Historian Mike Loades Debunks 'The Agincourt Myth'
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2024
- Historian Mike Loades Debunks 'The Agincourt Myth'
Legend of popular history Mike Loades provides Dan a detailed run down of Henry V's famous victory at the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415 and how his men were more a band of brigands than a 'band of brothers'. They discuss the arms, the armour, the tactics and the popular myths today associated with the battle, thanks to the immortal works of Shakespeare and Laurence Olivier.
Subscribe to History Hit TV and get 30 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
#BattleOfAgincourt #MikeLoades #DanSnow
I think the biggest myth is the assumption that having archers in your army meant you had a bunch of untrained peasants working for you. Which is absolutely untrue. The skill, discipline and work required to become proficient with a longbow would have been incredibly valuable at that time.
Easier them teaching them to be swordsmen
Training was required. But nowhere near the extent
@@davestuddaman8127 It was said in England that to get a competent archer, you had to start with his grandfather. That statement tells the tale; it took a lifetime of training and practice to become an archer.
@@boydgrandy5769It didn't though. The reason it took so long was that they were training peasants in their off time, on Sundays primarily.
@@TzunSu it was declared law to train on a Sunday but I'm sure they didn't just train on Sundays....
@@alexwinter6720Why wouldn't they? They worked every other day of the week.
What I really liked about this interview, is the sheer amount of "I don't know" that was said.
We really don't know a lot of things about the past. We can make an educated guess, but not much more than that.
That's the thing about being a historian. The further back we go in time, the more muddled the picture gets. Even 'records' of events could perhaps be biased, or lies, written down by people who didn't know either. But what can we do? It's an interesting field of study, it's important, and I love it. But it's never going to be 100% accurate at all times because time and distance is a lense that muddles things. Just look at ukraine right now. So many posts images videos etc...and still we don't know the full picture of everything going on.
Spot on really like this channel but the reaction to movies videos sometimes annoys me based on how sure they are. Like to the point of the historian being visibly angry sometimes over certain things, I am always sat thinking you don't know enough to be that sure of yourself 100% of the time' no one does
That's a very good point. It always annoys me when historians, or actors playing historians, say something like "Caesar did X" instead of "We are told by Suetonius that Caesar did X" or "This is where the Anglo Saxons did such and such" instead of "We think the Anglo Saxons were here because of these finds". Absolute certainly outside of pure mathematics is not very useful, especially with history. Liberal or Conservative, just think about all the inaccurate reporting there is today where almost everything is documented by almost everyone.
I remember when they found what they think are the remains of Richard III. And in some sort of anti-Shakespeare/anti-Tudor/pro-Plantagenet movement, there were all these comments (mostly from non-historians) slamming the Bard along the lines of "Ah ha! Richard III wasn't a HUNCHBACK you DOLT!!! He had severe scoliosis! That's TOTALLY DIFFERENT! The Tudor-era slanders against Richard are totally unfounded!"
Well pardon me, I didn't realize Shakespeare having been born almost 80 years after the death of Richard III was supposed to be some kind of expert on spinal ailments. The correct historical view, assuming the bones were correctly attributed to the King, is to think "possibly the scoliosis present in the skeleton caused a hunched over posture and therefore influenced rumors over time which influenced Shakespeare. More research is to be done..." And besides, even if we assume the Tudors had a decades-long hatred of Tudor, and indeed that the Tudors were kinda nasty folks, that doesn't necessarily absolve Richard of his misdeeds. In short, they could have both been rotten. The point being that a historian might have his or her favorite eras of study or personalities, but a good historian doesn't take "sides". (I have to laugh as I am just now remembering some comment left under a video about Carthage, lamenting Hannibal's defeat and calling the Romans inferior to the Carthaginians...kind of a long time to hold a grudge I'd say) The job of the historian is to report facts as best as they can be lifted from the clearest available evidence. "I don't know." "It's unclear." "We're still examining the evidence." "We're not sure." are perfectly acceptable answers. Perhaps not the most exciting or satisfying, but it's honest.
It is refreshing for someone to be honest about what is known and what isn't.
Most historians don’t get involved in the technical issues and stick to where there are known facts and good, primary sources of information. There’s still a fair amount of don’t knows but, for example, we know that Julius Caesar attacks in Britain were punishment raids for those tribes support to those tribes in northern France.
I can’t get enough of Mike Loades, his enthusiasm for history is infectious
Loved watching him since time commanders, there's a little on either history or smithsonian or some channel where he talks about roman weapons in a few videos but it's hard to dig and find ones he's in
Love how he uses that middle finger also!! 😂
Couldn't agree more!
@@Nick_Jarrett looked for this comment, time commanders is where I knew him from, legend.
Came here after the video games breakdown
As a British soldier I had an experience which has parallels with the choice of the battlefield. We had to move an infantry Battalion across a small river in late September, the crossing point had been surveyed well in advance. However it was a disaster, the height of the river level was too low making the riverbank too steep, the boats ,which were flat bottomed, went straight under when launched. I suspected the river was surveyed in Spring when it was much higher, I suspect the French chose the battlefield when the ground was dry, they didn't know when they would fight. By the time of the Battle Autumn rain had turned it into a bog, on the day it was chosen it was dry with a slight slope, perfect to attack down slope. Seems that lack of imagination as to the future conditions was to blame.
I think that the historian Mr Sloan would have appreciated that comment.
It wasn't this vid, but another one I watched a few years ago, credited the English victory with the fact that the area in which the French had to advance was too narrow. Of all the elements to this battle - or any other - the one that seems to be neglected most is the actual terrain, plus the weather conditions at the time. For years I couldn't figure out how or why the French lost so badly. It had to be more than their hubris and drunkenness. But when you consider the battlefield itself, that makes all the difference. And a wise commander knows how to use it accordingly. Know your enemy and know your battlefield. X's on a map don't mean a whole lot.
You have no parallels with 14th century warfare, you clown
That does make sense. Also the French outnumbered the english by quite a bit. Be it cannae or be it agincourt, a lot of these commanders had the hubris of having the larger army.
Wow, that was fascinating! And what a great interviewer! He asked the question then let Mr. Loades answer without interrupting him. Fabulous!
Glad you enjoyed Keeley!
It's not really an interviewer. He is historian Dan Snow.
@@chrismac2234 A historian, yes, but he was the interviewer in this setting.
An interviewer can be a historian, you know. :)
I agree entirely with Keeley though - it's a pleasure when an interviewer doesn't feel a need to constantly interject and instead lets the interviewee speak and get their point across properly.
It's a revolutionary interviewing technique.. maybe it will catch on..
I don't see how an interviewer/historian COULD interrupt and overtalk, when the interviewee is SO knowledgeable and fascinating to listen to...
That WAS fascinating.
Nobody would want to interrupt, and only then, to ask for more explanation, or to ask about a point not dealt with, WOULD you make a comment.
He knows his subject, has a lifetime of research about him - you could probably give him 20 artefacts, start him up and come back 3 hours later, once he'd gone through the artefacts.
A great way to spend 37 minutes.
As a French, Im happy to have the British as an ally today. Great video.
I think king Edward VII has to be thanked for that, thanks to his intensive exploits of the Paris nightlife he had excelent connections to negociate an allience between France and the UK. when the official diplomacy of both countries was very hesitent. Could also be his dislike for cousin Willy of Germany played a part.
@Dank Waifu It was not so much that Edward VII did the negotiations, that would be a violation of the constitution, but his relation netwerk enabled the diplomacy to make the right connections for negotiation,. It went against the grain for many oldfashioned staunce Englishmen on high placed to ally England with France were the tradition always had been to be allied with Germany. Of course the growing economic and militairy power of Germany made the English French Entente necessairy. The Entente Cordiale dates from 1904, just 6 years after the Fashoda incident that had brought England and France on the brik of a colonial war.
A year after the signing of the Entente Cordiale the Kaiser tried to test it in the Tanger Incident.
@@kamion53 I thought it was from Queen Victoria. It seems to me she maintained a good friendship with both Louis-Phillipe I, and Napoleon III.
@@tibsky1396 I think Victoria provided asylum to both monarchs as they were disposed. And I can imagine Vicky was not so friendly to the regimes that disposed those two monarchs. Victoria's policy of alliances was marry as much monarchs in her family.
It did not actually work very well, there is a wagonload of cordial letters between the cousins Willy, Nicky and Eddy, but they went eagerly to war with eachother. Kind of family quarrel in their minds only taking as much soldiers as possible with them to the brawl.
As a Franco British, wake up from your naïveté… the English still consider us as major rivals rather than allies 😏
I'm a Paralympic Archer I competed in Tokyo 2020 last year. I have no fingers on my left bow hand. I was very impressed with his analysis of archers fatigue over time and over days. We shoot at 70 metres 72 arrows in ranking followed by a series of head to heads that can go up to 15 arrows a match.
The two bows, Olympic style Recurve bows, I took to the Paralympics were 38 and 40 pounds respectively. In my final months before Tokyo were I was shooting somewhere between 1,500 arrows and 2,000 a week (not including competition weeks overseas where I would shoot much less for obvious reasons) it was critical with that high volume to take routine breaks and breathers. Maintaining fluids and keep non archery related muscles active. Also you would spend sometimes 30 minutes to a few hours massaging your muscles with trigger balls and deep tissue work to prevent the body from over fatiguing. Because once your shoulders fatigue it can take days, weeks or even months to recover. I myself am currently in that recovery period. Then you need to slowly build back with form work, elastic bands and light weight limbs e.g. 24lbs. This has happened to me a couple of times over the years but my mentor who helped me make most of my apparatuses to shoot actually blew out his rotator cuff in his bow shoulder completely shooting lighter warbows such as 120-150 pounds. And he can now barely shoot 24 pounds.
So the rational of rotating the archers, giving them rests and then keeping them fresh was all very well explained. Also I have done a few re-enactment displays in earlier years and going from shooting large volumes to "fighting" can be incredibly exhausting and I'm athletically fit, can comfortably run 5km in just over 20 minutes. Everything about how this interview was done was enjoyable to listen to.
I do respectfully disagree with him on the idea of limiting target distance to 50 yards there abouts. I could shoot selfbows and modern longbows accurately with power of about 100-150 arrows at 80 yards but I feel on volleys they would be devastating even to 150 yards. Would they be as punishing compared to 10-30 yards? Absolutely not, the arrow has a point where it reaches its perfect distance, and then drops speed over time. Though I still theorise it would have been a somewhat common practice for distance volleys. Never the less I can't fault his argument on that point.
Very interesting input, thanks for that Taymon.
There is a huge difference between a long bow and a modern bow used in competition. One is fine art, the other is brute force. If you are fatiguing firing a 38-40 pound bow, then I question your actual athletic value. I am an avid bow hunter (Grand Master 22 years continual) ...I use a Browning compound at 70-80lb draw weight...I use a far heavier arrow than you fire FIFA or competition. I never ever get sore shoulders...I can shoot all day all weekend with this weight at targets. One must keep their ranking...right? My arrow will still have power at 80+ meters where yours is dropping off at 60 meters. Volley shot with a long bow was used at 100 to 180 meters and then dropping off distance as the enemy closed. You are very right to question that at least. It used maximum velocity until peak and then used grain weight and drop to maintain effective penetration on armor at 180 meters. This guy is a total idiot to believe they started firing at 50 meters for "effective" shooting...that's a hunting range for individual targets...warfare was not fought that way...that's why they used 7000 archers...volley shots. If you began firing a 50 meters...you would be over run after first shot. Horses closed the gap very fast. This guys hypothesis is just that...he wasn't there...it was just his theory and hypothesis...what " he thought"! However...written history and eyewitness reports of the battle contradict his hypothesis at every turn. Does this guy have a time machine...think not...therefore this is just a you tube vidtorial in an attempt to make a name for himself...after all...Agincourt is so widely presented historically...that this guy has to sound like an idiot to try and debunk them. The French did not have enough archers to bring to bare effectively at Agincourt...they were a very rapidly assembled mass of knights, assistants and men at arms... they used crossbowmen as their archery base at this period of time. . They never really adopted the longbow fearing the simple but deadly weapon in peons hands. Therefore they never had the low bow at Agincourt. He is completely wrong there. Any modern archer with a background in military history would know this guy is full of BS. But...congrats on your achievements. Most people think archery is a slow sport without much fitness required. Healthy body health mind..... I am older now... but still a very healthy 120kg brute with a background in SF´s... so fitness was also a must for me on what was probably a much grander scale. Kudos! My personal view on Agincourt was a rushed attempt at interception by the French that led to a catastrophic cluster f*k due to so many misunderstanding and even weather. It was a very lucky fluke for the English...however...war is only about who wins.
@@sqnhunter it’s my understanding that the French were on foot, in mud, and well armored. Arrows dropping on pots of steel is not effective. Arrows flying horizontally into eye slits, shoulder joints, and other joints, are the best way to use them, and it’s hard to close 50 yards quickly in armor and mud.
@@docstockandbarrel Yes...the battle followed rain which caused mud...but my comment was for the long bow in general....the wonder weapon of the day would have been totally useless in a cavalry charge in clear time if its maximum range was 50 meters. One volley and run. At 180 meters...the damage was done with three and 4 rapid succession volleys. this is what broke the charges. The chances of eye slit and joint hits would be very minimal at least. Without armor piercing weight and heads, this bow would never have been so iconic. The mud is what most caused probably the defeat of the French in this circumstance...but it isnt a factor in other defeats. The long bow and its long heavy grain arrows and heads still has enough inertial energy at 180 meters to penetrate chest armor. It is actually this factor alone that made it so deadly.
@@sqnhunter armor piercing was for mail mostly. Horses had armor too and can take a beating, arrows falling on them isn’t as devastating as taking it from the side or unarmored areas in the front. They were protected by spikes and trees. Many of them were in woods. They’re not volleying in the air.
Mike is a legend. Extremely enthusiastic. He's the chap who would happily grab medieval weaponry and give a demonstration. Brilliant.
It’s so strange to see him so still! He’s normally so energized and running all around like
I've seen Mike on shows for years. Great to see him again. He's very good at demonstrating techniques too.
He's so energetic and so has such a talent for speaking knowledgeably and in such an engaging manner. His passion draws you in.
@@cleverusername9369 unfortunately he is an idiot. there is no blunt force trauma from arrows, they simply don't have enough energy. he said it is like a sledge hammer. complete and utter nonsense.
Just watched Tod's Workshop do their testing of French armor vs an English longbow and it really looks like with a volume of arrows you are going to do real damage to any chainmail protected body part. Yes the plate held up perfectly, but with 300,000 arrows you're going to get a lot of 'lucky" shots that wound, kill, or otherwise eliminate someone from continuing.
and in a later video he came up with better results from the arrows once they sharpened and waxed the arrow heads and use the correct shaped arrow heads for armour piercing too.
I think the answer that Tod's video gives is that the arrow did not need to penetrate the plate armour in order to be a very effective ranged weapon. Arrow splinters riccocheting off in every direction would have disabled many of the French knights.
And the fate of a battle might come down to how many of your soldiers actually have plate armour, rather than chain or less. Horses would be vulnerable, too. If only a fifth of your army has plate, the longbow would be devastating, provided the archers were protected from cavalry or ranged weapons.
The new Video shows the majority plate armour could penetrate the armour, that shoulder armour was not as common and suddenly became common afterwards. It was a good test, but it's only a best guess test.
I like the Tod's Workshop video, it's really great. But as his video shows the armor's resilience, he keeps trying to defeat the armor with different ways. He did good test but they feel extremely slanted as he consistantly try to defeat the armor more and more. Almost feels like he's frustrated and will pull a M60 to finally pierce the breast plate.
The Long Bows recovered from chests on the Mary Rose ,Gave a lot of information about the Draw weight needed to Fire the Longbow.
It was astounding think some of the bows were 170lb.
Yep. firing an arrow as thick as your thumb, with a tip designed to punch through armor.
@@PumpkinTuna As the video seems to assert, punching through armour was possible only at reasonably close range. A range of perhaps 50 metres is being suggested in the video.
The technique is amazing to see, or ones for similarly powerful bows. Lot of back and lat and pulling in motion. Its amazing to see how someone else long ago wouldve worked it out
Astounding is an understatement. I'm not a small guy and my 50lb recurve bow is a bitch to repeatedly draw. However, at anything under 20-30 yards, plate armour would be like butter.
@dylanpiazza6358 But they did .don't pretend to understand. HOW but from battles recorded they seem to. 🤔. I've No idea.
Thanks Dan and Mike!
I could listen to you two dissecting a battle all day. Very engrossing, and clearly Mike’s knowledge is substantial.
it's not. the point is that when enough arrows are shot, some will find some of the gaps in the armor. there is literally no blunt force trauma from arrows, they simply do not carry enough energy. he said it is kike a sledge hammer. he always says a lot of nonsense.
The English took an estimated 2millions arrows to Agincourt. It took a blacksmith a day to make about 25 arrow heads... the logistics! 🤯
How good it is to hear someone who knows about a subject that much that he can describe a lot of nuances that have a lot of common sense in them , but that one would never think about , unless you knew that subject extremely well .
love this historian. I've seen him in a lot of documentaries over the years. The way he talks you can tell he has a love and passion for history. Not that other historians don't. but you can really tell this guy loves it all.
Mike Loades was a major inspiration for me in learning to shoot an English Longbow. Took me three years from scratch to get to 120Ib. It was tough; went through months of pain at times as my body adapted. The strength and conditioning needed to achieve it is like training for a marathon.
What bow should I get as a beginner? I'm 6.3" and fairly strong, can I start with a 90lb? Cheers
@@jarlborg1531 Hi. Probably not. The fable of the tortoise and the hare applies. Start with a light bow.
For any complete beginner that might be a 25Ib bow or less. I can only give you general advice based on my own experience:
Join a club if you can. Learn the basics of good form, release (and even etiquette) etc. Does not matter what type of bow.
About three months of regular practice - concentrate on form/accuracy using a light bow.
Build upto 40Ib. Once you can shoot a 40Ib bow all day effortlessly, then go for a longbow (that shoots 50Lb at 28 inches, but can draw to 32 inches. This will give you a good range of power to work into).
This will be your formative bow. You use this bow until you can draw it effortlessly at full draw.
Move up to say a 70Ib bow at 28inches and repeat.
You should be able to get up to about 70-80ib towards the end of your first year with regular practice. (Based on my own experience as a 50 year old).
You MUST condition yourself slowly; muscles, tendons, ligaments etc.
The form for shooting heavy bows is different from lighter bows, but you tube has much info. You will find what works for you.
Avoid the temptation to over exert yourself, it will only set you back with injury (I know!) Good luck and Cheers!
No it’s really not
@@mikegregory2492 Oh wow, glad I asked. I'd have ended up with a bow that I couldn't have used for years. After reading stories of 160lb and 200lb bows, the 90lb seemed like a sensible option! lol Thanks, Mike.
@@jarlborg1531 just puts into perspective how massive and powerful the English and Nubian longbows truly are. and the fear it must've insighted into anyone across the battlefield from it.
It's great listening to Mike, he makes things come to life. I had a teacher who had the same enthusiasm as Mike, he was the guy that got me to love history.
This is the calmest I’ve ever seen Mike Loades. Still, I love his enthusiasm.
My thoughts exactly!
One thing many people fail to realize even today when looking at armor or modern body armor is deformation. As he describes a weapons projectile does not need to necessarily shoot straight through armor. The deformation of the armor can kill and injury, the extremities can be injured, they can lower mobility these are all part of the complicated combat that those outside of it glorify and misrepresent. What a great video!
not only that, deflected arrows and/or the splinters from arrows breaking against armors can injure and sometimes even kill if they get into gaps.
GarandThumb did a review of an armour face mask where a lot of different pistols would kill someone because the deformation would smash a wearer’s skull in.
@@WellBattle6 yeah he has a good video and many other do. Deformation and Spalling are not rememberd very often yet very important to armor.
Besides there is no guarantee that an arrow will hit the heavily armored chest piece
And this is why they had shields. Keep that deformation as far from the chest as possible.
😁
Can we get a guard detail around mike to make sure 2022 doesn’t get ideas. Love this man’s energy and knowledge. Could watch him all day
excellent discussion by Mr. Loades. Also don't forget many of the arrows would of killed the horses in Agincourt . that is enough reason to employ these relatively cheap archers. and we have testing that these 130 joule arrows penetrate riveted mail+gambeson, shields, gambeson, brigandine and thin plate metal.
too many unknown variables in a real life battles to say arrows can penetrate armor , yes under ideal lab conditions an arrow can penetrate but these will be never reproduced in any meaningful quantity in a historical battle
@@andrewescocia2707 yes of course but the arrows will reliably penetrate flesh. This has been tested reliably. Horses and soldiers are not fully armoured
@@HistoricalWeapons shifting the goal posts from your original comment slightly
Would of = would have
@@andrewescocia2707 From my perspective the goal posts haven't moved
Henry V, tired of waiting, ordered his army to move forward and replant the stakes within bowshot range. Time was not on the English side as they would starve, unless they won the day, whereas the French could get all the supplies they needed. Another night in the open and the English would be finished. Also the French would be able to bring up more men, possibly including their own unused archers. Not only did Henry take good advantage of the ground, he took the initiative and caught the French on the hop. There is a good account of it in Juliet Barker's book Agincourt. Personally, I think Henry V should be given credit for brilliant generalship in the battle, right up there with Wellington.
The account of the battle says that the archers moved to bowshot range, presumably longer range, otherwise they would have been too vulnerable, while replanting their stakes. This suggests that the English archers were shooting arcing volleys at fairly long range. Surely, on the very muddy ground, this would have induced chaos in the French cavalry and also the dismounted men at arms. Perhaps that is why the French had held off, until they were attacked by the English? They did not like the look of the ground. Perhaps they were even thinking of keeping the English waiting until the next day? The more I think about it, the more I think that Henry played a blinder, at the management level.
@Angela Bronckhurst just like Waterloo they are also famous for never surrendering and there mad Cows
you gotta give it to the english tho
Henry's decision to defeat the the French in detail ( before they could attack en masse) was genius.
@@ifv2089 And they definitely don't hold the highest record of military victory and are certainly not the major reason of the foundation of the country full of not loud-mouthed ungrateful simpleton with no knowledge of history treating them as despicable cowards due to a not propaganda from their pretty not imperialist government .
@@SirBojo4 u ok u seem offended, good heavens I'm terribly sorry I find that funny u did it to yourself
Fascinating interview. When you confront myths with reality. I'm French, love history, Shakespeare and ... Laurence Olivier's movie. It doesn't matter if it's not close to reality. I love myth and reality/history equally. Did not Winston Churchill said "History is written by victors.?, and Napoleon "What is history, but a fable agreed upon? "?
History is written by the survivors, I feel. Sometimes, even the losers can put a big "We woz 'ere" stamp on them. Napoleon pretty much kept his own myth burning by writing about his exploits when in exile, and both the English and French have left accounts of the 100 Years' War.
But agreed, sometimes a theatrical presentation of an event can be more appealing than the truth. Preferably, one gets drawn in by the 'myth' or the glorified image, and then follow up with the truth as a 'so THAT is how it actually happened!'
One thing I was taught about, and I am not sure if it is universally accepted, is the crowd dynamics.
People often say that the French got "stuck" in the mud, but don't elaborate on what that would have meant. The implication of having a lot of people in a small place, with thick and deep mud, is a crowd collapse scenario. As the first lines would have marched forwards, some would have gradually got stuck and fallen over, causing the people behind to fall over them. With the panic of battle, it is likely there would have been a chaotic and horrible scene as people are bunched together and asphyxiate from the pressure of the people around them, or are crushed to death underfoot. This is what happens in modern crush scenarios, at music festivals and so on. It would have been brutal and a sad, pathetic element of an apparently "glorious" battle.
Which is why the English preferred to fight on a hill top with their flanks protected by terrain and with a diminishing front that compressed the attacking army. Add to that archers on teh flanks whose arrow shot would also tend to drive those on teh enemy flanks towards their centre.
"A medieval arrow is a very sophisticated and expensive piece of ammunition." Guess why there are so many people named Fletcher.
really interesting and well presented. Some fascinating speculation and discussions.
thanks so much!
you have good videos btw
You're a fuckin legend mate
@@HavanaSyndrome69 Beautifully expressed
I don't normally care about battle history. I fall asleep during war documentaries. But these guys make it so much more than "this is how people got killed." They connect it to culture, to a wider history, to identity and how we think of ourselves, and they debunk misinformation - even literature greats and classic movies - as they go. If only every history teacher were like these guys.
One of the best historical reviews of a battle that I have viewed on the internet - can't wait to view another of your works - keep it up!
Many years ago as a member of the Sealed Knot (English Civil War re-enactment) I was struck on the head by a lose pike. I was wearing a Pot Morion with some padding bit was still knocked out and had to be carried off the field. A few years later I got cut on the forehead and with blood spewing everywhere I staggered around for a minute blind. In a real battle I would have died both times from any enemy that saw my vulnerability and in both cases from really light basic injuries. I love Mike, and he has kindly responded to several letters from me in the past.
A loose Pike or is that a term I don't understand Lose Pike?
Awesome fun.
As a lot of folk say, Long bows could be used to cover distance with a buzzing hail of arrows, even if the archer wasn’t that accurate. It was distance that counted.
Another great informative historical feature involving two of the best and enthusiastic British historians: Dan Snow and Mike Loades, discussing and dissecting the truths and reality behind the magnificent English victory at Agincourt in 1415.
Stayed longer than I thought. Not usually the format of interview i get history from. Great piece. Got lots of new insights on the reality of medieval politicking and mythologizing.
Quite simply the best piece of insight into historical battles, glued to this.
Mud needs to be seen more as a terrain type equivalent to mountains, hills and rivers in military history. The battle of Flodden was also greatly influenced by mud. Current events are as well, echoing the Second World War battles in the same place.
There was a very interesting documentary about mud at Agincourt. Basically, the authors have explored whether wearing boots, being barefoot or wrapping feet with cloth worked the same. Turned out that wearing boots would make you stuck for good, barefooted would not work as well while cloth would enable you to move without much problems. So, the thesis of documentary was that English won because they knew the trick while the French didn't.
@@ShamanKish I saw that documentary, too. Very interesting and a significant factor in the battle, imo.
@@ShamanKish English archers commonly wore cloth shoes so whether it was intentional or not (probably not since the French chose the battlefield) they were ideally equipped for the situation.
There is a war memorial that lists the archers at the battle of flodden, thought to be the oldest war memorial in Britain . It can be found in the stained glass windows of st.Leonard’s church , Middleton , Manchester.
Never thought that the guy who taught me stage fighting techniques over 30 years ago would become so well known!
Amazing content, can't wait to find more of this in your catalogue.
Mike Loades is a most eccentric gentleman and has such excitement for the subject you cant help but smile like a maniac whilst watching him.
Two very similar armies met at the Battle of Patay, but ended very differently for the English longbowman. :D
Similar armies but totally different set up. Its like bringing an airplane and expecting it to do well by just having it stay and fight on the ground.
The Scots a Loudoun Hill used funnelling terrain. There is also a traffic effect of acceleration and density increase. So if one horse goes down, you get a pile up. The Scots used ditches and stakes, the infantry behind the defences uses pikes/sarisas. The pike-men probably doubled as light infantry, after the cavalry charge was broken.
The English at Crecy, Poitiers and Azincourt did the same.
This is one of the best historical analysis programmes I have ever seen -- fabulous -- more please
Just recall Robert Hardy AKA Siegfried Farnon was one of the foremost experts on Medieval Longbows. He was a consultant wyen the Mary Rose was raised regarding the bows found on board.
Mike Loads reminds me so of Father Beocca from "The Last Kingdom" . Love medieval history. Certainly neither dark nor boring.
Morally dark or a dark comedy maybe!
You should read what author Bernard Cornwell - who wrote the "Saxon Chronicles" series of historical novels, which 'The Last Kingdom" is based upon - had to say about Agincourt, and also his excellent trilogy of novels about an English archer in England's wars in northern France, called "the Grail Quest" Trilogy.
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg wyrd bið ful aræd
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg I take my online/gaming name directly from those novels. When I first starting using it was in a very player political narrative, rpg game & after a few renames became a statement of intent in that game.
I'm generally not a scorched earth fuck the enemy type player but this was a game where rl could bleed into online & the developers published 2 psychology papers about it in 2010.
I have just found this channel, and I’m thrilled. The quality of the content is first rate. Well done.
Thanks!
@@HistoryHit, I’ve got a masters degree in military history, and your work Dan Snow is first rate and well presented. Keep it up, there’s a hunger out there for this content.
Fabulous, i have being hearing history hits TV but this is the first time UA-cam is recommending the channel to me. I subscribed already. I love the snow family, makes me want to have a kid to engage in with something we are both passionate about
I would suggest the Historian is some what Drawing a Long Bow at some of his suggestions on Warfare.For an instance much of body Armour of the time was concentrated on a frontal attack, therefore the front rank of Archers would be firing at an almost horizontal trajectory(front on) then ranks 2,3 etc etc would be firing at much higher trajectorys enabling the arrows to fall from above not only at the less well armoured areas but also to unease the Enemy and cause panic.
The reason for the archers covering the flanks not only contains the enemy trying to out flank but to give the flanking archers an opportunity to fire along the Enemy's ranks(Enfilades).
This is tragically under-viewed. An absolute gold mine of current insight.
thanks Greg!
I've fought in armour for an entire day, recreationally. If I had spent my entire childhood, adolescence and young adulthood dedicated to fighting I could fight for hours on end, add in the "I don't want to die" aspect rather than just "This is a great time!" then I expect there is a lot less swapping people out than you expect. Particularly as well-fitted armour is practically weightless and actually can be used to support your body, allowing you to fight for even longer than one would expect. Another note, that I disagree with needing to hit as hard as a heavyweight boxer. The impact may be a similar strength, but thanks to technique and mechanical advantage from your weapon of choice it's actually quite a lot easier swinging a sword than punching someone. You have to remember as well, that the men at arms would go back to camp, eat, give their gear a once over then into bed. There would be very little chance of men post-battle going back to camp for a roll with the camp girls, that was more of a siege camp endeavour rather than a campaign camp scenario.
I've always been curious . Is the armor you use the same weight as the original ones ? I worked in a museum for a while, and those old cast iron plates looked incredible heavy. But i guess one get used to everything with enough training.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 Generally speaking, yes. Different weights for different people's choices in armour type, from wax hardened leather to particularly strong plastic, to chain mail over a modern impact-absorbing material to protect soft tissues. I've known people to fight in plate, or decked out as Landsknechte.
@@Lumen_Obscurum That sounds pretty intense ! . But we humans are indeed capable to build up huge stamina when it's done overtime. I teach Roman history, and it's incredible how these guys could march with full gear and equipment day in, day out.
@@Lumen_Obscurum Landsknechte?? That's awesome.
I'd also add that you don't have to penetrate the armor of a mounted knight if you can shoot his horse out from under him at speed. Suddenly falling from 2 meters up in the air is no fun. Especially when your friends behind you can't stop their horse from trampling you.
And if your men are on foot...they're a slow moving target, so the archers have plenty of time to find every crack. And in a battle line you can't really evade.
It takes a lot to kill a horse. But yes, even if the horse isn't killed I wouldn't fancy riding one amongst hundreds peppered with arrows. Can't imagine the chaos
I always love it when common sense is placed next to myth.
As mr. Loades stated mythical images set far more easier in the mind and memory then the reality.
Such as the knight's armor was so heavy he had to be hauled into the sadle.
That is as realistic as hauling a firefighter up the ladder as the average equipment of a firefighter is about the same weight as that of a knight.
Just look at how romanticism is set around the sword, despite polearms, clubs and such existing
Wearing Knights armour would seriously hinder your mobility in general.. it only allows movement in a relatively limited manner so needing help to get on a horse is pretty likely. It's not just weight making it difficult.
Just bearing in mind you want to go and fight.. you don't want to already have broken a sweat getting up on your horse. My point is it may well have been a thing to get hoisted on your horse, regardless of whether or not it's possible to get up unassisted
Also worth considering the reality that falling from a horse while wearing armour could put you out of action immediately.. not only through injury but damage to the armour. If you can easily reduce the chance of resource losses before the battle even starts you would utilise that.
@@jimstartup2729 But still if that was so, the developing of full cover harnass and armor started in the middle of the MiddleAges and culminated in the Late MeiddelAges early Renaiisance. Early MiddleAges we see the mailskirts prevail, which less hindered mobility.
saw a video of a reconstruction of the life of Richard III using a young fellow, who has the same degree of scoliosis ( hunchback) as Richard III had. He managed very well in the reconstructed armor without signs of being hindered by it.
I think it is bad acting and badly designed movie armor that give the image of inmobility.
The myth of Henry V's leadership is even more damaging to our perception of History. One of the main reasons Henry was successful was his planning and operational management. These factors are often overlooked in evaluating his success.
: so it's not a myth. How does it go: amateurs talk strategy & professionals talk logistics.?
@@victornewman9904 I believe it’s tactics. Because strategy is big picture using logistics. But that sentiment is true, that’s why I believe Grant was better then Lee And that esinhower was one of the best generals of ww2
@@Strawberry-12. In a battle involving tactical manoeuvring, Lee is better. Grant does have the masterpiece of the Vicksburgs campaign though.
@@fredbarker9201 yep that’s my point. While lee might have been able to out maneuver grant on the battlefield (although not all the time). Grant totally outclassed him when it came to strategy. And in my opinion strategy is more important then logistics so that’s why I believe grant is better
@@Strawberry-12. if you swapped them round Lee would fare a lot better in Grants position than Grant would in Lees. So I think it’s unfair to claim Grant the superior, I’m a big fan of Ulysses Grant, practically my favourite American (I’m English) but can we really call him a better general than Lee? I don’t think so, purely because he was in the somewhat easier scenario, But Grant was the perfect fit for the union army where so many had failed
Well done! I always enjoying seeing clear details of historic events come forth. Once again, the truth turns out to be more interesting than the fiction.
Archery training camp in West Wales called Fagwyr Fran. Henry V stopped at Fagwyr Lwyd on his way to Bosworth to pick up Welsh archers and horses off the Preseli hills
@18:00 A good exemple of a cavalry charge on an undefended archer position is the battle of Patay, which saw the English longbowmen destroyed by the French vanguard, because scouts had spotted them before they were entrenched.
One of my favorite historic battles. What a great discussion.
Fantastic video! A pleasure to watch a discussion not bogged down with historical myths and inaccuracies.
Talking of the repetitive nature of combat archery, I've heard that archers suffered some of the highest rates of attrition on campaign. Not because they were being killed by the enemy, but because of the toll on the body firing those war bows could take over the course of days, weeks, months.
I've always enjoyed and learned from Mike Loades' knowledge and expertise when it comes to all sorts of mediaeval matters. This is another great addition to this long list! Thanks very much!
In addition to the medieval art, I would mention that the chronicle of Crecy describes the majority of casualties from the archery being around 15 feet so close range.
Yeah horses would have been killed first, then at close range arrows would be poking and punching through armor, if not damaging armor to the point it would impede movement.
On top of that the mud, the French knights would effectively be fumbling about at best.
Good to see Mike back in action.
Archery was strongly encouraged in English society from the 1200s onwards.
French were raiding England during the 14th and 15th century, so the raids on France were part of the deal.
LOVE anything with Mike Loads in it. His jousting video is wonderful as well. Any documentary with him is a pure gold!!!💪 MORE PLEASE🤘
The 120lbs draw and much heavier arrows than we use in modern times must haveade getting hit by one, even in plate armour, awfully painful.
If medieval battles were just a massive clobbering match, that would explain the relatively low casualty rates compared to warfare before or since. The vast majority of men who went into battle survived. This was an era in which it was very difficult to kill someone, which made for warfare biased in favour of the offence because offence is about getting somewhere the enemy doesn't want you to go, defence is about stopping the enemy before he gets somewhere you don't want him to go.
The best defence is a strong offence
The average death rate was close to 20% in medieval times. Melee warfare was brutal, death rates were very high when compared to today (6-7%) but the worst of it was the injuries that left people maimed for life!
That's not true at all. The casualty rates were usually low *for the victors* but the losing side could have up to 75% casualty rates in a single battle from their men being hunted down during a rout. At Agincourt, the English took 10% casualties, and the French took 33%, and this was only the numbers of men *killed* and not counting wounded. To use the contemporary Siege of Orleans, casualties (including wounded) were *80%* for the losing English and *25%* for the winning French. Comparatively, 100-200 years later during the Early Modern Period, the normal kill rate for the losing side was around 10%, and total casualties 25% in an absolute slaughterfest due to the introduction of gunpowder weapons and tactical changes that reduced casualties. The Mediaeval period was one of the most dangerous times to go to battle until the beginnings of modern warfare in the Napoleonic wars that saw a dramatic increase in battlefield casualty rates.
@@therat1117 Agincourt as an argument, that’s like using the bombing of nagano as an example!
Please do recheck the stats, across the board I am correct but please do use exceptions to the rule as your baseline 🙄😅😂
@@TheBreechie Agincourt is a very average Mediaeval battle. Sorry you want to think of it as some sort of one-sided slaughter lol, I even said its casualties were not that high compared to other notable battles, like say, the Ager Sanguinis, or Bannockburn.
Dan, an authority on history gets an educated opinion on history. I love it. Well placed humility.
Not to sure if you have already done a video on it as I have just ran into you're channel, but it would be very interesting to see an indepth video like this on the battle of Crecy!
Loved this interview.
I always like when Mike Loades enters in where Historical battles are concerned.👍🏻
One of the recent, best and wonderful UA-cam videos on the longbowmen at Argicourt, was organized by Tod Todoschini on "Tod's Workshop". Where he gets some real experts in their own fields together:
Dr. Tobias Capwell (Wallace Collection Curator/Jouster)
Joe Gibbs (Archer & Bowyer)
Will Sherman (Fletcher)
Kevin Legg (Armourer)
Chrissi Carnie (Fabric Armour).
It is called "ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Medieval Myth Busting".✌🏻
Just about to link it to the same thing!
Totally disagree .... they based their findings on arrows aimed at plate armour thereby discrediting the effect of archers.
They ignored plunging fire from large flights of arrows dropping vertically.
They ignored lateral fire from archers on the flanks.
Those archers were not stupid,they knew that most arrows were ineffectual against steel plate so would have aimed at horses or in the case of armoured knights at potential gaps or weaknesses,armpits,groin,neck,back of thighs.
Their 'tests' were designed to fit their narrative,it was not objective research done to find out how archers destroyed French armies on multiple occasions.
@@christopherfranklin972 the paintings show archers at agincourt shor straight not arching. 6000 arrows means a few are going to hit.
I doubt they were aiming that much. Also knights would have been advancing straight at them not just leave them alone.
@@lordwellingtonthethird8486 The paintings that illustrate the battle of Agincourt are not by eye-witnesses,they are stylised representations of a generic battle of the period,many illustrations of that period show archers,crossbowmen,handgonners aiming straight simply because the artists knew nothing about trajectory and the fact that you have to hold over to allow for drop.
The archers were located on the flanks while the main French attack was aimed at the 'battles' consisting of men-at-arms,knights and royalty,they were therefore vulnerable to flanking fire.
@@christopherfranklin972 I'm aware of the battle formations. But if you think no soldiers attempted to march at the archers that would be an error.
The effects on an arcing shot is useless compared to straight firing. Of course they would have aimed slightly higher at first but those arrows wouldn't harm an armoured Knight. But 7000 archers firing means and 1 or 2 arrows might find a gap.
I love mike loades his infectious excitement and descriptions are amazing it really makes you feel that we are there with him .
In reference to the repetitive hitting being just as effective as penetration, the veterans I know with modern armor have said more than once that even if the bullet doesn't penetrate, getting hit multiple times, especially in the helmet, can be incapacitating...granted, the soldier can get back into the fight with bruised and busted ribs much faster than from an actual GSW, it still hurts and affects your ability to fight efficiently
What a treat this channel is. Thank you :)
Love the discussion about husbanding your supply of arrows. Anybody have an idea of how many (percent) could be recovered and reused after a battle.
let us know if you find out!
@@HistoryHit Well I know in the Battle of Towtown the Lancastrian arrows were falling short because of being fired into the wind. There are reports of the Yorkists line moving forward to recover their arrows to shoot back. That was in the winter. If the ground hadn't frozen or if the snow was deep enough to absorb the arrows I'm sure that played a part. Probably not a reliable thing to hope for though.
Tod of Tods workshop (youtube channel) has a series of tests on this very issue. And what they found is, that an arrow that hits plate armour will simply shatter...
Ofc all the arrows that miss and flew past everyone, can be recovered, but a lot of arrows simply breaks because of the great power that is being transfered upon impact.
Man I can’t get enough of Mike Loades- Going Midevil is another great documentary.
Not too thrilled about his horsemanship. Should know that horses hate having fallen things in front of them due to their forelegs easily breaking, ie if there's fallen horses and men in arms in front of your horse, it will immediately balk and refuse to go forward. Funny how the obvious is overlooked...
This is a very practical assessment of events. In conflict (National or local) it is mostly geography, quality of weapons, Logistics, weather conditions, sight lines and basic tactical choices that decide what happens. Sometimes people either choose to, or are forced to, fight in the wrong place. But bad tactics can always loose the day.
Great interview, I really like the honesty, teamed with well educated logic.
I was at the 600th anniversary of Agincourt. I remember Ann Curry saying that Henry V was a foolish young man and that there was no glory in his victory.
I like that this guy gives him some credit and recognises Shakespeare's role in inspiring historical interest. Without his play Agincourt would be a 2nd Verneuil and there would be no youtube discussions about it.
Listening to Mike Loades is always a pleasure. An intense, passionate, yet measured and articulate man.
remarkable! a youtube history channel with nuances and a real attempt at truthfulness
Very interesting. Debunking myths and summarising the battle. Great work👏👏
Using a boxing analogy, the French ran a mile or two to the boxing ring (mud), allowed the British to reign body blows for the first round (arrows), and then only start fighting in the second round, but your left and right arms are not coordinated.
FYI, I am in the middle of reading War Bow.
The English didn't see themselves as British yet. That came about later thanks to the Welsh Tudors control of England. The Welsh are THEE British!!!
I think the archers of the day would have known every which way to inflict damage. They grew up using the bow, fighting. No one today could hope to know what a life time of experience using the bow was like.
Completely agree. Experts in any field can do things in that field that non-experts just can't comprehend. English archers by the 1400s were absolutely experts in their field.
Yes, the fact that they could put arrows anywhere they wanted! Amazing sharpshooters
You wonderful Brits with your pluck and stiff upper lip stimulated our American national myth with the presumption that we took your English imperial myth and trumped it. Thank you very much, mates!
PS. I am extremely proud of my English heritage and was thrilled as a youngster to find that a probable family member's coat-of-arms has an archers drawn bow and arrow at its crest more than likely awarded to one of those yeomen archers, but with a red rose on the shield it was for service much later than Agincourt.
Love this guy, this format is great with him just talking about his knowledge
one thing I recall from another documentary is when the French did dismount, as Mike says, the mud just clung to their plate boots whereas the British being poorer, with no plate armor boots, the mud didn't cling to their leather and wool nearly as firmly and they could extract their feet from the mud far more easily and thus were far more maneuverable once dismounted.
Never thought of that. Thankyou.
That's never been my experience with fabric (especially wool, with its hook-like fibers, and leather, which swells when it absorbs water) and mud, versus metal and mud. More likely, the plate was heavier and the additional weight concentrated on the same area of foot allowed each footstep to sink deeper into the mud as compared to a wool or linen-and-leather-clad foot. Not that there was much moving around after a while, as the above documentary mentions the French men-at-arms being packed into a crushing knot by arrows like sledgehammers coming from every side. And in either case, trench foot would have been a serious issue to deal with in any kind of wet field conditions.
@@DeborahRosen99 Yes! Plate is heavier, but it also has a much higher mutual vacuum cohesion to wet surfaces whereas wool or even barefeet do not!
There is air between the surfaces which than allows a breakaway effect that vacuum cohesion cannot.
A simple test is to lat a large sheet of newspaper on a very smooth surface. Then pinch it in the middle and try to lift it as fast as possible.
The cut hole in the sheet all over the place and lots of them and repeat.
If air is unable to flow between surfaces, they will always resist separation!
I don't want to be that guy on the internet, but I think you mean the 'English' not 'British'. British is applicable after The Act of Union.
@@projectilequestion Yeah, you are 'that guy' on the Internet ;-)
... but I get you. I ain't no Yankee!
Interestingly, I saw another article about WWII yesterday where the host kept referring to Britain as England, and a commenter, perhaps you(?),
complained about that!
You KNOW I'll be more careful in the future!
I love how honest and down to earth he is. If you see tests with long bow, all kind of metal tips , poundages and shotting at different armor french have at that time you can se he is 100% right. Arrows for long bow are even now to expensive to be shoot without serious aiming..
"serious aiming" In modern clout shoots people aim at a target 180 yards away and hit it 90% of the time. Olympic archers hit 6" targets at 90m! Of course they were aiming seriously .. their lives depended on it . Doesn't mean they waited until 20m to shoot though :P
@@mikebyford5258 Modern bows have aiming instruments and are lightweight tho, and their targets stand still and don't try to actively kill them. I doubt a medieval archer would be able to land such accurate shots, instead firing at targets as soon as they could distinguish their targets.
@@the_tactician9858 sorry you are wrong . Modern bows are not lightweight in all cases many shoot 50# .. yes they are more efficient and project arrows faster . Barebow does not have aiming devices , Horsebows which predate Welsh longbows by many centuries do not have "aiming devices" although both Barebow and horse bow do aim using a variety of methods . Modern horsebow archers mounted can hit the gold of a target 30-40 m away at full gallop and fire an arrow every 5 seconds. I am sure the ancient archers were better than this .Persian recurve archers used to rain fire on armies a hundred yards plus away to great effect. I can hit a ring 3ft diameter at 180m without a sight or "aiming device" I am sure someone trained for life to draw longbows up to 120# could also .. ps they also used aiming device like marks on the bowstave as do modern longbow archers who use elastic bands for the same purpose . They would also have information about landmarks on the battle field and their distance from the archers so could wit until the enemy arrived at the distance they were primed to shoot at . At 70m the flight time of an arrow is around 1 second .. even running the target would still be in range . In many cases of course the targets were horses .. a rather large target .
@@mikebyford5258 Well, I stand corrected in that case. Of course it is a lot of speculation, and I have to say I'm more used to the characteristics of muskets in terms of accuracy, so forgive my miscalculations. I knew bows were relatively accurate, but never knew the true scale.
Arrows were manufactured in the period on an industrial scale with millions being made each year. After a battle, provided you had driven the enemy off the field at least half of the arrows were retrievable,.
Remember Mike Loades well from that wonderful Total War themed TV show back in the day. Could listen to him talk all day and night.
Great to hear historians giving an in depth view.. and helping to dispel a few myths.
Great discussion about arrow damage. Puncture aside, the mere bludgeoning of an object against a body, esp a head (even covered in metal), can destabilize, knock out or kill someone.
I studied this battle in particular at University with special emphasis on the accuracy of Shakespeare, and as Mike also notes, apart from the dramatic licence etc, it is surprisingly accurate; especially since Shakespeare used the French Chronicler Froissart's and English monastic chroniclers -who accompanied the army- accounts of the battle. The exchequer rolls from this time also still exist and are an excellent account of the cost and more precisely, who and what they took with them. Other documentaries showing "experimentation" with arrows against plate armour is something of a moot point also, as Henry V well knew about plate armour long before the battle at Agincourt. He was a seasoned campaigner and had an expert eye for terrain and tactics learned whilst campaigning in Wales. He also knew the tactical importance and deadly effect of skilled bowmen. His army at Agincourt comprised of what? 11,000 men 6,000 of whom were archers who, according to the chronicles DID fire flight after flight of Bodkin tipped arrows not straight on but in a high arc so that they would fall like a deadly rain, not on armoured Knights, but on their mostly unprotected horses. Gravity generates velocity so the horses fell heavily, and so did the heavily armoured knights into a boggy quagmire of churned up field, from which, because of the gloopy mud they could not get up easily and so the same archers fell on these stranded Knights with their lead-axes and daggers and did their deadly work! What many sources also claim lost the battle for the French was the fact that they would not use their peasantry in any form as the English did, -their aristocracy despised them- and all the political squabbling and in-fighting and the French Cvil War that had been raging.
Arrows don't actually gain energy in an arch though they'd come down with the same energy they lost going up.
The mini series Tod Cutler did with Tobias Capwell about Agincourt is great too - it'd be an excellent companion piece to this.
Great talk.
I especially loved the part about it being "Iconic, not important". Many such battles as Thermopylae, Agincourt etc. are emphasized and exaggerated for different reasons, but certainly not because of their military or political significance.
Thermopylae doesn’t fall into this category at all
@@funnyguy5746 I'd argue otherwise, but please elaborate.
@@funnyguy5746 Thermopylae certainly wasn't militarily significant. The myth of the Spartans you see in movies like *300*, going down while inflicting a near-mortal wound on the Persians and striking fear deep into their hearts, is really nowhere in the historical record. Thermopylae wasn't meant to be a noble last stand: it was meant to stop the Persian advance just as the parallel action at sea was meant to stop their fleet. Both failed -- the Persians outflanked the Spartans at Thermopylae in pretty short order -- and the Persians went on to sack and burn Athens in punishment for that polis' interference in Ionia, which was the main objective of Xerxes' campaign. It was a very clear Persian victory.
The militarily significant turning point in that war was Salamis, where the Persians' support fleet was trashed and logistics forced the bulk of their army to withdraw, leaving the attenuated force that Mardonius would be stuck with at Plataea. Thermopylae does not compare. It became "iconic" later, because of the Spartan talent for propaganda, and it arguably became politically significant in classical Greece to the extent that it bolstered Spartan prestige. But it was not a militarily important battle.
(The irony of all this is that there were later battles at Thermopylae where defending forces actually were able to hold the pass, or at least use it to inflict devastating damage on enemy armies. Most of them would make better case studies than Leonidas and the 300. They're all largely forgotten in favor of the Spartan mirage, though.)
I enjoyed the discussion on penetrative. I regularly have the same argument with my wife. Always lose
Just what exactly is an 'iconic' battle? Can we just use words that actually mean something.
The musket thing is also a myth, you can indeed use volley fire at a couple hundred yards, its just hella awful effective at those short distances. Also great for area denail and forcing your opponent to move their formations.
Yes! There's never too much of Mike Loades. 🔥
Every unbiased account on these matters always sounds very commendable, albeit very rare. Spot on.
I really enjoyed this. Read Delbruck’s analysis of Agincourt years ago - very similar tactical assessment. I liked the discussion of the physicality of men in combat.
This guy is brilliant, very practical and he gives great common sense answers for everything he says!
I loved this
I could work while listening.
Very informative. Thank you Gentlemen!
Love Dan Snow...been watching since his days with his Dad with their Falklands presentation and the Empire of The Seas series
Forever been a fan of Mike Loades, this is quickly becoming one of my favourite history channels.
Loved watching Mike on Time Commanders back in the day. Great listening to him again.
11:50 I know this guy is a historian, but I'm guessing the timeframe he studies doesn't extend into the 18th century. Because muskets absolutely were used at 200 yards (even further, since ill-disciplined soldiers often fired at well beyond their weapon's effective range). Certainly, no individual shooter would attempt to engage an individual man-sized target at 200 yards. About 75 yards is the maximum distance that an individual shooter could effectively engage an individual target (this is what we would now call the "point-target effective range"). But pitched battles were not about individual shooters engaging individual targets. They were about whole battalions of 400-600 shooters engaging opposing battalions of 400-600 targets in close order. Under those conditions, the contemporary feeling seems to have been that about 200 yards was the "battle range" (what we would now call the "area-target effective range") of a musket. That is to say, they felt that about 200 yards was the maximum distance at which a battalion of 400-600 shooters could put effective fire on an opposing battalion of 400-600 targets in close order.
Rifles made a pretty significant difference in these ranges when they hit the scene, pushing the point-target effective range up to 200 yards and the battle range up to 500 yards.
First time I realized it was short battles. The comparison to boxing, but in full armor, is great. I would estimate, even with essential rotation of active fighters, it would be extremely hard to go beyond 1h for the full battle fight on the ground.
Even when war bow arrows couldn't penetrate plate armor, they could disable and madden horses and force knights to close their visors, making hearing, breathing and talking harder. An archer could also shoot a dismounted man-at-arms in his less armored derriere after the gendarme passed his position.
Q
Don’t miss the important point of the mud. and the woods. Henry V had a very good grasp of terrain.