It is the most extreme version of utilising instincts ever really. It's a part of our DNA to enjoy killing. It's what keeps us alive. Theres really no wonder it's so enjoyable.
ah, I don't know, many fatalists glorified fighting wounded & if it didn't down a person they may never really feel the wound through the adrenaline before they die on their feet, oc the majority would go down screaming, but the fighting dead are a case that crops up throughout history
Broadbull, Enabler of Uncounted Combos duelling in the 18-19th century (especially in European nations like Germany) was seen like a Nobel sport and young teens would scar there cheek to look like they were experienced in combat
As historically inaccurate as the show was was, the scene in Vikings where the Christian monk witnesses for the first time a human sacrifice and tries to look away and the little boy chastised him with "What are you wincing at? It's just death" was a particularly powerful scene.
The American civil war was the first modern mass war, and a prelude to what World War I was going to be. War was pretty bad in the middle ages too it just wasn't THAT horrible and inhuman.
@@patrykkotkowski8781 yeah 3 was the last good one. the plot twist in 4 where they sacked the guys who stood as bulwark against Muslim invasion for hundreds of years for short sighted political gain and royally screwed themselves long term was contrived as hell.
@@patrykkotkowski8781 I don't know about the Crusades. Yeah after the third one the whole thing became a farce, but we need to see them in the context of the times. War in those days was seen as something spiritual almost, dying in battle was not seen as a negative. In that respect, i think the Crusades were more pagan than Christian, or at least they seemed to channel a Nordic tradition through a Christian prism more than the reverse. Think of Jerusalem as Valhalla and the whole phenomena starts to make more sense. The Christians of the east never engaged in crusades, in fact they were at the receiving end of one and couldn't understand why the Christians of the west were enraptured by those wars. And the Crusaders were taken by a battle ethos that took the Greeks by surprise. I remember reading one commentator on the sack of Constantinople who was present during that raid lamenting the destruction of several Greek statues, including one of Hercules, and he wondered why a people who cherished physical prowess above anything else would destroy such a magnificent symbol of the very thing they professed to love. That really said a lot about the character of the Crusaders.
well... Looting and Raping defeated enemies has been done for thousands of years. When men didn't get their adrenaline fix, they lost majority of the rewards of fighting.
Looting wasn't as prevalent as you might think, or atleast not on the scale you might be thinking of. Usually they'd just take a few objects they found nice, like ornate crucifixes, amulets, jewelry, etc... How do you expect a footman to carry a chest of gold throughout a campaign?
@@joew.3354 The key is adrenaline fix. While the looting will be obviously limited to their carrying capacity, it was the chance to rape and brutalize the population that caused the soldiers to carve that.
In the middle ages, it was rare for there to be a "total war", that is a war where the entire nation is directly involved and no one is spared. The concept of fighting to achieve the complete destruction, or at least the complete destruction of its economy and the psyche of its people, was probably not that common in the middle ages. I'd hazard a guess such a thing would've been seen as wasteful if not outright evil. This might be another reason medieval era people were more comfortable with war in general. Even a lost war didn't usually imply total annihilation of your way of life. You might be serving a new king if your side lost, but as has been said, most peasants didn't care who the king was, they were worried about getting their crops planted and harvested.
Well there was a sort of "gentleman's agreement" when it came to war among Christian nations. It's when it came to fighting those dirty heathens that shit got real.
@@ninjafruitchilled you mean they were using Catholic Theology of "just war". I rather dislike when Medieval History is super divorced from it's Catholic History...hmmm. It would make sense that fighting "heathens" or pagans would be different if the goal was yes, ultimately to convert them (which does come with some sort of dominantion).
@@thekingslady1 well, it was more complicated than just conversion. Nobody would have gone to fight in the Holy Land just to convert the heathens. Originally the first crusade was largely about freeing the Christians there from Muslim oppression (they had been the main group since the Romans had utterly wiped out all the ancient Hebrews that hadn't converted already and thus stayed out of the war back in A.D. 70). Of course, all of that history is very glossed over if taught at all these days, for mostly fairly obvious reasons.
My grand-grandpa (borm around 1880, as a Belarussian cossack he wasn't sure of the date himself, nor did he care, because "even pigs have birthdays") used to say: "We live in barbaric, uncivilised times, because a man with a horse and a sabre cannot support a family with just those two".
Ah yes, the fabled lightsaber. Worn by Lord Memesworth the Dank of house Kekington, during the battle of the Dab, ca 1337. What an iconic weapon indeed!
Common reason for war during the medieval era: "My uncle owned these lands, and he promised me ownership of his lands." "Your uncle was my cousin, and he promised me ownership of his lands." "Well I declare war." "My army is bigger" "My army has bows and arrows." "Well my army has God on their side." "Nah uh, we have God on our side." "Well let God decide then. God wills it! "God wills it!"
Actually there's a second verse to Jack and Jill that often gets forgotten: "Up Jack got, and home did trot, as fast as he could caper. He went to bed and wrapped his head in vinegar and brown paper." It's a headache remedy. The vinegar evaporates off the paper and helps cool your head. Today we use ice for a similar but stronger effect. That just wasn't always available in the past.
Alcohol would do the job too, but you were more likely to have vinegar to spare than alcohol, especially since you often get vinegar when you screw up making alcohol.
Shad, I can tell you from my perspective as a war veteran myself people have not changed at all since the Medieval period. People are still fascinated by the idea of war. I promise you that everyone watching this video has payed to go see a war movie at some point in their life and if "peaceful" civilians find war compelling I guarantee a soldier does too. It becomes more complicated as we look into the reasons why we go to war in the first place and why veterans love and hate war. Look at the so-called civilized world, for instance. People are so far removed from war that they are also removed from the reality of it. Think of a historical parallel like the Germanic Wars or the Hundred Years War. Someone living in the heart of Rome or York would be safe as opposed to living in the Rheinn or Normandy where the thick of the fighting is. The people at home are not exposed to it and then it becomes a way to break their monotonous lives. Then there are the people who actually have experienced war then it becomes a love-hate relationship. The excitement of overcoming adversity, sharing hardships, unconditional love for your brothers in arms, loss, death, deception, animosity towards fellow human beings - nothing has changed as far as people go. In fact, I think the only thing that has changed is the destructive magnitude of war and the physiological effects due to *how* war is waged. I think soldiers back in those days rarely had "battle fatigue" because engagements were short and time to "come down" was more prevalent. It was a way to allow the mind to decompress and regain composure. World War 1 changed all of that with battles lasting for *months* for the first time in history, the Battle of Verdun for example lasted almost an entire *year* and was the most costly battle in human history. The mind can only handle being put under so much stress until constantly being in fight or flight mode begins to take its toll. I could go on for hours but that's my two cents on it. Take it for what it's worth. As always, great vid!
Another reason that medieval war seems more ''compelling'' than modern war imo, is that back then your chances of survival depended much more on your own skill in combat. Obviously you need skill in modern warfare too, but all the skill in the world won't help you if the enemy drops a bomb on you that eradicates all life within a 10 mile radius. You just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and because of that you get fucked, no matter how well you can aim a gun or how much pain you can endure. Then again, i might be wrong because im just a lowly neckbeard with an underpayed job that has only ever been in one true fist fight in his entire life, but that is the difference i see in medieval and modern warfare.
Da1337Man I would concur but I think it's not that skills for war decreased. The skill requirement becomes more technical. Engineers, Mechanics, and such become more important in Modern Warfare. I'm open to arguments though.
You also have to factor in today's total lack of killing in every day life. Even 90 years ago, MANY people dealt with death on a daily basis in the form of cooking a meal. When your wife is hacking off chicken heads of living chickens that she caught in the yard, death isnt quite the shock that it is to a person who doesnt think about how a McNugget gets made. The lack of hospitals (relative to population) meant that there was a good chance a home had someone die in it in the past. Death wasnt a just psycholohical concept to deal with back then. It was a direct and visceral part of almost every person's life.
@@Da1337Man You arent wrong, but you arent getting the full impact of what that means. The disconnect between death-dealer and the dead makes things both less important and more important, psychologically. Getting blown up by a bomb is not different than getting an arrow through the eye. The difference is that a soldier who isnt blown up by a bombing run doesnt really understand the luck aspect of war that a guy charging a line of archers would. I guess the real experience would be either seeing people around you drop while you carry on, or not seeing it. A bomb doesnt offer a ton of vantage points that are both within the blast radius and safe enough for there to be survivors to witness it. The balls that medieval warriora must have had... it blows my fucking mind. Not that current soldiers dont have balls, because ANY soldier has balls that drag rhe ground in my opinion, but you watch a movie like Braveheart, and you know that Mel Gibson isnt going to catch a stray arrow to the face, a backswing from a friendly fighter, or an axe in the back from the three guys who teamed up on him. Everyone else... they are essentially in the middle of a meat grinder. Making it out unscathed is almost divine intervention in that scenario, and it just takes two enemy soldiers to orient on you at the same time to end your life. You start to see why the great commanders in history were revered by their troops in an almost godly way.
@@CNNBlackmailSupport Yeah people really don't understand how meat is acquired. I've heard of people calling the cops because there neighbor was about to kill his chicken for dinner. XD
Sad that we don’t think of war in a different Light. We are also so divided in this nation that why would anyone want to go to war to protect each other.
I think it’s not particularly fair for Robert e Lee to be saying that, as he was a literal cavalry tactician! He relied on war! For a group of people who committed some of the worst atrocities in human history(most slaves in history were prisoners of war, and well this is still extraordinarily awful and evil, I think it’s even worse to just invade another group of people specifically to take their innocents as slaves)!
For some reason when Shad was talking about how'd he would go berserk... I imagined him shouting "machicolations!" before summoning one and slamming the attacker with it. Regardless a really interesting video and I can't wait to see more of your awesome videos.
Im sure one of shads ancestors was an archer from a castle wall and couldn't wait to throw rocks or shoot through machicolations while releasing this battle cry
You couldn't really summon machicolations and crush someone with them as they are the holes under battlements that defenders shoot or drop things through. Maybe he could summon a merlon and crush someone with that though.
One more reason they liked war back then more than we do now is that the level of carnage in a war back then was nowhere near as extreme as the level of carnage we see in modern wars. Most armies would route or retreat after suffering casualties of between 5 to 10% of their force. Partially because the army would become intimidated at that point, and partially because a good strategist knew that sacrificing more soldiers to a battle where you've already lost that many would be foolish.
This reminds me of an article I read about casualties and melee fighting in Ancient times, and how it wasn't as depicted on TV/film, where the armies charge into each other and fight to the death. Rather it was very cautious, with a charge ending rather quickly in a step backward. This was all because people naturally don't like to get hurt, die, or see others die - so a massive charge into a pike wall would generally only last a moment before the attacking force pulls back to reduce casualties. There would then be a longer period of skirmishing and shouting, followed by another short melee. Basically, combat was very much a stop and start affair, just because of the nature of people not being mindless killing machines. Interesting article.
I think reading "The Greatest Knight" by Thomas Asbridge would throw that comment for a loop. Generally, at least during the period after the Battle of Hastings in 1066, military campaigns were waged by burning villages - the idea was to deny an enemy lord of resources that villages produced. Besides, at that point, arms and armor technology were at a point where it was actually reasonably difficult to kill a properly equipped enemy soldier - the best you could do is hope to ransom them back to their lord to turn a quick bag o' gold. Burning villages was something honed to a science because it was an effective way to fight other lords, particularly by Richard the Lionheart, who by the preserved accounts, became _quite_ proficient at it.
To be honest, casualties in modern warfare are still about the same as throughout the rest of history. If anything they're actually lower because of better medical technology and the fact that 90% of shots fired are for suppression. Artillery, air strikes, etc. make up most kills these days.
Battles like Cannae were exceptional for that reason where 90% of the Roman army was exterminated in that fight and both consuls were driven off or killed. And remember, in modern wars too, this applies. The German army seemed to have taken relatively few casualties in Barbarossa, but only when you look at the crack shots and everyone else in the baggage train like engineers, horse tenderers and cooks, it was the strongest soldiers who were sapped by the time they were at the gates of Moscow.
Honestly it's one of my biggest problems with a lot of media. Unless it's an evil overlord they are fighting, every person who Finds war exciting is treated as a bit of a looney
Caboose 92m it is important to "look" at it through the framework of modern morality and ethics to see what sort of values people had in the past and how we have evolved (or degraded) in comparison, one must distinguish "looking" and "imposing".
Have you seen Lindybeige video on the subject of how surprisingly hard it is to train someone so they'll kill? It’s pretty interesting. ua-cam.com/video/zViyZGmBhvs/v-deo.html
Some things in the past are morally wrong today but back then they weren't. It's okay to accept them as wrong things while also not blaming the people for doing what everyone else was doing at the time.
Also, war is the catalyst of invention. Remember how much weaponry, armoury, tactics, politics, vehicle industry, aviation, medicine, science overall etc developed due to war by either having a positive or negative impact. War is part of human nature like eating or sleeping and only by war we managed to get where we are now. Even the internet was supposed to be a military tool at first.
The thing about invention in war is that you can't really opt out. Most other avenues for innovation on the other hand had to deal with guilds, the church and other hurdles first.
Sorry, but no. The more warlike a society, the lower the social mobility. That's a strong and persistent correlation across history to this day. Also, the reason war seems to drive technological progress is mainly because it motivates rulers to devote resources to it. There's no need for war if you have another motivator to prioritize it. Btw, war cost us Archimedes while he was developing calculous (a fundamental tool for science). We could have had calculous before 200 BC if not for some soldiers killing him. That _one_ mistake in _one_ conflict set science back at _least_ 1500 years and we almost never new because some monks cleaned the pages of the book so they could have another prayer book. What other innovations did we loose without ever even knowing? It may at times be the lesser of 2 evils but it is a blight on humanity.
I love what you said near the end: it's all too easy to forget that different people from different times viewed the world differently. I wish there were a "history of thought" course in colleges; History of Philosophy is about the closest it comes, but that just talks about what different specific philosophers wrote and not about the views people in general had.
@@longWriter not sure that's true, but even if it was, nobody kept the diaries of some random commoners safe for the hundreds of years required for them to survive to the modern day.
@@longWriter Shad did a video that went over literacy. However, while many/most could at least read, and presumably write, those records would have to survive the centuries following for us to read them. And that is something that was (I assume) less likely to happen in regards to the records made by less-right peoples.
@@JarieSuicune Well, it's not just *that*. Knowing how people thought four or five, or sometimes even two or three generations ago can sometimes be difficult.
Idea for follow up video. Real warfare is rarely about just killing your enemies. Most combat is about making the enemy route controling the field. As others have pointed out battles have been won only inflicting about 5-10% casualties but breaking the enemies morale and forcing them off the field. In modern warfare skirmishes can often be ended without either side suffering losses. Simply showing concentrated fire and overwhelming firepower, e.g. air support can be enough to make the enemy give up and flee.
One of the best examples of this is the Zulu. Pre-colonisation/invasion, Zulu warfare consisted of a couple of lines of people chucking spears at each other from mostly outside the range at which they're at great risk, with huge stonking shields to cover themselves from the spears that *did* make the distance. This is attributed to there being relatively few people for the amount of land they controlled, and so it was better all-round to lose a bit of land than lose a few people. Once cattle and staple crops were introduced to the area, the population exploded and people like Shaka Zulu (whose name btw means 'intestinal beetle heaven' more or less) came up with the idea of using short stabby spears that were much better at murdering people, because they needed more land to sustain the larger population and lives became less valuable as a result.
A truly crucial component of minimal casualties is good leadership. The ability to maneuver the enemy off the field one way or another, preferably with less head bashing and more intimidation (as you indicate). In fact Sun Tzu stated at one point that the best of generals could win a war without a single battle, Pure maneuver (specifically, without direct offensive military action is implied by Sun Tzu) and (I would imagine/In my humble opinion) overwhelming intimidation:)
@@bjmaguire6269 man you didn't understand what sun tzu said: what it means is to what you want without fighting like in a diplomatica way like prussia united the german states without conquering them
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 Political maneuver is still maneuver, though you are quite correct. I should have been clearer, sorry for that, and thank you for your comment and the opportunity to better express myself.
The problem with World War One isn't that it was a war, the problem was the scale of it and the inability of states to effectively communicate. Both sides lost track of their objectives and became absolutely irrational about the combat itself. The same is the case for World War Two, because both sides were obsessed with the idea of gaining a total and absolute victory. Even in the Hundred Years War neither the English nor the French were attempting to conquer the entire enemy country. The French wanted the English off the continent, the English wanted to stay on the continent. Simple and clear goals. Upon success or failure, the war ends. That isn't the case in modern war and it's why absurd shit like firebombing cities is considered to be a part of modern war.
you are missing a more important aspect of WW1. it was the first war that was won by the power of economy. previously a small force of well trained, disciplined, and brave soldiers who are commanded by a smart tactician and strategists could win a war against a larger force. in ww1 the soldiers were nothing more than cannon fodder, Germany lost because they ran out of food, metal, and oil, resources and the strength of the economy is what determines victory in modern war.
At least in Au-Hungary people thought that it going to be short and easy. The recruitment posters promised an end before the snow fell in Serbia and a swift victory(while not taking into account the "new" russian railways). Young men were desperately trying to get accepted into the army(patriotic upbringing, someone who hadn't been a soldier wasn't as atractive for women...). Rejects were devastated, feared going home out of shame...
*Gad:* That's not entirely true. Yes it was an economic victory, but that's been British military strategy for decades. Still is in fact. The difference is that in World War One the way the war was won is different because both sides went way beyond their capacity to actually gain anything from the war. Both the German and British Empires were totally destroyed by the war and that's not something you really see in any earlier conflicts except for those that end in either mass slavery or in effective genocide. To explain: Between about the Napoleonic Era and the First World War the way Britain would win conflicts was to destroy the ability of the enemy nation to make profit and by severely damage their economy. This meant the British Army rarely had to take the field because upon receiving sanctions and blockades, most nations would simply give in and at most might fight a few naval engagements. This was done by keeping the stake for losing relatively low and the benefits for surrendering much higher. The same cannot be said for WW1 and it was not a problem limited to the British. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Germany and Russia is completely absurd and the Treaties of Versailles and Trianon are equally beyond the pale. *Tom:* Sources for what exactly? If you're asking specifically about peace treaties, that's a huge topic. If you're asking specifically about blank cheque peace deals, or treaties of absolute surrender, those start with the US Civil War and continue from thereabouts.
People were told that everywhere. "Home before Christmas" was on pretty much every recruitment poster in 1914, either that or a pointing man with a large moustache with some variation of "Serve the Motherland/Fatherland" on it. The problem isn't the naive aspect. It's that when the war bogged down into the trenches and casualties began to rack up the nations just dug their feet in and refused to go to the negotiating table. Everyone was obsessed with getting a clear victory in the field and instead of scaling down the operations to save on finances every single nation went into full mobilisation and it broke the back of every European country involved.
Regarding medieval fantasy, while having this mindset would be good for mortal races, someone like the immortal elves would probably have a mindset more similar to our modern view. Or even possibly some longer lived races, like dwarves who can live for hundreds of years.
"Look at those ants, killing and slaving each other for resources, while they live only for mere months!" What? No, I'm not doing an elf impression, I'm doing a David Attenborough impression.
Very true, if I had a long life that could be cut short by violence, avoiding violence, or ending violence decisively in my favor by every possible trick or cheat possible, would be very high on my priority list.
@@ArifRWinandar "Look at them, fighting like ants. Oblivious, to the fate awaiting them. In time they willl annihilate each other." -Kane from Command and Conquer Tiberium Wars Kane is not an elf, but he has died twice and is said to be immortal
What hasn't changed and is still a major factor when it comes to war are values and ideologies. Let's not forget that war is always an us vs. them thing and in order to mobilize the populace back then and still today you had to/have to paint an ideological picture that was/is easily understood by the commoners/public.
Eh... Kinda... I mean, during a battle, intentionally capturing people is difficult at best, and while there were certainly plenty of cases where nobility were easily identified, you aren't going to go out of your way to not kill them, since disabling an opponent is orders of magnitude more difficult than killing them, and leaving them unhindered is not going to help your chances of surviving the battle. Even if you did try to avoid killing them, accidents happen, the attempt isn't going to work. In the case of a surrender or other defeat, the nobility were certainly higher on the priority list for captivity and being held for ransom, but, even with that taken into account, in most cases they weren't going to just mass slaughter the peasants in the defeated army either, and holding that many prisoners would be impractical, so in many cases, the majority of the defeated army would be released after a few days and some negotiations with the other side (unless total victory in the war had been achieved).
@@Great_Olaf5 Well, since most nobility had really good armor, they were also much less likely to be killed. Add to that that they usually were mounted and not forced to go in the first line and wave and you come up with a much lower mortality rate indeed. But ofc the chance to be killed is still very much there.
@@Great_Olaf5 It's hard to take him prisoner *unharmed* It's actually much easier to wound than kill. Generally an army has 2-3 times as many wounded as dead when you look at details of casualties
@Jean Sanchez No, people being idiots should be exposed. Morons need to learn, and the only way is to tell them they are morons. We need people who are less intelligent than the norm to realize that they need to actually think about their actions.
@Jean Sanchez People are human, yes. But making mistakes is one thing, and making them all the time is another thing. People need to be called out and shamed, I am not asking for anything more extreme than that. Just yell at them, tell them they need to square up, because their parents didn't, and without a push, they'll always be stupid. Stupid people are a danger to everyone around them, especially when they think they are smart. If someone is being arrogant AND is wrong, they should be shamed, so that they learn not to do that in the future. It's just how the human mind works.
The other day I learned in a uni lecture that something the Church actively encouraged in the early modern period (and so most likely in the middle ages as well) was that death was something not to be feared. What was to be feared was a death after living a sinful life, or not dying well, alone and/or without dignity. You see similar things in the world today. One of the reasons Islamic terrorists kill themselves in explosions is because they are convinced that to die in service to their faith is to be rewarded in the afterlife. I imagine there'd be a similar dynamic with soldiers in the middle ages being less afraid to die than the average person today.
Phoenix Tracer Well i think anyone who actualy is a frontline soldier today is like that. You wont be good at your job otherwise. I know many and am myself that sort of individual. To me dying gloriously for a cause fighting is a dream come true. Dying in a bed is a nightmare i fear. People who have fought in war when they go home nowadays become very depressed and constantly long for battle because there exists are brotherhood and scence of safety belive it or not that does not exist at home. Everyday there has a powerful purpose. You train constantly which give a sort of inner peace and you have people 24-7 watching your back with guns and you theirs. And then when you finaly get to fight its like a full body orgasm that lasts for hours where you feel an amazing rush of energy and creativity. All your sences are enhanced. Your smell! your eyesight! everything! It feels like time passes slower and a scence of merging into your enviroment as if nature itself is fighting with you.
"something the Church actively encouraged in the early modern period (and so most likely in the middle ages as well) was that death was something not to be feared". And we still do ;)
Just because something happened in on period of history, it doesn’t follow that it happened in all earlier periods of history. For example in the early modern period you also had the freak out over witches as science became more prevalent and people were trying to work out what was science, what was magic and what was faith. Prior to the late 16th century people still believed in all those things but no one worried about them being separate entities. It was just life and no one really took much against magic. I do my know for sure whether the attitude you state wasn’t a medieval one as well, but the Christian world in the early modern period was split and was VERY different from the pre reformation world, so i’d Be extremely hesitant to make the assertion that it happened in the early modern period so probably did before too!
I can certainly attest from experience as a former soldier, in the heat of war, you're not seeing the enemy as a person. You're seeing them as something trying to kill you. And it often isn't until afterwards, after you're away from that theater that you start thinking of the other side, you start thinking of them as humans, regardless of how evil their actions have been. It can be a crushing amount of mental weight.
This is actually part of the training, these days, as I'm sure you've experienced. The studies about war fighters not aiming at the enemy, just in their general direction, spurred militaries to introduce training to mitigate that. Most of it is about creating automatic responses to certain stimuli, but there were also things to help dehumanize the enemy; for example, shooting targets were changed from regular bull's eyes to human silhouettes. It has been incredibly successful, but is also thought to be a major contributor to PTSD.
ssholum, I am going to need a citation on that PTSD statement. We have no evidence to suggest it is because of more training to kill in that way that caused it. War itself could have caused it. If people in the 900s saw and witnessed people going into a field and just being cut down in the thousands with limbs, heads and body parts hacked off, getting pierced with spears - with their own friends they just ate a meal with yesterday and loved, being dead right next to them? Yeah - I would imagine such symptoms as PTSD very much could be a part of that. Another question is, how much things like the warrior culture in those times may or may not have mitigated that, and if it would help people with it today (as they might see what they seen with a rather different lens from the start). War has gotten a lot better, but a lot more terrible all at the same time.
The Doom From Latveria Unfortunately, I don't have a citation; to rephrase more accurately: it's a hypothesis that I heard multiple times in sources regarding that change in military training. It'd be very difficult to research actual numbers, because in the times around the World Wars, that psychology was very poorly recognized (IIRC, it wasn't until around Vietnam that PTSD became recognized as an illness with understood characteristics, and that's after the introduction of this training); I might get around to seeing if someone has tried to study this though. It wouldn't surprise me in the least though, as training someone to kill when they wouldn't have otherwise would put a huge internal stress on them, after the fact, if they had to kill someone.
Yeah, I never heard 'a tissue' used there. For me it was 'ashes, ashes they all fall down', or 'ashes, ashes they all fall dead'… that last one was used far more rarely.
@@PunkZombie1300 Ring around the Rosey, Prayers with a Rosey necklace. Pockets full of Posey Don't know, think it means flowers in a funeral. Ashes, ashes we all fall down, Cremation like you said.
2:26 _"when WW-I broke out everyone cheered, when WW-II broke out, everyone cried"_ One guy who didn't cheer in 1914 : Pope St Pius X, who died of broken heart after not stopping WW-I.
@@Rekkenze I wasn't talking about ending, it's usual to celebrate when wars end, especially victors, but if conditions aren't too harsh those beaten as well. I was talking of who was celebrating at beginning of wars. And actually quoting the video.
You do see a desinevitation to violence in the modern period, although considerably more rare compared to previous points in our history. Many of the most famous snipers in modern warfare actually grew up in a more rural environment where death was more common, though less from seeing people get killed and more through animals dying around them through farm use or hunting. In fact many snipers like Simo Haya (I probably butchered the spelling there) and Vasily Saitzev grew up hunting out of the need to survive and therefore likely saw death as an occasional necessity, which could be very comparable to the mentality of the medieval period
Everyone in this thread is an unga bunga meathead who'd lose to a toddler in a battle of wits and will resort to baseball bats to kneecaps just to remain a "winner"
This is a complex one, but I think you nailed it. I don't think people in the past were necessarily just brutish and violent - warfare in the medieval period was much different than today. Wars were fought on a much smaller scale, largely by the elite, with much smaller stakes. And people did recognize the horror of war when the violence escalated beyond the normal. Contemporary writers talk about the brutality and horror of the first Mongol invasion of Hungary, for example.
Exactly this. Batlles was generaly smaler and people didn't realy know how war realy look. Now we have tv showing soldiers dieing and wepons posible to kill thousands of people.
@@dionwoollaston5717 Well it depends what war. For exampel most of the greek wars between them were like 10k vs 8k and at all 700 people die at max. They jsut stoped when they realize one side lost there was no reason to chase the emeny can try to slaugther as much as possible becasue all of the greek warrriors were farmers and citizen and had to get back to there farm (thats why they agreed to not attack during harving periods )
@@alkair422 War would be seen in a more negative light if the Ancient people had our tech Especially since our tech would remove most reasons why people go to war in the first place
It's interesting how Tolkien often arises in discussions of war. LOTR, while set in a medieval fantasy world, is really about the modern age. And guess what. War is terrible. Frodo can't stay in Middle Earth, as his psychological wounds are too deep.
It is not "a tissue", but "atishoo", like this: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atishoo. This referes to the sound done while coughing. I learned about it during my English studies and it was presented as a fact that this nursery rhyme refers to illness.
@@malikdespanie4344 There's literally battles that were lost cause LOOT BABY Imagine stealing everyone's shit and while you're hauling it off the horsemen come Seeing as these were the days before mugshots imma get my loot and get the hell out of there
@@lazydesmond8240 Me: Sneaking around with my war hammer bashing and smashing unarmored opponents and looting gold, jewelry, and expensive swords off my opponents.
When talking about war and peace the most important point is that there is a lot of grey room in between those two. War and peace are not binary conditions. . A lot of conflicts in medival time were feuds, because the lack of a strong central authority with a developed justice system. Of course the conflict between two cities can be considered as a war. The point is, without another legal way which wields enough authority/force to settle disputes peacefully armed conflicts have a lot more legitimacy for the involved people. A second important point is that armed service is the best way to improve your social status. When you are a farmer, you will be forever a farmer. Armed service is a way to strive for more. Medival people were limited in their choices. I think psychological explanations are mostly bullshit. People strive to fullfill their needs. When fighthing and killing are the best way to fullfill them, people will do it.
Thank you for leaving this comment. I think that people put much more focus on the psychological motivations for war because it's more interesting than it being simply because a guy needs to become a soldier to feed his family. It also let's us wax phylisophical at "Humans are brute beasts that love war and violence". We need to look at the past without the tinted googles of the present on and without are modern biases changing our perceptions.
Most of the time the upperclass would married their children to prevent war of feuds or to beneficial trading. When they couldn't hold power that way, there would be war sometimes. Invicta channel explains that going to war in a medieval period would take a lot of time and expensives and was difficult to do on great scale. Smaller wars i think were more commen becouse of personal gains, interest or feuds. But i think they also considered not doing to much becouse how medieval society was based. I guess most of the time it was a necessary thing to do. I like his thoughts and your thoughts on it :)
There are plenty of people today working as mercenaries or just generally involved in civil wars and the like. The motivators are manifold. Needless to mention you chances of dying in a war in the medieval period weren't all that high, except by disease. Battles could be dangerous but they were quite rare and there was a good chance it wouldn't even be the army you were in actually fighting. So the rewards outweighed the risks in many ways. Of course people would likely be less sensitive towards blood and others things. This is mentioned by many chivalric writers and also outside of Europe such as in Japan that its good to desensitise yourself to blood and death be it people or animals. However that also goes to show that many people would find blood and gore disturbing in the first place.
Shad, Your abilities to reason, have empathy, and think scientifically are truly remarkable. You are one of the most brilliant people I watch on UA-cam, and it's not because of how much you know; it's because of how you think; How you're able to see the world, and articulate yourself. You give a lot of value to things like context, the differences between subjectivity and objectivity-and just your ability to stay grounded, open minded, rational, look at things from all the angles, and to be self aware of what you do know, what you don't know, and what you can't know. Like, it's such a treat listening to you try to explain things and articulate yourself. I've grown to have so much respect for you over the last few years I've been watching your channel. I wish more people could be like you. Your kids are lucky to have you as a dad.
Wow, thank you so much, it really means a lot, especially when I hesitated to upload this video. It's a really complex subject with so many angles to look at and I doubted if I did a good enough job, I still do, but hey, if I find I'm wrong about something I'll let you guys know. Comments like this really help with my piece of mind and encourage me to keep at it to the best of my ability. So thank you ^_^
I'm glad that you've talked about not measuring people of past by current standars. It's really annoying how often really intelligent people do this and they portait mainly medieval time as time of barbaric, stupid and zealous people.
But the problem is that we tend to forget that they were humans. Some of the dumbest historical misconceptions arises when we think that people in the past were too stupid to obey common sense.
People from the past weren't stupid. The same level and scope of education just didn't exist back then. If I'm not mistaken, the whole reason societies became more democratic and the reason why human rights developed as an idea was because more people became educated. (Granted that's a simplification but I think it's alright to explain it that way.) A lot of famous philosophers were classical thinkers, like Plato, which is before the medieval era. But most of the population was unable to read or learn about philosophy and whatnot, it seems. Common sense isn't really an effective argument. That usually denotes popularity or tradition.
Srithor I agree with you about this that they weren't as intelligent as we are nowadays, but I didn't say that they were. I only said that they weren't as stupid as it's portrait often in popculture or by a lot of intellectuals.
Something my father and I always said, and I love how you phrased it. You can’t apply modern mentality and morality to men of the past. Certainly of the long past! Understanding and learning is key to both entertainment and growth!
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is open with his protective instincts when it comes to family. Great video Shad, spot on with everything! Of course as pointed out by some other comments, there is some stuff that could have been added, but hey, no video is perfect.
@@tbxmxdog9187 He didn't say Italy or Germany. He said Germans and Italians, the people. He did forget some other people that were happy to fight in the First Crusade, though, the Flemish for example.
Now, I’m not as messed up mentally (i wouldn’t watch an execution for entertainment) but dark humor has helped me cope in the past. When i was a kid, we had to put my dog down. I cried for an hour straight throughout the whole thing. When we were in the car driving home from the vet, My dad said “well, i guess it’s too late to change our minds.” I started laughing so hard, and still crying, but laughing. I legitimately felt a lot better. I still cry over my dog, but that screwed up joke really did help me.
I think a modern view of war inserted onto medieval/fantasy is something that can be done well. When i watched the lord of the rings movies a while ago i felt it was so obvious that the books were written sometime after world war 1, although i already knew the books were old. Knowing they were written right inbetween the two wars informs SO MUCH about the attitudes towards war in the movies! If it were written before the wars, going to war would be portrayed more glamorously than dire. If it were written after the wars, they probably would have to deal with some weapon of mass destruction and maybe there wouldn’t even be a peaceful ending at all. The bittersweet “it’s peaceful now but the world will never go back to normal after the horrors it’s experienced” ending we got fits in perfectly with the time and i really loved watching the movies and thinking about them from that perspective.
Read the books and you get more of the mindset and attitudes of the day from the writer. It was also heavily influenced by his own countryside (the shire) being replaced by huge industrial factories.
Great video Shad. Regarding your point at 7:40, that's not unique to the medieval period. After WW1, many pilots came back and found themselves actually missing the war in a way because of the thrill and danger from flying the biplanes. In Canada, this was remedied by a lot of those pilots becoming bush pilots and delivering cargo to the Territories. But the rest of the world was still experimenting with the airship; seeing it as the future of air travel, up until the Hindenburg happened.
There's also documented cases of troops going back home and wanting to go back because they either miss their buddies they were serving with and/or they feel bad about leaving them behind to continue to fight while they're safe back home. This was the case of Marine Gunnery Sgt. John Basilone, he earned the Medal of Honor for his actions on Gudalcanal and because he had the Medal of Honor he was shipped back home to serve as a trainer for new Marines and go on a war bond tour. However, despite having fought in one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific to date he didn't want to be in the States, he wanted to go back to front lines because he felt bad about being State side while his fellow Marines were being killed or wounded in action. He eventually got his wish and was assigned to the 5th Marines and took part in the invasion of Iwo Jima where he was killed in action.
fiona fiona The Hindenburg was also painted in thermite. And, it is suspected that the whole affair might have been an act of sabotage, in order to incite a war with Germany.
I’m currently researching the medieval period with the intention of cutting through all the whimsy and chauvinism and fear so that I can start to understand it in the same terms that I understand the present (logistics, politics, the good/neutral side of human nature), but this video has reminded me that if you take the suffering and violence out of the medieval period you’ll be left with next to nothing. Medieval life was almost all suffering by today’s standards and offered people very little in regards to a purpose in life besides the survival of oneself and one’s family, community, or kingdom.
I saw this video while i was writing a story about my king character seizing a chain of castles in order to get the roads of merchants that they commonly use. So thank you a lot. Your videos always help me a lot for me to figure out better ways to write my stories :) i always enjoy watching and learn new things.
I don't worry either here in Poland, and we DO have winters here, with frost, snow and all. So, still valid I'd say. Edit: it seems now that we DID have winters 😒
Liked how shad wasnt afraid to recognize the common psychological differences between men and women. Its very important to recognize especially when talking about war.
Many differences between men and women -- especially the ones we care about today -- fall within a single deviation, much like differences between individuals in general. Let's say Sally is a bit worse than average at spacial reasoning. Is it just because she's a woman? A lot of factors matter. Sex is only one of them, and not necessarily the most important. Sally once bumped her head as a child. Sally is also prone to motion sickness. Sally prefers archaeology over baseball or vector calculus. And so on. Yes, sex plays a role. But how much credit should we give it? For most skills, we pay too much attention to it, and not enough attention on personal history and interest and whatnot. Those matter just as much.
@99legion I didn't say everyone was equal. I said people are different for a lot of reasons. Sex is just one of those reasons, and rarely the single most important one.
+J.J. Shank I presume you mean standard deviation. And if that were true it would.mean the difference is not atatistically significant, which is a blatant lie. Therfore you are using the standard deviation of something else.
Always love videos on historical cultural context. Helps illuminate texts and arts from those periods that give us more accurate glimpses into the minds and lives of those peoples. It's a familiar practice to me as a student of the Bible and history in general, but hearing more or less "context is king" ring out from your channel brings a smile to my face. Keep up the good scholarly work, Shad.
From the anime GATE, I always like the line from one of the modern day commanders talking to a medievil King: "Our country has fought for a very long time throughout history. We've gotten so good at war that we had to stop for fear of our own weapons and capabilities."
You said a great number of things that are not considered pc and for that, sir, you have gained much more of my respect. You were fair in your logic and you avoided many cliches and pitfalls through your careful use of language and logic. Great vid. Love the channel. Please keep doing what you are doing.
bingo, war is part of human nature and is a prime way to get some sense of meaning, very important for male pathos, the ascension from animalistic nature throught the establisment of boundaries.
That's what I love about the Orks of 40k, they fight simply for the sake of fighting. Nothing to do with morality or survival, simply war for the sake of war. Waaaaaaaagh!
I dunno' dawg, I dunno'... Seems to me that orcs enter armed conflict, because armed conflict serves as a primary source of entertainment. See the slight difference? So orcs do not wage wars for the sake of waging wars, rather; they wage wars because it equates to a lot of entertainment. Not being bored is the absolute goal, perpetual war just happens to be the most efficient path of achieving that state of mind.
@@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 Orcs, in tolkien or similar literature, function that way no doubt. Orks, however, in Warhammer 40,000 (and their age of sigmar counterparts, to a degree), live for war. They were CREATED for war. They grow, gather 'teef', fight, grow more, become proper orks, spend the teef on some weapons, go out to shoot, chop, and explode the shit out of whatever they find. That is their entire life cycle. It's not a mental thing, it's an instinctual thing. Because back when they were the living super weapons with super advanced technology, they only existed for war, so it became a part of them when they devolved into the orks we see now. TL;DR: Not orcs, orks. Orks form, grow, and then go to war, that's just how it is. Orcs are born and then go to war because they want to.
Oooor we can throw quote from Duty Calls: "War. War never changes. Or does it? The war has changed. Did it? The answer is "no". Unless it is "yes". No, of course! It is war."
I kind of find the Spartans funny because everyone thinks they were these heroic badasses and while they were indeed the best fighters in Greece and some of the best fighters the world has ever seen, for most of the Persian Wars the struggle was just for the Spartans to actually show up to the battle field.
+This Dude from what I can tell they were only really good at being foot soldiers in a fielded battle. they didn't have much of a cavalry presence (or any I can't quite remember), their navy was shit and tiny, and they were so bad at sieges they hired other Greek states to put down slave revolts whenever the slaves took a heavily fortified location.
i think a lot of it has to do with something thats still practiced today, humans in a group tend to have a lemming switch that can be manipulated to horrific ends even over the dumbest things, and some people will even use that to garner wealth, fame, or power and by dangling things like riches, a cause, social laddering, favor, or just straight up dehumanizing anybody outside the 'cult' you can get even the most pacifist person to act against all logic and reason often this event causes more of a backlash against the mob which leaves them even more easily manipulated the next time, and this escalation of aggression will be egged on and directed hopefully we figure out how to recognise this cycle of fruitless aggression so our passions can come through more often in measured words, not riots and yahoos comment section
A few corrections: Ring around the rosie isn't "A tissue, A tissue" it was "Ashes Ashes" and was a nursury rhyme about the black plague And Rock-a-by baby wasn't about death, but the eventual fall of the infertile King Henry.
@@jeffk464 well he did have multiple children with 3 of his wifes. 2 daughters and finally a son. Though the son (not counting the ones that were stillborn or died shortly after) died at 15 from a terminal disease.
Being American, you're of course wrong. "Ashes" and "ring around the rosie" are in the modern American version, and that's also NOT about the Black Death. Ring'a'roses appeared in the 18th century, long after the Black Death.
psammian Yes, the myth that it's about the Black Death is far too widespread. I guess it's one of those things that sound plausible, so you just repeat it without checking if it's true first.
Trying to find historical basis for how people actually felt in times long past is probably the part of history that I adore the most, I find it really frustrating when more modern ideas tend to replace the quite profound and interesting viewpoints that would make for great background in fantasy and medieval fiction. At the top of my list of annoying moral and political historical revisionism is: Marxist politics replacing the way that peasants and the nobility felt and acted around each other forcing all parties into the class struggle narrative. (help help I'm being repressed) Victorian morality replacing some of the more "crude" aspects of medieval life, which makes for some interesting wholesome chivalrous romanticism but when it is a realistic setting is rather jarring. Feminist views either outright replacing the actual dynamics between men and women with modern sensibilities or having medieval women as deeply oppressed and very concious of some lack of freedom that would be rather anachronistic in their time period. Whats worse is that this narrative often massively overshadows the important roles that women would have performed in the past. Religion is almost always poorly represented, whether thats the actual political dynamics between the church and other groups or the actual theology behind it. Evil corrupt priest from big church as a common trope is probably not really how things always played out, whether this is because of the french revolution or modern opinions on religion or the occasional anti-church riot/scandal that did happen I'm not sure. Slavery has been pretty much completely overwritten by modern views, occasionally you will see roman slavery being portrayed somewhat interestingly (Rome had the occasional interesting slave dynamic). This comes from primarily American sources for obvious reasons. But theres some interesting views on slavery from the time period that are never going to be demonstrated accurately in any modern fiction.
So how were those things actually seen? I'm pretty sure the catholic church has always been corrupt. However I could see the non-abrahamic religions like buddhism being more prone to 'keeping it real', so to speak.
Well there have been plenty of riots and scandals regarding the catholic church but I feel the problem is that something happens at a very specific time period at a very specific place and we have historical evidence of that but then people start to brush that conflict over larger spans of time and areas often anachronistically. For example chaucers friars tale tells the story of a corrupt summoner from the point of view of the friar in what will become the standard corrupt church official trope, but that shouldn't mean that was the norm or the view of the common peasant or the great political debate of the time that everyone knows about. The role of summoner is not unlike a sheriff who enforces crimes against the church, obviously many people would dislike them for the same reason people often dislike bailiffs or debt collectors or any other law enforcement. Many "godly" types would however see the summoner role as a noble and necessary one helping the community to be moral and not fall to witchcraft, usury, simony and are just generally trying to do their part for the church in dealing with malcontents and maintaing order. Point is relying on the tropes as the standard view of the church is probably going to be misguided, most people in the world are just doing their job as well as they reasonably can and leave the mustache twirling for others. The average farmer or townsman probably sees anyone in a ecclesiastical role as a positive, especially before many of the controversies started but also probably during and even after they would still have a fair amount of support among certain people.
i'm pretty sure that for the most part it wasn't, morals came from being religious most of the time as well as being educated, you should do some research on the subject.
Yeah, and a lot of the hate aimed at the medieval ages started in the renaissance with the glorification of ancient Rome and Greece, the placing of contemporary values on the past, and confining the middle ages to "that bad bit between to great eras" without understanding what caused it and allowed for the renaissance to even happen (e.g. climate change, black death, economic revival, etc.).
A very small correction, that doesn't take away from the VERY GOOD VIDEO. The medieval world was very Religious, War was considered immoral from a religious perspective, that is why kings and rulers saw it important to finance the building of churches and monasteries, as penance for their sinful wars. so it's not entirely true that war was not considered bad at all. part of the reason people bought Indulgences, was to atone for their participation in warfare. medieval secular morality was pretty much desensitized to war, but the Christian-bible and Christianity is and was pretty anti-war, and they had to find a workaround. I thought it was pertinent to point that out, you can't talk about the medieval era morality without mentioning God and the church. ...It's not right when an Atheist is telling a Christian that he isn't mentioning God enough.
@@andhikasoehalim3170 Yes. And your point is? It's the apocalypse. The horseman symbolizes that at the end of time, war will be breaking out all over the place, and it will be a terrible time. Non of the horsemen are seen as good things (excepting, perhaps, the white horseman who bring peace). The horsemen that follow are Famine and Death, respectively. Not good things at all...
I doubt Catholicism (or a certain other abrahamic religion for that matter) viewed war itself as sinful, rather than war between the faithful specifically. Similarly, it prohibited taking a fellow believer as a slave, but everyone else was fair game.
One of the main causes of debate in medieval law was the concept of just war vs unjust war, so there were very strong moral considerations when facing war in the medieval period, even if those morals don't match our modern sesibilities (for example holy war=just war)
The husband of my cousin is an Afghanistan veteran and at one point they were commissioned to protect a vehicle station or smt. Then taliban kid soldier attacked and they were forced to shot at them. He said, he just aimed in that direction, closed his eyes and shot until the mag was empty, he also didn’t want to know, if he hit something afterwards. Until this day he doesn’t know if he killed a child that day but nonetheless this still haunts him
The more I think about it the more I reflect on my own impulses and inclinations as well. It's interesting, when you are a fan of fantasy and the medieval period you find yourself thinking about(even daydreaming) what it would be like to go into battle or defend a castle. I agree that war is horrible, but some cases perfectly justifiable (likewise self-defense) as you pointed out Shad. Thank you for your insights! I am a proud student of Shadiversity!
The thing that's really telling about war is that for all of history, rulers just presented it as an inevitable fact of life we just had to live with. And then nukes got invented and the rulers were all like "Wait...the bombs can actually hit us now? .... ....blessed are the peacemakers!"
It's a pretty misguided sentiment. Most rulers in ancient and medieval times fought on the frontlines (like Timbo said) and they started to value peace in a big way after WW1 - before nukes were invented. British appeasement is a good example of that. I'd say that democracy was a much bigger contributor to more peaceful governments. That's because they started to care about voters and voters started caring about peace.
@Indigo Rodent The Nazis and their allies only started WW2 because of correct timing Had the conditions changed even by a tiny bit, WW2 might not have happen
I could imagine many people getting to the battlefield after getting their family's a bit of money for it, not really wanting to kill anyone, but being so afraid of being killed. Their commanders telling them that the other men across the field are set on killing them, when in reality they are probably the same on both sides
Well, I mean.. From our perspective of luxuries that we take for granted there was nothing to do, indeed. I'd say, like war, they had a different perspective on life in general. So eh.
@@silverjace1482, Again, for us it might be boring. But people do tend to get used to something when it there isn't anything to compare it to. Plus you can sing while working, you can dance during some holidays, all that. Wouldn't say that that's perfect, but still.
@@alastairbond7104 +polyhistor We shall go to war, swords in sheaths(or whatever one-handed weapon you choose and in whatever kind of holster it sits in), polearms (or poleaxes) in hands, and clothed in armor, all while rocking out to PowerWolf and Sabaton!
That’s why modern training uses human sillouette targets, in my unit we watched faces of death type videos (war themed) and clinically analyzed (classroom setting) the tactics used in the vid. Plus, we now have a volunteer force. All 3 BIG differences from WW2 to today. And it paid off. On one deployment, my unit had a couple hundred KIA and only 4 WIA, no KIA ourselves. It’s part of the chasm of disconnect between civilians and the military. 2 very different approaches to death.
Doesn't that kind of training cause more soldiers to have PTSD and more difficulty returning to civilian life? I remember watching a video from Lindibeirg about this Is that kind of training worth it even if it increases the chances of soldiers divorcing their spouses and becoming homeless?
@@blackskyirregular9876 Most humans in every period in history have never killed a person If most people are murderers then we wouldn't have survived past cavemen
Shad don't forget to be a little skeptical about the writings of medieval historians about the attitude or warfare. Stories of muddy misery and trauma don't' make for good writing, especially if the guy paying you to write is the victor of the war. Or some guy trying to hype people up to get into one. States and kingdoms love selling stories about the glory of battle to their would be cannon fodder.
“Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing, sooner than war.” - Homer.
(The Greek one.)
Aben Zin didn't know Homer Simpson was Greek.
Mmmmmm... war
"I ate the whole thing." -Homer
(The cartoon one)
@@kevinbeelard6442 ha ha
"I am Homer J."
(the cartoon one)
"Buy eggs for bart!"
(the cartoon wife)
"Frankly, I had enjoyed the War" - Adrian Carton de Wiart, British officer who lost an eye, ear and his left hand in the war.
Sounds about right
First or second WW?
DavGP1208 First
War lets you get to do a lot of things never possible in "society".
It is the most extreme version of utilising instincts ever really. It's a part of our DNA to enjoy killing. It's what keeps us alive. Theres really no wonder it's so enjoyable.
"fun especially when winning." Yeah I imagine thats key, getting sword jabbed into your gut probably isn't fun.
You weren't using that kidney any way.
ah, I don't know, many fatalists glorified fighting wounded & if it didn't down a person they may never really feel the wound through the adrenaline before they die on their feet, oc the majority would go down screaming, but the fighting dead are a case that crops up throughout history
Broadbull, Enabler of Uncounted Combos duelling in the 18-19th century (especially in European nations like Germany) was seen like a Nobel sport and young teens would scar there cheek to look like they were experienced in combat
Jeff K You'll never know if you don't try it for yourself
Don't kink shame me.
Ah, the medieval lightsaber. A fine weapon for a more... civilized age...
You fought in the clone wars?
You need a lot of 'force' to use it with style.
@@lukeskywalker8543 You get a like just for saying this with "Luke Skywalker" as your username.
It was the weapon from a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
*surprise attack shot*
*still misses*
5:20-5:44
*Listens to Shad talking about being able to go berserk*
*Looks at Shad's collection of weapons*
*sweats nervously*
He loves this comment :D
I made a similar comment just now. I thought I was being original.
Chris B
Don't worry. It tends to happen with this many comments
Too bad most of those weapons are just props. Shad, you need a real sword.
@@kangirigungi "Call that a sword? This is a sword"- Crocadile Shadiversity
As historically inaccurate as the show was was, the scene in Vikings where the Christian monk witnesses for the first time a human sacrifice and tries to look away and the little boy chastised him with "What are you wincing at? It's just death" was a particularly powerful scene.
Am i late
@@prosirmation352no
“It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it.” General, Robert E Lee, 1862
The American civil war was the first modern mass war, and a prelude to what World War I was going to be. War was pretty bad in the middle ages too it just wasn't THAT horrible and inhuman.
@@sophiaperennis2360 lemme tell you of inhumane:
C R U S A D E ( I personaly like the third one)
@@patrykkotkowski8781 yeah 3 was the last good one. the plot twist in 4 where they sacked the guys who stood as bulwark against Muslim invasion for hundreds of years for short sighted political gain and royally screwed themselves long term was contrived as hell.
@@patrykkotkowski8781 I don't know about the Crusades. Yeah after the third one the whole thing became a farce, but we need to see them in the context of the times. War in those days was seen as something spiritual almost, dying in battle was not seen as a negative. In that respect, i think the Crusades were more pagan than Christian, or at least they seemed to channel a Nordic tradition through a Christian prism more than the reverse. Think of Jerusalem as Valhalla and the whole phenomena starts to make more sense. The Christians of the east never engaged in crusades, in fact they were at the receiving end of one and couldn't understand why the Christians of the west were enraptured by those wars. And the Crusaders were taken by a battle ethos that took the Greeks by surprise. I remember reading one commentator on the sack of Constantinople who was present during that raid lamenting the destruction of several Greek statues, including one of Hercules, and he wondered why a people who cherished physical prowess above anything else would destroy such a magnificent symbol of the very thing they professed to love. That really said a lot about the character of the Crusaders.
@@sophiaperennis2360 wow you had put a lot of work into this comment and i a,gree(k) with you
Hehe get it a,gree(k)
When I was younger, for years I wanted to join the US military. Then one day I woke up and realized I'm lazy and don't like being yelled at.
That's why you go in as an officer.
@@iamchillydogg That takes people skills.
I mean if you're smart enough you can get a technical role you know like nuclear engineer
@@ant-i6g yeah, but by the time I got to where I am, I'm more interested in a medical laboratory setting.
@@iamchillydogg they still get yelled at in OCS, or in military academies...
I’d love war too if I had no electricity
Good one lol !
Bwaaaaa!
Watching them fight in the top of a mountain eating popcorn
Not electricity, gunpowder.
If you never had electricity how would you know you missed it?
Shad: Points out wall of medival weapons
Also Shad: Has a lightsaber on said wall
That's Anakin's, right?
playbutton
A more elegant weapon for a more civilized time.
ITS A WEAPON I SWEAR!
While not medieval, it is an ancient weapon. Or maybe it is. All we know is that it's from a long long time ago.
For a medieval grunt, war was a chance to get rich from loot. I would imagine they did look forward to it....a certain extent anyways.
well... Looting and Raping defeated enemies has been done for thousands of years. When men didn't get their adrenaline fix, they lost majority of the rewards of fighting.
Looting wasn't as prevalent as you might think, or atleast not on the scale you might be thinking of. Usually they'd just take a few objects they found nice, like ornate crucifixes, amulets, jewelry, etc... How do you expect a footman to carry a chest of gold throughout a campaign?
@@joew.3354 The key is adrenaline fix. While the looting will be obviously limited to their carrying capacity, it was the chance to rape and brutalize the population that caused the soldiers to carve that.
@Austin Downing I mean it might not be the main reason but you take your side perks where you can get them.
I dont think that looting has nothing to do with modern warfare.
In the middle ages, it was rare for there to be a "total war", that is a war where the entire nation is directly involved and no one is spared. The concept of fighting to achieve the complete destruction, or at least the complete destruction of its economy and the psyche of its people, was probably not that common in the middle ages. I'd hazard a guess such a thing would've been seen as wasteful if not outright evil.
This might be another reason medieval era people were more comfortable with war in general. Even a lost war didn't usually imply total annihilation of your way of life. You might be serving a new king if your side lost, but as has been said, most peasants didn't care who the king was, they were worried about getting their crops planted and harvested.
They just need a king who doesn't overtax them and can properly protect them from enemy armies looking to plunder
Total War? No, but there was a lot of raiding and pillaging that to the average peasant was the total destruction of their lives.
Well there was a sort of "gentleman's agreement" when it came to war among Christian nations. It's when it came to fighting those dirty heathens that shit got real.
@@ninjafruitchilled you mean they were using Catholic Theology of "just war".
I rather dislike when Medieval History is super divorced from it's Catholic History...hmmm.
It would make sense that fighting "heathens" or pagans would be different if the goal was yes, ultimately to convert them (which does come with some sort of dominantion).
@@thekingslady1 well, it was more complicated than just conversion. Nobody would have gone to fight in the Holy Land just to convert the heathens. Originally the first crusade was largely about freeing the Christians there from Muslim oppression (they had been the main group since the Romans had utterly wiped out all the ancient Hebrews that hadn't converted already and thus stayed out of the war back in A.D. 70).
Of course, all of that history is very glossed over if taught at all these days, for mostly fairly obvious reasons.
My grand-grandpa (borm around 1880, as a Belarussian cossack he wasn't sure of the date himself, nor did he care, because "even pigs have birthdays") used to say: "We live in barbaric, uncivilised times, because a man with a horse and a sabre cannot support a family with just those two".
jeremiaas15 your great grandpa was cooler speaking that sentence than I ever will be in my entire life
I agree with Chris Leonard here, that’s a badass way to look at life
Well, he was a Cossack.
God bless the Cossacks.
I have a feeling that he would enjoy a war. I bet modern day cossacks would also appreciate it more than the weakminded westerners.
Ah, the lightsaber, my favorite medeival weapon
Took me a second
Ah yes, the fabled lightsaber.
Worn by Lord Memesworth the Dank of house Kekington, during the battle of the Dab, ca 1337.
What an iconic weapon indeed!
@@edgeofthedanklord2263 I believe you mean ca 1738
Right up there with kratos' war axe lol
Edge of the Danklord
Circa 420 CE
Common reason for war during the medieval era:
"My uncle owned these lands, and he promised me ownership of his lands."
"Your uncle was my cousin, and he promised me ownership of his lands."
"Well I declare war."
"My army is bigger"
"My army has bows and arrows."
"Well my army has God on their side."
"Nah uh, we have God on our side."
"Well let God decide then. God wills it!
"God wills it!"
lol nice one
Alejandro Molina deus vult
Meanwhile peasants "under new management": same old, same old....
HALLELUJAH!
Deus vult my brother
Actually there's a second verse to Jack and Jill that often gets forgotten: "Up Jack got, and home did trot, as fast as he could caper. He went to bed and wrapped his head in vinegar and brown paper." It's a headache remedy. The vinegar evaporates off the paper and helps cool your head. Today we use ice for a similar but stronger effect. That just wasn't always available in the past.
Alcohol would do the job too, but you were more likely to have vinegar to spare than alcohol, especially since you often get vinegar when you screw up making alcohol.
@@Great_Olaf5 Yeah, that's probably true. I've also heard that water could be used in a pinch but the evaporation effect was not as strong.
Wait... so did Jack just leave his sister behind?
@@JarieSuicune she didn't break his crown.
I thought of that as well.
Shad, I can tell you from my perspective as a war veteran myself people have not changed at all since the Medieval period. People are still fascinated by the idea of war. I promise you that everyone watching this video has payed to go see a war movie at some point in their life and if "peaceful" civilians find war compelling I guarantee a soldier does too. It becomes more complicated as we look into the reasons why we go to war in the first place and why veterans love and hate war.
Look at the so-called civilized world, for instance. People are so far removed from war that they are also removed from the reality of it. Think of a historical parallel like the Germanic Wars or the Hundred Years War. Someone living in the heart of Rome or York would be safe as opposed to living in the Rheinn or Normandy where the thick of the fighting is. The people at home are not exposed to it and then it becomes a way to break their monotonous lives.
Then there are the people who actually have experienced war then it becomes a love-hate relationship. The excitement of overcoming adversity, sharing hardships, unconditional love for your brothers in arms, loss, death, deception, animosity towards fellow human beings - nothing has changed as far as people go.
In fact, I think the only thing that has changed is the destructive magnitude of war and the physiological effects due to *how* war is waged. I think soldiers back in those days rarely had "battle fatigue" because engagements were short and time to "come down" was more prevalent. It was a way to allow the mind to decompress and regain composure. World War 1 changed all of that with battles lasting for *months* for the first time in history, the Battle of Verdun for example lasted almost an entire *year* and was the most costly battle in human history. The mind can only handle being put under so much stress until constantly being in fight or flight mode begins to take its toll. I could go on for hours but that's my two cents on it. Take it for what it's worth.
As always, great vid!
Another reason that medieval war seems more ''compelling'' than modern war imo, is that back then your chances of survival depended much more on your own skill in combat.
Obviously you need skill in modern warfare too, but all the skill in the world won't help you if the enemy drops a bomb on you that eradicates all life within a 10 mile radius. You just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and because of that you get fucked, no matter how well you can aim a gun or how much pain you can endure.
Then again, i might be wrong because im just a lowly neckbeard with an underpayed job that has only ever been in one true fist fight in his entire life, but that is the difference i see in medieval and modern warfare.
Da1337Man I would concur but I think it's not that skills for war decreased. The skill requirement becomes more technical. Engineers, Mechanics, and such become more important in Modern Warfare. I'm open to arguments though.
You also have to factor in today's total lack of killing in every day life. Even 90 years ago, MANY people dealt with death on a daily basis in the form of cooking a meal. When your wife is hacking off chicken heads of living chickens that she caught in the yard, death isnt quite the shock that it is to a person who doesnt think about how a McNugget gets made.
The lack of hospitals (relative to population) meant that there was a good chance a home had someone die in it in the past.
Death wasnt a just psycholohical concept to deal with back then. It was a direct and visceral part of almost every person's life.
@@Da1337Man You arent wrong, but you arent getting the full impact of what that means. The disconnect between death-dealer and the dead makes things both less important and more important, psychologically. Getting blown up by a bomb is not different than getting an arrow through the eye. The difference is that a soldier who isnt blown up by a bombing run doesnt really understand the luck aspect of war that a guy charging a line of archers would.
I guess the real experience would be either seeing people around you drop while you carry on, or not seeing it. A bomb doesnt offer a ton of vantage points that are both within the blast radius and safe enough for there to be survivors to witness it. The balls that medieval warriora must have had... it blows my fucking mind. Not that current soldiers dont have balls, because ANY soldier has balls that drag rhe ground in my opinion, but you watch a movie like Braveheart, and you know that Mel Gibson isnt going to catch a stray arrow to the face, a backswing from a friendly fighter, or an axe in the back from the three guys who teamed up on him. Everyone else... they are essentially in the middle of a meat grinder. Making it out unscathed is almost divine intervention in that scenario, and it just takes two enemy soldiers to orient on you at the same time to end your life.
You start to see why the great commanders in history were revered by their troops in an almost godly way.
@@CNNBlackmailSupport Yeah people really don't understand how meat is acquired. I've heard of people calling the cops because there neighbor was about to kill his chicken for dinner. XD
“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.”
― Robert E. Lee
Once more proving that the American Civil War had a very similar cultural impact on the USA as The Great War had on Europe.
Sad that we don’t think of war in a different Light. We are also so divided in this nation that why would anyone want to go to war to protect each other.
I think it’s not particularly fair for Robert e Lee to be saying that, as he was a literal cavalry tactician! He relied on war! For a group of people who committed some of the worst atrocities in human history(most slaves in history were prisoners of war, and well this is still extraordinarily awful and evil, I think it’s even worse to just invade another group of people specifically to take their innocents as slaves)!
@@anonymousthesneaky220 Yeah it's funny to see a guy who was on the side that started the war justifying it being a horrific war lol.
@@anonymousthesneaky220 but…he’s still right here
For some reason when Shad was talking about how'd he would go berserk... I imagined him shouting "machicolations!" before summoning one and slamming the attacker with it. Regardless a really interesting video and I can't wait to see more of your awesome videos.
I imagine it sounding something like this... ua-cam.com/video/pu3O70GeQFY/v-deo.htmlm31s
But what about dragons?
Then he summons a dragon that breathes fire on the attacker afterward by shouting that... how far can we make this go?
Im sure one of shads ancestors was an archer from a castle wall and couldn't wait to throw rocks or shoot through machicolations while releasing this battle cry
You couldn't really summon machicolations and crush someone with them as they are the holes under battlements that defenders shoot or drop things through. Maybe he could summon a merlon and crush someone with that though.
In the grim darkness of the distant past, there is only war
nice one
One more reason they liked war back then more than we do now is that the level of carnage in a war back then was nowhere near as extreme as the level of carnage we see in modern wars. Most armies would route or retreat after suffering casualties of between 5 to 10% of their force. Partially because the army would become intimidated at that point, and partially because a good strategist knew that sacrificing more soldiers to a battle where you've already lost that many would be foolish.
Smash cut to Doug Haig who thought winning by attrition was good strategy.
This reminds me of an article I read about casualties and melee fighting in Ancient times, and how it wasn't as depicted on TV/film, where the armies charge into each other and fight to the death. Rather it was very cautious, with a charge ending rather quickly in a step backward.
This was all because people naturally don't like to get hurt, die, or see others die - so a massive charge into a pike wall would generally only last a moment before the attacking force pulls back to reduce casualties. There would then be a longer period of skirmishing and shouting, followed by another short melee. Basically, combat was very much a stop and start affair, just because of the nature of people not being mindless killing machines. Interesting article.
I think reading "The Greatest Knight" by Thomas Asbridge would throw that comment for a loop. Generally, at least during the period after the Battle of Hastings in 1066, military campaigns were waged by burning villages - the idea was to deny an enemy lord of resources that villages produced. Besides, at that point, arms and armor technology were at a point where it was actually reasonably difficult to kill a properly equipped enemy soldier - the best you could do is hope to ransom them back to their lord to turn a quick bag o' gold. Burning villages was something honed to a science because it was an effective way to fight other lords, particularly by Richard the Lionheart, who by the preserved accounts, became _quite_ proficient at it.
To be honest, casualties in modern warfare are still about the same as throughout the rest of history. If anything they're actually lower because of better medical technology and the fact that 90% of shots fired are for suppression. Artillery, air strikes, etc. make up most kills these days.
Battles like Cannae were exceptional for that reason where 90% of the Roman army was exterminated in that fight and both consuls were driven off or killed.
And remember, in modern wars too, this applies. The German army seemed to have taken relatively few casualties in Barbarossa, but only when you look at the crack shots and everyone else in the baggage train like engineers, horse tenderers and cooks, it was the strongest soldiers who were sapped by the time they were at the gates of Moscow.
"stop imposing your own views and moralities on the past" - needs to be a t-shirt.
Honestly it's one of my biggest problems with a lot of media. Unless it's an evil overlord they are fighting, every person who Finds war exciting is treated as a bit of a looney
No. I think it's important and useful to look at the past like that sometimes.
Caboose 92m it is important to "look" at it through the framework of modern morality and ethics to see what sort of values people had in the past and how we have evolved (or degraded) in comparison, one must distinguish "looking" and "imposing".
Have you seen Lindybeige video on the subject of how surprisingly hard it is to train someone so they'll kill? It’s pretty interesting. ua-cam.com/video/zViyZGmBhvs/v-deo.html
Some things in the past are morally wrong today but back then they weren't. It's okay to accept them as wrong things while also not blaming the people for doing what everyone else was doing at the time.
i love how your wall is covered with historically accurate weapons.... and then there's a lightsaber
Lightsabers are totally historical!!! Legends tell us that they were in common use "A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away"
Hahaha yes I saw it too.
An elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
Did you notice the big fuckin axe?
A civilized weapon for a more civilized time.
When Shad talks about going to war I just picture him with his sword & cape surrounded by fully armed marines.
I imagine him being another mad jack Churchill.
War. War never changes... Wait, they guns now?
And isn't it mostly bombs now
Still the same: the young die and suffers for stupid reasons and a small minority profits...
Congratulations on completely missing the point of the saying.
Fallout 1 is the only game where the speech makes sense and is explained.
The methods and the reasons change, but at the end of the day war is people killing other people.
I love the random lightsaber among the swords and shields
Same, just recognized it
Some medieval knights used light sabers and blasters.
There's jedi knights
War is great for social mobility!
A commoner could work his way to knighthood through warfare, his chances weren´t great, but still, he had them!
Also, war is the catalyst of invention. Remember how much weaponry, armoury, tactics, politics, vehicle industry, aviation, medicine, science overall etc developed due to war by either having a positive or negative impact. War is part of human nature like eating or sleeping and only by war we managed to get where we are now. Even the internet was supposed to be a military tool at first.
Marshal Boucicaut managed it.
The thing about invention in war is that you can't really opt out. Most other avenues for innovation on the other hand had to deal with guilds, the church and other hurdles first.
Yeah but war today is very different
Sorry, but no. The more warlike a society, the lower the social mobility. That's a strong and persistent correlation across history to this day.
Also, the reason war seems to drive technological progress is mainly because it motivates rulers to devote resources to it. There's no need for war if you have another motivator to prioritize it.
Btw, war cost us Archimedes while he was developing calculous (a fundamental tool for science). We could have had calculous before 200 BC if not for some soldiers killing him. That _one_ mistake in _one_ conflict set science back at _least_ 1500 years and we almost never new because some monks cleaned the pages of the book so they could have another prayer book. What other innovations did we loose without ever even knowing?
It may at times be the lesser of 2 evils but it is a blight on humanity.
Shad really has like, a nuanced view in a lot of things. I really admire that.
4:40.
Dark humor is like food, not everyone gets it.
🤣😂🤣😂
...
🤔🤔🤔
...
😐🙁😥
Took me a second longer then I'd like to admit
Dude, you just won the internet for the day.
Darkhumorception
Preston Jones especially communists
They had no UA-cam with shadiversity so they were really really bored
+Templar
I see you everywhere..dat Winged Black Gothic armor only belongs to one..
@@lopp5260 I am everywhere
Shad Fact: Part of Shad's daily fitness routine is bench pressing cars. This is apparently his "Warm Up"
Shad's*
But what about bench pressing DRAGONS !?!?!?!?
@@didacus199 That is still part of the warm-up.
Do you think the person behind Shad facts is Shad himself?
Wtf 😂😂
I love what you said near the end: it's all too easy to forget that different people from different times viewed the world differently. I wish there were a "history of thought" course in colleges; History of Philosophy is about the closest it comes, but that just talks about what different specific philosophers wrote and not about the views people in general had.
It's hard to know what people thought because most written records are from and about the rich.
@@CarrotConsumer Weird, I thought that I heard once that, in medieval times, at least one person in every household could read and write in English...
@@longWriter not sure that's true, but even if it was, nobody kept the diaries of some random commoners safe for the hundreds of years required for them to survive to the modern day.
@@longWriter Shad did a video that went over literacy. However, while many/most could at least read, and presumably write, those records would have to survive the centuries following for us to read them. And that is something that was (I assume) less likely to happen in regards to the records made by less-right peoples.
@@JarieSuicune Well, it's not just *that*. Knowing how people thought four or five, or sometimes even two or three generations ago can sometimes be difficult.
Idea for follow up video. Real warfare is rarely about just killing your enemies. Most combat is about making the enemy route controling the field. As others have pointed out battles have been won only inflicting about 5-10% casualties but breaking the enemies morale and forcing them off the field. In modern warfare skirmishes can often be ended without either side suffering losses. Simply showing concentrated fire and overwhelming firepower, e.g. air support can be enough to make the enemy give up and flee.
One of the best examples of this is the Zulu. Pre-colonisation/invasion, Zulu warfare consisted of a couple of lines of people chucking spears at each other from mostly outside the range at which they're at great risk, with huge stonking shields to cover themselves from the spears that *did* make the distance. This is attributed to there being relatively few people for the amount of land they controlled, and so it was better all-round to lose a bit of land than lose a few people.
Once cattle and staple crops were introduced to the area, the population exploded and people like Shaka Zulu (whose name btw means 'intestinal beetle heaven' more or less) came up with the idea of using short stabby spears that were much better at murdering people, because they needed more land to sustain the larger population and lives became less valuable as a result.
A truly crucial component of minimal casualties is good leadership. The ability to maneuver the enemy off the field one way or another, preferably with less head bashing and more intimidation (as you indicate). In fact Sun Tzu stated at one point that the best of generals could win a war without a single battle, Pure maneuver (specifically, without direct offensive military action is implied by Sun Tzu) and (I would imagine/In my humble opinion) overwhelming intimidation:)
@@bjmaguire6269 man you didn't understand what sun tzu said: what it means is to what you want without fighting like in a diplomatica way like prussia united the german states without conquering them
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 Political maneuver is still maneuver, though you are quite correct. I should have been clearer, sorry for that, and thank you for your comment and the opportunity to better express myself.
The problem with World War One isn't that it was a war, the problem was the scale of it and the inability of states to effectively communicate. Both sides lost track of their objectives and became absolutely irrational about the combat itself. The same is the case for World War Two, because both sides were obsessed with the idea of gaining a total and absolute victory. Even in the Hundred Years War neither the English nor the French were attempting to conquer the entire enemy country. The French wanted the English off the continent, the English wanted to stay on the continent. Simple and clear goals. Upon success or failure, the war ends. That isn't the case in modern war and it's why absurd shit like firebombing cities is considered to be a part of modern war.
you are missing a more important aspect of WW1. it was the first war that was won by the power of economy.
previously a small force of well trained, disciplined, and brave soldiers who are commanded by a smart tactician and strategists could win a war against a larger force.
in ww1 the soldiers were nothing more than cannon fodder, Germany lost because they ran out of food, metal, and oil, resources and the strength of the economy is what determines victory in modern war.
Laurie Any Sources?
At least in Au-Hungary people thought that it going to be short and easy. The recruitment posters promised an end before the snow fell in Serbia and a swift victory(while not taking into account the "new" russian railways).
Young men were desperately trying to get accepted into the army(patriotic upbringing, someone who hadn't been a soldier wasn't as atractive for women...). Rejects were devastated, feared going home out of shame...
*Gad:* That's not entirely true. Yes it was an economic victory, but that's been British military strategy for decades. Still is in fact. The difference is that in World War One the way the war was won is different because both sides went way beyond their capacity to actually gain anything from the war. Both the German and British Empires were totally destroyed by the war and that's not something you really see in any earlier conflicts except for those that end in either mass slavery or in effective genocide.
To explain: Between about the Napoleonic Era and the First World War the way Britain would win conflicts was to destroy the ability of the enemy nation to make profit and by severely damage their economy. This meant the British Army rarely had to take the field because upon receiving sanctions and blockades, most nations would simply give in and at most might fight a few naval engagements. This was done by keeping the stake for losing relatively low and the benefits for surrendering much higher. The same cannot be said for WW1 and it was not a problem limited to the British. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Germany and Russia is completely absurd and the Treaties of Versailles and Trianon are equally beyond the pale.
*Tom:* Sources for what exactly? If you're asking specifically about peace treaties, that's a huge topic. If you're asking specifically about blank cheque peace deals, or treaties of absolute surrender, those start with the US Civil War and continue from thereabouts.
People were told that everywhere. "Home before Christmas" was on pretty much every recruitment poster in 1914, either that or a pointing man with a large moustache with some variation of "Serve the Motherland/Fatherland" on it. The problem isn't the naive aspect. It's that when the war bogged down into the trenches and casualties began to rack up the nations just dug their feet in and refused to go to the negotiating table. Everyone was obsessed with getting a clear victory in the field and instead of scaling down the operations to save on finances every single nation went into full mobilisation and it broke the back of every European country involved.
Regarding medieval fantasy, while having this mindset would be good for mortal races, someone like the immortal elves would probably have a mindset more similar to our modern view. Or even possibly some longer lived races, like dwarves who can live for hundreds of years.
"Look at those ants, killing and slaving each other for resources, while they live only for mere months!"
What? No, I'm not doing an elf impression, I'm doing a David Attenborough impression.
Very true, if I had a long life that could be cut short by violence, avoiding violence, or ending violence decisively in my favor by every possible trick or cheat possible, would be very high on my priority list.
That sounds very much like "Come invade me, I won't fight back".
@@ArifRWinandar "Look at them, fighting like ants. Oblivious, to the fate awaiting them. In time they willl annihilate each other." -Kane from Command and Conquer Tiberium Wars
Kane is not an elf, but he has died twice and is said to be immortal
Andhika Soehalim Vertigo bomber, standing by!
PS: Kane never died! That's just GDI propaganda!
Coulda said
"A switch goes off in my brain and I go from Shadiversity to Chadiversity."
What hasn't changed and is still a major factor when it comes to war are values and ideologies. Let's not forget that war is always an us vs. them thing and in order to mobilize the populace back then and still today you had to/have to paint an ideological picture that was/is easily understood by the commoners/public.
Medieval (at least early medieval) nobility thought of war as sport in many circumstances... For nobles, capture was more likely than death.
And going to flat grassy plains of central asia is even worse for them
Eh... Kinda... I mean, during a battle, intentionally capturing people is difficult at best, and while there were certainly plenty of cases where nobility were easily identified, you aren't going to go out of your way to not kill them, since disabling an opponent is orders of magnitude more difficult than killing them, and leaving them unhindered is not going to help your chances of surviving the battle. Even if you did try to avoid killing them, accidents happen, the attempt isn't going to work. In the case of a surrender or other defeat, the nobility were certainly higher on the priority list for captivity and being held for ransom, but, even with that taken into account, in most cases they weren't going to just mass slaughter the peasants in the defeated army either, and holding that many prisoners would be impractical, so in many cases, the majority of the defeated army would be released after a few days and some negotiations with the other side (unless total victory in the war had been achieved).
@@Great_Olaf5 Well, since most nobility had really good armor, they were also much less likely to be killed. Add to that that they usually were mounted and not forced to go in the first line and wave and you come up with a much lower mortality rate indeed.
But ofc the chance to be killed is still very much there.
There was still a lot of risk of death. They just had different mindsets back then.
@@Great_Olaf5 It's hard to take him prisoner *unharmed*
It's actually much easier to wound than kill. Generally an army has 2-3 times as many wounded as dead when you look at details of casualties
“My wife and children.”
Oh good god he has children. Too many sharp objects. TOO. MANY. SHARP. OBJECTS.
I imagine he doesn't keep his weapons just laying around where the kids can get to them
Lol
@@exantiuse497 I imagine the average parent of young children these days has no idea how that works.
@Jean Sanchez No, people being idiots should be exposed. Morons need to learn, and the only way is to tell them they are morons. We need people who are less intelligent than the norm to realize that they need to actually think about their actions.
@Jean Sanchez People are human, yes. But making mistakes is one thing, and making them all the time is another thing. People need to be called out and shamed, I am not asking for anything more extreme than that. Just yell at them, tell them they need to square up, because their parents didn't, and without a push, they'll always be stupid. Stupid people are a danger to everyone around them, especially when they think they are smart. If someone is being arrogant AND is wrong, they should be shamed, so that they learn not to do that in the future. It's just how the human mind works.
Year: 1307
What kind of extreme sports are you into?
I'm a soldier
Nice dude *high five*
gunga ginga
They also were very religious, thus they were less afraid of death as they believed they would go to heaven after they died!
Plus it was often viewed as glorious to die in combat. That kind of exists today, but nowhere near as widespread
The other day I learned in a uni lecture that something the Church actively encouraged in the early modern period (and so most likely in the middle ages as well) was that death was something not to be feared. What was to be feared was a death after living a sinful life, or not dying well, alone and/or without dignity.
You see similar things in the world today. One of the reasons Islamic terrorists kill themselves in explosions is because they are convinced that to die in service to their faith is to be rewarded in the afterlife. I imagine there'd be a similar dynamic with soldiers in the middle ages being less afraid to die than the average person today.
Phoenix Tracer Well i think anyone who actualy is a frontline soldier today is like that. You wont be good at your job otherwise. I know many and am myself that sort of individual. To me dying gloriously for a cause fighting is a dream come true. Dying in a bed is a nightmare i fear. People who have fought in war when they go home nowadays become very depressed and constantly long for battle because there exists are brotherhood and scence of safety belive it or not that does not exist at home. Everyday there has a powerful purpose. You train constantly which give a sort of inner peace and you have people 24-7 watching your back with guns and you theirs. And then when you finaly get to fight its like a full body orgasm that lasts for hours where you feel an amazing rush of energy and creativity. All your sences are enhanced. Your smell! your eyesight! everything! It feels like time passes slower and a scence of merging into your enviroment as if nature itself is fighting with you.
"something the Church actively encouraged in the early modern period (and so most likely in the middle ages as well) was that death was something not to be feared". And we still do ;)
Just because something happened in on period of history, it doesn’t follow that it happened in all earlier periods of history. For example in the early modern period you also had the freak out over witches as science became more prevalent and people were trying to work out what was science, what was magic and what was faith. Prior to the late 16th century people still believed in all those things but no one worried about them being separate entities. It was just life and no one really took much against magic. I do my know for sure whether the attitude you state wasn’t a medieval one as well, but the Christian world in the early modern period was split and was VERY different from the pre reformation world, so i’d Be extremely hesitant to make the assertion that it happened in the early modern period so probably did before too!
I can certainly attest from experience as a former soldier, in the heat of war, you're not seeing the enemy as a person. You're seeing them as something trying to kill you. And it often isn't until afterwards, after you're away from that theater that you start thinking of the other side, you start thinking of them as humans, regardless of how evil their actions have been. It can be a crushing amount of mental weight.
This is actually part of the training, these days, as I'm sure you've experienced.
The studies about war fighters not aiming at the enemy, just in their general direction, spurred militaries to introduce training to mitigate that. Most of it is about creating automatic responses to certain stimuli, but there were also things to help dehumanize the enemy; for example, shooting targets were changed from regular bull's eyes to human silhouettes.
It has been incredibly successful, but is also thought to be a major contributor to PTSD.
ssholum, I am going to need a citation on that PTSD statement.
We have no evidence to suggest it is because of more training to kill in that way that caused it. War itself could have caused it. If people in the 900s saw and witnessed people going into a field and just being cut down in the thousands with limbs, heads and body parts hacked off, getting pierced with spears - with their own friends they just ate a meal with yesterday and loved, being dead right next to them? Yeah - I would imagine such symptoms as PTSD very much could be a part of that. Another question is, how much things like the warrior culture in those times may or may not have mitigated that, and if it would help people with it today (as they might see what they seen with a rather different lens from the start).
War has gotten a lot better, but a lot more terrible all at the same time.
The Doom From Latveria
Unfortunately, I don't have a citation; to rephrase more accurately: it's a hypothesis that I heard multiple times in sources regarding that change in military training. It'd be very difficult to research actual numbers, because in the times around the World Wars, that psychology was very poorly recognized (IIRC, it wasn't until around Vietnam that PTSD became recognized as an illness with understood characteristics, and that's after the introduction of this training); I might get around to seeing if someone has tried to study this though.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least though, as training someone to kill when they wouldn't have otherwise would put a huge internal stress on them, after the fact, if they had to kill someone.
to be honest I think everyone had some level of PTSD on medieval times...
>furry
Opinion discarded
" a tissue, a tissue, we all fall down" huh where I grew up it was allot darker, "ashes, ashes, we all fall down dead"
Yeah, I never heard 'a tissue' used there. For me it was 'ashes, ashes they all fall down', or 'ashes, ashes they all fall dead'… that last one was used far more rarely.
Heather Campbell
Maybe it’s an Australian thing?
I think the tissue reference is from the European bubonic plague, where sneezing was a symptom
@@DirtyDohnut Ashes is still a reference to the Plague, it was about the bodies being cremated to try and prevent the spread of it.
@@PunkZombie1300 Ring around the Rosey,
Prayers with a Rosey necklace.
Pockets full of Posey
Don't know, think it means flowers in a funeral.
Ashes, ashes we all fall down,
Cremation like you said.
Came for medieval weaponry, left with deep thoughts on philosophy and the human condition. Shadiversity is the channel that keeps on giving.
2:26 _"when WW-I broke out everyone cheered, when WW-II broke out, everyone cried"_
One guy who didn't cheer in 1914 : Pope St Pius X, who died of broken heart after not stopping WW-I.
Hans-Georg Lundahl when ww2 ended everyone celebrated. Except Mad Jack
@@Rekkenze I wasn't talking about ending, it's usual to celebrate when wars end, especially victors, but if conditions aren't too harsh those beaten as well.
I was talking of who was celebrating at beginning of wars. And actually quoting the video.
@@hglundahl c
Lol, one person tho
@@thecowboymartyr9353 Add lots of Catholic clergy loyal to him.
You do see a desinevitation to violence in the modern period, although considerably more rare compared to previous points in our history. Many of the most famous snipers in modern warfare actually grew up in a more rural environment where death was more common, though less from seeing people get killed and more through animals dying around them through farm use or hunting. In fact many snipers like Simo Haya (I probably butchered the spelling there) and Vasily Saitzev grew up hunting out of the need to survive and therefore likely saw death as an occasional necessity, which could be very comparable to the mentality of the medieval period
I'd imagine hunting is a good way to practice your aim too.
Cliff Clark well considering the former managed to rake up 500 confirmed kills id say he got plenty of practice
Imagine dueling would still be a thing in the modern world. people wouldnt talk so much sh*t on the internet anymore.
@Casey C same. But Im still convinced that the internet made us all more rude and triggered easier.
@Commie whacker uuungaaa you call me meat head? Unga bunga I beat you now! You say earth round my fist say you wrong!
They would talk even more shit since they can't do it in public anymore and the internet grants easy anonymity.
Of course they would, they’d still just hide behind a keyboard and distance.
Everyone in this thread is an unga bunga meathead who'd lose to a toddler in a battle of wits and will resort to baseball bats to kneecaps just to remain a "winner"
This is a complex one, but I think you nailed it. I don't think people in the past were necessarily just brutish and violent - warfare in the medieval period was much different than today. Wars were fought on a much smaller scale, largely by the elite, with much smaller stakes. And people did recognize the horror of war when the violence escalated beyond the normal. Contemporary writers talk about the brutality and horror of the first Mongol invasion of Hungary, for example.
Exactly this. Batlles was generaly smaler and people didn't realy know how war realy look. Now we have tv showing soldiers dieing and wepons posible to kill thousands of people.
Arthur Williams yes but I kinda doubt those said elites recorded the deaths of pheasants so the battles were probably much bigger
@@dionwoollaston5717 Well it depends what war. For exampel most of the greek wars between them were like 10k vs 8k and at all 700 people die at max. They jsut stoped when they realize one side lost there was no reason to chase the emeny can try to slaugther as much as possible becasue all of the greek warrriors were farmers and citizen and had to get back to there farm (thats why they agreed to not attack during harving periods )
@@alkair422
War would be seen in a more negative light if the Ancient people had our tech
Especially since our tech would remove most reasons why people go to war in the first place
It's interesting how Tolkien often arises in discussions of war. LOTR, while set in a medieval fantasy world, is really about the modern age. And guess what. War is terrible. Frodo can't stay in Middle Earth, as his psychological wounds are too deep.
“A tissue, a tissue, we all fall down”?
Interesting. The version I’ve always heard was “Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.”
Same here. Well, I know the Lyrics because of Korn
Both lyrics of the full song tissue comes first like first sickness ashes comes second because they burned the bodies
It is not "a tissue", but "atishoo", like this: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atishoo. This referes to the sound done while coughing. I learned about it during my English studies and it was presented as a fact that this nursery rhyme refers to illness.
One word: loot. If I were a peasant with literally nothing to lose and had a chance to get something like a ring from a corpse, I'd go for it.
The siren call for bored young men AKA "cannon fodder" throughout the world- throughout history...
Berleezy: I wouldn't be me if didn't loot EUGH!
@@malikdespanie4344 There's literally battles that were lost cause LOOT BABY
Imagine stealing everyone's shit and while you're hauling it off the horsemen come
Seeing as these were the days before mugshots imma get my loot and get the hell out of there
@@lazydesmond8240 Me: Sneaking around with my war hammer bashing and smashing unarmored opponents and looting gold, jewelry, and expensive swords off my opponents.
When talking about war and peace the most important point is that there is a lot of grey room in between those two.
War and peace are not binary conditions.
.
A lot of conflicts in medival time were feuds, because the lack of a strong central authority with a developed justice system.
Of course the conflict between two cities can be considered as a war.
The point is, without another legal way which wields enough authority/force to settle disputes peacefully armed conflicts have a lot more legitimacy for the involved people.
A second important point is that armed service is the best way to improve your social status.
When you are a farmer, you will be forever a farmer. Armed service is a way to strive for more.
Medival people were limited in their choices.
I think psychological explanations are mostly bullshit.
People strive to fullfill their needs. When fighthing and killing are the best way to fullfill them, people will do it.
Thank you for leaving this comment. I think that people put much more focus on the psychological motivations for war because it's more interesting than it being simply because a guy needs to become a soldier to feed his family. It also let's us wax phylisophical at "Humans are brute beasts that love war and violence". We need to look at the past without the tinted googles of the present on and without are modern biases changing our perceptions.
Best comment so far
Most of the time the upperclass would married their children to prevent war of feuds or to beneficial trading. When they couldn't hold power that way, there would be war sometimes. Invicta channel explains that going to war in a medieval period would take a lot of time and expensives and was difficult to do on great scale. Smaller wars i think were more commen becouse of personal gains, interest or feuds. But i think they also considered not doing to much becouse how medieval society was based. I guess most of the time it was a necessary thing to do. I like his thoughts and your thoughts on it :)
There are plenty of people today working as mercenaries or just generally involved in civil wars and the like. The motivators are manifold. Needless to mention you chances of dying in a war in the medieval period weren't all that high, except by disease. Battles could be dangerous but they were quite rare and there was a good chance it wouldn't even be the army you were in actually fighting. So the rewards outweighed the risks in many ways. Of course people would likely be less sensitive towards blood and others things. This is mentioned by many chivalric writers and also outside of Europe such as in Japan that its good to desensitise yourself to blood and death be it people or animals. However that also goes to show that many people would find blood and gore disturbing in the first place.
So do you think in the Russian style of there are grey of conflics like: Cold-Wars, Commerce-War, Santions, etc..
Shad,
Your abilities to reason, have empathy, and think scientifically are truly remarkable. You are one of the most brilliant people I watch on UA-cam, and it's not because of how much you know; it's because of how you think; How you're able to see the world, and articulate yourself. You give a lot of value to things like context, the differences between subjectivity and objectivity-and just your ability to stay grounded, open minded, rational, look at things from all the angles, and to be self aware of what you do know, what you don't know, and what you can't know. Like, it's such a treat listening to you try to explain things and articulate yourself. I've grown to have so much respect for you over the last few years I've been watching your channel.
I wish more people could be like you. Your kids are lucky to have you as a dad.
Wow, thank you so much, it really means a lot, especially when I hesitated to upload this video. It's a really complex subject with so many angles to look at and I doubted if I did a good enough job, I still do, but hey, if I find I'm wrong about something I'll let you guys know. Comments like this really help with my piece of mind and encourage me to keep at it to the best of my ability. So thank you ^_^
Shadiversity Keep it up, Shad. We're all loving the work you put into your UA-cam channel! I couldn't agree more with NICKREAPER316
I'm glad that you've talked about not measuring people of past by current standars. It's really annoying how often really intelligent people do this and they portait mainly medieval time as time of barbaric, stupid and zealous people.
Yeah, they weren't as educated as us so we have to give them a lower standard.
But the problem is that we tend to forget that they were humans. Some of the dumbest historical misconceptions arises when we think that people in the past were too stupid to obey common sense.
People from the past weren't stupid. The same level and scope of education just didn't exist back then. If I'm not mistaken, the whole reason societies became more democratic and the reason why human rights developed as an idea was because more people became educated. (Granted that's a simplification but I think it's alright to explain it that way.)
A lot of famous philosophers were classical thinkers, like Plato, which is before the medieval era. But most of the population was unable to read or learn about philosophy and whatnot, it seems.
Common sense isn't really an effective argument. That usually denotes popularity or tradition.
Yeah, I think availability of information is a better phrase.
Lmao am I being contemporarily smug?
Srithor I agree with you about this that they weren't as intelligent as we are nowadays, but I didn't say that they were. I only said that they weren't as stupid as it's portrait often in popculture or by a lot of intellectuals.
"Medieval weapons" has a light saber back there
It was an elegant weapon...for a more civilized age
You don't know the truth like he does
I had to scroll back up to look. You brought me joy.
a long long time ago in a galaxy far away...
Yeah, definitely doesn't fit - it is an even older weapon :P
Something my father and I always said, and I love how you phrased it. You can’t apply modern mentality and morality to men of the past. Certainly of the long past! Understanding and learning is key to both entertainment and growth!
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is open with his protective instincts when it comes to family. Great video Shad, spot on with everything! Of course as pointed out by some other comments, there is some stuff that could have been added, but hey, no video is perfect.
The war that everyone loved in medieval Europe
The first crusade
Only Germans, Italians, French and English did. The rest either had their hands tied already or were having too much fun butchering each other.
@@TheBayzent Germany and italy didnt exist then lol well the Italy we know today
@@tbxmxdog9187 He didn't say Italy or Germany. He said Germans and Italians, the people. He did forget some other people that were happy to fight in the First Crusade, though, the Flemish for example.
@South Africa PURGES whites ok but still the third one was the best constantinopol definitly liked it too
The first crusade, in every aspect, was the first and the only successful crusade.
War never changes...
But combat evolves.
Virgin
Now, I’m not as messed up mentally (i wouldn’t watch an execution for entertainment) but dark humor has helped me cope in the past. When i was a kid, we had to put my dog down. I cried for an hour straight throughout the whole thing. When we were in the car driving home from the vet, My dad said “well, i guess it’s too late to change our minds.”
I started laughing so hard, and still crying, but laughing. I legitimately felt a lot better. I still cry over my dog, but that screwed up joke really did help me.
I'd fight next to you, Shad.
GLORY TO CORNWALL!
im not even from cornwall
I think a modern view of war inserted onto medieval/fantasy is something that can be done well. When i watched the lord of the rings movies a while ago i felt it was so obvious that the books were written sometime after world war 1, although i already knew the books were old. Knowing they were written right inbetween the two wars informs SO MUCH about the attitudes towards war in the movies! If it were written before the wars, going to war would be portrayed more glamorously than dire. If it were written after the wars, they probably would have to deal with some weapon of mass destruction and maybe there wouldn’t even be a peaceful ending at all. The bittersweet “it’s peaceful now but the world will never go back to normal after the horrors it’s experienced” ending we got fits in perfectly with the time and i really loved watching the movies and thinking about them from that perspective.
Read the books and you get more of the mindset and attitudes of the day from the writer.
It was also heavily influenced by his own countryside (the shire) being replaced by huge industrial factories.
Great video Shad. Regarding your point at 7:40, that's not unique to the medieval period. After WW1, many pilots came back and found themselves actually missing the war in a way because of the thrill and danger from flying the biplanes. In Canada, this was remedied by a lot of those pilots becoming bush pilots and delivering cargo to the Territories. But the rest of the world was still experimenting with the airship; seeing it as the future of air travel, up until the Hindenburg happened.
There's also documented cases of troops going back home and wanting to go back because they either miss their buddies they were serving with and/or they feel bad about leaving them behind to continue to fight while they're safe back home. This was the case of Marine Gunnery Sgt. John Basilone, he earned the Medal of Honor for his actions on Gudalcanal and because he had the Medal of Honor he was shipped back home to serve as a trainer for new Marines and go on a war bond tour. However, despite having fought in one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific to date he didn't want to be in the States, he wanted to go back to front lines because he felt bad about being State side while his fellow Marines were being killed or wounded in action. He eventually got his wish and was assigned to the 5th Marines and took part in the invasion of Iwo Jima where he was killed in action.
The Hindenburg was supposed to be filled with helium not hydrogen but there was an embargo in the contract of Versailles.
fiona fiona
The Hindenburg was also painted in thermite. And, it is suspected that the whole affair might have been an act of sabotage, in order to incite a war with Germany.
I’m currently researching the medieval period with the intention of cutting through all the whimsy and chauvinism and fear so that I can start to understand it in the same terms that I understand the present (logistics, politics, the good/neutral side of human nature), but this video has reminded me that if you take the suffering and violence out of the medieval period you’ll be left with next to nothing. Medieval life was almost all suffering by today’s standards and offered people very little in regards to a purpose in life besides the survival of oneself and one’s family, community, or kingdom.
I saw this video while i was writing a story about my king character seizing a chain of castles in order to get the roads of merchants that they commonly use. So thank you a lot. Your videos always help me a lot for me to figure out better ways to write my stories :) i always enjoy watching and learn new things.
3:20 “do you ever worry about freezing to death?” The Australian said from his Australian home
I don't worry either here in Poland, and we DO have winters here, with frost, snow and all. So, still valid I'd say.
Edit: it seems now that we DID have winters 😒
Liked how shad wasnt afraid to recognize the common psychological differences between men and women. Its very important to recognize especially when talking about war.
@@XCodes Notice I didnt mention anything about physical traits in my comment, im talking purely psychological.
+XCodes It is hormonally encoded. Testosterone makes you more agressive and grow bigger.
Many differences between men and women -- especially the ones we care about today -- fall within a single deviation, much like differences between individuals in general. Let's say Sally is a bit worse than average at spacial reasoning. Is it just because she's a woman? A lot of factors matter. Sex is only one of them, and not necessarily the most important. Sally once bumped her head as a child. Sally is also prone to motion sickness. Sally prefers archaeology over baseball or vector calculus. And so on.
Yes, sex plays a role. But how much credit should we give it? For most skills, we pay too much attention to it, and not enough attention on personal history and interest and whatnot. Those matter just as much.
@99legion I didn't say everyone was equal. I said people are different for a lot of reasons. Sex is just one of those reasons, and rarely the single most important one.
+J.J. Shank I presume you mean standard deviation.
And if that were true it would.mean the difference is not atatistically significant, which is a blatant lie. Therfore you are using the standard deviation of something else.
Always love videos on historical cultural context. Helps illuminate texts and arts from those periods that give us more accurate glimpses into the minds and lives of those peoples. It's a familiar practice to me as a student of the Bible and history in general, but hearing more or less "context is king" ring out from your channel brings a smile to my face. Keep up the good scholarly work, Shad.
From the anime GATE, I always like the line from one of the modern day commanders talking to a medievil King: "Our country has fought for a very long time throughout history. We've gotten so good at war that we had to stop for fear of our own weapons and capabilities."
It all ideological war now.
You said a great number of things that are not considered pc and for that, sir, you have gained much more of my respect. You were fair in your logic and you avoided many cliches and pitfalls through your careful use of language and logic. Great vid. Love the channel. Please keep doing what you are doing.
When you got nothing to live for, war gives life meaning
only a fucking idiot would assume these people had nothing to live for.
@@felixphilippe7224 only a fucking idiot would assume that they did have something to live for.
bingo, war is part of human nature and is a prime way to get some sense of meaning, very important for male pathos, the ascension from animalistic nature throught the establisment of boundaries.
War is barbarism
@@unslaadkrosis3489 War built civilization.
That's what I love about the Orks of 40k, they fight simply for the sake of fighting. Nothing to do with morality or survival, simply war for the sake of war.
Waaaaaaaagh!
Waaaagh is the best excuse to get more dakka after all.
I dunno' dawg, I dunno'... Seems to me that orcs enter armed conflict, because armed conflict serves as a primary source of entertainment. See the slight difference? So orcs do not wage wars for the sake of waging wars, rather; they wage wars because it equates to a lot of entertainment. Not being bored is the absolute goal, perpetual war just happens to be the most efficient path of achieving that state of mind.
@@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 wuz you talkin' 'bout humie? Orkz iz made fer foightin'!
WAAAAAAGH!
@@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 Orcs, in tolkien or similar literature, function that way no doubt. Orks, however, in Warhammer 40,000 (and their age of sigmar counterparts, to a degree), live for war. They were CREATED for war. They grow, gather 'teef', fight, grow more, become proper orks, spend the teef on some weapons, go out to shoot, chop, and explode the shit out of whatever they find.
That is their entire life cycle. It's not a mental thing, it's an instinctual thing. Because back when they were the living super weapons with super advanced technology, they only existed for war, so it became a part of them when they devolved into the orks we see now.
TL;DR: Not orcs, orks. Orks form, grow, and then go to war, that's just how it is. Orcs are born and then go to war because they want to.
Going back to ancient times was one of the few ways a commoner could hope to climb the social\economic ladder.
Very true, the military has been seen as a path towards social mobility from ancient times right up to the present day.
Incorrect. Very.
@@nirvanic3610 Troll. Very.
war... has changed...
Oooor we can throw quote from Duty Calls: "War. War never changes. Or does it? The war has changed. Did it? The answer is "no". Unless it is "yes". No, of course! It is war."
My most favorite part of history is war. Thank you for posting this vid! Also love the history of Spartans.
So you are saying, you like people dying? 🤔
jk
I kind of find the Spartans funny because everyone thinks they were these heroic badasses and while they were indeed the best fighters in Greece and some of the best fighters the world has ever seen, for most of the Persian Wars the struggle was just for the Spartans to actually show up to the battle field.
+This Dude from what I can tell they were only really good at being foot soldiers in a fielded battle. they didn't have much of a cavalry presence (or any I can't quite remember), their navy was shit and tiny, and they were so bad at sieges they hired other Greek states to put down slave revolts whenever the slaves took a heavily fortified location.
"Very few aimed to kill" aka every AI friendly character in first person shooters, and the player the polar opposite. Lol
i think a lot of it has to do with something thats still practiced today, humans in a group tend to have a lemming switch that can be manipulated to horrific ends even over the dumbest things, and some people will even use that to garner wealth, fame, or power
and by dangling things like riches, a cause, social laddering, favor, or just straight up dehumanizing anybody outside the 'cult' you can get even the most pacifist person to act against all logic and reason
often this event causes more of a backlash against the mob which leaves them even more easily manipulated the next time, and this escalation of aggression will be egged on and directed
hopefully we figure out how to recognise this cycle of fruitless aggression so our passions can come through more often in measured words, not riots and yahoos comment section
A few corrections:
Ring around the rosie isn't "A tissue, A tissue" it was "Ashes Ashes" and was a nursury rhyme about the black plague
And Rock-a-by baby wasn't about death, but the eventual fall of the infertile King Henry.
UK version has it as "Atishoo" as an onomatopoeia for a sneeze, one of the symptoms for the plague.
King Henry didn't think he was infertile. He though everyone of his wives were infertile, solid logic there.
@@jeffk464 well he did have multiple children with 3 of his wifes. 2 daughters and finally a son. Though the son (not counting the ones that were stillborn or died shortly after) died at 15 from a terminal disease.
Being American, you're of course wrong. "Ashes" and "ring around the rosie" are in the modern American version, and that's also NOT about the Black Death. Ring'a'roses appeared in the 18th century, long after the Black Death.
psammian Yes, the myth that it's about the Black Death is far too widespread. I guess it's one of those things that sound plausible, so you just repeat it without checking if it's true first.
Trying to find historical basis for how people actually felt in times long past is probably the part of history that I adore the most, I find it really frustrating when more modern ideas tend to replace the quite profound and interesting viewpoints that would make for great background in fantasy and medieval fiction.
At the top of my list of annoying moral and political historical revisionism is:
Marxist politics replacing the way that peasants and the nobility felt and acted around each other forcing all parties into the class struggle narrative. (help help I'm being repressed)
Victorian morality replacing some of the more "crude" aspects of medieval life, which makes for some interesting wholesome chivalrous romanticism but when it is a realistic setting is rather jarring.
Feminist views either outright replacing the actual dynamics between men and women with modern sensibilities or having medieval women as deeply oppressed and very concious of some lack of freedom that would be rather anachronistic in their time period. Whats worse is that this narrative often massively overshadows the important roles that women would have performed in the past.
Religion is almost always poorly represented, whether thats the actual political dynamics between the church and other groups or the actual theology behind it. Evil corrupt priest from big church as a common trope is probably not really how things always played out, whether this is because of the french revolution or modern opinions on religion or the occasional anti-church riot/scandal that did happen I'm not sure.
Slavery has been pretty much completely overwritten by modern views, occasionally you will see roman slavery being portrayed somewhat interestingly (Rome had the occasional interesting slave dynamic).
This comes from primarily American sources for obvious reasons. But theres some interesting views on slavery from the time period that are never going to be demonstrated accurately in any modern fiction.
So how were those things actually seen? I'm pretty sure the catholic church has always been corrupt. However I could see the non-abrahamic religions like buddhism being more prone to 'keeping it real', so to speak.
Well there have been plenty of riots and scandals regarding the catholic church but I feel the problem is that something happens at a very specific time period at a very specific place and we have historical evidence of that but then people start to brush that conflict over larger spans of time and areas often anachronistically.
For example chaucers friars tale tells the story of a corrupt summoner from the point of view of the friar in what will become the standard corrupt church official trope, but that shouldn't mean that was the norm or the view of the common peasant or the great political debate of the time that everyone knows about. The role of summoner is not unlike a sheriff who enforces crimes against the church, obviously many people would dislike them for the same reason people often dislike bailiffs or debt collectors or any other law enforcement.
Many "godly" types would however see the summoner role as a noble and necessary one helping the community to be moral and not fall to witchcraft, usury, simony and are just generally trying to do their part for the church in dealing with malcontents and maintaing order.
Point is relying on the tropes as the standard view of the church is probably going to be misguided, most people in the world are just doing their job as well as they reasonably can and leave the mustache twirling for others. The average farmer or townsman probably sees anyone in a ecclesiastical role as a positive, especially before many of the controversies started but also probably during and even after they would still have a fair amount of support among certain people.
i'm pretty sure that for the most part it wasn't, morals came from being religious most of the time as well as being educated, you should do some research on the subject.
Penda Cyning excellent comment, we should tell Shad to address this in a video
Yeah, and a lot of the hate aimed at the medieval ages started in the renaissance with the glorification of ancient Rome and Greece, the placing of contemporary values on the past, and confining the middle ages to "that bad bit between to great eras" without understanding what caused it and allowed for the renaissance to even happen (e.g. climate change, black death, economic revival, etc.).
"Give war a chance!" -Sundowner
Jack and Jill went up the hill, each had a buck and a quarter.
Jill came down with $2.50.
Me: Jill, where is Jack
Jill: *sweats profusely*
Is Jill a girl. Because if so I’m sure Jack would win.
@@nulolove jill succed and jack is chillin
Overlord Galvatron Lol, thumbs up homeboy 👍🏾👍🏾
Seems like Jack came aswell
A very small correction, that doesn't take away from the VERY GOOD VIDEO.
The medieval world was very Religious, War was considered immoral from a religious perspective, that is why kings and rulers saw it important to finance the building of churches and monasteries, as penance for their sinful wars. so it's not entirely true that war was not considered bad at all. part of the reason people bought Indulgences, was to atone for their participation in warfare.
medieval secular morality was pretty much desensitized to war, but the Christian-bible and Christianity is and was pretty anti-war, and they had to find a workaround.
I thought it was pertinent to point that out, you can't talk about the medieval era morality without mentioning God and the church.
...It's not right when an Atheist is telling a Christian that he isn't mentioning God enough.
Wasn't one of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse called War?
@@andhikasoehalim3170 Yes. And your point is? It's the apocalypse. The horseman symbolizes that at the end of time, war will be breaking out all over the place, and it will be a terrible time.
Non of the horsemen are seen as good things (excepting, perhaps, the white horseman who bring peace). The horsemen that follow are Famine and Death, respectively. Not good things at all...
It's a good point if you forget the 8 times the Popes orgenised the crusades to "Free" Jerusalem and murder everyone on sight.
@@Illnorean That is what I mean, War isn't good. So Not good that it is anthropomorphized into a symbol of the End Times in Christianity/Catholocism.
I doubt Catholicism (or a certain other abrahamic religion for that matter) viewed war itself as sinful, rather than war between the faithful specifically. Similarly, it prohibited taking a fellow believer as a slave, but everyone else was fair game.
One of the main causes of debate in medieval law was the concept of just war vs unjust war, so there were very strong moral considerations when facing war in the medieval period, even if those morals don't match our modern sesibilities (for example holy war=just war)
The husband of my cousin is an Afghanistan veteran and at one point they were commissioned to protect a vehicle station or smt. Then taliban kid soldier attacked and they were forced to shot at them. He said, he just aimed in that direction, closed his eyes and shot until the mag was empty, he also didn’t want to know, if he hit something afterwards. Until this day he doesn’t know if he killed a child that day but nonetheless this still haunts him
14:43 needs to go on a freakin plaque, man.
The more I think about it the more I reflect on my own impulses and inclinations as well. It's interesting, when you are a fan of fantasy and the medieval period you find yourself thinking about(even daydreaming) what it would be like to go into battle or defend a castle. I agree that war is horrible, but some cases perfectly justifiable (likewise self-defense) as you pointed out Shad. Thank you for your insights! I am a proud student of Shadiversity!
The thing that's really telling about war is that for all of history, rulers just presented it as an inevitable fact of life we just had to live with. And then nukes got invented and the rulers were all like "Wait...the bombs can actually hit us now?
....
....blessed are the peacemakers!"
It's a pretty misguided sentiment. Most rulers in ancient and medieval times fought on the frontlines (like Timbo said) and they started to value peace in a big way after WW1 - before nukes were invented. British appeasement is a good example of that. I'd say that democracy was a much bigger contributor to more peaceful governments. That's because they started to care about voters and voters started caring about peace.
@Indigo Rodent
The Nazis and their allies only started WW2 because of correct timing
Had the conditions changed even by a tiny bit, WW2 might not have happen
Hahahaha
I could imagine many people getting to the battlefield after getting their family's a bit of money for it, not really wanting to kill anyone, but being so afraid of being killed. Their commanders telling them that the other men across the field are set on killing them, when in reality they are probably the same on both sides
I'll tell you why they loved War...
because there was nothing to do back then
Well, I mean.. From our perspective of luxuries that we take for granted there was nothing to do, indeed. I'd say, like war, they had a different perspective on life in general. So eh.
Trying to survive and work all day... Yeah I think it was boring and war was a good welcoming thing to do
@@silverjace1482, Again, for us it might be boring. But people do tend to get used to something when it there isn't anything to compare it to. Plus you can sing while working, you can dance during some holidays, all that. Wouldn't say that that's perfect, but still.
@@TheDrawnBlade I didn't make my sarcasm obvious enough my bad
@@silverjace1482, agh, it was sarcasm.. I should've spotted it a mile away, yet, I did not. My apologies - my mistake.
Let's get a Powerwolf album, grab some armor and weapons, and go to war, Shad!
Amen and Attack!
Let us take back Normandy for Britain
@@alastairbond7104 +polyhistor We shall go to war, swords in sheaths(or whatever one-handed weapon you choose and in whatever kind of holster it sits in), polearms (or poleaxes) in hands, and clothed in armor, all while rocking out to PowerWolf and Sabaton!
@William Halter Forgive me for my sacrelige
@William Halter 😐😈 It shall be done.
You really need to make this subject a series, there are just too many sides to this subject to go over in one video.
King: we are going to war
People: get the lightsaber
This is a great video with a lot of work put into it. Good work Shad, you gave me a new point of view!
That’s why modern training uses human sillouette targets, in my unit we watched faces of death type videos (war themed) and clinically analyzed (classroom setting) the tactics used in the vid. Plus, we now have a volunteer force. All 3 BIG differences from WW2 to today. And it paid off. On one deployment, my unit had a couple hundred KIA and only 4 WIA, no KIA ourselves.
It’s part of the chasm of disconnect between civilians and the military. 2 very different approaches to death.
Doesn't that kind of training cause more soldiers to have PTSD and more difficulty returning to civilian life?
I remember watching a video from Lindibeirg about this
Is that kind of training worth it even if it increases the chances of soldiers divorcing their spouses and becoming homeless?
@@blackskyirregular9876
Most humans in every period in history have never killed a person
If most people are murderers then we wouldn't have survived past cavemen
No silly, they loved war because it gave them a perfect opportunity to use their machicolations!
I have actually had to worry about freezing to death in the winter; not everyone has reliable heat Shad, even in the first world.
Now I am quite interested as to where you resided
@@cylvonkoursfelt4742 probably Texas
@@LilliD3Poor guy had to deal with 60 degree weather instead of a normal 110
Work of Khorne obviously.
Blood for the blood god!
@@robinderoos1166 BLOODFORTHEBLOODGOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
Slaanesh loves passion
@Bożydar Grabowski Call in the witch hunters! Purge these heretics! For the Empire!!
Another Shad video! Yay! Something to do on my day off:)
This is very well worded and thought out.
Shad don't forget to be a little skeptical about the writings of medieval historians about the attitude or warfare.
Stories of muddy misery and trauma don't' make for good writing, especially if the guy paying you to write is the victor of the war. Or some guy trying to hype people up to get into one.
States and kingdoms love selling stories about the glory of battle to their would be cannon fodder.
I think this is one of your most interesting videos to date; thank you for the commentary!