As this point has come up a few times: Robert the Bruce was a Scottish-Anglo-Irish-Norman. His great-great-grandfather was William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. His father was born in Essex and was descended from Henry I, King of England. His grandmother was the daughter of the Earl of Gloucester. Too often in the modern world we see these medieval wars as 'England vs France' or 'Scotland vs England', but what these actually were was dynastic struggles between the ruling elite. The 95% population were just there to work, survive and do what they were told by their overlords. I have ancestors who fought on both sides of these wars, and so do most other British people. Most English and Scottish people did not get any sort of voting rights until the 20th century!
"The Scottish Hazard vols. I & II" by Beryl Platts is worth a read. In them she lays out what she believes to be the Carolingian Flemish origins of many of the prominent Lowland houses.
@@MinSredMash In high school I was taught that nationalism didn't exist at all until the French revolution but even then it really depends on your definition of nationalism. I definitely don't think that kind of nationalism applied to the first Scottish war of independence.
The Scots text says "dint" which is translated to "blow" but could be closer to "dent" so it might be: gave him such a massive dent that neither the helmet nor the cap could prevent the cracking of the skull, rather than "cleaved through the helmet."
Well particularly if it was a blow to the back of the head, we know now in the modern day how vulnerable the back of the head is so force alone could likely kill a man, I like your theory.
I think a blow to the back of the head is least likely. For a blow to the back of the head, you have to subtract from the speed of the blow, the speed of the Knight's horse, and the speed of Robert the Bruce's horse. In contrast, a blow to the front of the head, one adds the speed of the knight's horse and the speed of Robert the Bruce's horse, to the force of the blow. And, if the helmet gives equal protection from all directions, the front of the head is even more vulnerable to damage than the back, since the skull is thickest in the back. Assuming the English knight was not looking backwards at the time of the blow, which, of course, he wouldn't be doing..
Matt, I love all your content, but this video format is my favorite! You start with a historical event, give us a look at the source material, then unleash a storm of context with beautiful replicas or actual antiques in hand! Awesome!
Having recently visited the Bannockburn visitor centre, their video of this encounter shows him using the reverse spike on the axe and striking de Bohun through the eye. Surprised me because I'd always been taught the version with Bruce cleaving de Bohun's skull.
This is how legends happen. And l don't hate it it all. It makes History fun. Never stop learning but enjoy the fiction too. It has a purpose and reason that is also part of History. The Bruce is a Jedi in some peoples mind and that's not a bad thing because he's not deciding Brexit or building a New Republic any more. But the stories do tell of having to retrieve The Bruce's massive axe From Sir Henry's breastplate. It had become lodged and stuck and required much wrenching. If there is any way to make the story more incredible, it involves lightning and arses. Still good fun!
@@TheFlutecart If you like that you will love this. In the battle of Bannockburn, the Scottish forces had trapped the English so they could not deploy and contained any flanking. The scottish force was fully commited as both sides pushed against eachother. Then the English saw another force arriving, reinforcements. But this force was actaully the people of the local area, camp followers etc - who grabbed banners and weapons and joined the fight for freedom. This broke the english.
@@TheFlutecart I enjoy the fiction, but you have to be able to tell fact and fiction apart. The problem is that most people are all to ready to believe a legend, or something that sounds more outrageous and extraordinary, because it's more fun or because it stirs some kind of emotion in them (like the notion of The Bruce and Wallace being some sort of morally righteous freedom fighters). Many people aren't interested in the reality, because subtlety and nuance doesn't allow them to view things as black and white, or good (Scottish) and evil (English) in the case of the Scottish Wars of Independence. Case in point, see the above comment. The English wouldn't have been concerned with locals or camp followers joining the fight, because without proper training and equipment they would have been slaughtered. But you know, "FREEEEEDOM" and all that. It sounds cool, so people will read something like that and believe it.
Scottish here - we were told Bruce rode a war-pony as opposed to a large English shire horse type (well at least a large horse), and it was the fact once the English horse was in charge it was hard to maneuver but Bruce's horse being small simply side stepped, as Bruce stood on the stirips. I think Bruce went on to wage a mountain guerilla war on these small horses which gave him the advantage over the English who kept to their less mountain friendly larger horses.
We often don't take into account the quality and thickness of the steel of these medieval helmets, as well as the massive potential impact of a professional man-at-arms. In HMB we use insanely thick helmets for safety, and I remember a time when a local armorer gave the team a bascinet for testing. A fighter cracked a hole in it with a blunt axe.
I always pointed this out. If 19 year old me in the sca wearing a modern overbuilt helmet with modren closed and open cell foam padding can be struck with a rattan stick half the weight of a arming sword of the time period hard enough to give me a concussion then I have no doubt about the efficacy of a solid strike from good steel.
The broken axe does prove that the blow must have had tremendous energy, but when an axe handle breaks during a stroke, the energy going into the TARGET is lessened, because so much of the energy goes into breaking the handle. In other word.the handle breaking steals energy from the impact. Its like karate demonstrations. It only hurts your hand if the bricks DON'T break.
I know another commenter elsewhere has said that he has broken several axe handles, and I confess that I am not an expert on axes but I question a king's axe handle breaking. If the axe is in good shape and no flaws or rot in the handle as one would expect since it is a king's, would he have broken his arm before breaking the handle?
@@dougerrohmer perhaps when the blow landed it landed on the bottom edge/point of the axe poking/cutting through the helm but torqued the axe head and snapped the shaft? Maybe a possibility. Todd should give it a test lol.
@@LionAstrology Like I said, not the expert but judging by axes I've swung, the handle is so strong that you can drive a truck over it, and you'll break relatively weaker bones before you break the axe handle.
A false edge parry of the lance from either an axe or a sword (same motion with the axe) swings around nicely into a strike. It's in the lancer's interest to move fast and the defender's to move slow or wait. The lancer should habitually veer off (left) just as contact is made, to avoid the counter-strike. I suspect Bruce saw him coming and waited. In his zeal, de Bohun didn't expect the parry to succeed and forgot to veer away. Bruce's shorter horse might have resulted in the lance coming in a bit higher which would have made the parry a bit easier also. Although Fiore hadn't published "The flower of battle" yet, these techniques were still probably common knowledge.
I'm sure this is a dumb question, but do you mean the longsword technique where you wait in the boar and attack by first performing a false parry? Just making sure I understand how you think it went.
Two Thoughts: It did describe the blow more as "the helms combined could not stop the blow from cracking him open like a dropped egg", especially if you think that he fell off his horse, and they could not check him until after both of those traumas; And second, he did in fact "potentially" snap the haft, and with the increase in speed, and launching himself in the stirrups, I find it plausible. I've broken a fair number of ax handles, and it takes some considerable force to do so.
Not to say he would have been wearing a great helm of two helmets if he was out scouting. Not exactly the ideal thing to be wearing if you’re trying to see or hear as much as possible. Quite possible he might have only had a skull cap or basic bascinet as this wasn’t that long after bascinets had started appearing afaik or that he just took the great helm and only put it on quickly at the last minute. Not forgetting this is poetry and poets aren’t exactly worried how accurate their work is.
Exactly ! The main reason that a lance charge is so effective is because of the combined closing speed of the lancer and its target. If Robert dodged the lance tip and then swung his axe he would have had that closing speed adding to his impact velocity. Imagine two cars passing each other at 20-25 mph each (50 mph combined)and one driver hitting the other's wing mirror. Now imagine that wing mirror being sharpened and swung forward at the same time at around 20-25 mph. Yeah - cleaving the helmet and breaking the axe shaft seems not only reasonable, but almost certain !
Old Northumbrian is closer to Scandinavian languages than modern English so not surprised. Some of the words in current northumbrian dialect are Scandinavian in root still to the best of my limited knowledge.
Many English words come from proto-Swedish, old Norse. For instance, bread and bröd are the almost exactly the same, tree and träd, sword and svärd, and there are hundreds of examples, and they came from Viking settlers.
I really appreciate your approach. Too many channels don't even give their sources, let alone examine credibility, and dress up opinions as declarative statements of fact. This channel is a breath of fresh air for me, thank you!
Something I've read in a book some time ago said that, to obtain the exact same effect on a foe's helmet, a knight stood on his stirrups while the horse, trained to respond to this, lifted itself on the back legs, to then fall down with all its weight while the knight used this kinetic energy to let his own body go down at the same time, so that the arm bearing the axe could fall with enormous energy. It sounds so difficult, and yet we know that they trained since they were 6 to fight on a horse and to synchronize with it. Also, the basics of kinetics and weight applied to horse combat weren't an unknown science by then.. The idea that "mounted on the stirrups" could mean this exact thing is very tempting to me
@@georget5874 I prefer the term detailed instead of complicated in this case. I agree that it's unlikely to get through a helmet, and often medieval sources say a blow got through just to emphasize the strenght behind it, but on the other hand people that do reenactment are often knocked out by a blow right on top of a modern super-hardened and extra thick replica helmet. An axe cutting through mail and gambeson is also very unlikely, but a man suffering a cranial trauma with possible bleeding derived from the pressure isn't so out of possibility
18:23 "Some massive context I'm going to insert into you right now". You've taken penetration to a whole new level, Matt. Great video and great content as usual.
Hi Matt, I’ve been watching you for years . Many years ago watching your videos , you reignited my love for history and pushed me to go to open university and study history . It took me 6 years but I passed and got a 2:1 Ba hons.
Taking into account what we know from other sources about warfare in the period it is likely that both men wore only partial equipment as they were out doing recon. Full harness and weapons would have been put on as late as possible, a squire or valet would have carried heavy items like the helmet and lance for his master. Given the typical armour quality of the time it entirely plausible that a strong blow from a steel axe would penetrate a cervelier or the low bascinets in use at the time. The Brus does stress the force of the blow and the quality of the axe, if Barbour made the event up he clearly understood what parts had to be present to make the story plausible to contemporary readers and listeners.
This makes sense to me, that de Bohun was not in full plate heavy armor with great helm and carrying a lance if he was out reconnoitering the battle field.
@@johansmallberries9874 To be fair at this time full harness would be a coat of plates and lots of mail rather than full plate. And I doubt he was wearing a great helm.
To be fair if Henry de Bohun was killed while Scouting as per the english source he probably was not wearing a great helm since it would affect your ability to gauge the battlefield and surroundings and he wasn't planning to engage in battle.
They way I read it was that De Bohun spotted de Bruse across the field . He was handed his lance & charged & paid the butchers bill for his head strong quest for glory
If the roles had been reversed we would never hear the end of it, no questions of legitimacy would ever be raised, did you hear England won a World Cup in 1966? So quite about it, aren’t they…
Ahhh I have been waiting for this for so long! Thank you, Matt! I am also really glad you point about how national identity was very different at the time. As a Burmese historian, it is one of the major obstacles I have often encountered whenever I try to bring up a discussion. While reading about the battle, I was fascinated to find out about how vague the identity of Sir Christopher Seton, a supporter of Bruce. He was sometimes described as Scottish, sometimes English and sometimes just an individual from Yorkshire.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but there's also a chance of the Bruce using de Bohun's momentum against him to add to the strength of his blow.
The part of this story that seems dubious to me is that he penetrated a helmet with the same blow that broke his axe handle. While breaking through a helmet may be possible, it would require a considerable amount of force. In my experience, when you hit something hard enough to break the shaft of the tool, that blow typically loses a lot of force because the kinetic energy is expended in snapping the shaft, not in driving though the target.
possible that it could have done in one blow though, since the "enemy" was in a charge that would add extra energy & after penetrating even the haft could have broke. seems less likely but i think still possible.
I don’t know about this particular instance, but my experience is that weapons in medieval fiction tend to break at the most dramatically satisfying moment. I think it’s a poetical trope.
@@danguillou713 It very well could just be a trope. But let's assume for one moment there was a direct confrontation between the Bruce and De Bohun. If it did happen the way it is generally described, the force behind such a blow would be tremendous. The warhorses used by the English knights were huge. A knight in armor, plate or otherwise, in full charge would be moving at a high rate of speed with nearly a ton of mass behind it. The Bruce was supposedly on a smaller, lighter horse, but he would most likely have been charging forward as well. The collision would have had the force of a car wreck. And all of it transferred through the Bruce's axe and into the helmet of de Bohun. If it did happen that way, it would not be hard to imagine that the axe, the helmet, and De Bohun's head all basically just exploding in to fragments. Now I'm not saying it really happened, but the description seems to be pretty accurate given the circumstances and possible forces involved.
@@blackdeath4eternity a sharpened object moving at 20~ km/hr colliding with an armored head also moving at 20~ km/hr + a trained warrior and horse together using momentum properly = plenty of force to not only split the helm and skull but the torque could also break the haft.
This helps me to understand how Gimli feels about HIS AXE! Then on the other hand it does seem that Dwarves always seem to have Scottish accents!? Interesting!
Always interpreted that as Bobby Bruce got Bohun on the Backswing and actually Hit just under the Helmet, Smashing through Bohun's Mail, Cutting the Spine and Penetrating the Skull.
I suppose this subject has already been “ done to death” (pardon the pun) but I’m curious to know your thoughts on the circumstances around Richard III’s demise at the Battle of Bosworth Field. According to most accounts I’ve come across, it seems to be generally accepted that at a critical point of the battle, Richard saw Henry Tudor separated from his main force, with a small detachment/personal guard, possibly making his way towards Stanley to elicit his support, and that Richard seized the opportunity to lead a mounted charge across the field directly at him. My understanding is that pretty much everything we know originates from Polydore Vergil, Henry Tudor’s official historian; apparently Richard was in the vanguard of the charge, and personally skewered Henry’s standard bearer, William Brandon, with his lance, before unhorsing John Cheyne, Henry’s bodyguard, with a blow from the broken end of the lance. John Cheyne was a giant of a man, as evidenced by the 21” thigh bone removed from his tomb in Salisbury Cathedral, which puts his height at a minimum of 6’8”. There was some research done since the discovery of Richard’s remains, with the help of a volunteer of similar height and build who had an almost identical curvature of the spine. He was taught by a jousting expert how to ride in a medieval saddle and use a lance, and it was proved that even with his physical limitations Richard could have been a formidable fighter with the right equipment and training, such as he and other sons of nobles would have had from childhood (he fought at his father’s and brother’s side at a fairly early age.) As Henry’s historian I somehow doubt that Virgil would have exaggerated the exploits of the Tudors’ defeated enemy, which lends extra authenticity to his account. This suggests that Richard must have got literally within a few feet of Henry before his horse fell.
Have you considered that Henry looks more magnanimous if he paints Richard as a valiant foe, and the whole dynastic struggle being settled by the two claimants themselves? If you were some Yorkist minor noble, would you be more likely to accept the account that Richard charged and was slain two seconds from winning the whole war? Or that he fell off his horse and got stabbed up by some peasant? It's also pretty unlikely that Richard managed to get so close to Henry but that he wasn't found or recognised until after the battle. You would't say that Stanley found the crown and gave it to Henry if Stanley just bent down and picked it up. Richard coooould have been a great warrior, despite his disabilities, but if that's the case then I don't think anyone bothered to write it down and as far as we know he wasn't especially given to acts of physical bravery.
@@lostalone9320 I hadn’t really considered that as a probability because it doesn’t really chime with the account of Richard’s body being stripped and removed from the field slung over a packhorse, and being violated in the process, as scarring by a sharp instrument to the bone of the rear pelvic area seems to support. It seems unlikely that Henry would have permitted this if he wanted to vaunt his fallen foe. As to Richard’s proximity to Henry at the point of his demise, the only contemporary account of the battle states that Richard slew Sir William Brandon and unhorsed John Cheyne, who as Henry’s standard bearer and bodyguard respectively, would have been within a few feet of Henry themselves. As there is no alternative account or evidence to suggest otherwise, I would go with the account written by Polydore Virgil as being the most likely course of events. As to Richard’s proclivity for acts of physical courage, his training as a knight from an early age was supervised by the Earl of Warwick, for which he received payment from Richard’s eldest brother Edward IV. Richard went on to play a crucial role in the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury fighting alongside his brother, as a result of which the crown was restored to Edward. Whatever role he may or may not have played in the disappearance or murder of the Princes in the Tower, and I have reason to be dubious about his personal involvement in their deaths,mthere seems little doubt that he was not lacking in physical courage.
Really enjoyed your bringing up the historical documents and walking through the process of assessing their accuracy within the context of the weapons involved and likely actual outcomes.
I personally see a crenalated hammer with 4-6" spikes as the ideal weapon for armored combat. Standing in the stirrups allows maximum energy transfer. The spike would pierce a helm nicely.
I agree. I have seen various critics of those texts point out that the numbers of combatants and 'small folk' claimed to be present at Bannockburn didn't make sense based on the local population. I'm still mad about the ending of 'Braveheart'...that movie did the Bruce dirty.
Assuming the poem would actually be perfectly accurate in describing this event, then it would seem that at least one, and possibly both the combatants were riding at full speed at each other when they clashed. With the added force from the horses, wouldn't it then seem just a little more feasible that one of them could land a blow capable of breaking both the weapon and armor on impact? Add to that the idea that the Bruce may have been swinging to the front of Henry's helmet, with the spike rather than the blade of the axe, and I think that even a greathelm would be suffering quite a lot of damage...
@@sebbi8360 exactly, you only have to dent it inwards, not actually penetrate it. History often gets exaggerated so he likely felled him with the concussive force which damages the helmet enough to fracture the skull.
I wonder how much poetic license was used by the writers. Perhaps it was a mighty blow, and it unhorsed de Bohun, then he was subsequently killed by Robert's men? Robert would still have essentially made the kill, but when writing it the drama was increased for effect.
You can't underestimate the adrenaline of having the shit scared out of you, and enough skill to control that enough to have the presence of mind to take advantage of it. Getting through a helmet, well maybe not. Did he get hit hard enough to separate some rivets? That could look like an ax getting through. The spike end getting through is possible too. Getting hit hard like that is liable to crack your skull anyway, helmet or not
@@comradekenobi6908 Glad to hear of it. Is that primary or secondary? I was only taught this in primary and was really too young to appreciate it. To this day I don't know whether it was syllabus or just the notion of my long dead teacher to tell a few patriotic tales. I distinctly remember her enthusiasm when she was telling us of Douglas capturing a castle.
@@campbella2796 A bit of background in primary. They then they explained a lot in secondary. We then have to write essays for exam. In my opinion the Scottish history history ministry put too much emphasis on how to properly write a spotless essay for some reason
@@comradekenobi6908 Good to know. I always felt there was too little Scottish history taught at school. I took the subject until I was 16 and the only other Scottish history we had was the Scottish agricultural revolution...not quite so interesting.
Personally I find it hard to believe that Robert the Bruce was found alone at the start of the battle. Leaders in those times tended to have a bodyguard around them at all times.
One small correction, at about 8:30, Matt mentions most of the Scottish nobles were mixed Anglo-Norman. By this point, the Norman influence had barely made its mark in certain areas of Scotland, north and west primarily, as far as noble lines go. That would happen rapidly during the period following Scotland's independence, as the house of Bruce would try to essentially consolidate the north, and the west was already coming under their influence through marriage alliances with the Scots still in northern Ireland, that Edward, Robert the Bruce's brother, had married into. That didn't last, but it did help bring in the isles around Skye, in between Ireland and Scotland, and the coastlands there that had always been more "Celtic" than Norman. This bringing the west into the fold, and little bits of the north though that wouldn't be complete for some centuries, was one of Robert's primary goals during peace, same with his son, David II. So when Matt says "Scotland wasn't quite a single nation yet",( he is totally correct )and he is talking about Robert Bruce, he is really talking about a coalition of three different groups that are actively in the act of splitting off (the north Irish) and merging (Scots of the west, Normano-Scots of the Lowlands), and mixed Celtic, Celto-Scandinavian, maybe old Pictish, who knows what else way up there in the Highlands, Hebrides, Orkneys that wouldn't merge for quite awhile, but began to think of themselves as Scottish, just a different KIND of Scottish than the Norman Scots or the western Scots, starting in around this era.
This is sort of an example of adversarial proto-nationalism, these people might not have considered themselves "Scots' with a good idea of what that meant, but they were sure they didn't want to be ruled by the English King. You would get similar things in Flanders, were if they didn't know what made you 'Flemish' they knew what a Frenchman was and they hated that. And of course by the end of the Century you get "Italy freed of Barbarians", which suggests something of the development of a national idea.
Thanks for that bit info. My Surname is from the Western area of Scotland, Loch Sloy and Lomand. Its interesting to know how and when the idea of the Scotish nation emerged. What a great people they became. 👍
Yes this is a really important thing to note. Also political allegiance was a form of identity at the time. Yes the nobility of England and parts of Scotland were Anglo-Norman or even of direct descent from other French stock but they also identified themselves as English very often - but that wasn't to say that they were necessarily the same English as the Anglo-Saxon English population as a whole. This is still the case in a lot of countries today even. And as you say a common enemy is very important for forming a nation state.
In agreement with you there. We're so lucky in the UK to have such a wealth of written historical sources. But anyone reading through them quickly finds some well worn tropes like: - "...he cleaved his helmet/helm in half..." "...the rivers ran red with blood for [x amount of] days afterwards..." "...the lands were thickly forested so that a squirrel could travel from [A] to [B] without ever setting foot on the ground...' and many more. As a kid I used to think it was just lazy writing, but now I wonder if it was just not only part of a style of description that others could easily reference but also a lack of comparisons from the scribes cloistered life. Before the printing press, these accounts were hand copied or repeated by word of mouth. So it can get exaggerated in the telling, but by the end everyone tells the same version of the tale. If you've ever been to a bardic story telling, especially a story everyone knows there are certain points in the story that everyone waits for, touchstone points of common reference, the good bit we all wait for.
I'm an old enough history nerd that I'd studied the Scottish Wars of Independence before "Braveheart" came out and laughed my butt off the when I watched what I once heard a British Historian describe as 'Lethal Weapon in Drag'! 😆
Gentry? AND a Lowlander? But I thought kilt-wearing, haggis-eating highlanders were the ONLY cultural group in Scotland? Are you suggesting that there was a group of Normans in the south who didn’t speak Gaelic? That’s very strange.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 Yes, there were a group of Normans/Anglo-Normans in the south of Scotland who didn't speak Gaelic and William Wallace was one of them! Younger son of a younger son of an Anglo-Norman knight of Welsh extractions since Wallace means Welshman in Scots English. So gentry and Lowlander. The great plaid mistakenly called a kilt only came about in the 1500s and I don't know if boiled puddings such as haggis were around and of course most Scotts ain't Highlanders! 😆
The amount of additional force from two charging horses also has to be considered. That is a combined closing speed between them of up to 60mph, depending on the horses and their loading. Even if Bruce did not punch through, and axe blow like that would probably have broken something in there badly enough to cause death.
Precisely - armour cannot defeat the laws of physics. But ultimately the precise details of this skirmish are not important - the Scots won the battle and the English lost the Scottish Wars of Independence. What is important to day is what it means to Scots. Like the "defeat" of the Spanish Armada, which was actually accomplished by storms not the English navy. But no one questions the importance of that battle to English history, or the English sense of self. Who cares how Henry de Bohun died; he did, the Scots won the battle and not long thereafter issued something called the Declaration of Arbroath, which they could not have done if Robert the Bruce had not won the Battle of Bannockburn. Remember too; Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles are descended from Robert the Bruce, not from Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. So was Charles I, no modern UK without him either. So Good King Robert winning the duel and the battle is vitally important. Spiteful poms taking shots at Scots need to be rejected.
Can I put it out there, there's always the chance that the axe didn't penetrate his helmet and essentially concussed him to death. With how hard he must have been hit to snap an axe handle, along with the design of medieval helmets.
22:04 I'm sure you were not meaning to do this but I became very focused on and almost obsessed watching all the times you took the axe towards the helmet. I kept wondering if you were going to make contact. I believe you finally did here after the time stamp above. Thank you for sharing your great knowledge on this history. I have recently been learning about post Roman occupation to year 1000. To learn Scots was basically the Anglo-Saxon language and the idea of the "smaller" wars between families or the royals really gave me a new perspective of that time.
Equally plausible is that a blow heavy enough to break the haft of the axe could have resulted in a skull fracture and the immediate unconsciousness of Robert, followed by intracranial hemorrhaging which could have killed him in a few minutes. Followed up with a light sprinkle of embellishment.
I can easily imagine such a thing. Say, a helmet that dented enough to split a few rivets, caved in against the skull and left him with a fractured skull and massive subdural, or even just a fast epidural bleed.
This was very well done! I think the source really supports your argument, particularly the part where it says neither hat nor helm "could" have stopped it.
If the roles had been reversed we would never hear the end of it, no questions of legitimacy or disbelief, did you know England won a World Cup in 1966, they are awfully quiet about it, and never any talk about dodgy refs at all…
So I am sitting here watching Expedition Unknown and guess who pops up to show Josh how sword and shield fighting was done. Yup, none other than Matt Easton. Pretty cool. Congrats man. Seen you on a few things now… superstardom awaits.
The text you read ... does it say that the axe came through the helmet? It says the hat and helm did not stop the axe and the axe cleaved the head down to the brain ... "Struck him such a great blow That neither hat or helmet could stop The heavy clout he gave So he cleaved the head to the brains The hand-axe shaft broke in two" ... But what if the blow was under the helm, in the forehead and the basinet was without visar (does is spells like that?) or with visar up? An axe hitting you just above your eyebrows is not a good thing. ...
I also wonder if maybe Robert took a swing and managed to get through the eye slit or into the face (if wearing a secret helm with no great helm over top), and to observers, the angle and perhaps metal on metal sound of the spike deflecting off the ridges of the eye slit made them *think* that it was a penetrating hit, when in reality it had bypassed the armor entirely with a well aimed (or lucky!) swing.
Well done Matt,always enjoy your views into history! Yes back in those days,and,even for many,many,many years to come,wars were in the end,NOT country against country,but family squabbles....Nasty and bloody,but still family squabbles
As far as people go, I feel like you're one of the people who has the greatest intuitions on what pre-modern weapons can do to armour for the same eras; but I do wonder how much the inclusion of horses into an equation throws that intuition off. Does anyone know how fast an axe like this will be going at the point of impact against a stationary target? A video trying to discern this would actually be really helpful. Even it's like 80mph, adding, say, 25 mph to that (a horse), plus the target meeting you at the same speed...that's a big difference!
I almost want to believe that it was a fancy great helm that was fit for a king, but not a warrior, and it literally shattered when hit or a join failed. Would love to see a Matt and Todd collaboration to explore this.
Nice idea, but I doubt it. Henry de Bohun wasn't a powerful figure, grandson of an Earl but not in any position to inherit the Earldom. This legend of his death is pretty much the majority of what's known about him. Hs equipment would likely be functional, not fancy because he had no reason to get a fancy helmet as he was insignificant beyond his role as a Knight.
Very interesting, thanks for this. If it did happen, it must have been a heck of a blow to break the shaft of the axe, which was presumably hard seasoned wood, unless that was an embellishment in the 1375 record. If the blade, or more likely the spike, penetrated the brain through the helmet and skull, I imagine it would have lodged pretty tight and needed a huge wrench to remove it, pretty difficult to get that kind of leverage on horseback and on the move. Seems more likely that it was wrenched from Bruce’s hand when De Bohun fell from the blow.
from a re-enactment I had seen of the event here on UA-cam, it went how the book described, in the re-enactment Sir Henry had a sword and swung at Robert the Bruce, Robert leaned to the side to avoid, and while leaning, stood in his stirrups and swings his ax in to the back of Henry de Bohun's head.
The version I heard was that the Bruce deflected the lance or attack somehow and struck the back of his head as he rode by. If he hit low on the mail....that would kill with one blow from an ax. By shattering the vertebra and/or severing the spine. Certainly if I were in that situation that would be a preferred target compared to hacking on the helmet.
Hello Matt ! For the context, I'm French. When you speak about this story, I directly though about David versus Goliath. It is very difficult to watch trouh all mythological event write through the age. Very nice video by the way :)
Great vid and like my history i think the clan split and the battle of Bloody bay as well as the battle of Renfrew could both have altered the course of history in Britain
This is weird. Just yesterday I was thinking about this incident. I had no reason to be thinking about it. It just popped into my mind. Odd when that sort of thing happens.
10:40 Mathew. This makes me feel so much better. As a girl when I had to do the Shakespeare, medieval English for classes, as a ESL (second language english). I was like whaaaat...?!!?! It's like an anime, you have no idea what there saying but recognize some words. Then the teacher like a prophet would extract all of these fantastical 'themes, and motifs".
You make some great points. The worst thing you can do with medieval history is look at it through nationalistic tinted glasses. It was the rich nobles, landowners, knights & monarchs fighting for control & more land. Great video
That is one of the most accurate statements. These wars were conflicts and hostilities amongst nobles, who were known to, related to and had common ancestry with each other. Nothing really to do with nationality and sovereignty, but a greedy land grab from each other.
Last year in university, I wrote an essay and a presentation on the Battle of Bannockburn, and the fight between these two was something I came across in my research. I didn't get to say much about this incident (in fact, I don't think I got to say anything about this incident) as I only had so much time, but I still remembered finding it very fascinating.
Great vid Matt. A good explanation of one of my favourite periods of history. I had assumed your source would be from the poem 'The Bruce' by Barbour, and that sources for period are thin on the ground. Did you use, or is it mentioned in the Lanercost chronicle? I would imagine that it is being a fairly common source from that time ad location. I only know about it from reading through John Prebbles 'Lion i the North' (several times). I very much like how you mentioned that it really was a war of the nobles for the most part, and that there were relatives on both sides of the conflict and indeed landed interests. The ruling class of the time was still a bit Norman.
This is extremely interesting. Im English, but of Mainly Irish/ Scotish origin. My Surname is from Western Scotland, and a large well known Clan in Scotland who fought alongside Robert the Bruce. Noted for their Loyalty to him. Im rather proud of that.
Hi Matt! Thanks for the context insertion! No specialist knowledge on this subject but I would guess the plucky underdog aspect which appeals to us today wouldn't have played the same way at the time. As you say, this was between two branches of nobility who I would guess would want to play up their nobility and that they were playing by the rules. I doubt the Scots would have wanted to present themselves as "less noble" than the English back then. In that sense, if anything, I would assume that if you were going to make up an imaginary encounter, it would be more likely to be lance on lance. I've no idea if there are other accounts of single contacts but between high-ranking nobles at the time but the detail of the use of the axe strikes me for that reason as more likely to be true (not something you would make up). It might also be interesting to compare it with obviously fictional accounts like Arthurian tales (what is the "ideal" form of single combat?). I'm not sure if there are contemporary ones.
I find it fascinating how it seems possible to hear modern english, french, latin, and german influence in the language of the source material. There were definitely a few "huh?" moments, but for the most part I was able to follow along quite well.
This is a point of interest to me, Henry de Bohun being the nephew of the Earl of Hereford (my hometown) who together with the Earl of Gloucester commanded the first cavalry division to cross the Bannockburn and advance on the Scots’ position on a flat field behind a strip of woodland. The position was intended to minimise the English advantage in cavalry but the popular account has it that the Bruce had ventured beyond the natural cover into an exposed position and as you mentioned, was not yet kitted out for battle. That may be where the reference to his being on a scouting mission may have come from, especially if he was mounted on a palfrey (a lighter and probably faster horse more suited to the role, on which a knight would ride to the battlefield before switching to a heavier warhorse saved for the battle itself.) I have pondered over whether the impulsive response of de Bohun on which the popular account is based, may have been partly driven by a desire to achieve glory in the presence of his uncle, who commanded the cavalry formation. The breaking of the axe shaft would suggest that the axe (which I am certain it was single handed as the double handed “Danish” axe from which it was derived, at least in the hands of the Saxons at Hastings, was an infantry weapon that would have been impossible to wield properly on horseback) was used with tremendous force, met with an opposite tremendous force to generate such an impact.) This would be consistent with landing the blow whilst De Bohun was charging at full tilt. Personally I believe that De Bohun was armed with a lance as per the popular account; it was a weapon of impact used from a charging horse which is consistent with a double impact from the Bruce’s axe, and it is a one-chance weapon in that if the target is missed, there is no defence against a counter blow from an opponent carrying a weapon like an axe, mace etc, suited for the melee. If the Bruce had managed to steer his horse to De Bohun’s blindside away from the lance, when De Bohun was already committed to the charge and his horse was at full gallop, he would have had an open target to swing his axe at. As for De Bohun’s head protection, I would expect he was wearing the full helm, and agree with your suggestion that the spike of the axe was used. If the Bruce had the confidence to meet De Bohun head on, and the presence of mind to steer his horse away from the lance, it is highly likely he also had the presence of mind to realise that the spike would be needed to penetrate the helmet.
I recommend The Art Of Warfare In The Middle Ages by Charles Oman, the best book on medieval warfare ever written. You can still pick it up on Amazon for under a tenner second hand. It covers the Dark Ages onwards to the end of the Middle Ages and the introduction of gun powder, and goes into considerable detail about weapons and armour, tactics and battles and campaigns. Absolutely a must-have if you are interested in this period.
Excellent of you pointing out that there was no clear notion of English and Scots at this time. Every knight owed his fealty to a Lord and many Scots TO THIS DAY hated the Bruce espescially supporters of the Comyns. At the time it must be remembered that you were not in Scotland until you passed Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn of course was fought in the shadow of Stirling Castle which was considered the key to conquering Scotland
Love the breakdown, would love more like this in the future. Would also be interested to see tests of axe v helmet… what would happen if the axe came down on the ‘right angle’ part of a flat-topped great helm or another knightly helmet with angles/flat tops?
He had an immense tournament record all over Europe, he was the top rated sports star of his time, recorded wins of his are on many Central European murals.
I’m actually ancestrally related to Henry De Bohun. God knows how, by my Uncle made a family tree extending back with around 10,000 people on it. Henry De Bohun’s title caught my name - the most interesting one I’ve found on there so far, that’s for sure.
As a Scot growing up the version of the story I was always taught was that both of them were out scouting and both were lightly armoured, no great helms or lances anywhere in the story.
Were you taught this by word of mouth or is there any hard source for it? Not meaning to be rude btw I’m also a scot but I believe the original version. Would love to hear more from you about this, even just the story you were told. 🏴 ❤
@@ChuntyCops Well "when growing up" means as a child in like primary school or s1 history, don't think I even knew what sources were. It is more a comment in response to the video saying how the combat has been represented over time than a comment on what actually happened. And I mean what is the "original version" in this context? Its not the oldest recorded source as it is written after the fact.
@@DoddyIshamel My mistake, I read and relied before I watched. Hadn’t heard of the English account before. By original I meant the Scottish account, which is widespread. Stupid me, of course there isn’t a main source! I get way too excited about this stuff. Thanks for the reply.
Considering it took place about 20 mins before the battle and it takes about 3 hours to get into your battle gear, it’s safe to say neither one was going to have a costume change
@@jk28416 It happened on the first day as the Scots blocked the advance of the English heavy calvary - the main battle was on the second day in a different location.
DeBohun had to be riding 20-25mph, upright in his saddle. Those men that were everyday laborers then soldiers when called upon, had a different physical strength than we see today, Especially The Bruce..a hard HARD man-true martial master & survivor. I would imagine when in a battle of death, the speed power and ferociousness in his movements as well as others like him, have long since disappeared. To have the power and agility to avoid a 25+mph charge, quickly stand turn and deliver a death blow takes extraordinary power and skill. He was and had been fighting for his life family and Crown, his adrenaline was sky high, his focus was sharp, his power was animal-like that day! Im not arguing against 1 or the other--Those are just some things we can forget about in our advanced and modern age. Nevertheless, I enjoyed that tale! A+ for picking that out to break down and discuss! That was a real treat!
Great. video. Those men were very strong back then and with the momentum of the horses, I can see it being plausible that the Bruce could have struck him hard enough with the spike, if he wasn't totally armored up
Hey Matt, what about the Battle of Otterburn? It fell about the Lammastide, When moor-men win their hay, The doughty Douglas bound him to ride Into England, to drive a prey. And he has burned the dales of Tyne, And part of Bamburghshire, And three good towers on Reidswire Fells, He left them all on fire. Then he's marched on down to Newcastle, “Whose house is this so fine?” It's up spoke proud Lord Percy, “I tell you this castle is mine!” “If you're the lord of this fine castle, Well it pleases me. For, ere I crossed the Border fells, The one of us shall die.” Then Percy took a long, long spear, Shod with metal free, And for to meet the Douglas there He rode right furiously. How pale, how pale his lady looked From the castle wall, When down before the Scottish spear She saw proud Percy fall. “Had we two been upon the green, No other eye to see, I would have had you, flesh and fell; Now your pennon shall go with me!” Now I'll go up to Otterburn, There I'll wait for thee. If you not come ere three days end A false knight I'll call thee.” “Oh it's I will come,” proud Percy said, “I swear by our Lady.” Then there I'll wait,” says Douglas, “My troth I plight to thee.” They've ridden high on Otterburn, Upon the bent so brown; They've lighted high on Otterburn, And threw their pallions down. The day being done and the night come on, A clear moon o'er the land, “Awake, awake my lord! For Percy is hard at hand.” ”You lie, you lie, you little page! Loud I hear you lie! For Percy had not men yestreen To dight my men and me. But I have dreamed a dreadful dream, Beyond the Isle of Skye; I saw a dead man win a fight, And I think that man was I.” He's belted on his good broad sword And to the field he ran, But he forgot the helmet good That should have kept his brain. They hacked their swords 'til the sweat did flow, Blood ran down like rain. And Percy wounded Douglas on the brow And he fell never more to rise again. He's called to him the Lord Montgomery, “What recks the death on one? Last night I dreamed a dreadful dream And I know that this day is your own. Oh bury me by the bracken bush, 'Neath the briar tree, Oh hide me by the bracken bush That my merry men might not see.” The moon was clear, the day drew near, The spears in flinders flew, Many's the bold Englishman Ere day these Scotsmen slew. The Percy and Montgomery met, The blood so free did flow, “Now yield thee, Percy,” he says, “Or else I'll lay you low. You shall not yield to lord nor loun, Nor shall you yield to me, But yield unto the bracken bush That grows by yonder briar tree.” “I will not yield to a bracken bush, Nor to a briar tree, But I would yield to Earl Douglas, Or else to Lord Montgomery.” This deed was done at the Otterburn, At the break of day. The buried Douglas by the bracken bush And led Percy a captive away.
Is there any possibility that such a forceful blow to the back of the head could have simply killed him from the impact, rather than it being because of the axe cutting through(spike punching through) the helms/maille/etc? A rapid forward, back or twisting movement of the head can send the brain crashing against this bony box and cause all sorts of damage.
Yes, consider that a concussion can kill even when the skull remains intact ... er ... zero penetration. From modern studies of football (full contact, heavily padded North American rules football) we know that closed head blows can still kill. Concussion is especially deadly when combined with rotation which can cause the brain to bounce off of ridges inside the skull (e.g. back of sinuses). That is why the latest generation of football and bicycle helmets are double-layered to allow some slippage between the inner and out layers, reducing rotational impulses.
I saw a statue of Robert the Bruce when i was travelling in Scotland a few years ago. I think it is near or in a little village called Brough (pronounced bruff). He is still popular up there to this day.
As this point has come up a few times: Robert the Bruce was a Scottish-Anglo-Irish-Norman. His great-great-grandfather was William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. His father was born in Essex and was descended from Henry I, King of England. His grandmother was the daughter of the Earl of Gloucester. Too often in the modern world we see these medieval wars as 'England vs France' or 'Scotland vs England', but what these actually were was dynastic struggles between the ruling elite. The 95% population were just there to work, survive and do what they were told by their overlords. I have ancestors who fought on both sides of these wars, and so do most other British people. Most English and Scottish people did not get any sort of voting rights until the 20th century!
Well said Matt.
Your preamble makes me recall a long Reddit argument I had whether Scots and English nationalism existed yet in 1314. 🙂
"The Scottish Hazard vols. I & II" by Beryl Platts is worth a read. In them she lays out what she believes to be the Carolingian Flemish origins of many of the prominent Lowland houses.
I have frequently described the 100 Years war as a French Civil War over which French Dynasty would rule France.
@@MinSredMash In high school I was taught that nationalism didn't exist at all until the French revolution but even then it really depends on your definition of nationalism. I definitely don't think that kind of nationalism applied to the first Scottish war of independence.
The Scots text says "dint" which is translated to "blow" but could be closer to "dent" so it might be: gave him such a massive dent that neither the helmet nor the cap could prevent the cracking of the skull, rather than "cleaved through the helmet."
The word ‘dint’ in Scots means a blow/hit/whack. So ‘he dintit him’ would mean ‘he struck him a blow’.
Well particularly if it was a blow to the back of the head, we know now in the modern day how vulnerable the back of the head is so force alone could likely kill a man, I like your theory.
The first word "dynt" is 'dint' or 'dunt'- bad for a car's body work. The second word "hevy dusch" is today's mighty 'doosh.'
I think a blow to the back of the head is least likely. For a blow to the back of the head, you have to subtract from the speed of the blow, the speed of the Knight's horse, and the speed of Robert the Bruce's horse. In contrast, a blow to the front of the head, one adds the speed of the knight's horse and the speed of Robert the Bruce's horse, to the force of the blow. And, if the helmet gives equal protection from all directions, the front of the head is even more vulnerable to damage than the back, since the skull is thickest in the back. Assuming the English knight was not looking backwards at the time of the blow, which, of course, he wouldn't be doing..
" Dint" where I come from in the Danelaw means " Didn't ".
Matt, I love all your content, but this video format is my favorite! You start with a historical event, give us a look at the source material, then unleash a storm of context with beautiful replicas or actual antiques in hand! Awesome!
Where would we be without his context? 😆
Agreed
Just think how much history that students would be *eager to learn,* if teachers used a format like this.
Agreed. It's really interesting
Having recently visited the Bannockburn visitor centre, their video of this encounter shows him using the reverse spike on the axe and striking de Bohun through the eye. Surprised me because I'd always been taught the version with Bruce cleaving de Bohun's skull.
That is cool!
Ha, that was one of the possibilities I commented on.
This is how legends happen. And l don't hate it it all. It makes History fun. Never stop learning but enjoy the fiction too. It has a purpose and reason that is also part of History. The Bruce is a Jedi in some peoples mind and that's not a bad thing because he's not deciding Brexit or building a New Republic any more. But the stories do tell of having to retrieve The Bruce's massive axe From Sir Henry's breastplate. It had become lodged and stuck and required much wrenching. If there is any way to make the story more incredible, it involves lightning and arses. Still good fun!
@@TheFlutecart If you like that you will love this. In the battle of Bannockburn, the Scottish forces had trapped the English so they could not deploy and contained any flanking. The scottish force was fully commited as both sides pushed against eachother. Then the English saw another force arriving, reinforcements. But this force was actaully the people of the local area, camp followers etc - who grabbed banners and weapons and joined the fight for freedom. This broke the english.
@@TheFlutecart I enjoy the fiction, but you have to be able to tell fact and fiction apart. The problem is that most people are all to ready to believe a legend, or something that sounds more outrageous and extraordinary, because it's more fun or because it stirs some kind of emotion in them (like the notion of The Bruce and Wallace being some sort of morally righteous freedom fighters). Many people aren't interested in the reality, because subtlety and nuance doesn't allow them to view things as black and white, or good (Scottish) and evil (English) in the case of the Scottish Wars of Independence.
Case in point, see the above comment. The English wouldn't have been concerned with locals or camp followers joining the fight, because without proper training and equipment they would have been slaughtered. But you know, "FREEEEEDOM" and all that. It sounds cool, so people will read something like that and believe it.
Scottish here - we were told Bruce rode a war-pony as opposed to a large English shire horse type (well at least a large horse), and it was the fact once the English horse was in charge it was hard to maneuver but Bruce's horse being small simply side stepped, as Bruce stood on the stirips. I think Bruce went on to wage a mountain guerilla war on these small horses which gave him the advantage over the English who kept to their less mountain friendly larger horses.
We often don't take into account the quality and thickness of the steel of these medieval helmets, as well as the massive potential impact of a professional man-at-arms.
In HMB we use insanely thick helmets for safety, and I remember a time when a local armorer gave the team a bascinet for testing. A fighter cracked a hole in it with a blunt axe.
Thank you!!!! People often vastly over estimate the protective value of historical armour.
And like you said underestimate the forces generated by an individual whos experienced wielding such a tool.
I always pointed this out. If 19 year old me in the sca wearing a modern overbuilt helmet with modren closed and open cell foam padding can be struck with a rattan stick half the weight of a arming sword of the time period hard enough to give me a concussion then I have no doubt about the efficacy of a solid strike from good steel.
@@mrspeigle1 SCA 😂
@@Shitballs69420 Except Hollywood directors, who routinely underestimate the value of well-made armour in comparison to plot armour.
I think,an interesting component of the story is that his axe broke indicating a great deal of energy involved in the action.
The broken axe does prove that the blow must have had tremendous energy, but when an axe handle breaks during a stroke, the energy going into the TARGET is lessened, because so much of the energy goes into breaking the handle. In other word.the handle breaking steals energy from the impact.
Its like karate demonstrations. It only hurts your hand if the bricks DON'T break.
Makes we wonder if the axe was really as true and hard as it's described.
I know another commenter elsewhere has said that he has broken several axe handles, and I confess that I am not an expert on axes but I question a king's axe handle breaking. If the axe is in good shape and no flaws or rot in the handle as one would expect since it is a king's, would he have broken his arm before breaking the handle?
@@dougerrohmer perhaps when the blow landed it landed on the bottom edge/point of the axe poking/cutting through the helm but torqued the axe head and snapped the shaft? Maybe a possibility. Todd should give it a test lol.
@@LionAstrology Like I said, not the expert but judging by axes I've swung, the handle is so strong that you can drive a truck over it, and you'll break relatively weaker bones before you break the axe handle.
I love storytime with Matt Easton super excited to watch this
A false edge parry of the lance from either an axe or a sword (same motion with the axe) swings around nicely into a strike. It's in the lancer's interest to move fast and the defender's to move slow or wait. The lancer should habitually veer off (left) just as contact is made, to avoid the counter-strike. I suspect Bruce saw him coming and waited. In his zeal, de Bohun didn't expect the parry to succeed and forgot to veer away. Bruce's shorter horse might have resulted in the lance coming in a bit higher which would have made the parry a bit easier also. Although Fiore hadn't published "The flower of battle" yet, these techniques were still probably common knowledge.
I'm sure this is a dumb question, but do you mean the longsword technique where you wait in the boar and attack by first performing a false parry? Just making sure I understand how you think it went.
couldn't you also use a shield to glance the blow?
How do you know he had a lance?
I honestly wouldn’t like my chances of judging the speed of a horse powered lance tip that’s aiming right for my eye
Worst thing about it is that you have to pull that off three times just to get him into the second stage.
Two Thoughts: It did describe the blow more as "the helms combined could not stop the blow from cracking him open like a dropped egg", especially if you think that he fell off his horse, and they could not check him until after both of those traumas; And second, he did in fact "potentially" snap the haft, and with the increase in speed, and launching himself in the stirrups, I find it plausible. I've broken a fair number of ax handles, and it takes some considerable force to do so.
And consider also the force of the charge of Henry the Bohun, which is to be added to the strength of the blow he suffered.
I think the blunt trauma could have killed him.
Not to say he would have been wearing a great helm of two helmets if he was out scouting.
Not exactly the ideal thing to be wearing if you’re trying to see or hear as much as possible.
Quite possible he might have only had a skull cap or basic bascinet as this wasn’t that long after bascinets had started appearing afaik or that he just took the great helm and only put it on quickly at the last minute.
Not forgetting this is poetry and poets aren’t exactly worried how accurate their work is.
Exactly ! The main reason that a lance charge is so effective is because of the combined closing speed of the lancer and its target. If Robert dodged the lance tip and then swung his axe he would have had that closing speed adding to his impact velocity.
Imagine two cars passing each other at 20-25 mph each (50 mph combined)and one driver hitting the other's wing mirror. Now imagine that wing mirror being sharpened and swung forward at the same time at around 20-25 mph.
Yeah - cleaving the helmet and breaking the axe shaft seems not only reasonable, but almost certain !
@@huwhitecavebeast1972 People always forget blunt trauma when it comes to armor...
As a Swede I actually understood almost all of it. Sounds like a mix of older Swedish/Scandinavian/Norse and English. 😂
Old Northumbrian is closer to Scandinavian languages than modern English so not surprised. Some of the words in current northumbrian dialect are Scandinavian in root still to the best of my limited knowledge.
Yes Scots has less French/Latin influences and also borrows from Scandinavian and later Dutch. Northern English dialects were the same.
I got the same notion as well. dock tror jag att skolengelskan hjälpte mig också.
My best pals a swede, I was amazed how many words we share. Favourite must be "braw"
Many English words come from proto-Swedish, old Norse.
For instance, bread and bröd are the almost exactly the same, tree and träd, sword and svärd, and there are hundreds of examples, and they came from Viking settlers.
Massive context inserted into us....
Channel is getting pretty intense.
I really appreciate your approach. Too many channels don't even give their sources, let alone examine credibility, and dress up opinions as declarative statements of fact. This channel is a breath of fresh air for me, thank you!
Something I've read in a book some time ago said that, to obtain the exact same effect on a foe's helmet, a knight stood on his stirrups while the horse, trained to respond to this, lifted itself on the back legs, to then fall down with all its weight while the knight used this kinetic energy to let his own body go down at the same time, so that the arm bearing the axe could fall with enormous energy. It sounds so difficult, and yet we know that they trained since they were 6 to fight on a horse and to synchronize with it. Also, the basics of kinetics and weight applied to horse combat weren't an unknown science by then.. The idea that "mounted on the stirrups" could mean this exact thing is very tempting to me
@@georget5874 I prefer the term detailed instead of complicated in this case. I agree that it's unlikely to get through a helmet, and often medieval sources say a blow got through just to emphasize the strenght behind it, but on the other hand people that do reenactment are often knocked out by a blow right on top of a modern super-hardened and extra thick replica helmet. An axe cutting through mail and gambeson is also very unlikely, but a man suffering a cranial trauma with possible bleeding derived from the pressure isn't so out of possibility
100% this, the iberian peninsula had horse archers doing cantabrian circles nearly 2 millenia before. People knew how to use horses for war.
18:23 "Some massive context I'm going to insert into you right now". You've taken penetration to a whole new level, Matt. Great video and great content as usual.
Hi Matt,
I’ve been watching you for years . Many years ago watching your videos , you reignited my love for history and pushed me to go to open university and study history . It took me 6 years but I passed and got a 2:1 Ba hons.
Taking into account what we know from other sources about warfare in the period it is likely that both men wore only partial equipment as they were out doing recon. Full harness and weapons would have been put on as late as possible, a squire or valet would have carried heavy items like the helmet and lance for his master.
Given the typical armour quality of the time it entirely plausible that a strong blow from a steel axe would penetrate a cervelier or the low bascinets in use at the time. The Brus does stress the force of the blow and the quality of the axe, if Barbour made the event up he clearly understood what parts had to be present to make the story plausible to contemporary readers and listeners.
This makes sense to me, that de Bohun was not in full plate heavy armor with great helm and carrying a lance if he was out reconnoitering the battle field.
@@johansmallberries9874 To be fair at this time full harness would be a coat of plates and lots of mail rather than full plate. And I doubt he was wearing a great helm.
To be fair if Henry de Bohun was killed while Scouting as per the english source he probably was not wearing a great helm since it would affect your ability to gauge the battlefield and surroundings and he wasn't planning to engage in battle.
They way I read it was that De Bohun spotted de Bruse across the field . He was handed his lance & charged & paid the butchers bill for his head strong quest for glory
@@raymondmanderville505 well if he had killed the Bruce de Bohun would now be a model for independent thinking on the battlefield.
If the roles had been reversed we would never hear the end of it, no questions of legitimacy would ever be raised, did you hear England won a World Cup in 1966? So quite about it, aren’t they…
@@jk28416 It's because they have nothing else to blabber about. The most expensive and 'premier' league in the world and fuck all to show for it.
I've been wanting someone to cover this encounter for years, good job.
I also enjoyed the noble attempt at pronouncing Auld Scots.
Ahhh I have been waiting for this for so long! Thank you, Matt! I am also really glad you point about how national identity was very different at the time. As a Burmese historian, it is one of the major obstacles I have often encountered whenever I try to bring up a discussion. While reading about the battle, I was fascinated to find out about how vague the identity of Sir Christopher Seton, a supporter of Bruce. He was sometimes described as Scottish, sometimes English and sometimes just an individual from Yorkshire.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but there's also a chance of the Bruce using de Bohun's momentum against him to add to the strength of his blow.
The part of this story that seems dubious to me is that he penetrated a helmet with the same blow that broke his axe handle. While breaking through a helmet may be possible, it would require a considerable amount of force. In my experience, when you hit something hard enough to break the shaft of the tool, that blow typically loses a lot of force because the kinetic energy is expended in snapping the shaft, not in driving though the target.
Having broken a few tool handles myself this absolutely checks out. The blow that usually fractures the handle comes from a misplaced hit.
possible that it could have done in one blow though, since the "enemy" was in a charge that would add extra energy & after penetrating even the haft could have broke. seems less likely but i think still possible.
I don’t know about this particular instance, but my experience is that weapons in medieval fiction tend to break at the most dramatically satisfying moment. I think it’s a poetical trope.
@@danguillou713 It very well could just be a trope. But let's assume for one moment there was a direct confrontation between the Bruce and De Bohun. If it did happen the way it is generally described, the force behind such a blow would be tremendous. The warhorses used by the English knights were huge. A knight in armor, plate or otherwise, in full charge would be moving at a high rate of speed with nearly a ton of mass behind it. The Bruce was supposedly on a smaller, lighter horse, but he would most likely have been charging forward as well. The collision would have had the force of a car wreck. And all of it transferred through the Bruce's axe and into the helmet of de Bohun. If it did happen that way, it would not be hard to imagine that the axe, the helmet, and De Bohun's head all basically just exploding in to fragments. Now I'm not saying it really happened, but the description seems to be pretty accurate given the circumstances and possible forces involved.
@@blackdeath4eternity a sharpened object moving at 20~ km/hr colliding with an armored head also moving at 20~ km/hr + a trained warrior and horse together using momentum properly = plenty of force to not only split the helm and skull but the torque could also break the haft.
This helps me to understand how Gimli feels about HIS AXE! Then on the other hand it does seem that Dwarves always seem to have Scottish accents!? Interesting!
/ahks/ sounds so much better than /äks/
Then there's the Welsh
@@discostu2246 ...I don't see sheep being a major weapon of war :P
@@discostu2246 John Rhys Davies who played Gimli was Welsh.
In Warhammer Dwarfs are northern English instead of Scottish. Don't know if Tolkien intended Scottish accents for his Dwarves.
Always interpreted that as Bobby Bruce got Bohun on the Backswing and actually Hit just under the Helmet, Smashing through Bohun's Mail, Cutting the Spine and Penetrating the Skull.
I suppose this subject has already been “ done to death” (pardon the pun) but I’m curious to know your thoughts on the circumstances around Richard III’s demise at the Battle of Bosworth Field. According to most accounts I’ve come across, it seems to be generally accepted that at a critical point of the battle, Richard saw Henry Tudor separated from his main force, with a small detachment/personal guard, possibly making his way towards Stanley to elicit his support, and that Richard seized the opportunity to lead a mounted charge across the field directly at him. My understanding is that pretty much everything we know originates from Polydore Vergil, Henry Tudor’s official historian; apparently Richard was in the vanguard of the charge, and personally skewered Henry’s standard bearer, William Brandon, with his lance, before unhorsing John Cheyne, Henry’s bodyguard, with a blow from the broken end of the lance. John Cheyne was a giant of a man, as evidenced by the 21” thigh bone removed from his tomb in Salisbury Cathedral, which puts his height at a minimum of 6’8”. There was some research done since the discovery of Richard’s remains, with the help of a volunteer of similar height and build who had an almost identical curvature of the spine. He was taught by a jousting expert how to ride in a medieval saddle and use a lance, and it was proved that even with his physical limitations Richard could have been a formidable fighter with the right equipment and training, such as he and other sons of nobles would have had from childhood (he fought at his father’s and brother’s side at a fairly early age.) As Henry’s historian I somehow doubt that Virgil would have exaggerated the exploits of the Tudors’ defeated enemy, which lends extra authenticity to his account. This suggests that Richard must have got literally within a few feet of Henry before his horse fell.
Have you considered that Henry looks more magnanimous if he paints Richard as a valiant foe, and the whole dynastic struggle being settled by the two claimants themselves?
If you were some Yorkist minor noble, would you be more likely to accept the account that Richard charged and was slain two seconds from winning the whole war? Or that he fell off his horse and got stabbed up by some peasant?
It's also pretty unlikely that Richard managed to get so close to Henry but that he wasn't found or recognised until after the battle. You would't say that Stanley found the crown and gave it to Henry if Stanley just bent down and picked it up.
Richard coooould have been a great warrior, despite his disabilities, but if that's the case then I don't think anyone bothered to write it down and as far as we know he wasn't especially given to acts of physical bravery.
@@lostalone9320 I hadn’t really considered that as a probability because it doesn’t really chime with the account of Richard’s body being stripped and removed from the field slung over a packhorse, and being violated in the process, as scarring by a sharp instrument to the bone of the rear pelvic area seems to support. It seems unlikely that Henry would have permitted this if he wanted to vaunt his fallen foe. As to Richard’s proximity to Henry at the point of his demise, the only contemporary account of the battle states that Richard slew Sir William Brandon and unhorsed John Cheyne, who as Henry’s standard bearer and bodyguard respectively, would have been within a few feet of Henry themselves. As there is no alternative account or evidence to suggest otherwise, I would go with the account written by Polydore Virgil as being the most likely course of events. As to Richard’s proclivity for acts of physical courage, his training as a knight from an early age was supervised by the Earl of Warwick, for which he received payment from Richard’s eldest brother Edward IV. Richard went on to play a crucial role in the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury fighting alongside his brother, as a result of which the crown was restored to Edward. Whatever role he may or may not have played in the disappearance or murder of the Princes in the Tower, and I have reason to be dubious about his personal involvement in their deaths,mthere seems little doubt that he was not lacking in physical courage.
Awesome presentation mat as usual practically a history lesson
I love that there’s never an opportunity missed to smirk at the word “penetrate”.
I am sure "The Bruce" can be totally trusted for factuality in his tale about how valiantly "The Bruce" defeated his opponent.
It wasn't the Bruce who told the tale
Really enjoyed your bringing up the historical documents and walking through the process of assessing their accuracy within the context of the weapons involved and likely actual outcomes.
I personally see a crenalated hammer with 4-6" spikes as the ideal weapon for armored combat. Standing in the stirrups allows maximum energy transfer. The spike would pierce a helm nicely.
I agree.
I have seen various critics of those texts point out that the numbers of combatants and 'small folk' claimed to be present at Bannockburn didn't make sense based on the local population.
I'm still mad about the ending of 'Braveheart'...that movie did the Bruce dirty.
Watch Outlaw King; it'll help you calm down as that film at least tried to respect the history.
Assuming the poem would actually be perfectly accurate in describing this event, then it would seem that at least one, and possibly both the combatants were riding at full speed at each other when they clashed. With the added force from the horses, wouldn't it then seem just a little more feasible that one of them could land a blow capable of breaking both the weapon and armor on impact?
Add to that the idea that the Bruce may have been swinging to the front of Henry's helmet, with the spike rather than the blade of the axe, and I think that even a greathelm would be suffering quite a lot of damage...
Not just the helmet but just imagine the kind of concussion/other trauma you'd get. I'm no medical expert by any means but just the thought hurts
@@sebbi8360 exactly, you only have to dent it inwards, not actually penetrate it. History often gets exaggerated so he likely felled him with the concussive force which damages the helmet enough to fracture the skull.
I wonder how much poetic license was used by the writers. Perhaps it was a mighty blow, and it unhorsed de Bohun, then he was subsequently killed by Robert's men? Robert would still have essentially made the kill, but when writing it the drama was increased for effect.
maybe he broke his neck with the axe blow and later it became mystified to the form it is
You can't underestimate the adrenaline of having the shit scared out of you, and enough skill to control that enough to have the presence of mind to take advantage of it.
Getting through a helmet, well maybe not. Did he get hit hard enough to separate some rivets? That could look like an ax getting through. The spike end getting through is possible too.
Getting hit hard like that is liable to crack your skull anyway, helmet or not
Brilliant! I was taught this story in primary school in Scotland in the eighties and im so glad you could shed light on it!!!
I'm currently learning about it in school
@@comradekenobi6908 Glad to hear of it. Is that primary or secondary? I was only taught this in primary and was really too young to appreciate it. To this day I don't know whether it was syllabus or just the notion of my long dead teacher to tell a few patriotic tales. I distinctly remember her enthusiasm when she was telling us of Douglas capturing a castle.
@@campbella2796 A bit of background in primary. They then they explained a lot in secondary.
We then have to write essays for exam. In my opinion the Scottish history history ministry put too much emphasis on how to properly write a spotless essay for some reason
@@comradekenobi6908 Good to know. I always felt there was too little Scottish history taught at school. I took the subject until I was 16 and the only other Scottish history we had was the Scottish agricultural revolution...not quite so interesting.
@@campbella2796 What city you are from sir, if you don't mind me asking
Personally I find it hard to believe that Robert the Bruce was found alone at the start of the battle. Leaders in those times tended to have a bodyguard around them at all times.
"Some massive context I'm going to insert into you right now."
One small correction, at about 8:30, Matt mentions most of the Scottish nobles were mixed Anglo-Norman. By this point, the Norman influence had barely made its mark in certain areas of Scotland, north and west primarily, as far as noble lines go. That would happen rapidly during the period following Scotland's independence, as the house of Bruce would try to essentially consolidate the north, and the west was already coming under their influence through marriage alliances with the Scots still in northern Ireland, that Edward, Robert the Bruce's brother, had married into. That didn't last, but it did help bring in the isles around Skye, in between Ireland and Scotland, and the coastlands there that had always been more "Celtic" than Norman. This bringing the west into the fold, and little bits of the north though that wouldn't be complete for some centuries, was one of Robert's primary goals during peace, same with his son, David II.
So when Matt says "Scotland wasn't quite a single nation yet",( he is totally correct )and he is talking about Robert Bruce, he is really talking about a coalition of three different groups that are actively in the act of splitting off (the north Irish) and merging (Scots of the west, Normano-Scots of the Lowlands), and mixed Celtic, Celto-Scandinavian, maybe old Pictish, who knows what else way up there in the Highlands, Hebrides, Orkneys that wouldn't merge for quite awhile, but began to think of themselves as Scottish, just a different KIND of Scottish than the Norman Scots or the western Scots, starting in around this era.
This is sort of an example of adversarial proto-nationalism, these people might not have considered themselves "Scots' with a good idea of what that meant, but they were sure they didn't want to be ruled by the English King. You would get similar things in Flanders, were if they didn't know what made you 'Flemish' they knew what a Frenchman was and they hated that. And of course by the end of the Century you get "Italy freed of Barbarians", which suggests something of the development of a national idea.
Thanks for that bit info. My Surname is from the Western area of Scotland, Loch Sloy and Lomand. Its interesting to know how and when the idea of the Scotish nation emerged. What a great people they became. 👍
Yes this is a really important thing to note. Also political allegiance was a form of identity at the time. Yes the nobility of England and parts of Scotland were Anglo-Norman or even of direct descent from other French stock but they also identified themselves as English very often - but that wasn't to say that they were necessarily the same English as the Anglo-Saxon English population as a whole. This is still the case in a lot of countries today even. And as you say a common enemy is very important for forming a nation state.
My favourite bit came at 18:20; Of all the massive things to have inserted into me, context is by far my favourite.
I make no excuses. 😁
In agreement with you there. We're so lucky in the UK to have such a wealth of written historical sources. But anyone reading through them quickly finds some well worn tropes like: -
"...he cleaved his helmet/helm in half..."
"...the rivers ran red with blood for [x amount of] days afterwards..."
"...the lands were thickly forested so that a squirrel could travel from [A] to [B] without ever setting foot on the ground...'
and many more. As a kid I used to think it was just lazy writing, but now I wonder if it was just not only part of a style of description that others could easily reference but also a lack of comparisons from the scribes cloistered life.
Before the printing press, these accounts were hand copied or repeated by word of mouth. So it can get exaggerated in the telling, but by the end everyone tells the same version of the tale.
If you've ever been to a bardic story telling, especially a story everyone knows there are certain points in the story that everyone waits for, touchstone points of common reference, the good bit we all wait for.
Robert the bruce ended henry de bohun rightly. Henry's supporters changed the narrative of his death to make it less embarrassing
I bought the Mark Churms’s painting of this event a few years back and have it sitting on the wall next to my 1981 Excalibur movie sword.
This was one of the best videos I have watched so far today. Great topic good coverage. Always entertaining and informative from this channel
I'm an old enough history nerd that I'd studied the Scottish Wars of Independence before "Braveheart" came out and laughed my butt off the when I watched what I once heard a British Historian describe as 'Lethal Weapon in Drag'! 😆
Next you will be telling us they didn't wear kilts then and there was a bridge at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.
@@Cervando Indeed, no kilts and there was a bridge and William Wallace was a member of the gentry and was a LOWLANDER!!!!!!!! 😀
@@Cervando But surely somebody shouted "Freedumb!" ?
Gentry? AND a Lowlander? But I thought kilt-wearing, haggis-eating highlanders were the ONLY cultural group in Scotland? Are you suggesting that there was a group of Normans in the south who didn’t speak Gaelic? That’s very strange.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 Yes, there were a group of Normans/Anglo-Normans in the south of Scotland who didn't speak Gaelic and William Wallace was one of them! Younger son of a younger son of an Anglo-Norman knight of Welsh extractions since Wallace means Welshman in Scots English. So gentry and Lowlander. The great plaid mistakenly called a kilt only came about in the 1500s and I don't know if boiled puddings such as haggis were around and of course most Scotts ain't Highlanders! 😆
Matt just put his context into me and I enjoyed it very much!
Excellent analysis there Matt.
I struggled with this story for a long time.
Thanks for your remarks Matt.
The amount of additional force from two charging horses also has to be considered. That is a combined closing speed between them of up to 60mph, depending on the horses and their loading. Even if Bruce did not punch through, and axe blow like that would probably have broken something in there badly enough to cause death.
Precisely - armour cannot defeat the laws of physics. But ultimately the precise details of this skirmish are not important - the Scots won the battle and the English lost the Scottish Wars of Independence. What is important to day is what it means to Scots. Like the "defeat" of the Spanish Armada, which was actually accomplished by storms not the English navy. But no one questions the importance of that battle to English history, or the English sense of self. Who cares how Henry de Bohun died; he did, the Scots won the battle and not long thereafter issued something called the Declaration of Arbroath, which they could not have done if Robert the Bruce had not won the Battle of Bannockburn. Remember too; Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles are descended from Robert the Bruce, not from Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. So was Charles I, no modern UK without him either. So Good King Robert winning the duel and the battle is vitally important. Spiteful poms taking shots at Scots need to be rejected.
Can I put it out there, there's always the chance that the axe didn't penetrate his helmet and essentially concussed him to death. With how hard he must have been hit to snap an axe handle, along with the design of medieval helmets.
You did a good job presenting the indecent, pride and hate pushing a un trained noble in to his own kamikaze attack un armored.
Good effort with the Scots, definitely tones of this language in a lot of rabbie burns words
22:04 I'm sure you were not meaning to do this but I became very focused on and almost obsessed watching all the times you took the axe towards the helmet. I kept wondering if you were going to make contact. I believe you finally did here after the time stamp above. Thank you for sharing your great knowledge on this history. I have recently been learning about post Roman occupation to year 1000. To learn Scots was basically the Anglo-Saxon language and the idea of the "smaller" wars between families or the royals really gave me a new perspective of that time.
Equally plausible is that a blow heavy enough to break the haft of the axe could have resulted in a skull fracture and the immediate unconsciousness of Robert, followed by intracranial hemorrhaging which could have killed him in a few minutes. Followed up with a light sprinkle of embellishment.
I can easily imagine such a thing. Say, a helmet that dented enough to split a few rivets, caved in against the skull and left him with a fractured skull and massive subdural, or even just a fast epidural bleed.
Thank you
2:47 yeah the territory being the whole of Scotland.
This was very well done! I think the source really supports your argument, particularly the part where it says neither hat nor helm "could" have stopped it.
If the roles had been reversed we would never hear the end of it, no questions of legitimacy or disbelief, did you know England won a World Cup in 1966, they are awfully quiet about it, and never any talk about dodgy refs at all…
So I am sitting here watching Expedition Unknown and guess who pops up to show Josh how sword and shield fighting was done. Yup, none other than Matt Easton. Pretty cool. Congrats man. Seen you on a few things now… superstardom awaits.
I was not prepared for the abrupt insertion of that massive context.
The text you read ... does it say that the axe came through the helmet? It says the hat and helm did not stop the axe and the axe cleaved the head down to the brain ...
"Struck him such a great blow That neither hat or helmet could stop The heavy clout he gave So he cleaved the head to the brains The hand-axe shaft broke in two"
... But what if the blow was under the helm, in the forehead and the basinet was without visar (does is spells like that?) or with visar up? An axe hitting you just above your eyebrows is not a good thing. ...
hitting below the helm is also a possibility if there's no visor or the visor isn't lowered, i didn't even think of this.
The Bruce's weapon of choice was the 'small axe', and he was considered a master of that weapon.
Wow I remember reading about this decades ago. When I saw this video come up I knew I had to watch it. Good video. :)
I also wonder if maybe Robert took a swing and managed to get through the eye slit or into the face (if wearing a secret helm with no great helm over top), and to observers, the angle and perhaps metal on metal sound of the spike deflecting off the ridges of the eye slit made them *think* that it was a penetrating hit, when in reality it had bypassed the armor entirely with a well aimed (or lucky!) swing.
Well done Matt,always enjoy your views into history! Yes back in those days,and,even for many,many,many years to come,wars were in the end,NOT country against country,but family squabbles....Nasty and bloody,but still family squabbles
As far as people go, I feel like you're one of the people who has the greatest intuitions on what pre-modern weapons can do to armour for the same eras; but I do wonder how much the inclusion of horses into an equation throws that intuition off.
Does anyone know how fast an axe like this will be going at the point of impact against a stationary target? A video trying to discern this would actually be really helpful. Even it's like 80mph, adding, say, 25 mph to that (a horse), plus the target meeting you at the same speed...that's a big difference!
That text had certain similarities with Middle High German both in sound and style.
the use of horses made the 1 handed battle axe much more effective
I almost want to believe that it was a fancy great helm that was fit for a king, but not a warrior, and it literally shattered when hit or a join failed. Would love to see a Matt and Todd collaboration to explore this.
This seems like a reasonable suggestion.
Nice idea, but I doubt it. Henry de Bohun wasn't a powerful figure, grandson of an Earl but not in any position to inherit the Earldom. This legend of his death is pretty much the majority of what's known about him. Hs equipment would likely be functional, not fancy because he had no reason to get a fancy helmet as he was insignificant beyond his role as a Knight.
Very interesting, thanks for this. If it did happen, it must have been a heck of a blow to break the shaft of the axe, which was presumably hard seasoned wood, unless that was an embellishment in the 1375 record. If the blade, or more likely the spike, penetrated the brain through the helmet and skull, I imagine it would have lodged pretty tight and needed a huge wrench to remove it, pretty difficult to get that kind of leverage on horseback and on the move. Seems more likely that it was wrenched from Bruce’s hand when De Bohun fell from the blow.
from a re-enactment I had seen of the event here on UA-cam, it went how the book described, in the re-enactment Sir Henry had a sword and swung at Robert the Bruce, Robert leaned to the side to avoid, and while leaning, stood in his stirrups and swings his ax in to the back of Henry de Bohun's head.
The version I heard was that the Bruce deflected the lance or attack somehow and struck the back of his head as he rode by. If he hit low on the mail....that would kill with one blow from an ax. By shattering the vertebra and/or severing the spine. Certainly if I were in that situation that would be a preferred target compared to hacking on the helmet.
Hello Matt !
For the context, I'm French. When you speak about this story, I directly though about David versus Goliath.
It is very difficult to watch trouh all mythological event write through the age.
Very nice video by the way :)
Great vid and like my history i think the clan split and the battle of Bloody bay as well as the battle of Renfrew could both have altered the course of history in Britain
This is weird. Just yesterday I was thinking about this incident. I had no reason to be thinking about it. It just popped into my mind. Odd when that sort of thing happens.
10:40 Mathew. This makes me feel so much better.
As a girl when I had to do the Shakespeare, medieval English for classes,
as a ESL (second language english). I was like whaaaat...?!!?!
It's like an anime, you have no idea what there saying but recognize some words.
Then the teacher like a prophet would extract all of these fantastical 'themes, and motifs".
I guess telling stories in rhyme is useful as it makes them easy to remember, which is important when few people can read or write.
You make some great points. The worst thing you can do with medieval history is look at it through nationalistic tinted glasses. It was the rich nobles, landowners, knights & monarchs fighting for control & more land. Great video
That is one of the most accurate statements.
These wars were conflicts and hostilities amongst nobles, who were known to, related to and had common ancestry with each other.
Nothing really to do with nationality and sovereignty, but a greedy land grab from each other.
Last year in university, I wrote an essay and a presentation on the Battle of Bannockburn, and the fight between these two was something I came across in my research. I didn't get to say much about this incident (in fact, I don't think I got to say anything about this incident) as I only had so much time, but I still remembered finding it very fascinating.
Great vid Matt. A good explanation of one of my favourite periods of history. I had assumed your source would be from the poem 'The Bruce' by Barbour, and that sources for period are thin on the ground. Did you use, or is it mentioned in the Lanercost chronicle? I would imagine that it is being a fairly common source from that time ad location. I only know about it from reading through John Prebbles 'Lion i the North' (several times).
I very much like how you mentioned that it really was a war of the nobles for the most part, and that there were relatives on both sides of the conflict and indeed landed interests. The ruling class of the time was still a bit Norman.
This is extremely interesting. Im English, but of Mainly Irish/ Scotish origin. My Surname is from Western Scotland, and a large well known Clan in Scotland who fought alongside Robert the Bruce. Noted for their Loyalty to him. Im rather proud of that.
Hi Matt! Thanks for the context insertion! No specialist knowledge on this subject but I would guess the plucky underdog aspect which appeals to us today wouldn't have played the same way at the time. As you say, this was between two branches of nobility who I would guess would want to play up their nobility and that they were playing by the rules. I doubt the Scots would have wanted to present themselves as "less noble" than the English back then. In that sense, if anything, I would assume that if you were going to make up an imaginary encounter, it would be more likely to be lance on lance. I've no idea if there are other accounts of single contacts but between high-ranking nobles at the time but the detail of the use of the axe strikes me for that reason as more likely to be true (not something you would make up). It might also be interesting to compare it with obviously fictional accounts like Arthurian tales (what is the "ideal" form of single combat?). I'm not sure if there are contemporary ones.
I find it fascinating how it seems possible to hear modern english, french, latin, and german influence in the language of the source material. There were definitely a few "huh?" moments, but for the most part I was able to follow along quite well.
This is a point of interest to me, Henry de Bohun being the nephew of the Earl of Hereford (my hometown) who together with the Earl of Gloucester commanded the first cavalry division to cross the Bannockburn and advance on the Scots’ position on a flat field behind a strip of woodland. The position was intended to minimise the English advantage in cavalry but the popular account has it that the Bruce had ventured beyond the natural cover into an exposed position and as you mentioned, was not yet kitted out for battle. That may be where the reference to his being on a scouting mission may have come from, especially if he was mounted on a palfrey (a lighter and probably faster horse more suited to the role, on which a knight would ride to the battlefield before switching to a heavier warhorse saved for the battle itself.) I have pondered over whether the impulsive response of de Bohun on which the popular account is based, may have been partly driven by a desire to achieve glory in the presence of his uncle, who commanded the cavalry formation. The breaking of the axe shaft would suggest that the axe (which I am certain it was single handed as the double handed “Danish” axe from which it was derived, at least in the hands of the Saxons at Hastings, was an infantry weapon that would have been impossible to wield properly on horseback) was used with tremendous force, met with an opposite tremendous force to generate such an impact.) This would be consistent with landing the blow whilst De Bohun was charging at full tilt. Personally I believe that De Bohun was armed with a lance as per the popular account; it was a weapon of impact used from a charging horse which is consistent with a double impact from the Bruce’s axe, and it is a one-chance weapon in that if the target is missed, there is no defence against a counter blow from an opponent carrying a weapon like an axe, mace etc, suited for the melee. If the Bruce had managed to steer his horse to De Bohun’s blindside away from the lance, when De Bohun was already committed to the charge and his horse was at full gallop, he would have had an open target to swing his axe at. As for De Bohun’s head protection, I would expect he was wearing the full helm, and agree with your suggestion that the spike of the axe was used. If the Bruce had the confidence to meet De Bohun head on, and the presence of mind to steer his horse away from the lance, it is highly likely he also had the presence of mind to realise that the spike would be needed to penetrate the helmet.
William Scott's three volumes on Bannockburn are the most reliable historical information available on the battle.
I highly recommend all three book:
I recommend The Art Of Warfare In The Middle Ages by Charles Oman, the best book on medieval warfare ever written. You can still pick it up on Amazon for under a tenner second hand. It covers the Dark Ages onwards to the end of the Middle Ages and the introduction of gun powder, and goes into considerable detail about weapons and armour, tactics and battles and campaigns. Absolutely a must-have if you are interested in this period.
It is a classic David versus Goliath tale. One of my professors postulated the biblical story as the Genesis for the legend behind this single combat
Excellent of you pointing out that there was no clear notion of English and Scots at this time. Every knight owed his fealty to a Lord and many Scots TO THIS DAY hated the Bruce espescially supporters of the Comyns.
At the time it must be remembered that you were not in Scotland until you passed Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn of course was fought in the shadow of Stirling Castle which was considered the key to conquering Scotland
Really good video 👍🏻 For me I would rather pick a Warhammer over that Axe in a medieval battle for a one-handed weapon
Mr. Easton knows why I'm here...
I love how you strip away all the Hollywood BS and get at the truth, or as close as anyone can. Great video thank you!
This was brilliant. Although I feel like I need to shower now after you put your massive context into me. Lol
Love the breakdown, would love more like this in the future. Would also be interested to see tests of axe v helmet… what would happen if the axe came down on the ‘right angle’ part of a flat-topped great helm or another knightly helmet with angles/flat tops?
Matt, Great video - very informative. Is it true that Robert the Bruce had participated in numerous tournaments in his younger days?
He had an immense tournament record all over Europe, he was the top rated sports star of his time, recorded wins of his are on many Central European murals.
I’m actually ancestrally related to Henry De Bohun. God knows how, by my Uncle made a family tree extending back with around 10,000 people on it. Henry De Bohun’s title caught my name - the most interesting one I’ve found on there so far, that’s for sure.
As a Scot growing up the version of the story I was always taught was that both of them were out scouting and both were lightly armoured, no great helms or lances anywhere in the story.
Were you taught this by word of mouth or is there any hard source for it? Not meaning to be rude btw I’m also a scot but I believe the original version. Would love to hear more from you about this, even just the story you were told. 🏴 ❤
@@ChuntyCops Well "when growing up" means as a child in like primary school or s1 history, don't think I even knew what sources were. It is more a comment in response to the video saying how the combat has been represented over time than a comment on what actually happened.
And I mean what is the "original version" in this context? Its not the oldest recorded source as it is written after the fact.
@@DoddyIshamel My mistake, I read and relied before I watched. Hadn’t heard of the English account before. By original I meant the Scottish account, which is widespread. Stupid me, of course there isn’t a main source! I get way too excited about this stuff. Thanks for the reply.
Considering it took place about 20 mins before the battle and it takes about 3 hours to get into your battle gear, it’s safe to say neither one was going to have a costume change
@@jk28416 It happened on the first day as the Scots blocked the advance of the English heavy calvary - the main battle was on the second day in a different location.
DeBohun had to be riding 20-25mph, upright in his saddle. Those men that were everyday laborers then soldiers when called upon, had a different physical strength than we see today, Especially The Bruce..a hard HARD man-true martial master & survivor. I would imagine when in a battle of death, the speed power and ferociousness in his movements as well as others like him, have long since disappeared. To have the power and agility to avoid a 25+mph charge, quickly stand turn and deliver a death blow takes extraordinary power and skill. He was and had been fighting for his life family and Crown, his adrenaline was sky high, his focus was sharp, his power was animal-like that day! Im not arguing against 1 or the other--Those are just some things we can forget about in our advanced and modern age. Nevertheless, I enjoyed that tale! A+ for picking that out to break down and discuss! That was a real treat!
Great. video. Those men were very strong back then and with the momentum of the horses, I can see it being plausible that the Bruce could have struck him hard enough with the spike, if he wasn't totally armored up
Hey Matt, what about the Battle of Otterburn?
It fell about the Lammastide,
When moor-men win their hay,
The doughty Douglas bound him to ride
Into England, to drive a prey.
And he has burned the dales of Tyne,
And part of Bamburghshire,
And three good towers on Reidswire Fells,
He left them all on fire.
Then he's marched on down to Newcastle,
“Whose house is this so fine?”
It's up spoke proud Lord Percy,
“I tell you this castle is mine!”
“If you're the lord of this fine castle,
Well it pleases me.
For, ere I crossed the Border fells,
The one of us shall die.”
Then Percy took a long, long spear,
Shod with metal free,
And for to meet the Douglas there
He rode right furiously.
How pale, how pale his lady looked
From the castle wall,
When down before the Scottish spear
She saw proud Percy fall.
“Had we two been upon the green,
No other eye to see,
I would have had you, flesh and fell;
Now your pennon shall go with me!”
Now I'll go up to Otterburn,
There I'll wait for thee.
If you not come ere three days end
A false knight I'll call thee.”
“Oh it's I will come,” proud Percy said,
“I swear by our Lady.”
Then there I'll wait,” says Douglas,
“My troth I plight to thee.”
They've ridden high on Otterburn,
Upon the bent so brown;
They've lighted high on Otterburn,
And threw their pallions down.
The day being done and the night come on,
A clear moon o'er the land,
“Awake, awake my lord!
For Percy is hard at hand.”
”You lie, you lie, you little page!
Loud I hear you lie!
For Percy had not men yestreen
To dight my men and me.
But I have dreamed a dreadful dream,
Beyond the Isle of Skye;
I saw a dead man win a fight,
And I think that man was I.”
He's belted on his good broad sword
And to the field he ran,
But he forgot the helmet good
That should have kept his brain.
They hacked their swords 'til the sweat did flow,
Blood ran down like rain.
And Percy wounded Douglas on the brow
And he fell never more to rise again.
He's called to him the Lord Montgomery,
“What recks the death on one?
Last night I dreamed a dreadful dream
And I know that this day is your own.
Oh bury me by the bracken bush,
'Neath the briar tree,
Oh hide me by the bracken bush
That my merry men might not see.”
The moon was clear, the day drew near,
The spears in flinders flew,
Many's the bold Englishman
Ere day these Scotsmen slew.
The Percy and Montgomery met,
The blood so free did flow,
“Now yield thee, Percy,” he says,
“Or else I'll lay you low.
You shall not yield to lord nor loun,
Nor shall you yield to me,
But yield unto the bracken bush
That grows by yonder briar tree.”
“I will not yield to a bracken bush,
Nor to a briar tree,
But I would yield to Earl Douglas,
Or else to Lord Montgomery.”
This deed was done at the Otterburn,
At the break of day.
The buried Douglas by the bracken bush
And led Percy a captive away.
Looks like another job for Tod's Workshop to test out 😁
Is there any possibility that such a forceful blow to the back of the head could have simply killed him from the impact, rather than it being because of the axe cutting through(spike punching through) the helms/maille/etc? A rapid forward, back or twisting movement of the head can send the brain crashing against this bony box and cause all sorts of damage.
Yes, consider that a concussion can kill even when the skull remains intact ... er ... zero penetration. From modern studies of football (full contact, heavily padded North American rules football) we know that closed head blows can still kill. Concussion is especially deadly when combined with rotation which can cause the brain to bounce off of ridges inside the skull (e.g. back of sinuses). That is why the latest generation of football and bicycle helmets are double-layered to allow some slippage between the inner and out layers, reducing rotational impulses.
This reminds me of a favorite joke:
English Sergeant,panicked: “Sir, it’s a trap! There are TWO of them!”
I saw a statue of Robert the Bruce when i was travelling in Scotland a few years ago. I think it is near or in a little village called Brough (pronounced bruff). He is still popular up there to this day.
As a Scot I found this very interesting and would believe your assessment of this particular encounter🏴👌🏴