When you're enemy is mostly horse archers with little field artillery wagonforts make far more sense than pike and shot. The Qing mauled both Ming and Korean pike and shot formations with their horse archers. The horse archer reigned supreme well into the 17th century in the eurasian steppes. The bulk of the polish cavalry relieving Vienna was made up of medium horse archers equipped in ottoman fashion.
"Reigned supreme" is probably taking it a bit far. Horse archers remained _viable_ and could be fielded in large numbers by the type of societies that produced them, which made for decent armies that could perform very well when the stars aligned. But they were definitely losing the edge they had once held from at least the 15th Century onwards. Also worth bearing in mind that the far eastern pike & shot formations were lagging significantly behind westerns ones by the 17th Century, especially in the shot and artillery side of things.
Ming used to fight Mongolian with their version of wagon fortress, until they were crushed , well, by Qing's wagon fortress which has better fire power.
In the days war it go down the a big advantage because you can fit drone Jammers while operating your own optic cable drones. Because of the war in Ukraine I have a timer and I did build some optic cable drones.
They would have still needed to build the roads for those forts on the move just as the Roman legions needed to build the roads so they could march more easily towards non-Roman territory.
The Russians seem to have always been pretty good at building fortifications and defensive lines... Also, would be cool if you covered the Ottoman tactics against pike and shot (which were somewhat similar, at least from what I know). EDIT : nevermind me, I finished watching the video.
This video is certainly a much-needed voice in a historical debate on Early Modern Warfare and the Pike&Shot period not always being so... Pike&Shot. There is no surprise that out of all the UA-cam channels out there, it is your channel that is the first to touch this topic in depth. You guys are definitely ahead of the curve. Much respect for that. However, I definitely have my fair share of remarks. The video, perhaps because of the source material definitely appears very Russia-centric. Although it is made clear in the latter part of the video that tabors weren't exclusively a Russian thing it almost appears it was. The absence of Cossacks in the video is concerning. Especially since wagon-forts/tabor/gulay-gorods were their primary way of warfare which they learned from the armies of the Commonwealth and dear I say perfected it. The tabor marching order as depicted in the video is very simplified. A shame since it was described in great detail in military treatises of the era like *"Consilium Rationis Bellicae"* written by no other but Jan Amor Tarnowski which you mentioned in your video. The video also makes it look like Tabors In Central-Eastern Europe were used instead of Pike&Shot formations while in reality they were used side by side by both Muscovy and Commonwealth. Finally, the army led by Sheremetev *DIDN'T* get away. The Cundnów campaign ended in complete catastrophe for the Russian army and could be a case study for limitations of tabor/gulay-gorods. In short, I treat this video as an appetizer, which definitely left me hungry for more and I hope you guys plan on unpacking this topic in more detail in the future. As I'm sure time constraints and video formula simply didn't allow you to do it in one go. Cheers!
History of the art of warfare is my biggest passion in history. My dream is to build a big ass museum with all blades, pikes, muskets, artillery pieces, uniforms from all eras of history that would show the evolution of warfare
Can you make a video on Western warwagons/carts if you haven't already? I recently saw some very intricate and beautiful wagons when visiting a nearby castle but have rarily heard about them. It really remind me of the awesome cartoon King Arthur and the Knights of Justice from the 90s.
Interesting to compare the concept with pike & shot. I wonder (without much background in this area at all) if the later dominated in more settled and densely populated areas because it's more tactically aggressive and can directly seize ground by moving pike squares forward. This is advantageous when warfare is about controlling land, and field battles about clearing the way to the next siege. But in the steppes, and especially against fluid light cavalry armies, this is not really the aim. Rather than controlling land yourself, the more workable tactic is to deny it to the enemy. That way you can slowly push them back and logistically starve them out of a wider area. Mobile fortresses that can be used to project fire and prevent the enemy from making use of an area do that brilliantly, even if they would be less good at forcing an infantry army out of the way.
For someone lacking background in the area, you are grasping it fairly well. Another thing one has to take into account is sparse population density which in turn means that in Eastern Europe infantry and armies in general had to rely much more on their wagon trains to carry needed supplies ad equipment. The tail-to-teeth ratio will be different than in Western Europe. *"That way you can slowly push them back and logistically starve them out of a wider area."* --- This is one point of your comment in which I think you missed the spot. But the video also didn't explain it well. Tabors are unable to deny terrain and supplies. In the stepps, only cavalry can. This is the tabor's greatest vulnerability. They can be easily cut off and starved by enemy cavalry force. That's why they need a cavalry screen to fiction. To forage and scout. This is why all Cossack uprisings against the Commonwealth failed until the Cossacks allied themselves with Tatars which could provide capable cavalry.
@@Velesus101 Thanks! The good thing about history is that a lot of the understanding gained about one period can be transferred (carefully, and with some modifications) to a new context without having to start completely from scratch. What I meant by the latter isn't that the Tabors themselves push the enemy back, but that a (grand) strategy that uses armies with Tabor's can do that in the long run. It allows armies to move between villages and towns safely so that they together form a single defensive network, rather than being taken out in detail. Over the long term, this leads to a sedentarisation of the landscape, making it more suited for settled armies and less ideal for nomadic-pastoralists. For precisely the population density reasons you mention.
Now i started to think. After i'm studying about early modern period/pike and shot warfare, watching your videos about early modern period/pike and shot warfare and watching from the alternatehistoryhub channel about early modern period "being the most underrated era in history" i find that early modern period/pike and shot warfare is fascinating, cool and more interesting than medieval era. But why fantasy or isekai that set in early modern period/pike and shot warfare is really few and rare? I mean there are many potential and things in this era that can be used as a settings in fantasy or isekai story
After watching the video I ask myself not why russians didn't use pike and shot, but why westeners didn't use wagon forts and the like. Was it because there were more actual permanent fortifications around, so they would use those instead when they needed to fortify themselves?
Mobile artillery was too effective in the west. Compared to the light horse archers who couldn’t bring many cannons, the westerners adapted to the similar Hussite strategy of warwagons by deploying heavier guns and cutting the less mobile wagons to shreds
why did western armies not use guliai gorods? was it just geography or also the already in place structures of armies? i. e. the consequences of the infantry revolution / fortress revolutions of the previous centuries?
Turns out it was not just them, similar tactics were used not just by Hussites but also Hungarians, Ottomans, Persians and even the Mughals in India. Rather it was these western weirdos with just their pikes
Expet he literally did shortly after. He ended up in captivity and Tsar didn't even bother buying him out so he spent over 20 years of his life in prison. The video is very misleading when it comes to the Cundow campaign.
It is worth mentioning that Hussites implemented this much earlier, and even the name "Tabor" exists because of taborists from Hussite movement. Speaking of artillery, Ivan IV had one of the largest artillery parks in Europe. The reason to that was much more centralised and bigger state than many others in Europe. Only competitors were Spanish, French, Ottoman and Holy Roman Emperor's artillery parks. This artillery will later save Pskov from Stefan Battori's army, when enormous 32k army won't be able to take Pskov, because artillery made any bombardment impossible by overwhelming fire. And allow me a little grudge: why is it so common for English speakers to mess up the stress in the word? In "Gorod" second syllable is stressed, in "Streltsy" its second syllable as well. Obviously, not everyone speaks Russian nor should speak it, but when you are doing a research and making a video, I think this little effort won't harm you at all.
Great video, despite that most Polish names were quite amusingly mispronounced. Only Jan Amor Tarnowski was without any issue. Then again, if you got the letter J right in Jan, what made you pronounce it the English way in Jerzy? 😉
Can you explain the Ottoman Warfare on a tactical scale like here? Especially the one before the implementation of Napoleonic warfare, for example the one in the 18th century?
Russia could never field large units of well trained infantry. They had a few small elite units and mercenaries, but no large standing well trained infantry. It was just too expensive. The bulk of their infantry were often leveed peasants. Pikes requires a lot of training to prevent the long pikes from tangling into each other. These Guliai-Gorods were great in the defense against mobile horse archers, but did poorly against combined arms armies with mobile artillery, horse, arquebusiers and polearm infantry. A moble force can always pin the Guliai-Gorods in place and cut off their supplies.
It was most commonly used by Cossacks who in turn learned this tactic and marching order in Polish service. The first military treatises describing this tactic in detail (aside from Bohemian and German sources) were written in Poland. In fact, the Polish example shown in the video, the Battle of Obertyn happened in 1531 a good 20-30 years before any record of tabor use by Cossacks. It also predates most of the examples of Russian use of the tactic shown in the video.
Kings and Generals sold off at the first chance they got. Their biased and political coverage of the Ukrainian conflict goes to show that they are not to be trusted as far as modern conflict is concerned. Goes to show that they give in to external pressure and this conflict has shown which creators (on all platforms) kept their integrity.
@@Serai-l7z Yes and no. I think that we first need to understand that we can analyse warfare without the politics part. For example, you can look at each individual battle, which tactics the the generals used, the formations, etc, without bringing the external factors. On the other hand, you can talk about what caused two states to go to war with, and that indeed will include a political discussion. What makes good history, is when it is trying to do its best to stay objective, without using politically charged words or dog whistles. You can have your own opinion on a certain political or historical events, that is fine, and you can say them, as long as you mention that it is your personal opinion. Since the war in Ukraine and Gaza, channels like Kings and Generals have produced quite politically motivated videos. Their videos in general are known to have inaccuracies and false premises too. This channel is good because it stays away from mentioning the political part per se, as in the political message of the creator of the video to gather support of certain groups. Sorry for long answer :)
The ownership of kings and generals no doubt has something to do with it, they are run by a central asian political exile with connections to totally unsurprising links to American intelligence.
I'm super early! Thanks for the great video, as always. I learn so much. Perhaps you've already done enough videos on cannons and artillery, but I think it would be super interesting if you made a video talking about basic cannoneering tactics, such as how they would shoot diagonally into formations to maximize casualties, not just shooting straight on. I feel like, because of Hollywood like always, people have the wrong idea on how cannons worked historically. Please keep up the good work. I love your channel.
That is only partially true. Tabor/wagon forts had its beginnings in the Husaite Wars, but at the point in time discussed by this video, it had already evolved far from what it was in the Middle Ages.
It all goes to logistic. Each pikeman needs about 1kg of supplies daily while horses graze what they find. So, having more horses and less men is advantegous. Also, pikeman would need shield against horse archers. Having 200 arkebuseers with wagon forts and handful of cannons would be more efficient then pike and shot battalion against light cavalry and would have lot longer operational range between resupplies.
It is less about how much supplies a pikeman needs (because believe it or not a cavalry unit consists of more men than just men riding the horses into battle) and more about the infantry's inability to forage supplies on their own while being harassed by enemy cavalry.
Came back after the awful "the origin of war" video. Can't believe you haven't deleted this video. I know you put a lot of work into it but the end product is bad. I don't think I'll be coming back to you as long as this ignorant video is up. I was a one year and a half religious watcher of your videos before that. Do of that what you will.
Take the battle to the Warhammer 40.000 universe and play Tacticus for free: play.tacticusgame.com/SandRhomanHistory
Pike and Shot warfare my beloved we all miss you so!!!
I am always so happy when SandRhoman posts video from the early modern period, thank you so much
Before watching let me just say that the topic is amazing and criminally underrated
When you're enemy is mostly horse archers with little field artillery wagonforts make far more sense than pike and shot. The Qing mauled both Ming and Korean pike and shot formations with their horse archers. The horse archer reigned supreme well into the 17th century in the eurasian steppes. The bulk of the polish cavalry relieving Vienna was made up of medium horse archers equipped in ottoman fashion.
WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!
...sorry... Needed to get out my system
*your
"Reigned supreme" is probably taking it a bit far. Horse archers remained _viable_ and could be fielded in large numbers by the type of societies that produced them, which made for decent armies that could perform very well when the stars aligned. But they were definitely losing the edge they had once held from at least the 15th Century onwards. Also worth bearing in mind that the far eastern pike & shot formations were lagging significantly behind westerns ones by the 17th Century, especially in the shot and artillery side of things.
Ming used to fight Mongolian with their version of wagon fortress, until they were crushed , well, by Qing's wagon fortress which has better fire power.
In the days war it go down the a big advantage because you can fit drone Jammers while operating your own optic cable drones.
Because of the war in Ukraine I have a timer and I did build some optic cable drones.
Russia: I am the true heir of Roman Empire!
Everyone else: prove it!
Russia: I carry my forts everywhere with me.
They would have still needed to build the roads for those forts on the move just as the Roman legions needed to build the roads so they could march more easily towards non-Roman territory.
@@3baxcb Направления более чем достаточно
@@3baxcb >Builds roads
>Turns to mud half the year during rasputitsa
15:15 _"To hell with the undead! We'll cut our way through the woods, men!"_
The Russians seem to have always been pretty good at building fortifications and defensive lines... Also, would be cool if you covered the Ottoman tactics against pike and shot (which were somewhat similar, at least from what I know).
EDIT : nevermind me, I finished watching the video.
dang kind of reminds me of hussites and sometimes janeissaries
Music choice is great 🔥
8:01 don't say those Sabathon song didn't start playing in your head
Hi I love your vids
great video as always!
Greeks in 1821 vs ottomans used tabors. Basically they were small walls and and earthworks but vs undisciplined bashi bazuks were effective
This video is certainly a much-needed voice in a historical debate on Early Modern Warfare and the Pike&Shot period not always being so... Pike&Shot. There is no surprise that out of all the UA-cam channels out there, it is your channel that is the first to touch this topic in depth. You guys are definitely ahead of the curve. Much respect for that. However, I definitely have my fair share of remarks.
The video, perhaps because of the source material definitely appears very Russia-centric. Although it is made clear in the latter part of the video that tabors weren't exclusively a Russian thing it almost appears it was. The absence of Cossacks in the video is concerning. Especially since wagon-forts/tabor/gulay-gorods were their primary way of warfare which they learned from the armies of the Commonwealth and dear I say perfected it.
The tabor marching order as depicted in the video is very simplified. A shame since it was described in great detail in military treatises of the era like *"Consilium Rationis Bellicae"* written by no other but Jan Amor Tarnowski which you mentioned in your video.
The video also makes it look like Tabors In Central-Eastern Europe were used instead of Pike&Shot formations while in reality they were used side by side by both Muscovy and Commonwealth.
Finally, the army led by Sheremetev *DIDN'T* get away. The Cundnów campaign ended in complete catastrophe for the Russian army and could be a case study for limitations of tabor/gulay-gorods.
In short, I treat this video as an appetizer, which definitely left me hungry for more and I hope you guys plan on unpacking this topic in more detail in the future. As I'm sure time constraints and video formula simply didn't allow you to do it in one go. Cheers!
Youll be pleased to know that there is a previous video on this channel all about the hussites c:
History of the art of warfare is my biggest passion in history. My dream is to build a big ass museum with all blades, pikes, muskets, artillery pieces, uniforms from all eras of history that would show the evolution of warfare
Can you make a video on Western warwagons/carts if you haven't already? I recently saw some very intricate and beautiful wagons when visiting a nearby castle but have rarily heard about them. It really remind me of the awesome cartoon King Arthur and the Knights of Justice from the 90s.
Interesting to compare the concept with pike & shot. I wonder (without much background in this area at all) if the later dominated in more settled and densely populated areas because it's more tactically aggressive and can directly seize ground by moving pike squares forward. This is advantageous when warfare is about controlling land, and field battles about clearing the way to the next siege. But in the steppes, and especially against fluid light cavalry armies, this is not really the aim. Rather than controlling land yourself, the more workable tactic is to deny it to the enemy. That way you can slowly push them back and logistically starve them out of a wider area. Mobile fortresses that can be used to project fire and prevent the enemy from making use of an area do that brilliantly, even if they would be less good at forcing an infantry army out of the way.
For someone lacking background in the area, you are grasping it fairly well. Another thing one has to take into account is sparse population density which in turn means that in Eastern Europe infantry and armies in general had to rely much more on their wagon trains to carry needed supplies ad equipment. The tail-to-teeth ratio will be different than in Western Europe.
*"That way you can slowly push them back and logistically starve them out of a wider area."* --- This is one point of your comment in which I think you missed the spot. But the video also didn't explain it well. Tabors are unable to deny terrain and supplies. In the stepps, only cavalry can. This is the tabor's greatest vulnerability. They can be easily cut off and starved by enemy cavalry force. That's why they need a cavalry screen to fiction. To forage and scout. This is why all Cossack uprisings against the Commonwealth failed until the Cossacks allied themselves with Tatars which could provide capable cavalry.
@@Velesus101 Thanks! The good thing about history is that a lot of the understanding gained about one period can be transferred (carefully, and with some modifications) to a new context without having to start completely from scratch.
What I meant by the latter isn't that the Tabors themselves push the enemy back, but that a (grand) strategy that uses armies with Tabor's can do that in the long run. It allows armies to move between villages and towns safely so that they together form a single defensive network, rather than being taken out in detail. Over the long term, this leads to a sedentarisation of the landscape, making it more suited for settled armies and less ideal for nomadic-pastoralists. For precisely the population density reasons you mention.
@@QuantumHistorian In that case you are spot on.
serfs wake up, new sandrhomanhistory video dropped
Now i started to think. After i'm studying about early modern period/pike and shot warfare, watching your videos about early modern period/pike and shot warfare and watching from the alternatehistoryhub channel about early modern period "being the most underrated era in history" i find that early modern period/pike and shot warfare is fascinating, cool and more interesting than medieval era.
But why fantasy or isekai that set in early modern period/pike and shot warfare is really few and rare? I mean there are many potential and things in this era that can be used as a settings in fantasy or isekai story
After watching the video I ask myself not why russians didn't use pike and shot, but why westeners didn't use wagon forts and the like. Was it because there were more actual permanent fortifications around, so they would use those instead when they needed to fortify themselves?
Mobile artillery was too effective in the west. Compared to the light horse archers who couldn’t bring many cannons, the westerners adapted to the similar Hussite strategy of warwagons by deploying heavier guns and cutting the less mobile wagons to shreds
why did western armies not use guliai gorods? was it just geography or also the already in place structures of armies? i. e. the consequences of the infantry revolution / fortress revolutions of the previous centuries?
A Monday video drop?!? That's heresy, but I'll take it
Am I the only one who likes the old military formation models better? Of course, probably a petty complaint)
Ah mój ulubiony polski hetman Dżerzi Lubomirski
Fantastic work as always, the best source on UA-cam for Eastern Europe armies
Normal people: Use pikes
Russians: Just carry around a fort
Turns out it was not just them, similar tactics were used not just by Hussites but also Hungarians, Ottomans, Persians and even the Mughals in India.
Rather it was these western weirdos with just their pikes
@@ZS-rw4qq Also both Poles and Russians made use of pike so... one doesn't exclude the other.
@@ZS-rw4qq I know
@@Velesus101 point taken!
Haha love the tacticus add, if you are playing in which guild are you?
Sheremetev just didn´t have surrender in his vocalulary.
Expet he literally did shortly after. He ended up in captivity and Tsar didn't even bother buying him out so he spent over 20 years of his life in prison. The video is very misleading when it comes to the Cundow campaign.
Oh that makes me curious what tactics used when gun started to get used in war in east asia particularly China
So... The AOE 3 russian barrack represents part of this?
It is worth mentioning that Hussites implemented this much earlier, and even the name "Tabor" exists because of taborists from Hussite movement.
Speaking of artillery, Ivan IV had one of the largest artillery parks in Europe. The reason to that was much more centralised and bigger state than many others in Europe. Only competitors were Spanish, French, Ottoman and Holy Roman Emperor's artillery parks. This artillery will later save Pskov from Stefan Battori's army, when enormous 32k army won't be able to take Pskov, because artillery made any bombardment impossible by overwhelming fire.
And allow me a little grudge: why is it so common for English speakers to mess up the stress in the word? In "Gorod" second syllable is stressed, in "Streltsy" its second syllable as well. Obviously, not everyone speaks Russian nor should speak it, but when you are doing a research and making a video, I think this little effort won't harm you at all.
Are you seriously expecting a non-native speaker to use the correct accents in pronouncing foreign words?
@@Velesus101 this is not an accent
Actually it's the other way around - taborites got their names from tabor, the word itself coming from Turkish "Tabur" ('military camp')
@@Twist_of_luck No, they take their name from the city of Tabor named after the Tabor Mountain from the Bible.
Russian strategy: giant axes
The Guliai-Gorod reminds me somewhat of Jan Zizka's use of wagon forts.
gret video
Guess Boris did a , good enought job…. Okay I am leaving.
I thought this term refererred to a 1920s rusviet mech
In other words this was the reverse of it
Damn, thats cool
Saw these recently reading the Russian arc of the 1632 series.
Great video, despite that most Polish names were quite amusingly mispronounced. Only Jan Amor Tarnowski was without any issue. Then again, if you got the letter J right in Jan, what made you pronounce it the English way in Jerzy? 😉
A friendly tip: Potocki should be pronounced "pototsky", not "potoky".
Can you explain the Ottoman Warfare on a tactical scale like here? Especially the one before the implementation of Napoleonic warfare, for example the one in the 18th century?
The history and development of the Gentry cavalry of Russia would be interesting.
Sounds like carrying pavise and using a gaelic fortess of bones to cover the wagons on the move would have been wise.
Russia could never field large units of well trained infantry. They had a few small elite units and mercenaries, but no large standing well trained infantry. It was just too expensive. The bulk of their infantry were often leveed peasants. Pikes requires a lot of training to prevent the long pikes from tangling into each other.
These Guliai-Gorods were great in the defense against mobile horse archers, but did poorly against combined arms armies with mobile artillery, horse, arquebusiers and polearm infantry. A moble force can always pin the Guliai-Gorods in place and cut off their supplies.
Could this be applied to Poland, Ottoman and generally Eastern European as well? Who seems evolved from Wagon Fort that Hussite created
Yep, id argue it was even more commonly used in Poland
It was most commonly used by Cossacks who in turn learned this tactic and marching order in Polish service. The first military treatises describing this tactic in detail (aside from Bohemian and German sources) were written in Poland.
In fact, the Polish example shown in the video, the Battle of Obertyn happened in 1531 a good 20-30 years before any record of tabor use by Cossacks. It also predates most of the examples of Russian use of the tactic shown in the video.
finally a good non-political analysis of warfare, unlike Kings and Generals
How does Putin’s rooster taste?
To be fair, it is difficult to analyze warfare without analyzing the politics. Clausewitz said that war is just an extension of politics
Kings and Generals sold off at the first chance they got. Their biased and political coverage of the Ukrainian conflict goes to show that they are not to be trusted as far as modern conflict is concerned. Goes to show that they give in to external pressure and this conflict has shown which creators (on all platforms) kept their integrity.
@@Serai-l7z Yes and no. I think that we first need to understand that we can analyse warfare without the politics part. For example, you can look at each individual battle, which tactics the the generals used, the formations, etc, without bringing the external factors. On the other hand, you can talk about what caused two states to go to war with, and that indeed will include a political discussion. What makes good history, is when it is trying to do its best to stay objective, without using politically charged words or dog whistles. You can have your own opinion on a certain political or historical events, that is fine, and you can say them, as long as you mention that it is your personal opinion. Since the war in Ukraine and Gaza, channels like Kings and Generals have produced quite politically motivated videos. Their videos in general are known to have inaccuracies and false premises too. This channel is good because it stays away from mentioning the political part per se, as in the political message of the creator of the video to gather support of certain groups.
Sorry for long answer :)
The ownership of kings and generals no doubt has something to do with it, they are run by a central asian political exile with connections to totally unsurprising links to American intelligence.
FYI "All of History" channel is using your artwork.
can’t find a channel by that name. Is it “all history”?
Search for " Medieval Life Documentary: A Brief History of Medieval Weapons" it should come right up.
I'm super early! Thanks for the great video, as always. I learn so much. Perhaps you've already done enough videos on cannons and artillery, but I think it would be super interesting if you made a video talking about basic cannoneering tactics, such as how they would shoot diagonally into formations to maximize casualties, not just shooting straight on. I feel like, because of Hollywood like always, people have the wrong idea on how cannons worked historically.
Please keep up the good work. I love your channel.
Oh, and some videos talking about Japanese, Korean and Chinese tactics would be really cool too!
Commenting for the algo. Love me some early modern history.
Those tactics were already deployed much earlier by the taborites during the hussite revolution.
wait for it.
@@SandRhomanHistory I was saying it for those who dont know.
That is only partially true. Tabor/wagon forts had its beginnings in the Husaite Wars, but at the point in time discussed by this video, it had already evolved far from what it was in the Middle Ages.
It all goes to logistic. Each pikeman needs about 1kg of supplies daily while horses graze what they find. So, having more horses and less men is advantegous. Also, pikeman would need shield against horse archers. Having 200 arkebuseers with wagon forts and handful of cannons would be more efficient then pike and shot battalion against light cavalry and would have lot longer operational range between resupplies.
It is less about how much supplies a pikeman needs (because believe it or not a cavalry unit consists of more men than just men riding the horses into battle) and more about the infantry's inability to forage supplies on their own while being harassed by enemy cavalry.
How very Hussite of the Rus.
Came back after the awful "the origin of war" video. Can't believe you haven't deleted this video. I know you put a lot of work into it but the end product is bad.
I don't think I'll be coming back to you as long as this ignorant video is up.
I was a one year and a half religious watcher of your videos before that.
Do of that what you will.
isgoodwaggon🛒