In Defense of the Scottish Renaissance Army
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 тра 2024
- Sign up for a 14 days trial and enjoy all the features MyHeritage has to offer! If you decide to continue your subscription, you'll get a 50 % discount. bit.ly/SandRhoman
In the early 16th century, Scotland suffered a series of devastating defeats, which scored the Scots a reputation for backwardness. At Flodden (1513), Solway Moss (1542), and Pinkie (1547), though numerically superior, Scottish armies were well beaten by the English. To many, the armies of Scotland seemed almost archaic compared to the orderly forces of continental Europe. The historian G. J. Millar has even called them “the English crown’s ‘most backward of adversaries.” Still, this allegedly most backward of adversaries did not succumb to the English, denied them substantial territorial gains, and even went on the offensive. Hence, we need to ask how such a supposed relic of old times kept up with the modern armies of the period.
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Prints & T-Shirts: sandrhoman.creator-spring.com/
Paypal (thank you: www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
00:00-02:22 Intro
02:22-03:39 MyHeritage
03:39-13:42 Video
#history #scotland #scottish
Sources:
Caldwell, D. H., The Battle of Pinkie, in: Macdougall, N., Scotland and War, AD 79-1918, Edinburgh, 1991, pp. 61-94.
Macdougall, N. (Ed.), Scotland and War, AD 79-1918. Edinburgh 1991.
MacLeod, M., s.v. warfare, weapons, and fortifications. 1450-1600, in: Lynch, M., The Oxford Companion to Scottish History, Oxford 2001.
Merriman, M., The Rough Wooings, Tuckwell 2000.
Millar, G. J., Tudor Mercenaries and Auxiliaries, Charlottesville 1980, p. 3.
Philipps, G., Scotland in the Age of the Military Revolution, 1488-1560, in: Spiers/Crang/Strickland, A Military History of Scotland, Edinburgh 2012
Phillips, G. The Anglo-Scots Wars 1513-1550, Martlesham/Rochester 1999.
Sign up for a 14 days trial and enjoy all the features MyHeritage has to offer! If you decide to continue your subscription, you'll get a 50 % discount. bit.ly/SandRhoman
🙂🙂🙃🙃
thanks! long time ago i asked for a video on english,french or some non germanic(reischlaufer,landsknecht) army :)
I'm currently reading about how scottish mercenaries went abroad to fight in the 30 years war for nations like Sweden. Its fascinating how they then brought their expertise back to Scotland to fight successfully in wars such as the bishops war against Charles I. So the idea that Scotlands early modern armies were not of a similar standard to most European armies at the time is quite the opposite. As scots were always bringing such knowledge and experience back to Scotland.
Totally,yes.👌👍
This was an unexpected topic but very much interesting. I'm glad you chose to talk about something that isn't often talked about. I wasn't even aware that the scottish army had a bad reputation!
There aren't many on Scottish military history on UA-cam and this Scotsman appreciates your great video, thanks!
“Freedoooooom”
@@mrmu7ammed1 Freedom from ... or freedom to?
@@kaoskronostyche9939 freedom !
This American with Scottish blood agrees, it’s hard to find accurate information on Scottish warfare
There are even less about Irish or Breton
Everyone: Pike and Shot
Scots: PIPE AND SHOT
No, no its PIKE-PIPES-SHOOT!
Repeat with me!
PIKE-PIPES-SHOOT!!
@@talorcmacallan4268 ???
@@talorcmacallan4268 what the hell are you talking about?
As a Scotsman and a historian it’s always difficult for us to look at massive catastrophic defeats like Flodden and Pinkie and not draw the conclusions that others do, that we are brave but stupid. Your video is fantastic in shaking off some myths and giving us more insight into a normally ignored period for us.
Both sides lost due to arrogance.
The biggest English defeats were mostly due to the English nobles and higher ups rushing in head first.
Often the same with the Scots.
When you underestimate your enemy, you die.
Here among the mountains wild
I have sincerely smiled.
When armies and empires against me were hurled.
Firm as my native rock
I have withstand the shock
of England, of Denmark, of Rome and the world
In the Battle of Pinkie an small spanish unit, at that moment still alllied with England, fought against the Scots among them was Julian Romero who would become an important commander during the early stages of the 80 Years War and due his service in England he was made a knight banneret by Henry VIII.
The Battle of Pinkie: origin of the custom of “pinkie swearing”.
The Scot’s won slightly more battles in total against the English ( 39 battle victory’s for the Scot’s , and 34 for the English ) in total , however when the Scot’s lost , they lost VERY bad and these defeats were often catastrophic , for example the 3 most deadliest battles fought between the two were , the battle of flooden , the battle of the standard and the battle of hollidon hill. All 3 were English victory’s.
England was always fighting the world.
Often the Scots would raise an army and attack the north of England.
The King would often then, as an example, return with his army after fighting in France and annihilate the Scots.
So you have to look at the quality of the Army.
Even the battle of the standard was against a rag tag quickly raised English army. The main force was occupied, probably in France :D
@@mrfreeman2911 Yeah , happened a lot in the second war of Scottish independence too , king Edward the third destroyed the much larger Scottish army at the battle of Hallidon hill , and when he was away fighting in France the Scot’s attacked the north of England but got destroyed at the battle of Neville’s cross and king David of Scotland got captured.
@@mrfreeman2911 "England was always fighting the world" is nonsense
@@bierwolf8360 Is it?
England was constantly fighting France. It fought Spain, Holland, France and many many many others during those times.
And during the Jacobite rebellion the red coats were all over the world.
@@mrfreeman2911 That's so absolutely nothing extraordinary. Any country could come up with a similiar sob story
This reminds me of your video about the military doctrines of Eastern Europe, whose use of heavy cavalry was also seen as obsolete.
It shows us, once again, that the evolution of warfare isn't just guided by technological advances, but by available resources and enemy tactics, too.
I love your choice of topics as much as the videos themselves, always a surprise on this channel.
Glad to hear it!
I always look forward to SandRhoman videos. Cheers from Tennessee
Glad you like them!
Covering the Scottish armies involved in the 30 years' war should be your next video ;)
It has been an excellent theme, although it has brought me nostalgia and good memories of the Scottish armies in Medieval II: Total War, always fun to play, although with a difficult campaign; I close it is that I always miss the bad luck of the Scottish army in those times, since from the outside their troops were more modernized than the English ones (which still looked like they were from the 15th century), but this video has been a magnificent defense in this matter, since the Scots always had a good reputation as mercenaries in Europe and that says it all in terms of their reliability, much in spite of their bad luck against the English. It would be great if you could make a video defending the Irish in the Renaissance, who are a similar case to the Scottish in many aspects of their history and also another video defending the successful efforts of the supposedly decadent tercios of King Charles II of Spain in the last half of the 17th century, since they managed to hold out against the indomitable armies of Louis XIV, despite the international aid they always needed (an example of this is Catalonia).
thank you! am writing a novel about scots army around same era and this information was very valuable to me!
Sounds great! Historical?
@@mariushunger8755 Yes. About lord Ruthven's scotish army expedition to Livonia and their fight against russians in 1573
Will it be published any time soon?
@@mariushunger8755 I believe, I will finish it before the end of the year
@@raulsiniallikl2317 Nice. Let us know what the title is!
It's one of those wonderful consistencies of history just how long the military utility of "a bunch of hard fuckers with spears standing in a square" lasted
Real excited to see videos from you that are on topics I only know fragments about. I learn a lot from your videos and appreciate your source citations.
History isn't actually always written by the victors, but if someone is telling you how easily they won a fight, don't discount the possibility that they're lying about how hard it actually was.
So true, wise words
"Oh yeah dude those Scottish people fucking suuucked lmao we shit on them so ez" Lia literal gamer shit talking so I honestly believe that mfers were salty about how hard it was back then and shit on them in their scrolls lmao
Love the topics u chose man! keep the good work
Really cool Video. I’m from the borders myself and the whole area I live in is steeped in the border reavers, old battles and castles. Love your videos and keep up the good work !
Nice video and great topic. Thanks for your work!
As a Slav who did a PhD on Scots legal history, I am reinforced in the impression that Scotland did a very good job improving its institutions in the early modern times, especially considering their limited resources and disadvantageous geography.
Excellent video appreciated by this Jock!
Videos on the elite Gallowglass warriors and Covenanter battles would also be great aspects of Scots history to cover!
😊
Maybe a good accompaniment would be a video on the mediaeval Scottish economy.
The Highland charges of later centuries were also highly effective in many battles, but sadly are simplified to when Bonnie Prince Charlie lead his exhausted troops into a bad situation and used a charge when it was hopeless.
With the "Auld Alliance" England always had to keep an eye on the Scottish border that was for the most part quite porous.
Thanks for this often overlooked subject.
The Battle of the Sark in 1449 was a major Scottish victory.Not far from Gretna,this border battle resulted in 3000 English dead,many of whom drowned,and effectively kept the peace for decades.
You mean the English fought around the world.
Long periods of "peace" were due to campaigns in France etc.
Tks for interesting Vid.
In the Flodden campaign, the reverse argument can be made. A large Scottish army, with the most upto date kit (Pikes and cannon) was defeated by a regional levy, using old dated weapons (bows and bills) although with modern, lighter cannons. It was the terrain, in particular the marsh at foot of the hill that doomed the Scots. Disordered and removed impetus of their attack. The one division on flatter, drier land beat their opponents.
The battlefield is well worth visit, barely changed and very evocative.
Cheers
As always an interesting subject, masterfully illustrated...Another excellent video!👍👍😍😍
It’s very likely that the claymores referenced in renaissance historical sources may be referring to the same highland broadsword as the name was also used to describe it
I think it's the right period for the sword. Although I basket hilted swords were likely in use, the earliest example I know of comes from the Mary Rose in the 16th century.
The two handed sword being called a claymore is giving me an aneurism.
This poem pretty much sums it up :D
"GOD said to Saint Peter. Peter I'm going to make a beautiful country. Fertile lowlands, beautiful mountains with graceful waterfalls down their sides. Sheltered glens that glow purple in the summer. I'm going to make the people of this country strong, brave and noble. I'm going to give them a drink that glows like gold, called whisky. This noble country of handsome men and the prettiest girls will be called Scotland. What do you think Peter?
Saint Peter said, Well God that's all very well but do you not think you're being too lavish in the gifts you're bestowing to this country. It sounds like heaven on earth. God replied to this: Oh there's no possibility of that, wait till you see who their neighbours are!” :D :D
Well it works both ways . The scots did thier equal share of invading England whenever they got the chance
Yeah, the Irish.
@@vatsal7640 Yes but there invasions were often justified. the invasion of 1513, for example, which led to the battle of Flodden, was due to Scotland honouring the Auld Alliance with France after they fell victim to an aggressive foreign policy
@@tillerman7272 and you totally ignore that James broke a similar treaty with Henry. Of course it looked a good bet didn't it, main English army and the King in France, what could go wrong?
@@tillerman7272I don't that's justified justified.
Great video about an under researched area of military history, I'm Scottish and English and learned a lot from this.
brilliant topic, brilliant video, brilliant channel
Nicely informative video
Awesome as always
just came across a few contemporary illustrations depicting battle scenes from the "Last Feud"of the Ditmarsians (1559) some days ago - tight pike only squares were deployed there by both sides
actually some of them are used in the german wiki article about the Letzte Fehde ....the Capture of Heide is particulary dramatic with many pikes squares even moreTurmae and some skirmishing Arkebusiers (and light & heavy field artillery).....but as said, still many pikes.....
I know almost nothing about scottisch mediaval history so this video is greatly appreciated
I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS. Please more! I neeeeeeeed more please
Magical video.
Fabulous artwork.
Check out the Osprey books for the period... a lot of the uniforms come from those publications.
Thankyou
Interesting topic!
A very interesting topic!
Please, make a video about the irish kern and the gallowglass!
yes, gallowglass please!
“Free Scotland” Theo Von
Von what?
Lol the comedian?
Great vid
A surprise (topic) for sure, but a welcome one!
An unexpected topic but a welcome one
The drip was fly af tho we can't deny that
Nice Vid... Pretty good assessment... might also like to add the reliance after Pinkie (1547) of European Mercenaries and the French army. It was this combo of forces that eventually kicked the English out.... the English basically ran out of money in 1550. Ironically the Scots invited the English back in 1560 to kick the French out of Leith.... lessons learned that are relevant even today.
I'm high af, this video brings me uppermost happiness
Great video. Thanks for the upload.
To be fair the Jocks did spend a lot of time fighting amongst themselves 😜
I can only agree with the premise of this video. I don't see why anyone would pin the Scottish armies of the early XVI century as particularly backward. Many countries of that time still relied at least partly on levies and often used much more primitive equipment. Using levies simply makes sense in the right circumstances. For smaller and/or poorer countries like Moldova or Crimean Khanate, it made it possible to still filed relatively big armies at low cost. For larger ones like Ottoman Empire or Muscovy, it allowed them to more easily make use of their large manpower pool.
It also makes sense if you have access to militarised/warrior societies like Cossacks or Scottish highlanders.
I think it is just another proof many historians, especially military historians are too eager to use terms like "backward", "outdated" or "obsolete".
"Scotland wasn't backward - it was just poor, tribal, and reliant on increasingly outdated methods of recruitment!"
It sounds like you're trying to argue against the initial thesis, but end up supporting it.
@@dojyaanstojyaan7070 And where the hell did I write that?
Maybe you could come up with something more clever than a strawman argument?
@@kamilszadkowski8864 It wasn't a strawman, but rather a summary of your justification of an objectively inferior military system.
You argue that there was nothing wrong with the feudal levy as it was practiced due to socio-economic factors, even though richer states gradually embracing professional armies should be enough to prove it false.
Has it not crossed your mind that Scotland's mass use of levy was just a result of extreme impoverishment and an inability to field an actual, professional army instead?
If levy was not outdated and backward, why contemporary countries were trying to move away from it?
How come that countries which utilized professionalized armies achieved great successes against levy-reliant countries?
And why utilize something much more expensive when the perfect method was already around for centuries?
Just look at the examples you gave.
The Cossacks, the Scots, and the Tatars formed up some of the poorest societies in the known world. Extremely tribal and decentralized, they were no match for any organized state around them, which is why they were dominated throughout their history. Even their bellicosity was a result of an extreme resource scarcity and the inability to assert a central authority that would pacify them and consequently end their raiding "warrior" culture.
The Ottomans themselves had a very sizable force of professional troops which they used to great effect - and their use of human meat shields such as the Tatars, azabs and akinjis was a result of not having enough resources to use them in their endless conflicts rather than a genuine need for levy-grade quality soldiers.
The feudal levy was absolutely a backward and archaic method of fielding troops. I understand your point that it was "good enough" for what it was, but to consider it modern and up-to-par with the emerging state armies is simply absurd.
@@dojyaanstojyaan7070 Ah see, now that you fully articulated your arguments I can actually see your point. Thank you.
*"Has it not crossed your mind that Scotland's mass use of levy was just a result of extreme impoverishment and an inability to field an actual, professional army instead?"* --- This is exactly what I thought. I wouldn't call it an extreme impoverishment, armies fielded by Moldova were equipped even more poorly (yet they did pose a threat even to Polish and Ottoman armies).
*"If levy was not outdated and backward, why contemporary countries were trying to move away from it?"* --- See, I think you are making exactly the same mistake Russians recently did in their invasion of Ukraine. Russians thought that simply moving from mass conscription to contract soldiers will magically make their army more professional. Their failed invasion made them realize that asking someone with a conscript level of training to sign a contract won't magically make them a professional soldier. What matters most is the way of implementing the system. Not the system itself. Just look how many countries after implementing professional armies like Sweden or Commonwealth quickly backtracked a little and supplemented their forces with conscripted soldiers. I write conscripted but the conscription method was more akin to levying as it usually involved a group of villagers paying for equipping and training one of them, yet both of these states are praised for the "modern" this idea was. Just take a look at how much praise Caroleans are getting despite being formed through an allotment system that is identical to some older levy systems.
*The Cossacks, the Scots, and the Tatars formed up some of the poorest societies in the known world. Extremely tribal and decentralized, they were no match for any organized state around them* --- Well you are mostly wrong about two of those societies. Throughout XVIth and XVIIth centuries all major powers in the region failed to control or eliminate them. I of course mean the Cossacks and Tatars.
*"How come that countries which utilized professionalized armies achieved great successes against levy-reliant countries?"* --- You mean like against Crimean Khanate which was, despite its small size and levied armies a power that was feared by much bigger Muscovy and Commonwealth? Or Cossacks that on several occasions managed to decimate professional armies sent to quell them? Or maybe mostly levied the Moldovan army which on a few occasions under Stephen the Great managed to inflict decisive defeats against Poles, Ottomans, and Hungarians (all of which made use of professional armies)?
Moldova is a particularly good example here. Its army was not a product of particular backwardness in military theory but a combination of different factors, like social and economic development, available manpower, and geopolitical situation which created the necessity to maximize the use of available manpower which was only possible through levies. Switching to a completely professional army would worsen Moldovan security not improve it.
The same can be said about Scotland from what I can gather. Being faced by the bigger and wealthier Kingdom of England, they were forced to rely on levies. Yet from what I can see from the video they fought in a relatively modern fashion making use of pike squares supported by other, lighter formations.
We have to remember that the video covers only the beginning of the Early Modern Era when most countries on the continent were still relying on levies o some degree. Besides even a century later the wealthiest countries on the continent had problems affording professional armies during times of prolonged conflict.
See, but I think our disagreement mostly comes from a different view on backwardness. IMO using a technically outdated system due to a lack of resources (or a myriad of other factors) is not backwardness. It is just making do with what you got. Now, failing to implement reforms despite having the incentive and resources to do so as the Ottomans and Poles did with their armies in the XVIII century, now this is true backwardness.
@Kamil Szadkowski one of the most well rounded rebuttals I've seen in any comment section
What i take from this, is that Scotland had relatively decent military tactics and tech, with tons of bravery to back it up, but was simply way too underpopulated to ever pose a major threat over long campaigns. Every loss of a Scot was very costly, whereas a loss of an English soldier could be much easier to replace. When they had favorable terrain, tech, or some combination of those or other things, their strategy was more than competent enough to win the day. However in their absence, the Scots usually lacked the manpower to succeed. Two extreme examples, neither of which fall under the time period listed in this video but rather just outside it, are the battles of BannockBurn and Culloden. Bannock Burn - small Scottish army defeats larger English army using superior tactics and better terrain. Culloden - exhausted smaller Scottish army is forced to fight in unfavorable conditions and is massacred
Hard to conclude that the Scottish failed because of inferior man power when they couldn't even win a major field battle despite having superior forces in most of those very battles. The fact of whether Scotland could win long campaigns isn't relevant unless you can win field battles.
Culloden wasn't a Scottish vs English thing, it was a Jacobites vs The Government, there were Scots and English on both sides.
You can very well win every major battle but and still lose the war because your homeland can't breed new soldiers fast enough. Ask the swedes.
@@ronhall9394it was a war over religion and an opposition to the union. Majority of the support on the Jacobite side came from Scottish people but there were some English sympathizers.
@@xtramail4909 Jacobite support from the Highlands (though not all), Lowland Scots mainly supported the Government.
The church bells of Glasgow were rung in celebration of news from Culloden.
"Oh flower of Scotland,...when will we see thy like again ? ...who fought and died for their wee bit hill and Glen".
Flodden was determined by the choice of weapons, the main host of Scottish infantry used long pikes to attack against an English line who made use of the more traditional poleaxe which was shorter and more practical at close range. The Scottish infantry were not well drilled in the use of Pikes and by the time they reached the English line their formations has lost cohesion and the English infantry went into the gaps and cut the Scottish down in droves.
On the Scottish left flank the Highlanders who made use of the weapons they traditionally always used were able to push back the English right who were saved by a cavalry charge into the flank of the Highlanders. Had the main host not abandoned it's known way of fighting the battle may have turned out differently.
If the men with pikes had something else, they'd have been more vulnerable to cavalry though.
There was also a small stream or drainage ditch (can't remember which) just in front of the English line which further disrupted the Scot's cohesion and order.
Lowlander peasants mostly didn't spend all their time in low level conflicts and raids against each other so it wasn't really their known style of fighting, highlanders were plenty experienced but the militia were better used in the form that least showed their inexperience, pike blocks fit this, especially when English heavy cavalry was a major threat, they had the problem that pike blocks dealt poorly with the English preference for longbows but if they didn't use them the knights could just directly charge and kill most of them in the rout. For this reason their main strength was numbers (fact was the North wasn't densely populated and they typically attacked while the main army was in France) and irregular warfare, be it raiding, or harassing English garrisons.
I feel like the "Scottish Military Revolution" seems poorly defined after this. Is it referring to James IV creating royal artillery works? The adoption of firearms? Changes (?) in recruiting / levies? When did it take place?
It would be great to hear more about English renaissance armies. There is very little content outside of the navy. Great video too.
Could you do a video of the irish 9 years war with England
Aye bring on the gallowglass!
I can understand how people thought this army was poor, but the records dont bear this out. The Scots system was based on bands Of Scottish knights and men at arms attacking the English and defeating them in detail in small engagements. Most battles where the Scots closed with the English army ended in Scottish Victory. The Old Anglophile historians have been largely debunked, Scottish nobles were finely attired, crafty and dangerous in battle on horse or foot. At Melrose in 1378, Sark in 1448, and Lochmaben in 1458, as well as the Loire valley campaign of Joan of Arc, the Scottish knights trounce the English in field combat. During the mid 14th century until the renaissance, the Medieval Scottish army actually wins most of the battles and punches well over its weight. The Field Cannon of the 16th century ended the Schiltron of spearmen and archers gaurded in the front by knights on foot with poleaxes that delivered so many lopsided victories to the kingdom of Scotland in this period in wars with England as well as in service to the crown of France.
The Scots failed to make any lasting gains after its victories though.
The problem is just that England was too big and populated... after Robert the Bruce victories were just short pauses for the English to came back and try again and Scotland was too isolated to receive French reinforcements, after they changed their feudal military system to a core of permanent troops with some of the best artillery around and kicked them out of the continent. It seems the English were bay better in protecting the Channel that in intercepting Scottish mobles and soldiers that went to fight in France
Well until the end of the 16th century I would not think that there was a huge population difference between England and Scotland. We have the industrial revolution, highland clearances, famin and abscentee landlords to blame for the change in balances. England has huge amounts of population of Welsh, Scots and Irish descended people. Further USA, Canada and other English speaking lands also had a huge migration over the period of the same peoples. So what remains in Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a small fraction of what could have been if industrialisation, trade and infrastructure were as focused as England in that period.
@@gm2407 most sources ive read figured England around a 4-6x the population of Scotland in he high middle ages
@@markmurphy6197Ok just doing a brief search to familiarise myself, I likely misremembered things.
England 1066 2-2.5m England 1600 4m estimates, Scotland 1066 estimated 0.5-1.0m, Scotland 1600 arround 800 thousand.
By the 1750s before the clearances and just after Bonnie Prince Charlie it was 1.7 million in Scotland and 5.5 million in England.
Currently England circa 56 million, Scotland 5.4 million
No doubt England was more populated, but the scale of the difference is much bigger now. Probably the estimates I have written are among the most favourable to Scotland in the earlier periods. Currently we have to remember that the high UK population is supported by global trade and Scotland's population was limited by climate so would always have been lower than England. Just not 11X than it is now.
There is supposed to be a major new book on Pinkie due out in June 2023.
Love this *hit !!! :-)
6:14 when its that particular gun, its spelled handgonne
Guys I love your videos but I would love for you to make videos about the ottoman military in the 17th century or even better the Muscovite armies of Ivan the terrible
Really similar military system as that of Sweden in the 16th century and the Vasa dynasty.
Scotland built its armies in a cave. With a box of cats.
It sounds as though in the major battles which they lost, they didn't lack for modernization so much as organization.
This was new information to me. Thank You! Perhaps it is wiser to listen Scottish historians on Scottish history, rather than English ones?
The sourcing from English historians isn't as much an issue now. You don't get many nationalists in academia nowadays
Its best to listen to multiple, a scottish historian can be just as biased as an english one which is why you dont take your facts from only one source.
The targe was designed to disarm plug bayonets. Not for protection from swords. Once bayonets were taken, the brit was defenseless.
The kilt and much of the dress was designed after the continental service. It isn't Scottish. Pleat... French. Tartan... French.
What do you call the garment the Highlanders wore before the kilt as we know it today? It was like a full body covering for use as a bed if needed.
@@bazmc1153Plaidee if I remember right
Now that we have discussed an underated Army, i would like also to express my puzzlement about an underrated army unit - the Spanish Tercios.
The Spanish Tercio is a footnote in many English Language Treatises - sometimes these books / encyclopedias would only describe the Tercios as formidable without fully explaining how they are so.
Even English Language UA-cam channels have this tendency (i will name one example, Kings and Generals only had the first battle of Nordlingen as a footnote of another video - in that battle, it was proven the Tercio were not yet obsolete).
This makes me feel cognitively dissonant when Spanish-centric FB pages talk about Tercio supremacy, in which I feel they are overrating the unit.
I'm pretty sure this channel covers the development of Spanish pike and shot warfare, but the gist of the strengths of the tercio is that it is a very complete system of battle within the pike and shot context.
It incorporates all forms of infantry with pikes at the core screened by muskets which are in turn covered by light sword infantry and pikemen as well. This solves the problem of deploying muskets as an undefended screen or on the far flanks of an army which leaves them vulnerable to cavalry or light skirmishing units while still being able to support the pikemen.
Cavalry can also be utilized as a part of a defensive screen or on the formation's flanks and mutually supporting the muskets and harassing unsupported infantry or opposing cavalry as part of this formation.
Typically the tercios are deployed in an "open" order leaving space between the pike squares, which also allows the artillery to support the infantry as they advance or defend a position, something that is either not possible or is dependent upon terrain for "closed" line formations. This "open" order formation also means that muskets from another unit can support an adjacent unit engaged in melee providing overlapping fields of fire.
For most of the early modern era, the tercio was the preeminent system of battle and ensured Spanish dominance on the field. Still, it had significant drawbacks. Notably, the formation and coordination of the units were complicated, necessitating the need for well-trained and disciplined professional soldiers, making the tercios extremely expensive. Another drawback is the compact nature of the pike squares, which leaves them very vulnerable to concentrated artillery/gunfire, something that would become more apparent as artillery and gun technology improved.
"By the way, would the inferior primitive stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Inca warriors of stone,🪨 age and early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Peru,🇵🇪 led by the Emperor Atahulpa, go up,👆 against the late 15th century to early 16th century renaissance,🎨 👤 Spanish,🇪🇸 artillery pike and shot formation of the Tercios, Conquistadors, and Southern German,🇩🇪 Landsknecht mercenaries, on horseback,🏇 of an English,🏴 standard thoroughbred horses,🐴 wearing Southern German,🇩🇪 plate,🍽 armor and chainmail,🔗⛓ for protection, led by Francisco Pizarro and his brothers and his partner Diego Almagro and his son, alongside the primitive stone,🪨 age indigenous native american auxiliaries alongside the west african,🌍 Nigerian,🇳🇬 slaves, in battle,💥 of Cuzco primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Peru,🇵🇪 in the year of fifteen hundred thirty-six to the year of fifteen hundred thirty-seven, during the age of exploration,🔭 christianization,💒☦ colonization, and conquest of the primitive stone,🪨 age ancient Mesoamerica, 🇲🇽 and the Andes of South America, 🌎 of the new world,🗺 of the year fifteen hundred twenty-one to the year of fifteen hundred fifty-three?"
Makes me proud of my Scotish heritage.
British heritage. 👍🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧😏😊
Great video! Any interest in video(s) about the Nine Years War in Ireland?
James the IV could be a “jazz music stops” meme.
Do you have any foot notes ?
bibliography is in the description. some footnotes are usually shown on screen. let me know what you look for and I might be able to link you some stuff.
Most of the times that I read about the conflict between England and Scotland back then, I think that victory for England in this conflict did not come from anything related to military campaigns but more of the political circumstances at the time. Am I correct with this? I know that some military actions did influence political landscapes of both sides and even the rest of Europe. But ultimately, it seemed to be politics that is what brought England the victory that led to Scotland becoming part of Britain.
Well, id say that war is very much a means of poitics
Scotland becoming part of Britain had 2 reasons. The Scottish king becoming king also of England in 1603. Then 1707 Scotlands richest sold their independence to be reimbursement for the doomed Darien scheme. Basically England bought us. Check Robert Burns work. Parcel o rogues. Sums in up
❤
The highlanders were always superior warriors due to the hard life in the highlands. And the Scots brought forward some splendid mercenaries after all.
The overall records of the Scottish forces fighting on both sides of the religious divide[ie Leslie,Douglas,Hamilton,Sinclair,Gunn,Mackay,Munro,Ruthven,etc.] during the Thirty Years War(1618-48),can attested to that ! 👌👍
Just not as good as the English at fighting 👊🏻
@@MasonBryant I'd say the fact that Scotland even remained a country through all that time says otherwise. 😉
The first formal bodyguard unit of the Kings of France was formed in 1422 and composed of Scots. This Garde Ecossaise remained active until the last King of France was deposed in 1830. The courage and loyalty of the Scots are well-known on this side of the Channel !
@@vatsal7640 Were they always in France? Even Scots went to France and Ireland to fight the English? They were hardly cowering in fear.
they also resisted the Romans, though that was when they were Picts. nevertheless, they have allways been tough as nails
That’s sort of a misnomer though. The romans conquered the Picts in battle, and the picts were in retreat until the Roman army was recalled to defend Rome from other invaders. It’s not really a case of the Picts defending their land from the romans than it is the romans being called home before they could fully subjugate Caledonia
What happened to the Picts after the Romans left?
_Hint it didn't end well for the Picts_
The Scotti were a people living in Ireland that migrated to the lowlands. In later periods Norse and Danes also saled around the coast of Scotland and settled in the Western Isles, Faero and Shetland Isles. Also a fair amount of Normans moved there during the 11th and 12th century. So the Picts descendants would still be there, but pleanty of migration from other peoples to those lands.
Nobody talk about Scottish army so this is welcome addition of content
I have been curious in eastern europe army and i was wondering if there is plan for Serbian or Bosnian army?
There is also Ottoman which becauss they are often talk in western centric, put too much emphasis in Jannisary. Since this channel is what introduce me of Turkish sappers, i'm curious if we get more Ottoman content such as adoption of Camp tactic and the role of Ottoman cavalry like the Poland winged hussar instead of Ottoman cavalry army being dismissed as "obsolete"
The reason Scots took hasty offensives and lost the three battles was because they lacked missile power
@@talorcmacallan4268 until you do
Talorc, a very Celtic name, I love that. Celtic Power
13:23
The Scottish army model was maybe cheaper, but overall, they still lacked experienced and duly trained and disciplined men - in other words, truly professional soldiers. And alhough there is seldom only one factor, they still ended up being defeated.
Being cheaper is not always being better in the short, middle or long run.
Gulf war please make video
They kept coming back for a go, because they ARE 'ard enuff.
If it needs defending...
If something the video said is wrong, refute it.
flodden was mostly xue to overconfidence and incompetence rather than being backward in fact they were better equipped than the english.
Not really
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar They were better equipped though at Flodden, the Scots were.
@@Dom-fx4kt I would dispute that.
"Better equipped at..." is dependent entierly on what kind of battle you intend to fight, the terrain, weather, skill of your troops etc.
Intrinsically, a pike was not better than a bill, an arquebus was not better than a bow, plate was not better than padding - or vice-versa - it always depended on the circumstances.
they were all drunk ❤
תעשה סרטון על תיאוריית החייזרים הקדומים (תיאוריית האסטרונאוט הקדמון)
can you make some Indian history vids plzzzzz
yeah but probably next year!
By 1630, only two nations had national armies, Span and Sweden. Mercenaries readily changed sides.
So basically the Scots were able to defend their own lands very well but lack the ability to overcome the English on the open field on English soil, but superior English tactics were more important in these battles, rather than the Scots having worse military technology.
PS: Have anyone noticed how "Treaties of Eternal Peace" always last for like a decade or two at best? Like the one between the English and Scots, or the one between the Sassanids and Romans during the reign of Justinian.
What about the great raid of 1322? Or the battle of myton or the battle of OldByland ? All taken place in England
The Scottish and English troops sent by Elizabeth I during the Dutch/Spanish 80 Years War were certainly a help, no matter how they ranked. We found that the Scots were generally tougher and more reliable than the English troops. I'm sure the Germans found the same in WW2.
What evidence is there that Scots outperformed English soldiers in the low countries?
Rubbish
The Germans thought of Scots same way tbe British thought of tbe Prussians. Is a fact. Hitler even mentions them in Mein Kampf
תעשה סרטון על האם האימפריה היפנית כבשה את דרום מזרח אסיה
Thank you for continuing to use human made art. too many channels use ai generated nonsense.
תעשה סרטון על מפלצות וקסמים בקולוניאליזם
תעשה סרטון על האם ג'ירפה זה כשר
תעשה סרטון על האם דרך המשי הייתה גם ברומא
תעשה סרטון על האם במסורות אפריקאיות ואינדיאניות הכלב הוא ממציא האש
תעשה סרטון על ארכיטיפ המלך
ALBA GU BRÀTH
תעשה סרטון על גיבור על שהוא האדם הראשון ונשיא ארצות הברית ( וגם טבח, חקלאי, צייד ודייג) שמטייל ברחבי העולם וצד חיות בר בעלילה שנמשכת לאורך כל ההיסטוריה האנושית
4:00 *"or the infamous claymore, a huge two-handed sword of about 140cm"* --- So... not really huge. Just a heavy longsword. In fact, you can find continental longswords that are longer than that.