish forces did successfully use them in defeating border castles before Flodden. The culverins, demi-culverins and sakers are the same as naval guns of the era - as were the English guns, just smaller. Incidently, the newly built English warship Mary Rose was involved in the battle indirectly - she disembarked Thomas Howard and 1000 troops at Newcastle. It is possible some of her smaller cannon were used by these troops.
I think one of the interesting things about the equipment at the Battle of Flodden is that you have the Scottish using a very modern for the time, continental pike and shot formation, while the English say to this, "nah, we're good, bills and longbows, please"
@@riverraven7359 they were also very poorly trained, 2 weeks on Bruntsfield Links south of Edinburgh. Bruce's schiltrons were famously obsessively drilled and trained, the European professional armies of pikemen were highly trained. James was obsessed with technology and believed it would triumph - he was right in theory but sorely lacking in the deployment of. Surrey, a wily old medieval commander, gave him a sharp reminder in the imperatives of hand to hand fighting.
@@HarryFlashmanVCYes, it's always interesting to see the parallels between battles even across centuries and notice the similarities in circumstances.
A possible point of support of Matt's suggestion that the English artillery achieved a higher rate of fire that day: The invaders had been picking up more artillery, and moving about in enemy territory. That probably meant that the new guns were manned by (comparatively or entirely) green crews. In contrast, the (older) English guns likely had crews who were well acquainted with their guns.
Thanks for your excellent explanation But(!)... you fail to mention that one of the causes for the war/battle was that an English Border Reiver, John "The Bastard" Heron, killed the opposing Scottish march lord at a Truce Day. (Probably the most serious breach of Border Law). It was Heron who lead the English army to the north of the Scots (blocking the Scottish army retreat) and then lead the calvary charge on Scottish army that caused the stalemate. The reason why the Scottish artillery failed was that they had a dunce in charge who set the cannon so they fired of the heads of the English army. N.B. I am descendent of the Border Reivers (both Scots and English), so I was brought up on this stuff!
I only now realize that this must have been an inspiration for the Battle of Sodden Hill in Andrzej Sapkowski's Witcher books (and its adaptations). Sodden has more in common with the Battle of Thermopylae in terms of theme and narrative, but the naming and aesthetic similarities with Flodden seem unlikely to be coincidence.
Hi Matt 😉 Great choice for a battle discussion. About 30 (ish) years ago, BBC Radio 3 presented a very good radio pay (the name of which alludes me, sorry) that centred on the wives of the Scottish protagonists during the invasion of England, culminating in the Battle of Flodden Fields, and the wives sudden widowship that ensued! I, personally, would really appreciate it if you were to discuss the 1547 Battle of Pinkie Cleugh - again fought between the English and Scots - during the reign of King Edward VI🤞⚔ Keep up the good work! 👍
Loved this! Always fun to hear your account of these battles along with commentary on weapons and tactics. Would love to hear more like this! In a way, this is an in-depth explanation of the context in which these weapons were used, which is super on-brand, if I may add.
An excavation of the fortifications at Flodden was carried out in the early 2000s. The BBC had a series called Two Men in a Trench in which the archaeologist Neil Oliver and Tony Pollard found evidence that fortifications HAD been built on Floddon Hill (The episode can be fond on UA-cam
Yes I have seen it, but don't want to cite it without having seen the reports (which I haven't). I do vaguely know Tony Pollard, so should probably try and get him on the channel at some point.
@@scholagladiatoria Probably wise, though I think it could be interesting reading on this subject. PS Love this format. As an aside, it’s interesting to see that longbows were still such an important weapon, especially if we consider the research carried out by Todd’s Workshop which tends to lead to a conclusion that it had lost it’s potency as a weapon system 200 years earlier, though it’s effectiveness at the battle of Towton tends to discount this theory
@@wyverncoch4430 I think you are misunderstanding the conclusion from Todd. Just because arrows cannot go through plate, does not mean they are ineffective as weapons. In many sources, arrows from both crossbows and longbows say that they find their way into the gaps. The victory at Flodden was arguably in spite of the use of the longbow, instead of because. The men who suffered the most at Towton were not well armored. However, against groups of handgunners (harquebusiers, callivermen, and musketeers), the longbow suffers. The harquebus is more accurate, longer ranged, allows one to shoot from cover more easily, can carry more ammo, and is more instantly lethal. (Sources: Blaize de Montluc, Robert Barret, Barwick Humfrey, Barnabe Rich, Qi Jiguang, Miyamoto Musashi, Guilliaume du Bellay) The English kept the longbow into the 16th century due to a lack of funds to train handgunners, a focus on their navy, a lack of industry to support handgunners, and the mythologization of the longbowmen at Agincourt.
For anybody interested in why the Scots ran into bad ground at the bottom of the hill , it's covered in detail by Potholer 54 in his video Geology of the battlefield. The Scots fought in the fashion of the Swiss and German armies that were at that time some of the most effective foot soldiers in Europe. So they came on in pike blocks which should have supported one another during the battle. James led his men as this was what was expected of him. The levied foot however lacked the training, discipline and espirit de corps of the Swiss and German soldiers, as well as the double pay men equipped with halberds who would both keep the pikemen in the fight and come into their own if the pike block was halted. Instead many dropped their pikes and legged it, leaving the front ranks to their fate. I recall reading that the Scots were sent munition armour as well as pikes, and that they were told to make pavises by the French instructors to protect themselves from the English archers. Much of the Scottish left and English right was made up of Borderers who were notoriously reluctant to come to blows outside of their feuds and raids. The English cavalry were Dacres Border horse, and under the Bastard John Heron, a Borderer. A standoff ensued, and it is said that when Lord Home was asked by Lord Huntley if they would rejoin the fight, he replied, "The man does well this day who saves himself: we fought those who were opposed to us and beat them; let our other companies do the same!"
Yes this is a really important element of the battle. In many ways the Scottish army was superior on paper, but it's a good example of how an effective doctrine can fall apart in the wrong situation and without adequate experience and training.
@chrisgibson5267: Thanks for posting this detailed information. I've read similar things about the weaknesses of the Scots army elsewhere. The new style pike tactics were not directly interchangeable with traditional Scottish ways the formations were different from one another and the pikes longer and more unwieldy. It seems that King James was too eager to field test the investments he made in his army to see if he was getting his money's worth.
I'm so glad Matt chose to cover this, and he did a FANTASTIC job. I wonder about the Highlanders being driven off by English archery. Highland warriors of this period are often depicted carrying bows. I bet they were severely demoralized having witnessed the defeat of the first two battles, otherwise they would have had a good position to shoot at the English from the high ground.
Highlander here 😁 there's little evidence that the bows used by my ancestors were akin to the war bows of the English, Welsh and Scottish Lowlands. If you look at the accounts of contemporary Highland Battles, e.g. the Battle of Bloody Bay, a civil war fought between the Macdonalds for control of the Lordship of the Isles. This was a naval engagement just off the coast of Mull about 1 mile north of Tobermory, between 1480 and 1483. They don't mention bows or archery as a significant force. Missile weapons would likely have been stones and spears I suspect this has something to do with the climate which is very very damp, more so than Wales even. I lived in Argyll for many years, the sheet amount of rain can be astonishing. As well as mists, sea fogs and haars.. it is dreecht... now, the thing about longbows and, indeed any bow prior to the development of polymers, is thatctyey hate the damp. Horsehair bow strings are difficult to keep dry, longbow Archers would typically carry several and keep them under their hats to keep them dry. So that's the first point. The second point is that in order to use a warbow you have to train, all the time. All over England , Wales and Lowland Scotland we have ample archaeological physical evidence of archery butts, but they are non existent in the Highlands and Islands. Also by 1513, the previous onus on village archery that had fuelled the success of English feudal armies had petty much ceased. As Matt says the English Army at Flodden likely had a solid core of Professional soldiers and professional Archers had been part of the permanent Royal soldiery for at least 200 years by Flodden. The English army would also have comprised the mosstroopers of the Scottish Border who were semi permanent garrison soldiers based at Carlisle, Newcastle and Hexham the local levy in both sides of the border would have comprised men who were well used to battle. The Anglo Scottish border in the 16th C was a lawless place akin to the Northwest Frontier of India. The Reiving families were akin to the Pathans of the Khyber pass, ruled over by warlords like Kilmont Willie Armstrong and Andro Kerr. These families often had stronger allegiances with their neighbours and relatives over the border than they did to their monarch. There are frequent incidents when national battles were fought between Scotland and England of the Borders contingents drawing off and socialising waiting for the result when they would descend on the losers like a pack of jackles for looting. Attempts to stop them would be futile, mounted on tough garrons bred for the hilly and boggy moorland of the borders, knowing the backroads and woods they would disappear into country. There were several Royal attempts from London and Edinburgh, often coordinated, to stamp out the Reivers, James VI and I when James VI famously surrounded Selkirj during a fair day, seized all suspected Reivers, about 70 of them and extrajudicially drowned them in the river... bows weren't a huge feature of the Reivers, the dedication involved probably didn't fit well with rhe lifestyle of a robber tribe, the lance, crossbow and rapier/backsword being the equipment of the 16th C with a morion, steel breastplate and woolen cloak to keep of the perpetual rain. Read The Steel Bonnets by George Macdonald Fraser. If the Highlanders had bows at Flodden they would not have been the war bows of the type found in the wreck of the Mary Rose
Question: I’ve been binge watching your channel and I love these types of history lessons. I watched the landsknecht vs long bowmen and this video. I only wish you would include more artwork. More painting and drawings. I don’t know if there are copyright concerns, but being able to see the maps and the armor and weapons and battle lines, etc. adds a whole lot to the information. I hope you’ll be able to include more maps and artwork in future videos. 👍🏻
Go to Branxton stand by the battle cross. The battle field is massive, a long ridge where the Scot’s stood disappears into the distance, it is easy to imagine every detail and sadly you can clearly see Scotland in the distance where so few Scotsman returned.
Nice to have some local stuff here - I'm from Berwick, currently live about 20 minutes from Flodden, and used to live in Branxton! I've had to explain to more than one disappointed tourist that yes, it is just a field. they seem to expect a visitor center and a display of cannons or something... Etal is ee-til by the way :)
The 5th thing crucial to this battle is the English army, the day before, outflanking the Scot’s who had prepared Flodden hill and done a thorough recci … the Scot’s hasty move to Branxton hill probably meant the significance of the bog at the bottom was ignored or at least not properly inspected. Also Flodden is a steeper better drained hill, ideal for defence, Branxton is a noticeably gentler slope, more likely to be boggy, so not ideal for defence or attack.
That sounds like an awesome (if chilly!) event! I envy you getting to chat with folks from Albion and Sterling lol Good job at the cutting tournament too! My HEMA coach uses video footage to help us work on things like correcting posture and footwork for sparring- I'm sure looking at your tournament footage by yourself will help you improve. One thing I noticed is that being tall, you might benefit from lowering yourself into your fenciny stance a bit more (that said, I don't know if you have any knee or leg issues so you do what works) & try to engage your core muscles as you step with your cut. Michael Edelson's 'Cutting with the Medieval Sword' is excellent for practical body mechanics- well worth checking out. Great stuff as always, Kyle!
The Scots would also have been aware of their own history where English archery had played merry hell with the schiltrons, so attacking was the correct decision. Only the front ranks were well armoured and once the artillery was neutralised, there would be nothing to stop the English sending archers to shoot into the flanks of the pike squarea, where the levy foot were virtually unarmoured. Attacking should have shattered the billmen because of the lethal power and reach of a pike block. The ground made the difference and with that the battle and the terrible slaughter of the Scots nobility and commons.
I use to have a history teacher Mr Warner was his name, absolutely fantastic teacher, always carried a 2 metre long wooden pole and he use to it to give history demonstrations will forever remember that teacher and who probably helped spark a love of history off from me at a early age
Hello Matt. I totally enjoyed your video about the Battle of Flodden Field, mostly because of your talent for providing historical detail interestingly. I’ve read and viewed a lot of Flodden history due to a remote family link to the Howards (later the Fitzalan-Howards) who hold the UK’s premiere dukedom. Sir Thomas Howard, then earl of Surrey, was basically the founder of the politicallly prominent Howard line after his victory over James IV at Flodden. My paternal family tree can be traced back only six generations to a prominent farmer in Maine named James Howard, my great-great-great grandfather. When he of his ancestors emigrated from England to “the colonies” remains undiscovered. The geneological trail ends with him in the late 1700s. But family tradition has long held that we were distantly related to the Dukes of Norfolk. My guess is that an ancestor of mine was the younger of several sons who wouldn’t inherit a title so decided to seek his fortune in the New World. This link, true or not, has led to my being an anglophile and minor collector of medeival and later military swords and sabers, along with a kukri, some Bowie knives, a shin-gunto, katana and wakizashi. (Mostly replicas. I’m a 75-year-old retired journalist on a fixed income who wishes he had the means to collect antique swords.) But over the years your UA-cam channel has been a helpful guide to my collection. My latest acquisitions were the Windlass / Royal Armories 1796 light cavalry saber and the Windlass Type XIV arming sword based primarily upon your video observations. Keep up the good work. Of all the edged-weapon UA-cam programs I’ve seen, your’s is the only one I’ve learned to trust. Mark H. Howard Medford, Oregon, USA mhoward011@charter.net
@@jackhoward6699 Cousin Jack? Glad to hear from another Howard. There are, it seems, millions of them I've never met. Where do you hail from? The UK, or US or elsewhere? Mark Howard
The Hapsburg vs Valois European conflict and Italians Wars of the 16th century are particularly interesting to me, and don't seem to get a huge amount of attention. More videos on the weapons, armor and battles of this period would be great! 😁👍👍
Thank you enjoyed the commentary, visited the battlefield and walked it 3 years ago. A commentary on Edgecoat 1469 would be interesting, much debate on its actual position
Interesting point on the artillery duel. I went to Flodden as part of a battlefield study years ago. The explanation we were given was that due to the Scottish guns being on the high ground they couldn’t lower the elevation of their heavy cannon to impact the English artillery. Meanwhile the older and lower calibre English artillery had been manoeuvred forward and effectively under the arc of fire of the Scottish guns and had free reign to shoot up the Scottish army without receiving effective counter fire.
In the same vein as English Archers vs Scottish Cannon, it'd be interesting to look at some source material about how Native Americans used their bows alongside guns during the 1700s and 1800s. What I've heard for the War of 1812 is that Native fighters would fire a volley from their muskets first, and then instead of reloading, switched to their faster shooting bows. Might also be interesting to look into Native American longbows, I have heard vague accounts of Native Americans using bows that are very long, but I don't know how they'd compare to English or Japanese longbows. The account I remember most vividly were Spanish explorers in Florida (either Ponce de Leon or Hernando de Soto) being surprised by how powerful the Natives' bows were, even able to punch straight through their horses.
Concerning leading from ther front: Thomas Howard , Earl of Surrey fought on the losing side at the Battle of Bosworth. His father, John Howard ,1st Duke of Norfolk was killed leading King Richard's vangaurd, Surrey would have witnessed Richard III recklessly charging to the front and getting killed. He learned from these mistakes.
Focusing on the terrain is not the only way to interpret the results of this battle, though that's certainly important. There was a whole school of the thought in 16th-century military theory that short weapons like the bill/halberd or sword & target trumped the pike in an extended infantry slugfest. Machiavelli was a key proponent of this view, later supported by Raimond de Fourquevaux & Sir John Smythe, among others. Sources like Thomas Ruthal's letter & The trewe encountre stress the role of English bills & the intensity of this contest between heavy infantry. The advance down the hill through boggy ground surely disrupted the Scottish formation to some extent, but Swiss pikers managed to triumph at various times despite difficult terrain. If the resistance isn't strong enough or if the pikers & company are potent enough, rough terrain alone isn't sufficient to soil a pike formation. I think of it as combination of factors that allowed the English to prevail in a difficult close-quarters fight.
I hate to discount an author based on "just cuz", but John Smythe was very much someone who had no idea what he was talking about. I also don't think he fought in a war. Machiavelli's views on how to beat pikemen are also dubious IIRC (same with Pietro Monte's. They probably both misunderstood how the Romans beat the Greek pikes). By the mid 16th century, short weapons were very much in decline amongst the pikes. By the end of the 15th century, the Swiss also knew this, going from sometimes up to 50% of the men armed with polearms using halberds, to being "relatively" few in the early 16th. "Gent. Why, would you not allow short weapon in the field? Capt. Truly no, not many, yet would I not exclude them all. For I know them necessarie for many peeces of seruice; as to performe executiō if the enemie break, or flie; to mingle with shot to back them if neede be; to passe with Conuoyes, & to stand by your Artillerie; to creepe along trenches, and enter into mynes, where the Pike would be ouerlong; but best for the myne or breach is the Target of prooffe, short sword, and Pistoll: but for the plaine field, neither blacke bill, Halbard, nor Partizan comparable to the Pike." - Robert Barret
@@Red-jl7jj Smythe had a lot of military experience, as did Raimond de Fourquevaux. Smythe definitely knew what he was talking about & was familiar with at least some of the Spanish military thought of the day. (He knew Spanish & had been ambassador to Spain.) He doesn't mean he or Fourquevaux were correct, but they had the credentials. 16th-century military writers had a wide range of opinions. Certainly the number of short weapons generally went down over the course of the 16th century. So did the likelihood of extended infantry contests where such weapons were at their best. Humphrey Barwick described this clearly. Firearms made long slugfests with hand weapons less common. In less intense & extended close combat between infantry, it makes sense to favor pikes. Most everyone agreed that pikes were the best at first in a fight between heavy infantry. Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, Smythe, & others thought that short weapons would have the advantage in a long contest between heavy infantry. This is very plausible because of the difficulty in using a 16-18ft weapon in the tight press of battle. My conclusion is the Machiavelli & company were right about short weapons given odds in specific circumstances but that it wasn't necessarily worthwhile to optimize armies for the unpleasant scenario of infantry slugfests. Pikers were more generally useful for fending off cavalry & overrunning infantry not willing to make a mess of things.
@@benjaminabbott4705 Not to strawman, Smythe thought that handguns would miss by a breadth of a trench past 30 paces. He believes longbowmen do not need pikemen to defend them. I thought Humfrey Barwick explicitly explains the superiority of the pike? The fact that the Swiss and Landsknecht both used fewer halberds in the early 16th century despite frequently fighting in a press does not support the idea that pikes are better when pell mells are shorter and fewer. Fourqurvaux or Bellay say that the dagger is the weapon for the press as well I thought
As an American, I’ve never heard of this battle. Thanks for the history lesson! Do you think James made the decision to rush in because he knew some more English units were coming and he was worried about getting pinned down or surrounded, especially being in enemy territory?
@@scholagladiatoria @Jesse well, with a Scottish name like Cunningham, I can guarantee that you will have lost a few dozen ancestors at this battle. The written record suggests that the first schiltron of the Scottish army came down from the hill against James's orders. If this is the case, then it is likely they were largely provoked into advancing. This certainly happened at Towton and also at Culloden - under barrages of arrows and artillery, the men were spurned into action and advanced. I would be very careful about referring to pre modern armies as components of 'units'. How men behaved on battlefields and why is very different in the pre modern era. cohesion came from loyalty, community, fealty and was plastic. Modern wargaming and the experience of 20th C warfare tempts us into using the word 'unit' to describe groups of men whereas such a concept was highly limited, especially in its application back in the day. Hollywood doesn't help... at all!
James invaded because he didnt think the English had men to stop him. Henry having his Army in France. Jaames sent a message to the English, letting them know his intent. James and educated man who believed in Chivalry. Remember it was said he invaded to help French as it would make the English in France come home. That was a mistake, they didnt. The army in France consisted of troops from southern Counties Surrey just raised an army from Northern counties. The scots tried to stab the English in the back, so to Speak. They got what they deserved. This battle might not be well known in the South. If you are born a Northumbrian its well known, as is Reiver history. The tune Flowers of the Forest, played by pipers at funerals or memorials was about this battle. A lament to the dead. Border history was complex and bloody. More attention should be given.
Great video, I'm lucky enough to have spent some time around the battle site, and can confirm the ground even with modern drainage is hard to walk over after very heavy rain (1" of Rain in around 24 hours, if you believe my scout weather log- got my badge so was mostly correct) Today I visited the Flodden Window in Middleton so was hoping to find a good battle report/expansion of the battle. This hit the spot.
Wonderful information-learning about the weaponry used in the battle was fascinating. My Scottish 13th great grandfather, George Abercrombie (Abercromby), of Pitmedden, Ley & Birkenbog died in the Battle of Flodden. His wife and my 13th great grandmother Christian (Christine) Barclay was later a mistress to James V (the son) and they had a child, James Stewart (mentioned in the Great Seal of Scotland, #1425, dated 1534). I guess one thing they had in common was that her husband and his father both died in this battle. Using today's genealogy databases can yield all sorts of surprises! Since discovering this, I've been researching this battle. Thank you for posting this video.
Hi Matt. Thanks for the video. I've been doing my partners family history, I've found that there is a big part of a generation of the scottish males in her tree that died at flodden. With regard to the scottish army at flodden, is there any detailed articles/books? I'd love to be able to give more detail to the family about what went on that day. Were they divided into the battles based on the geographic area they came from? I know several of them were from the lowlands of scotland, irish sea side near the english border, and also kinross. I don't have much of a personal knowledge of this all, being a New Zealand born Dutchman myself. Thanks for all the information in the video.
Very nice summation of this battle. I am surprised that matchlock handguns were not being used by either side in any significant numbers. I know that the Spanish in Italy had started to arm up to a third of their infantry with this weapon and had been very successful. It is weird to think of England as being a backward in any sense, but I guess they were in this time period.
Longbows were still a very effective, accurate and efficient weapon in this period; they were still a superior, hand-held range weapon, when compared to most muskets, upto the 17th century. Their biggest 'downside' was the time and training/practice required to be skilled in their use, when compared to early handguns/muskets.
Henry VIII's primary missile weapon for infantry in 1545 still seems to have been the longbow, and all the way back in 1513 that seems to have been even more the case. I get the impression that in 1513 the English were pretty behind the curve in artillery use also, and didn't really catch up with their neighbours until the next decade or two.
@@MrVuvuzaala Robert Barret, Barnabe Rich, Humfrey Barwick, and Blaize de Montluc would all disagree. The first three all state that handguns are more accurate, more lethal, and longer ranged (Montluc also says the last) than longbows. Contemporaries in China and Korea also state that handguns were more accurate and longer ranged than the bow. Both the Italians and English outright state that the longbow is good for untrained men, and the French and Burgundians both used longbows despite having anywhere near the extensive laws for training that the English had. In fact, many authors (including du Bellay) say that the gun should NOT be given to inexperienced and not well trained men, as their fire will be useless. Likewise, many arguments presented by John Smythe, Robert Barret, Barnabe Rich, and Humfrey Barwick state that the handgun requires extensive training, otherwise he will do more harm to himself than to the enemy. John Smythe even uses this argument to show why the longbow should still be in use (though it is easier to be more accurate with the handgun than the bow, especially on the parade ground, that's hardly the only thing a handgunner must do). Ignoring these authors, which you may via saying that they were later, except for Blaize de Montluc and du Bellay (though there were no significant advances for handguns in the 16th century that affect their range and accuracy by the footmen, aside from some being bigger, and the bigger ones being in greater use), the GREATER amount of training and drilling in the late 15th and 16th centuries contradict the idea that guns would be in greater use DUE to being easier to use. The longbow was almost certainly used by the English in the 16th century because of a lack of funds and a lack of industry to support them (unlike with the longbow, which had been in use for centuries). Though a certain national pride was also a reason they stayed in use for so long, with the Tudors mythologizing the longbowmen at Agincourt (every man carrying a bow and lead mallet sort of stuff). The laws that the English enacted enabled the longbowmen to be more uniformly competent, as compared to the Franc Archers (who did not all use bows, but they still used them) of France or the Burgundian longbowmen, who were plagued by some companies being very incompetent. Those who were best with the longbow would probably have a natural tendency to want to fight with it. Conclusion: This is not to say that the longbow is a poor weapon, or that the longbowmen were ineffective, but compared to guns and handgunners, they were. Every victory won by longbowmen over musketeers was won IN SPITE of the longbow being used, not because of it. "Being return’d to the Fort of Outreau; there was hardly a day past that the English did not come to tickle us upon the descent towards the Sea, and would commonly brave our people up to our very Canon, which was within ten or twelve paces of the Fort: and we were all abus’d by what we had heard our Predecessors say, that one English man would always beat two French men, and that the English would never run away, nor never yield. I had retain’d something of the Camisado of Bullen, and of the business of Oye; and therefore said one day to Mousieur de Tais, that I would discover to him the mystery of the English, and wherefore they were reputed so hardy: which was, that they all carried arms of little reach, and therefore were necessitated to come up close to us to loose their arrows, which otherwise would do no execution; whereas we who were accustomed to fire our Harquebuzes at a great distance, seeing the Enemy use another manner of sight, thought these near approaches of theirs very strange, imputing their running on at this confident rate to absolute bravery: but I will lay them an Ambuscado, and then you shall see if I am in the right or no, and whether a Gascon be not as good as an English-man. In antient time their Fathers and ours were neighbours." - Blaize de Montluc
@@scholagladiatoria France was still using crossbows over handguns until crossbows were effectively replaced around ~1530 (Blaize de Montluc says that there were not many harquebuses around ~1520 in all of France), with some mentions of crossbowmen by du Bellay during the 1530s (Turin at 1536 is one example, though he seemed to be one of very few crossbowmen if not the only French crossbowman). France, although whole-heartedly adopting the pike before the English, had rather poor infantry during the late 15th century and early 16th century, having to rely on Gascon and Swiss soldiers. Arguably, infantry wise, France and England were equal or near equals, unless you count the Gascon and Swiss mercenaries.
Fuentes de Orno. 1810 The light division saving the right flank. Captain Ramsey's horse artillery The bayonet charge of the 88th, 74th and 45th And if you can find the account the KGL cavalryman who chased a bavarian (I think) through french lines on a matter of honour. Think captain spiers from band of brothers. I reckon your presentation style would really bring this battle to life
Henry ordered no prisoners taken, so the result was any wounded or surrendering Scots were butchered which is why the body count was unusually high. Very inhumane tactics even at that time.
Henry VIII was utterly ruthless. It's estimated that around 60,000 people were executed during his reign. However, when you go invading another country and attacking civilians as policy, I'm not sure how much mercy you are due if you lose.
@@scholagladiatoria True. But "take no prisoners wars" are actually pretty rare, even in less humane times. I can't think of any other "take no prisoners" wars off the top of my head. The idea of killing men who surrender goes against human nature in general (Heck, the nazis took prisoners). This is one reason the body count, particularly the nobles, was unusually high. Just trying to add some perspective on the reasoning behind the bodycount. Nice video I forgot to mention.
@@smithryansmith How about the Albigensian Crusade? Less humane times to be sure, but the Pope's delegate famously said "kill them all, God will know his own". That was the Church, regarding French Cathars.
As both a late C15 and English Civil War reenactor,I find the 'inbetween period' of Tudor Warfare fascinating. Flodden,Linlithgow Bridge,Pinkie. You also had the Prayer Book Rebellion (South West England) and Wyatts Rebellion (South East) the latter culminating with the Battle at Wrotham Heath where Hedgehog Formations of Harquebusiers and Halberdiers saw off the Rebels. Oh,and not forgetting The Battle of Dussingdale during Ketts Rebellion,where I believe the Royal Army had many German Landsknecht's and Spanish Mercenaries. It was all happening,wasn't it?!
Worth mentioning there were several other Scottish invasions of England - the early 12th century (Battle of the Standard) and the mid 14th Century (Battle of Neville's Cross).
Anything on Scotland or Wales during the 16th and 17th centuries would be great. I have but began studying those areas at this time period, and there is quite a lot to take in, especially regarding Scotland.
According to 19C historians while the battle was being fought local families raided the English camp and took away almost everything, I’m proud to descend from one of those families!
Unless you already covered it, the Battle of Preston on 18th August 1648 between the Royalists of King Charles 1st and the Parliamentarians of Oliver Cromwell. I'm from Preston and this Battle has particularly fascinated me from a young age.
One thing he didn't quite manage to say about the relative success & failure of the artillery at flodden is that the slopes of a hill are likely to be fair less boggy than the flat ground at the bottom. Therefore the English shot are much more likely to skip across the firmer ground of the side of the hill, rather than sink into the softer, boggier ground at the bottom.
Fantastic explanation of the battle and it's context. Clear, easy to follow and drawing on multiple sources. A couple of points about the snooty aspects of the armies. Artillery was not the mass killer we have come to expect since the 19th century. At this point it would be inaccurate, slow shooting and relatively immobile. While a hilltop position would suit an army's close fighting foot, it disadvantaged the cannon, as their balls have a tendency to "plug" when hitting the ground. Why did the Scots charge from their superior high ground? Possibly because of the English combined arms of Bill and bow. Staying on the hill sees them suffer the pointy end of a shooting duel. Charging allies them a chance against the shorter English billls. Swampy ground, and perhaps lacking Swiss level training undid their charge.
The whole time I was watching this I kept expecting you to skelpit a luggie with that hanger. But it was a very comprehensive analysis of the battle. I'd agree with your reasons the Scotts lost, for whatever that's worth.
Battle of Flodden is quite fun to play in the video game Pike and Shot: Campaigns. I think it's one of the user made battles but you can download it from the in game downloader. In that they went with the Scottish powder magazine explosion for the reason of the Scottish artillery underperforming if I remember correctly.
Matt is that an early 16th century Harrier GR4 behind you? I can't help but wonder if their role, acting as a highly mobile source of suppressive fire, has been overlooked in the neutralisation of the Scottish artillery in this battle?
Pretty amazing just how poor James IV’s generalship was in this battle, this should never have happened, Scotland’s Royal succession was a mess until James the VI
24 of my ancestors (so far identified) were killed at Flodden - and those were only the land owners, most of them have no records - it was a national disaster in Scotland. In fact, when researching the family, the date 9.9/1513 becomes a bit monotonous! I blame James's reliance on Overseas Advisors! ;-) in attempting to train Scottish levies in Swiss Pikework in 2 weeks - that and the shortage of seasoned ash poles resulted in the imported French pike heads being fitted to greenwood which was easily cut through by the English Bill. I have always taken the report that the 'Bills sliced through the pike shafts' with a big pinch of salt, anyone who has handled a properly hafted spear, with an ash shaft knows that you are going to struggle to slice through it, especially if someone is holding onto the other end of it. This is why axes can be effective against swords. How many times do I wince when a historical novel describes a sword slicing through a spear shaft.. BUT if the wood is green it is perfectly possible and quite easy to do. So on this day, IF the pike shafts were indeed green wood, the Bill could well have trumped the pike. But I agree with Matt, greenwood theory aside, the pikes were ill used, and 2 weeks of training the levy on Bruntsfield Links was simply not enough time to train the schiltrons. This, and bad ground = disaster. soft ground, bad for artillery, Semi Pro English army vs Scot levy. Thanks for putting some myths to bed, Matt,
Just a very small correction, at 2:10 you said war of the league of Cambrai stretched from 1494 to the 1550s, that is true of the Italian wars, but the war of the league of Cambrai was just one of them.
In defence of the Scottish decision to attack, it should be said that James would have been well aware of the reputation of English longbowmen and I don't think he had anything to match them in his army. If he felt like he was losing the artillery duel, then he may have reasoned that it'd be better to attack and take advantage of his superiority in numbers, than hold position and risk the English bringing up their archers to start wearing down his force. James seems to have been pretty reluctant and fatalistic about the whole enterprise- he appears to have regarded the invasion as a bad idea he'd been trapped into doing in order to not betray his alliance with the French. He also absurdly issued a formal declaration of war, announcing his intention to invade well in advance and giving the English plenty of time to prepare a defence. This was in accordance with the contemporary laws of chivalry, but these were frequently ignored by many other rulers and generals when it suited them. In many ways, James' determination to be seen to be an honourable king was the undoing of both his campaign and his own life. A real-world example of 'nice guys finish last', perhaps. Love the recent content on the 16th century- it's one of my favourite historical eras, and often overlooked in military history, despite being an era of very rapid change and innovation in equipment and tactics. Other battles from around this era that might be worth covering might be Pavia, Coutras, the siege of Malta, Ollantaytambo (where the Incas managed to defeat the Spanish) or even Pinkie- another brutally one-sided battle between Henry VIII and the Scots.
One thing I like about the history lessons on this channel is the unbiased explanation. As an Englishman, it is easy to carry on a superiority agenda when explaining something like this (an English victory). This channel is one of my favorites because history doesn't have an agenda.
Thanks for the time, Matt!
Thank you, I try to avoid bias as much as possible. Though in this case, I am part Scottish as well and ancestors of mine fought for Robert the Bruce, so I think that knowledge helps add to my relative neutrality.
@@scholagladiatoriabattle of culloden was the last battle truly between Scotland and England
@@vatsal7640 in a way it was if the jacobites won it could have meant Scottish independence
@@lozloz7418 You've got it wrong. It wasnt a case of England v Scotland. Read a book and get your Scots ill informed heed oot ya arse. 🌼
@@lozloz7418 the Jacobite rebellions were not England v Scotland they were civil wars. More Englishmen rose for the Stuarts in 1716 than they did in Scotland, especially in the Catholic North, Tynedale in Northumberland alone raised 10,000 men.
There were more Scots on the Government Army at Culloden than there were in the Jacobite army and some of the most zealous and vicious officers who enforced the King's writ in the Highlands after the '45 were Scots, especially a notorious frigate captain who happily hanged anyone with a pocket knife let alone a broadsword and dirk.
I really enjoy these battle discussions. Hope they keep coming occasionally.
If my history teachers had carried swords on their shoulders, we might have paid closer attention.
It does make a difference! My grade 8 history teacher used a matador’s sword as a pointer 😂😂
Agreed
Check out Robinsword. Your zweihander wielding librarian.
Absolutely. You can't help but give a man your undivided attention when he pontificates with sword in hand
Albeit period incorrect
Surrey moving around the hill to cut off the Scots line of retreat was a masterstroke. The Scots artillery couldn't be re targeted effectively and the ground that James had to fight on suddenly wasn't of his own choosing. No real excuse for giving up his defensive advantage though. You're spot on about the mud being a factor. I read that a lot of the Scots dead had discarded their shoes in an attempt to get a better grip. James IV had a great sense of chivalry and refused to attack the English when they were strung out and not in battle order. He also wrote to Henry advising that he was going to invade and inviting him to respond. Rumour was that James was reluctant to invade until the French queen sent him a silk scarf with a note requesting him to be her champion, and being the old school chivalrous guy he was, he started to mobilise as a point of honour. James was a fine king, and he was a real renaissance powerhouse so the loss at Flodden was such a blow to Scotland that we've never really recovered (also see Darien scheme)🏴
As someone half English half Scottish I do sometimes wonder why missile troops weren't a bigger priority until the civil war, you would think crossbows could be mass production at least.
@@riverraven7359 crossbows were popular in the 16th C in the Borders. Longbows dropped out of use by all but professional soldiers by 1513, in previous centuries men on both sides of the border trained in archery every Sunday, as the proscriptions against football by English and Scottish Kings demonstrate. By 1513, certainly in Scotland, weak government prior to James IV had removed such controls and the Scots didn't have the archers. Much of Surrey's army was semi pro/ most of James's was the traditional Scottish levy with some warlike Highlanders and Border Reivers interposed.
James ultimately failed his nation (I am a Scot with Scottish, English, French and Norse ancestry) and put Scotland back 100 years with the Flodden defeat,. He put far too much faith in technology - swiss pikes, cannon, Europe's largest warship and as a renaissance man, thought that technology would win through. Problem was the implementation of he technology: attempting to train Scottish levies in Swiss mercenary tactics, insisting on pikes over bills resulted in a shortage of suitable seasoned poles so green wood was used, and sliced through by the English bill.
He didn't have to fight this war, his previous relationship with Henry had been good, hell he was happily married to his sister.
He spent his reign modernising Scotland, in getting control over the recalcitrant nobility, and he threw it all away.
Surrey gave him a short very sharp and fatal lesson in the real life of the hand to hand battlefield.
Very much enjoyed this. This was the battle that "Flowers of the Forest" was written about if I recall correctly. It's a bagpipe standard I think.
Wow. This was fascinating. Yes, it was a little long, but I enjoyed every second. I started off only vaguely interested and by the halfway mark I was hooked. Well done, and thanks for a fan who has been watching the channel for YEARS now.
Excellent. And yes, I thought of the boggy ground around Waterloo too the instant you mentioned it. There's too little done on the Battle of Sluys, which I believe is so critically important not just for Edward III but for the entire 100 years war.
This period of Scottish history is actually one of my main interests, and this battle in particular. Glad to see it finally getting a little more attention recently from a couple folk. Unfortunately there's alot of misconceptions and misinformation about Scottish history so I'm glad that people who have the respect to properly research the topic are interested in it
You'll love Scottish history tours with Bruce fummey then
That was hugely interesting and I learned a lot. I knew that Flodden was a terrible battle for the Scots, but didn't really know why and how. So it was the land again which played such major role. Your references to Waterloo were very apt because Wellington was a past master at 'reading' the land and using it to his advantage in battle.
Thanks for the history lesson!
This was OUTSTANDING ! ! ! Yes, more long format discussion on Battles ! ! !
Love this video. Matt sets the scene, gives all the necessary context for the battle and then goes into a step-by-step description of the battle itself. Those are the kinds of long-format, detailed videos I am here for.
Great video, Flodden is one of my favourite border battlefields to visit, and is always a poignant visit too.
You missed out James IV being chivalrous and sending word to England that he intended to raid them.
Also Etal is pronounced with a long E, as Eetal. The captured Scottish guns ended up at Etal castle after Flodden, and you can still see the patched up stonework where they knocked a hole in the side of the keep to get the guns inside because they were too big for the door.
I love battle docus like this, also because you are unbiased and have weapon and armor knowledge which is more than most mainstream documentaries. Love these!!! More wars of the roses battles would be nice too.
Great video matt, iv been to flodden a few times. Fascinating battle. Always shocks me the earl of Surrey won this victory for the tudors, after losing his father to them at bosworth and being wounded there too. Went on to make his peace with his father's killer... and then brings his son a victory like this. That dude does not hold a grudge haha.
@kingmaker2865: He was pretty typical. Over time, his interests shifted just like those of a lot of nobles did. Most of them were all about what they saw as the long term interests of the family and the well being of their heirs, not settling scores. Unless the two things coincided.
Typical of time. Quite likely barely knew his father. Policies and alliances followed as convenient for individual at the time
Flodden is the kind of battle that makes you wonder at first glance "How did they manage to lose that?" and only reveals the possible reasons layer by layer.
There's always so many fine details in major defeats and routs to unpack when you get in them, especially the unexpected defeats. Pop history simplifying the causes the super-generals or wunderwaffe or Our Fine Lads really do history a disservice.
Scotland, uh, finds a way
Cannons:
Neil Oliver and Battlefield Detectives team identified the Scottish cannon redoubts at Flodden. If I recall correctly, they found oak timber baulks which would have formed the floor of the redoubt allowing the cannons to be manouvered
so pre explosive shells, the ground you were firing at had a large effect on your results. By the early 19th C field artillery had perfected the technique of skipping the solid shot into the enemy lines, in order to do this you need to be shooting on as near as a level to the target as you can. Now you also, ideally want, firm ground at the enemy's end because otherwise your balls just get stuck in the mud.
So in this instance, a hill mounted cannon shooting down on soft ground... not good results, the English guns shooting upihll against dry ground... good because they can skip the shot. .
Recall the Siege of Gibraltar where the British guns were famously mounted on vertical carriages to allow them to shoot down the face of the rock, this worked ok because the surrounding ground was hard and rocky.
From what I recall reading a PHD paper about 30 years ago about James IV's artillery train is that it was primarily large naval guns (which would usually have been on the Great Michael) where used as siege pieces, which is why they needed redoubts built. Surrey's army was using the precursors to the field pieces of the 17th C, light, high velocity, rapidly reloading guns, many of which would have been breach loaded rather than muzzle loaded, you can see these at the Mary Rose museum, where a gun would come with multiple breach blocks, which would have already been primed with powder and sealed with dried mud, an early reusable cartridge.
Fire, sponge, remove the breach block, load a new ball, insert charged breach block, wedge in place with an oak wedge, aim, fire. With 4 or 5 blocks an experienced team could fire 3 times a minute. Although refilled blocks would rely on wadding and lack the power of a mud sealed block. James's siege guns would have been lucky to get a shot off every 15 mins. Mons Meg at Edinburg Castle is a good example of the type of Siege gun the Scots were using at this time, although by 1513 it was already likely obsolete and was used for castle defence. James's pieces were likely to have been more in line with the heavy guns from Mary Rose.
Incidentally, James built a large navy including the largest warship in Europe at the time, the Great Michael, which was primarily used to enforce his writ in the Isles. The Michael was 1000 tonnes and had 60 guns, twice the size of Mary Rose, Henry VIII built Henri Grace a Dieu in response, which was a similar size and was probably larger. James and Margaret met the French Ambassador on the Michael in 1512, where they fatefully endorsed the alliance that eventually killed James.
@@harryflashman3141 Flashey, Old Boy, how the devil are you? How's Elsbeth and that old fraud Morrison? 😁
The largest guns James had at Flodden were 5 of "the seven sisters" - bronze guns cast in 1500 for the half moon battery at Edinburgh Castle. They were smaller than Mons Meg. A further 12 large guns followed, 2 culverins (probably the other 2 Edinburgh guns), 6 demi-culverins, and 4 sakers. The Scottish forces did successfully use them in defeating border castles before Flodden. The culverins, demi-culverins and sakers are the same as naval guns of the era - as were the English guns, just smaller.
Incidently, the newly built English warship Mary Rose was involved in the battle indirectly - she disembarked Thomas Howard and 1000 troops at Newcastle. It is possible some of her smaller cannon were used by these troops.
I think one of the interesting things about the equipment at the Battle of Flodden is that you have the Scottish using a very modern for the time, continental pike and shot formation, while the English say to this, "nah, we're good, bills and longbows, please"
The thing to remember is the Scots pike units weren't heavily armoured, unlike a Civil war pike block they were extremely vulnerable to arrows.
@@riverraven7359 they were also very poorly trained, 2 weeks on Bruntsfield Links south of Edinburgh. Bruce's schiltrons were famously obsessively drilled and trained, the European professional armies of pikemen were highly trained.
James was obsessed with technology and believed it would triumph - he was right in theory but sorely lacking in the deployment of. Surrey, a wily old medieval commander, gave him a sharp reminder in the imperatives of hand to hand fighting.
@@HarryFlashmanVCYes, it's always interesting to see the parallels between battles even across centuries and notice the similarities in circumstances.
A possible point of support of Matt's suggestion that the English artillery achieved a higher rate of fire that day: The invaders had been picking up more artillery, and moving about in enemy territory. That probably meant that the new guns were manned by (comparatively or entirely) green crews. In contrast, the (older) English guns likely had crews who were well acquainted with their guns.
These readings of historical accounts are my favorite types of your content.
Thanks for your excellent explanation
But(!)... you fail to mention that one of the causes for the war/battle was that an English Border Reiver, John "The Bastard" Heron, killed the opposing Scottish march lord at a Truce Day. (Probably the most serious breach of Border Law).
It was Heron who lead the English army to the north of the Scots (blocking the Scottish army retreat) and then lead the calvary charge on Scottish army that caused the stalemate.
The reason why the Scottish artillery failed was that they had a dunce in charge who set the cannon so they fired of the heads of the English army.
N.B. I am descendent of the Border Reivers (both Scots and English), so I was brought up on this stuff!
I only now realize that this must have been an inspiration for the Battle of Sodden Hill in Andrzej Sapkowski's Witcher books (and its adaptations). Sodden has more in common with the Battle of Thermopylae in terms of theme and narrative, but the naming and aesthetic similarities with Flodden seem unlikely to be coincidence.
Hi Matt 😉 Great choice for a battle discussion. About 30 (ish) years ago, BBC Radio 3 presented a very good radio pay (the name of which alludes me, sorry) that centred on the wives of the Scottish protagonists during the invasion of England, culminating in the Battle of Flodden Fields, and the wives sudden widowship that ensued!
I, personally, would really appreciate it if you were to discuss the 1547 Battle of Pinkie Cleugh - again fought between the English and Scots - during the reign of King Edward VI🤞⚔
Keep up the good work! 👍
Absolutely not too long. Fascinating Matt,thank you.
Loved this! Always fun to hear your account of these battles along with commentary on weapons and tactics. Would love to hear more like this! In a way, this is an in-depth explanation of the context in which these weapons were used, which is super on-brand, if I may add.
An excavation of the fortifications at Flodden was carried out in the early 2000s. The BBC had a series called Two Men in a Trench in which the archaeologist Neil Oliver and Tony Pollard found evidence that fortifications HAD been built on Floddon Hill (The episode can be fond on UA-cam
Yes I have seen it, but don't want to cite it without having seen the reports (which I haven't). I do vaguely know Tony Pollard, so should probably try and get him on the channel at some point.
@@scholagladiatoria Probably wise, though I think it could be interesting reading on this subject.
PS Love this format.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see that longbows were still such an important weapon, especially if we consider the research carried out by Todd’s Workshop which tends to lead to a conclusion that it had lost it’s potency as a weapon system 200 years earlier, though it’s effectiveness at the battle of Towton tends to discount this theory
@@wyverncoch4430 I think you are misunderstanding the conclusion from Todd. Just because arrows cannot go through plate, does not mean they are ineffective as weapons. In many sources, arrows from both crossbows and longbows say that they find their way into the gaps.
The victory at Flodden was arguably in spite of the use of the longbow, instead of because. The men who suffered the most at Towton were not well armored.
However, against groups of handgunners (harquebusiers, callivermen, and musketeers), the longbow suffers. The harquebus is more accurate, longer ranged, allows one to shoot from cover more easily, can carry more ammo, and is more instantly lethal. (Sources: Blaize de Montluc, Robert Barret, Barwick Humfrey, Barnabe Rich, Qi Jiguang, Miyamoto Musashi, Guilliaume du Bellay)
The English kept the longbow into the 16th century due to a lack of funds to train handgunners, a focus on their navy, a lack of industry to support handgunners, and the mythologization of the longbowmen at Agincourt.
This presentation is one of the most fascinating features of your site.
Nice. As someone who reenacts primary swiss during the Second Italian Wars, this video is right up my alley.
For years I was interested in this battle but never had actual details and information of the battle so I absolutely love this video
For anybody interested in why the Scots ran into bad ground at the bottom of the hill , it's covered in detail by Potholer 54 in his video Geology of the battlefield.
The Scots fought in the fashion of the Swiss and German armies that were at that time some of the most effective foot soldiers in Europe.
So they came on in pike blocks which should have supported one another during the battle.
James led his men as this was what was expected of him.
The levied foot however lacked the training, discipline and espirit de corps of the Swiss and German soldiers, as well as the double pay men equipped with halberds who would both keep the pikemen in the fight and come into their own if the pike block was halted.
Instead many dropped their pikes and legged it, leaving the front ranks to their fate.
I recall reading that the Scots were sent munition armour as well as pikes, and that they were told to make pavises by the French instructors to protect themselves from the English archers.
Much of the Scottish left and English right was made up of Borderers who were notoriously reluctant to come to blows outside of their feuds and raids.
The English cavalry were Dacres Border horse, and under the Bastard John Heron, a Borderer.
A standoff ensued, and it is said that when Lord Home was asked by Lord Huntley if they would rejoin the fight, he replied, "The man does well this day who saves himself: we fought those who were opposed to us and beat them; let our other companies do the same!"
Yes this is a really important element of the battle. In many ways the Scottish army was superior on paper, but it's a good example of how an effective doctrine can fall apart in the wrong situation and without adequate experience and training.
@chrisgibson5267: Thanks for posting this detailed information. I've read similar things about the weaknesses of the Scots army elsewhere. The new style pike tactics were not directly interchangeable with traditional Scottish ways the formations were different from one another and the pikes longer and more unwieldy. It seems that King James was too eager to field test the investments he made in his army to see if he was getting his money's worth.
I'm so glad Matt chose to cover this, and he did a FANTASTIC job.
I wonder about the Highlanders being driven off by English archery. Highland warriors of this period are often depicted carrying bows. I bet they were severely demoralized having witnessed the defeat of the first two battles, otherwise they would have had a good position to shoot at the English from the high ground.
Highlander here 😁 there's little evidence that the bows used by my ancestors were akin to the war bows of the English, Welsh and Scottish Lowlands. If you look at the accounts of contemporary Highland Battles, e.g. the Battle of Bloody Bay, a civil war fought between the Macdonalds for control of the Lordship of the Isles. This was a naval engagement just off the coast of Mull about 1 mile north of Tobermory, between 1480 and 1483. They don't mention bows or archery as a significant force. Missile weapons would likely have been stones and spears
I suspect this has something to do with the climate which is very very damp, more so than Wales even. I lived in Argyll for many years, the sheet amount of rain can be astonishing. As well as mists, sea fogs and haars.. it is dreecht... now, the thing about longbows and, indeed any bow prior to the development of polymers, is thatctyey hate the damp. Horsehair bow strings are difficult to keep dry, longbow Archers would typically carry several and keep them under their hats to keep them dry.
So that's the first point. The second point is that in order to use a warbow you have to train, all the time. All over England , Wales and Lowland Scotland we have ample archaeological physical evidence of archery butts, but they are non existent in the Highlands and Islands. Also by 1513, the previous onus on village archery that had fuelled the success of English feudal armies had petty much ceased. As Matt says the English Army at Flodden likely had a solid core of Professional soldiers and professional Archers had been part of the permanent Royal soldiery for at least 200 years by Flodden. The English army would also have comprised the mosstroopers of the Scottish Border who were semi permanent garrison soldiers based at Carlisle, Newcastle and Hexham the local levy in both sides of the border would have comprised men who were well used to battle. The Anglo Scottish border in the 16th C was a lawless place akin to the Northwest Frontier of India. The Reiving families were akin to the Pathans of the Khyber pass, ruled over by warlords like Kilmont Willie Armstrong and Andro Kerr. These families often had stronger allegiances with their neighbours and relatives over the border than they did to their monarch. There are frequent incidents when national battles were fought between Scotland and England of the Borders contingents drawing off and socialising waiting for the result when they would descend on the losers like a pack of jackles for looting. Attempts to stop them would be futile, mounted on tough garrons bred for the hilly and boggy moorland of the borders, knowing the backroads and woods they would disappear into country.
There were several Royal attempts from London and Edinburgh, often coordinated, to stamp out the Reivers, James VI and I when James VI famously surrounded Selkirj during a fair day, seized all suspected Reivers, about 70 of them and extrajudicially drowned them in the river... bows weren't a huge feature of the Reivers, the dedication involved probably didn't fit well with rhe lifestyle of a robber tribe, the lance, crossbow and rapier/backsword being the equipment of the 16th C with a morion, steel breastplate and woolen cloak to keep of the perpetual rain.
Read The Steel Bonnets by George Macdonald Fraser.
If the Highlanders had bows at Flodden they would not have been the war bows of the type found in the wreck of the Mary Rose
Question: I’ve been binge watching your channel and I love these types of history lessons.
I watched the landsknecht vs long bowmen and this video.
I only wish you would include more artwork. More painting and drawings. I don’t know if there are copyright concerns, but being able to see the maps and the armor and weapons and battle lines, etc. adds a whole lot to the information.
I hope you’ll be able to include more maps and artwork in future videos. 👍🏻
Go to Branxton stand by the battle cross. The battle field is massive, a long ridge where the Scot’s stood disappears into the distance, it is easy to imagine every detail and sadly you can clearly see Scotland in the distance where so few Scotsman returned.
Nice to have some local stuff here - I'm from Berwick, currently live about 20 minutes from Flodden, and used to live in Branxton!
I've had to explain to more than one disappointed tourist that yes, it is just a field. they seem to expect a visitor center and a display of cannons or something...
Etal is ee-til by the way :)
The 5th thing crucial to this battle is the English army, the day before, outflanking the Scot’s who had prepared Flodden hill and done a thorough recci … the Scot’s hasty move to Branxton hill probably meant the significance of the bog at the bottom was ignored or at least not properly inspected. Also Flodden is a steeper better drained hill, ideal for defence, Branxton is a noticeably gentler slope, more likely to be boggy, so not ideal for defence or attack.
That sounds like an awesome (if chilly!) event! I envy you getting to chat with folks from Albion and Sterling lol Good job at the cutting tournament too! My HEMA coach uses video footage to help us work on things like correcting posture and footwork for sparring- I'm sure looking at your tournament footage by yourself will help you improve. One thing I noticed is that being tall, you might benefit from lowering yourself into your fenciny stance a bit more (that said, I don't know if you have any knee or leg issues so you do what works) & try to engage your core muscles as you step with your cut. Michael Edelson's 'Cutting with the Medieval Sword' is excellent for practical body mechanics- well worth checking out.
Great stuff as always, Kyle!
Great video! I love these types of breakdowns, keep them coming.
Mounted archers perhaps, slightly anachronistically, best described as longbow dragoons.
Indeed!
Was 'hobelar' a contemporary term for mounted infantry too?
@@scholagladiatoria Are they the same as hobelards or is it another weapon, crossbowmen on horses, possibly?
Another history episode and so soon!! Yes,yes,thank you Sir Matt, always thoroughly enjoy these!
The Scots would also have been aware of their own history where English archery had played merry hell with the schiltrons, so attacking was the correct decision. Only the front ranks were well armoured and once the artillery was neutralised, there would be nothing to stop the English sending archers to shoot into the flanks of the pike squarea, where the levy foot were virtually unarmoured.
Attacking should have shattered the billmen because of the lethal power and reach of a pike block. The ground made the difference and with that the battle and the terrible slaughter of the Scots nobility and commons.
I use to have a history teacher Mr Warner was his name, absolutely fantastic teacher, always carried a 2 metre long wooden pole and he use to it to give history demonstrations will forever remember that teacher and who probably helped spark a love of history off from me at a early age
Great video, love how its almost a little history hour with Matt :)
I learned a lot of new things about the battle ⚔️ thank you for the information in this video 👍🏻
Great and informative video Matt - I really like the idea of you giving lectures on important or exciting medieval battles. Cheers.
Hello Matt.
I totally enjoyed your video about the Battle of Flodden Field, mostly because of your talent for providing historical detail interestingly. I’ve read and viewed a lot of Flodden history due to a remote family link to the Howards (later the Fitzalan-Howards) who hold the UK’s premiere dukedom. Sir Thomas Howard, then earl of Surrey, was basically the founder of the politicallly prominent Howard line after his victory over James IV at Flodden.
My paternal family tree can be traced back only six generations to a prominent farmer in Maine named James Howard, my great-great-great grandfather. When he of his ancestors emigrated from England to “the colonies” remains undiscovered. The geneological trail ends with him in the late 1700s.
But family tradition has long held that we were distantly related to the Dukes of Norfolk. My guess is that an ancestor of mine was the younger of several sons who wouldn’t inherit a title so decided to seek his fortune in the New World.
This link, true or not, has led to my being an anglophile and minor collector of medeival and later military swords and sabers, along with a kukri, some Bowie knives, a shin-gunto, katana and wakizashi. (Mostly replicas. I’m a 75-year-old retired journalist on a fixed income who wishes he had the means to collect antique swords.)
But over the years your UA-cam channel has been a helpful guide to my collection. My latest acquisitions were the Windlass / Royal Armories 1796 light cavalry saber and the Windlass Type XIV arming sword based primarily upon your video observations.
Keep up the good work. Of all the edged-weapon UA-cam programs I’ve seen, your’s is the only one I’ve learned to trust.
Mark H. Howard
Medford, Oregon, USA
mhoward011@charter.net
Hello fellow Howard.
@@jackhoward6699 Cousin Jack? Glad to hear from another Howard. There are, it seems, millions of them I've never met. Where do you hail from? The UK, or US or elsewhere?
Mark Howard
My family come from this neck of the woods. I still live in manchester.
The Hapsburg vs Valois European conflict and Italians Wars of the 16th century are particularly interesting to me, and don't seem to get a huge amount of attention. More videos on the weapons, armor and battles of this period would be great! 😁👍👍
Thank you enjoyed the commentary, visited the battlefield and walked it 3 years ago.
A commentary on Edgecoat 1469 would be interesting, much debate on its actual position
Nice to see you cover a few Dark age battles like Brunanburh, Chester, and Maldon.
Interesting point on the artillery duel. I went to Flodden as part of a battlefield study years ago. The explanation we were given was that due to the Scottish guns being on the high ground they couldn’t lower the elevation of their heavy cannon to impact the English artillery. Meanwhile the older and lower calibre English artillery had been manoeuvred forward and effectively under the arc of fire of the Scottish guns and had free reign to shoot up the Scottish army without receiving effective counter fire.
this was a fun one, thank you Matt
i have been to the battle site and you can imagine from the lay of the land even today what happened - excellent video.
In the same vein as English Archers vs Scottish Cannon, it'd be interesting to look at some source material about how Native Americans used their bows alongside guns during the 1700s and 1800s. What I've heard for the War of 1812 is that Native fighters would fire a volley from their muskets first, and then instead of reloading, switched to their faster shooting bows. Might also be interesting to look into Native American longbows, I have heard vague accounts of Native Americans using bows that are very long, but I don't know how they'd compare to English or Japanese longbows. The account I remember most vividly were Spanish explorers in Florida (either Ponce de Leon or Hernando de Soto) being surprised by how powerful the Natives' bows were, even able to punch straight through their horses.
Concerning leading from ther front: Thomas Howard , Earl of Surrey fought on the losing side at the Battle of Bosworth. His father, John Howard ,1st Duke of Norfolk was killed leading King Richard's vangaurd, Surrey would have witnessed Richard III recklessly charging to the front and getting killed. He learned from these mistakes.
Focusing on the terrain is not the only way to interpret the results of this battle, though that's certainly important. There was a whole school of the thought in 16th-century military theory that short weapons like the bill/halberd or sword & target trumped the pike in an extended infantry slugfest. Machiavelli was a key proponent of this view, later supported by Raimond de Fourquevaux & Sir John Smythe, among others. Sources like Thomas Ruthal's letter & The trewe encountre stress the role of English bills & the intensity of this contest between heavy infantry. The advance down the hill through boggy ground surely disrupted the Scottish formation to some extent, but Swiss pikers managed to triumph at various times despite difficult terrain. If the resistance isn't strong enough or if the pikers & company are potent enough, rough terrain alone isn't sufficient to soil a pike formation. I think of it as combination of factors that allowed the English to prevail in a difficult close-quarters fight.
I hate to discount an author based on "just cuz", but John Smythe was very much someone who had no idea what he was talking about. I also don't think he fought in a war. Machiavelli's views on how to beat pikemen are also dubious IIRC (same with Pietro Monte's. They probably both misunderstood how the Romans beat the Greek pikes). By the mid 16th century, short weapons were very much in decline amongst the pikes. By the end of the 15th century, the Swiss also knew this, going from sometimes up to 50% of the men armed with polearms using halberds, to being "relatively" few in the early 16th.
"Gent.
Why, would you not allow short weapon in the field?
Capt.
Truly no, not many, yet would I not exclude them all. For I know them necessarie for many peeces of seruice; as to performe executiō if the enemie break, or flie; to mingle with shot to back them if neede be; to passe with Conuoyes, & to stand by your Artillerie; to creepe along trenches, and enter into mynes, where the Pike would be ouerlong; but best for the myne or breach is the Target of prooffe, short sword, and Pistoll: but for the plaine field, neither blacke bill, Halbard, nor Partizan comparable to the Pike."
- Robert Barret
@@Red-jl7jj Smythe had a lot of military experience, as did Raimond de Fourquevaux. Smythe definitely knew what he was talking about & was familiar with at least some of the Spanish military thought of the day. (He knew Spanish & had been ambassador to Spain.) He doesn't mean he or Fourquevaux were correct, but they had the credentials. 16th-century military writers had a wide range of opinions. Certainly the number of short weapons generally went down over the course of the 16th century. So did the likelihood of extended infantry contests where such weapons were at their best. Humphrey Barwick described this clearly. Firearms made long slugfests with hand weapons less common. In less intense & extended close combat between infantry, it makes sense to favor pikes. Most everyone agreed that pikes were the best at first in a fight between heavy infantry. Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, Smythe, & others thought that short weapons would have the advantage in a long contest between heavy infantry. This is very plausible because of the difficulty in using a 16-18ft weapon in the tight press of battle. My conclusion is the Machiavelli & company were right about short weapons given odds in specific circumstances but that it wasn't necessarily worthwhile to optimize armies for the unpleasant scenario of infantry slugfests. Pikers were more generally useful for fending off cavalry & overrunning infantry not willing to make a mess of things.
@@benjaminabbott4705 Not to strawman, Smythe thought that handguns would miss by a breadth of a trench past 30 paces. He believes longbowmen do not need pikemen to defend them.
I thought Humfrey Barwick explicitly explains the superiority of the pike?
The fact that the Swiss and Landsknecht both used fewer halberds in the early 16th century despite frequently fighting in a press does not support the idea that pikes are better when pell mells are shorter and fewer. Fourqurvaux or Bellay say that the dagger is the weapon for the press as well I thought
Great video - very informative and entertaining. I hope you do more of these descriptions of battles.
As an American, I’ve never heard of this battle. Thanks for the history lesson! Do you think James made the decision to rush in because he knew some more English units were coming and he was worried about getting pinned down or surrounded, especially being in enemy territory?
I honestly don't know, I think there are several possible explanations, and possibly it was a combination of some of those factors.
@@scholagladiatoria @Jesse well, with a Scottish name like Cunningham, I can guarantee that you will have lost a few dozen ancestors at this battle.
The written record suggests that the first schiltron of the Scottish army came down from the hill against James's orders. If this is the case, then it is likely they were largely provoked into advancing. This certainly happened at Towton and also at Culloden - under barrages of arrows and artillery, the men were spurned into action and advanced.
I would be very careful about referring to pre modern armies as components of 'units'. How men behaved on battlefields and why is very different in the pre modern era. cohesion came from loyalty, community, fealty and was plastic. Modern wargaming and the experience of 20th C warfare tempts us into using the word 'unit' to describe groups of men whereas such a concept was highly limited, especially in its application back in the day. Hollywood doesn't help... at all!
James invaded because he didnt think the English had men to stop him. Henry having his Army in France.
Jaames sent a message to the English, letting them know his intent.
James and educated man who believed in Chivalry.
Remember it was said he invaded to help French as it would make the English in France come home.
That was a mistake, they didnt.
The army in France consisted of troops from southern Counties
Surrey just raised an army from Northern counties.
The scots tried to stab the English in the back, so to Speak. They got what they deserved.
This battle might not be well known in the South.
If you are born a Northumbrian its well known, as is Reiver history.
The tune Flowers of the Forest, played by pipers at funerals or memorials was about this battle. A lament to the dead.
Border history was complex and bloody. More attention should be given.
Great video, I'm lucky enough to have spent some time around the battle site, and can confirm the ground even with modern drainage is hard to walk over after very heavy rain (1" of Rain in around 24 hours, if you believe my scout weather log- got my badge so was mostly correct)
Today I visited the Flodden Window in Middleton so was hoping to find a good battle report/expansion of the battle.
This hit the spot.
I really like these talks about old battles between dynasties
Wonderful information-learning about the weaponry used in the battle was fascinating. My Scottish 13th great grandfather, George Abercrombie (Abercromby), of Pitmedden, Ley & Birkenbog died in the Battle of Flodden. His wife and my 13th great grandmother Christian (Christine) Barclay was later a mistress to James V (the son) and they had a child, James Stewart (mentioned in the Great Seal of Scotland, #1425, dated 1534). I guess one thing they had in common was that her husband and his father both died in this battle. Using today's genealogy databases can yield all sorts of surprises! Since discovering this, I've been researching this battle. Thank you for posting this video.
I absolutely love History Time with Matt
Really enjoyed this. More battle discussions please!
Hi Matt. Thanks for the video. I've been doing my partners family history, I've found that there is a big part of a generation of the scottish males in her tree that died at flodden. With regard to the scottish army at flodden, is there any detailed articles/books? I'd love to be able to give more detail to the family about what went on that day. Were they divided into the battles based on the geographic area they came from? I know several of them were from the lowlands of scotland, irish sea side near the english border, and also kinross.
I don't have much of a personal knowledge of this all, being a New Zealand born Dutchman myself.
Thanks for all the information in the video.
Very nice summation of this battle. I am surprised that matchlock handguns were not being used by either side in any significant numbers. I know that the Spanish in Italy had started to arm up to a third of their infantry with this weapon and had been very successful. It is weird to think of England as being a backward in any sense, but I guess they were in this time period.
Longbows were still a very effective, accurate and efficient weapon in this period; they were still a superior, hand-held range weapon, when compared to most muskets, upto the 17th century. Their biggest 'downside' was the time and training/practice required to be skilled in their use, when compared to early handguns/muskets.
Henry VIII's primary missile weapon for infantry in 1545 still seems to have been the longbow, and all the way back in 1513 that seems to have been even more the case. I get the impression that in 1513 the English were pretty behind the curve in artillery use also, and didn't really catch up with their neighbours until the next decade or two.
@@MrVuvuzaala Robert Barret, Barnabe Rich, Humfrey Barwick, and Blaize de Montluc would all disagree. The first three all state that handguns are more accurate, more lethal, and longer ranged (Montluc also says the last) than longbows. Contemporaries in China and Korea also state that handguns were more accurate and longer ranged than the bow.
Both the Italians and English outright state that the longbow is good for untrained men, and the French and Burgundians both used longbows despite having anywhere near the extensive laws for training that the English had. In fact, many authors (including du Bellay) say that the gun should NOT be given to inexperienced and not well trained men, as their fire will be useless. Likewise, many arguments presented by John Smythe, Robert Barret, Barnabe Rich, and Humfrey Barwick state that the handgun requires extensive training, otherwise he will do more harm to himself than to the enemy. John Smythe even uses this argument to show why the longbow should still be in use (though it is easier to be more accurate with the handgun than the bow, especially on the parade ground, that's hardly the only thing a handgunner must do).
Ignoring these authors, which you may via saying that they were later, except for Blaize de Montluc and du Bellay (though there were no significant advances for handguns in the 16th century that affect their range and accuracy by the footmen, aside from some being bigger, and the bigger ones being in greater use), the GREATER amount of training and drilling in the late 15th and 16th centuries contradict the idea that guns would be in greater use DUE to being easier to use.
The longbow was almost certainly used by the English in the 16th century because of a lack of funds and a lack of industry to support them (unlike with the longbow, which had been in use for centuries). Though a certain national pride was also a reason they stayed in use for so long, with the Tudors mythologizing the longbowmen at Agincourt (every man carrying a bow and lead mallet sort of stuff).
The laws that the English enacted enabled the longbowmen to be more uniformly competent, as compared to the Franc Archers (who did not all use bows, but they still used them) of France or the Burgundian longbowmen, who were plagued by some companies being very incompetent. Those who were best with the longbow would probably have a natural tendency to want to fight with it.
Conclusion:
This is not to say that the longbow is a poor weapon, or that the longbowmen were ineffective, but compared to guns and handgunners, they were. Every victory won by longbowmen over musketeers was won IN SPITE of the longbow being used, not because of it.
"Being return’d to the Fort of Outreau; there was hardly a day past that the English did not come to tickle us upon the descent towards the Sea, and would commonly brave our people up to our very Canon, which was within ten or twelve paces of the Fort: and we were all abus’d by what we had heard our Predecessors say, that one English man would always beat two French men, and that the English would never run away, nor never yield. I had retain’d something of the Camisado of Bullen, and of the business of Oye; and therefore said one day to Mousieur de Tais, that I would discover to him the mystery of the English, and wherefore they were reputed so hardy: which was, that they all carried arms of little reach, and therefore were necessitated to come up close to us to loose their arrows, which otherwise would do no execution; whereas we who were accustomed to fire our Harquebuzes at a great distance, seeing the Enemy use another manner of sight, thought these near approaches of theirs very strange, imputing their running on at this confident rate to absolute bravery: but I will lay them an Ambuscado, and then you shall see if I am in the right or no, and whether a Gascon be not as good as an English-man. In antient time their Fathers and ours were neighbours."
- Blaize de Montluc
@@scholagladiatoria France was still using crossbows over handguns until crossbows were effectively replaced around ~1530 (Blaize de Montluc says that there were not many harquebuses around ~1520 in all of France), with some mentions of crossbowmen by du Bellay during the 1530s (Turin at 1536 is one example, though he seemed to be one of very few crossbowmen if not the only French crossbowman). France, although whole-heartedly adopting the pike before the English, had rather poor infantry during the late 15th century and early 16th century, having to rely on Gascon and Swiss soldiers. Arguably, infantry wise, France and England were equal or near equals, unless you count the Gascon and Swiss mercenaries.
Fuentes de Orno. 1810
The light division saving the right flank.
Captain Ramsey's horse artillery
The bayonet charge of the 88th, 74th and 45th
And if you can find the account the KGL cavalryman who chased a bavarian (I think) through french lines on a matter of honour. Think captain spiers from band of brothers.
I reckon your presentation style would really bring this battle to life
Henry ordered no prisoners taken, so the result was any wounded or surrendering Scots were butchered which is why the body count was unusually high. Very inhumane tactics even at that time.
For invaders burning and pillaging? Not much. Especially for Northerners.
Henry VIII was utterly ruthless. It's estimated that around 60,000 people were executed during his reign. However, when you go invading another country and attacking civilians as policy, I'm not sure how much mercy you are due if you lose.
Pretty much deserved what they got, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
@@scholagladiatoria True. But "take no prisoners wars" are actually pretty rare, even in less humane times. I can't think of any other "take no prisoners" wars off the top of my head. The idea of killing men who surrender goes against human nature in general (Heck, the nazis took prisoners). This is one reason the body count, particularly the nobles, was unusually high. Just trying to add some perspective on the reasoning behind the bodycount.
Nice video I forgot to mention.
@@smithryansmith How about the Albigensian Crusade? Less humane times to be sure, but the Pope's delegate famously said "kill them all, God will know his own". That was the Church, regarding French Cathars.
As both a late C15 and English Civil War reenactor,I find the 'inbetween period' of Tudor Warfare fascinating.
Flodden,Linlithgow Bridge,Pinkie. You also had the Prayer Book Rebellion (South West England) and Wyatts Rebellion (South East) the latter culminating with the Battle at Wrotham Heath where Hedgehog Formations of Harquebusiers and Halberdiers saw off the Rebels.
Oh,and not forgetting The Battle of Dussingdale during Ketts Rebellion,where I believe the Royal Army had many German Landsknecht's and Spanish Mercenaries.
It was all happening,wasn't it?!
Worth mentioning there were several other Scottish invasions of England - the early 12th century (Battle of the Standard) and the mid 14th Century (Battle of Neville's Cross).
A very interesting presentation indeed.I really enjoyed it.
Brilliant stuff Matt! Battle of Pinkey Brew involved the English navy as well. That never gets a mention! Best wishes, Stuart
.
Anything on Scotland or Wales during the 16th and 17th centuries would be great. I have but began studying those areas at this time period, and there is quite a lot to take in, especially regarding Scotland.
I love the storytimes with Uncle Matt
Got to admit, Alnwick castle is a magnificent castle to visit!
According to 19C historians while the battle was being fought local families raided the English camp and took away almost everything, I’m proud to descend from one of those families!
Unless you already covered it, the Battle of Preston on 18th August 1648 between the Royalists of King Charles 1st and the Parliamentarians of Oliver Cromwell. I'm from Preston and this Battle has particularly fascinated me from a young age.
More videos like this please.
One thing he didn't quite manage to say about the relative success & failure of the artillery at flodden is that the slopes of a hill are likely to be fair less boggy than the flat ground at the bottom.
Therefore the English shot are much more likely to skip across the firmer ground of the side of the hill, rather than sink into the softer, boggier ground at the bottom.
Fantastic explanation of the battle and it's context.
Clear, easy to follow and drawing on multiple sources.
A couple of points about the snooty aspects of the armies.
Artillery was not the mass killer we have come to expect since the 19th century.
At this point it would be inaccurate, slow shooting and relatively immobile.
While a hilltop position would suit an army's close fighting foot, it disadvantaged the cannon, as their balls have a tendency to "plug" when hitting the ground.
Why did the Scots charge from their superior high ground?
Possibly because of the English combined arms of Bill and bow.
Staying on the hill sees them suffer the pointy end of a shooting duel.
Charging allies them a chance against the shorter English billls.
Swampy ground, and perhaps lacking Swiss level training undid their charge.
The whole time I was watching this I kept expecting you to skelpit a luggie with that hanger. But it was a very comprehensive analysis of the battle. I'd agree with your reasons the Scotts lost, for whatever that's worth.
Informative and educational, thanks for posting.
Battle of Flodden is quite fun to play in the video game Pike and Shot: Campaigns. I think it's one of the user made battles but you can download it from the in game downloader. In that they went with the Scottish powder magazine explosion for the reason of the Scottish artillery underperforming if I remember correctly.
If Matt's taking suggestions, I have to but in a good word for the 1565 Great Siege of Malta.
Nice. Matt, could you look at the Battle of Northallerton 1138, which you cited here?
I will! I admit that I know nothing about it currently.
A relative, Laurence Ambler, fought as an Archer/Man at Arms in the Service of Lord Clifford of Bradford in the Battle.
Absolutely love your history episodes
Now this is prime content.
Matt is that an early 16th century Harrier GR4 behind you? I can't help but wonder if their role, acting as a highly mobile source of suppressive fire, has been overlooked in the neutralisation of the Scottish artillery in this battle?
Pretty amazing just how poor James IV’s generalship was in this battle, this should never have happened, Scotland’s Royal succession was a mess until James the VI
Fascinating, Matt - thanks - and I wouldn't mind your take on the Battle of Towton if you haven't already given it...
☝️😎
I visited flodden! And the battle field. The markers were being removed. They had the formation markers up
Spot on with the 'last monarch' bit, many think it was Richard the 3rd
I'm always impressed by your knowledge.👍
24 of my ancestors (so far identified) were killed at Flodden - and those were only the land owners, most of them have no records - it was a national disaster in Scotland. In fact, when researching the family, the date 9.9/1513 becomes a bit monotonous! I blame James's reliance on Overseas Advisors! ;-) in attempting to train Scottish levies in Swiss Pikework in 2 weeks - that and the shortage of seasoned ash poles resulted in the imported French pike heads being fitted to greenwood which was easily cut through by the English Bill.
I have always taken the report that the 'Bills sliced through the pike shafts' with a big pinch of salt, anyone who has handled a properly hafted spear, with an ash shaft knows that you are going to struggle to slice through it, especially if someone is holding onto the other end of it. This is why axes can be effective against swords. How many times do I wince when a historical novel describes a sword slicing through a spear shaft.. BUT if the wood is green it is perfectly possible and quite easy to do. So on this day, IF the pike shafts were indeed green wood, the Bill could well have trumped the pike.
But I agree with Matt, greenwood theory aside, the pikes were ill used, and 2 weeks of training the levy on Bruntsfield Links was simply not enough time to train the schiltrons. This, and bad ground = disaster.
soft ground, bad for artillery, Semi Pro English army vs Scot levy. Thanks for putting some myths to bed, Matt,
Nice piece of history... But Matt, could you in future please, please try to avoid the annoying black screens in between screen changes...
Just a very small correction, at 2:10 you said war of the league of Cambrai stretched from 1494 to the 1550s, that is true of the Italian wars, but the war of the league of Cambrai was just one of them.
I'll always like these battle videos.
In defence of the Scottish decision to attack, it should be said that James would have been well aware of the reputation of English longbowmen and I don't think he had anything to match them in his army. If he felt like he was losing the artillery duel, then he may have reasoned that it'd be better to attack and take advantage of his superiority in numbers, than hold position and risk the English bringing up their archers to start wearing down his force.
James seems to have been pretty reluctant and fatalistic about the whole enterprise- he appears to have regarded the invasion as a bad idea he'd been trapped into doing in order to not betray his alliance with the French. He also absurdly issued a formal declaration of war, announcing his intention to invade well in advance and giving the English plenty of time to prepare a defence. This was in accordance with the contemporary laws of chivalry, but these were frequently ignored by many other rulers and generals when it suited them. In many ways, James' determination to be seen to be an honourable king was the undoing of both his campaign and his own life. A real-world example of 'nice guys finish last', perhaps.
Love the recent content on the 16th century- it's one of my favourite historical eras, and often overlooked in military history, despite being an era of very rapid change and innovation in equipment and tactics. Other battles from around this era that might be worth covering might be Pavia, Coutras, the siege of Malta, Ollantaytambo (where the Incas managed to defeat the Spanish) or even Pinkie- another brutally one-sided battle between Henry VIII and the Scots.
The Battle of Lützen might be good to cover? Another one where a monarch leading from the front went awry.
Always a good idea to recce the ground before hand, I learned that in scouts.
No specific battles, but I do like these types of videos.
Very interesting, thanks!
I really enjoyed this episode. Perhaps next time, just a bit more focus on arms and armour? What was James wearing that day, is it known?
Now that truly was a Scotland v England unlike Culloden which was NOT.