319. Hundred Years' War: Triumph of the Longbow
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2023
- State of the art military technology. Blind battle commanders. Iconic kingly lines. Tom and Dominic continue to delve into the 100 Years' War, as they patriotically explore the mighty battles of Sluys and Crécy.
*The Rest Is History Live Tour 2023*:Tom and Dominic are going on an international tour in 2023 and performing in London, Edinburgh, Salford, Dublin, Washington D.C. and New York!
Buy your tickets here: restishistorypod.com
Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook
Impressive and stirring tale. Well done, gentlemen. Well done.
Even more brilliant…! 🙌👏👏👏 with baited breath 🤯
When you ask "why hadn't anyone thought of the longbow before", you have to bear in mind that it's not just a question of getting the right piece of wood. You have to spend years developing the musculature to use it. We do have longbows (although later) from the Mary Rose. You can see videos on CZcams of people who have developed the physique to use a bow like that.
I also had assumed it had been a Welsh tradition. If it was a new development, you would have to plan years in advance. It would be interesting to know how that worked.
The thing is that some ancient civilisations had experimented with larger bows that might have developed into long bows under the right circumstances but they didn't have the understanding of the materials, nor the right traning, nor the strategic needs that led them to being able to create a consistent technology like the English did in the 14th century. For the more mobile warfare of say the Persians, the later Roman Empire, the Arabs or Mongols the ancient composite bow had a better weight/power ratio.
I don't think it had to be planned very far in advance or been difficult to keep secret.
News of new technology didn't travel very fast at the time, and the arrogant French would have assumed their own 'old school' chivalric methods, were superior to a weapon wielded by common yeomen.
I love some of the unapologetically English (and inherently anti French) comments from dom, knowing full well it’s all in good fun
The end of this episode has a remarkable parallel with 2019. Johnson wins a stunning victory against his continental antagonists at the precise moment a terrible new disease arrives from the east to change everything.
The arrival of the Black Death had no detrimental effect whatsoever on Edward 3rd's continuing successes in France.
The King advanced considerably further, after the Black Death arrived in Britain, and his son, Edward the Black Prince, even managed to capture the King of France and take him back to London. The Black Prince became ruler of Aquitaine and Gascony whilst what remained of France descended into total anarchy
Decades later, things did go backwards, but that was nothing to do with the Black Death which affected France, at least as badly as it did England. Gradually the French monarchy restored order to their own lands, and the lands held by Edward 3rd and his son became increasingly difficult to rule.
Eventually the Black Prince's reckless methods, and some further misguided campaigns ended up with the English losing nearly everything. The final failure came with Edward 3rd entering old age whilst his son, the Black Prince, had pre deceased him due to some sort of bowel disease or dysentery.
It left Edward to be succeeded by his grandson Richard 2nd, who was still a child, but an even worse King after he grew up.
@@ben.mitchell.theater you have provided a concise summary of the remainder of Edward's reign. You know what happened, nonetheless it is impossible to know what would have happened happened in the absence of the long hiatus occasioned by the Black Death right after the capture of Calais.
And thus Rodin's "Burghers of Calais" was inspired.
The early English A bomb is made from Oak and Ewe.
Speaking as an ignorant American, I thought Henry VIII was the biggest lad.
Well he wasn't. Henry 8th was between 6ft 1in and 6ft 2in. He was however, morbidly obese when he was old, so he might have been the biggest lad, all round.
The tallest of all was Edward 4th (Henry 8th's maternal grandad). He was nearly 6ft 5in and
fully 6 ft 7in, in his armour. He was also muscular and handsome. Quite a hunk really. Edward 1st, Edward 2nd and Edward 3rd were all taller than Henry 8th.
Even though Edward 2nd was a useless King, he was, (like his son Edward 3rd) a fine physical specimen. Hence his popularity with the gay boys (and lack of popularity with his wife).
Richard the Lionheart (also popular with the gay boys) was about 6ft 2in, and William 2nd (son of William the Conqueror) was also a big hunky boy, and, (you've guessed it) another gay boy. In William's case he wouldn't even 'attend to' the ladies, so they shot him with an arrow and made his younger, shorter, but not so gay, brother, King.
These heights are tall by modern standards, but by medieval standards the heights, physiques and status combined, would have made them look like Gods. Hence, (once again), the gay boys being so interested in them.
@@ben.mitchell.theaterThat wasn't actually the way I meant it.
More is the triumph of the muddy terrain, during the battle of Agincourt, it was and the terrain was very muddy, making impossible for Knight in armour to advance, so they slip and become easy prey for English infantry, Henry V wasn't much a military genius, again and again he gamble the fate of his troops advancing towards Paris, but Agincourt was the final nail in the cuffing for the French troops, also Henry V used the longbow with peasants because it was cheaper than using Knights.
I think Agincourt was as much to do with luck and French incompetence, as Henry 5th's (nevertheless undoubted) skill.
Edward 3rd however was arguably the best King in post 1066 English history. His great skill in these events was gaining and maintaining political support in England for moving into France at all, and in getting to Cressy and forcing the French to fight.
@@ben.mitchell.theater It wasn't the same Edward III that try to destroy the Magna Carta by every step, making angry the barons, causing another short civil war, when he made angry his ex zealot friend, nearly losing his crown.
Some British historians like David Jones are very nickpicky about their own history, they have no problems of showing the brutality, the arrogance of monarchs prior the War of the Roses, but during and after, at difference of other historians like Lucy Worsley and Thomas Penn, David Jones goes back to the status quo, changing the narrative like the whole reason because Henry VII gained his crown regardless of his legitimacy was because the love of his mommy, and not changing anything about Richard III, even that in the last years historians are beginning to pock holes and add new evidence, making Jones not different from David Starkey.
Woot 87th comment
Wouldn't 30% cubed be 27000%? Gotta be something wrong with how I ubderstand squares/cubes in regards to percentages. Otherwise I don't get how that West Point professor arrive at 120% of strength increase.
An increase of 30% is equivalently a multiplier of 1.3, so an increase of 30% cubed would be 1.3 * 1.3 * 1.3 = 2.197, so approximately 120%.
@@FullMetalAsh okay, that clarifies things, thanks!
120% is correct. Calling it '30% 'cubed' is confusing. Percentages are not normally expressed like that. 27,000 is '30 cubed'. If 27,000 was the correct percentage, the longbow would be able to shoot an arrow into orbit.
Aren't historians shit at arithmetic? The war didn't last 100 years.