Medieval Misconceptions: BATTLEFIELD, tactics, units, and formations
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 10. 2020
- Be sure to check out Campfire Blaze, the sponsor of this video: www.campfiretechnology.com/bl...
What is medieval infantry vs heavy cavalry vs ranged? How does unit formation or terrain effect combat? In this video I'll be dispelling some misconceptions about the medieval battlefield and go through the basics of tactics, unit types, and formations.
Shadow of the Conqueror Graphic Novel Pre-Launch page: www.indiegogo.com/projects/sh...
My novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:
US: www.audible.com/shadbrooks
UK: www.audible.co.uk/shadbrooks
CA: www.audible.ca/shadbrooks
AU: www.audible.com.au/shadbrooks
Awesome shadiversity T-shirts:
teespring.com/stores/shadiver...
Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
amzn.to/2XErUaR
Barnes and Noble:
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shad...
Kobo:
www.kobo.com/au/en/ebook/shad...
Community run discord server: / discord
My official website: www.shadmbrooks.com/
Shadiversity on Patreon: / shadiversity
Shad, I read your book this summer, it was great!
Every time I sayd to myself "oh I know where this is going", I was pleasantly surprised.
The story was great, and interesting.
Can't wait for the sequel!
Next book shad ???
He has a video talking about his timeframe for the sequel.
Also, Shadow of the Conqueror is absolutely magnificent.
In most of the RTS games, its easier to design siege working by itself, but there are some RTS games that have engineers near them
@@AxenfonKlatismrek Like Stronghold?
So there's no tentacles and schoolgirls? Or Machicolations? :/
Wait, are you saying that siege engines are NOT self driven and DON'T fire smart guided explosive rocks while running across the battlefield like in age of empires? That's crazy!
¿And where are my Cobras?
This getting out of hand, now there are 2 of them
Yeah. Trechbuchets are guided by laser...I mean chi. Have you not seen mulan?
@@GRACKKO most underrated medieval unit; I can't believe no one is talking about them
I love aelf guided bolders. My trebuchet ammo will roll towards them!
I'm just imagining Shad giving a lecture at some prestigious military academy like West Point with his little Lego models. Good stuff.
If he would’ve taught some of my military history classes in college, it would’ve been way more interesting.
It's a legitimate sand table.
My experience is, that the more prestigious the (military) academy, the "nerdyer" the teachers. I have seen multiple profs and teachers at universities explaining stuff with Lego and other unconventional toys XD
When i was in the army i had a "sand table bag" which was basically 550 cord and little army men
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
Man it was actually so bloody interesting hearing about the bit where even when an army is technically winning, because they don't know what's going on in the rest of the battle they could break too early and lose. This is the kind of video I needed because I've always thought about how primitive, medieval, etc. battles were played out. What interests me most, however, is the lack of communication and how they worked around it. These days you can just radio in and find out wtf is happening in the battle.
And even with radios, it's complex as hell to maintain battlefield awareness. That's one of the reasons why fake routs were not a common manoeuvre - unless your army is really disciplined or really trained for that kind of tactics, it's very likely to turn into a _real_ rout. Any complex orders would be prepared _before_ the actual battle - you had no real way of giving complex orders _during_ a battle. There was still communication between the different groups on a battlefield, but often it was in the way of "when the horn sounds, charge". You'd have people running between the commanders with messages for coordination, you had a few signals you could use even at range, but in the end, those were limited, and so was your ability to drill them into the soldiers and even make sure all the commanders knew what they meant.
I expect a vast majority of battles was won because of a mis-communication, mis-information or such. Don't forget that armies could outmanoeuvre each other almost without limit; if you wanted to force a battle, your opponent had to think they had enough of an advantage to win (or at least, as much advantage as they're going to get). Coordination, communication, awareness, logistics, scouting, morale... all the "boring" stuff Hollywood doesn't want to bother with, and many people care little about to their own detriment.
It was incredibly difficult. Often, the men would have to be briefed on the battle plan the night before, so they knew roughly what they were doing and all they had to do was wait for the signal from their commander, who would have received the cue by a messenger from the general. When said commander dies, that's when it can get especially messy. It is believed that this is what happened at Hastings, the commander was killed in the arrow fire, and nobody remained on that flank to prevent the soldiers from rushing forward as a mob.
Another famous example of this was Cannae. The Romans tended to be pretty closed minded and old fashioned when it came to combat, often refusing to accept change. On such instance is the fact that they insisted on putting both the generals among the light cavalry on the flanks, with none in the main bulk of the legions. At Cannae, the Roman cavalry were chased off on their right flank relatively quickly, and the left flank was continually harassed until they saw Hannibal's cavalry coming up from behind, having finished dealing with the Roman right, at which point they had to flee or be surrounded. This meant that the bulk of the army was now just a mass of 80,000 men with a command structure but nobody at the top. So they did what they were used to doing, and charged forward. Eventually they pushed the Punic men back, only to find that there had been spearmen hiding on the Punic flanks, and they were now surrounded. Then, the Punic cavalry reappeared yet again, having chased off the remaining Roman cavalry. The slammed into the rear, closing the box and causing the Romans to be surrounded on all sides. Then, they started pushing into the middle, squeezing the Roman mass and causing the legions to lose formation, being crushed together like a stampede at a stadium. It was a slaughter, and about 50,000 Romans were just killed in cold blood, many deciding to fall on their swords before the Carthaginians got to them.
@@alextowers3564 I mean you Say the Romans made a massive mistake, but against Most other forces at the time they would've been able to break free with their tactics and not suffer such a crushing defeat. It was their mistake compounded by the fact it was Hannibal against them.
Ancient warfare is still alive in the form of the riot police. Riot police pretty much are Roman soldiers in terms of equipment. Helmet and chest armor but no armor on the legs or arms. Using a large square shield and a short melee weapon. A riot police baton is almost identical in length to a roman gladius.
You even have cavalry as well in most riot police. The main point of the cavalry is not mobility but intimidation. Horses are intimidating to people and it's been shown several times that horses intimidate people far more than light vehicles do.
Early retreats in battles are not a silly subject too; almost like 98% of casualties caused in battles are from trying to run away/retreating too early or without any tactical goal in mind.
I just watched a grown man dressed in medieval clothes play with legos and medieval figures for 30 minutes.
And you loved every moment.
This is CZcams at its finest. Really. If you see this, love your vids, Shad!
Give me a mirror and I could do it for 8 hours
A fine specimen of a man
I agree, good use of that 30 minutes! ☝️
Shad: Releases a video about battlefield tactics and strategies.
Me, a Total War player: Oh yes, I'm somewhat of a general myself.
You are both wrong. I watched GoT season 8 and therefore master of all medieval battle tactics.
@@sparkypack Catapults engage !
exactly what I thought myself =)
Total War has taught me that the ultimate strategy is to send a lone hero on a horse, have them make funny faces and rude gestures at the enemy army, and then spend 5 minutes running around in circles while the enemy fires all their ammunition at him.
@@OniGanon so you were playing the huns
Harold Godwinson: "It's over William! I have the high ground."
William of Normandy: "You underestimate my power."
the fun thing is ... the higher ground is usually a huge setback in a duel ....
@@gehtdichnixan3200 is it though?
@@charleslathrop9743 think about it if we are fighing with swords ... and you stand like 3 steps higher or maybe 4 .... you can attack my upper half body my legs are out of reach .... i on the other hand can reach nearly your complete body and attack your legs ( wich are harder to protect ) easyer
oh excuse my crappy english
@@gehtdichnixan3200 If you are three steps lower than me then my legs are about the only thing within your reach. I know exactly where you will attack, and my legs are not static targets, I will move them. I can easily defend them or simply dodge your strikes. My blows will be gravity assisted as well as coming down on your head. Your head is much more vital area than my legs, and repeated blows to your head will keep you defending yourself and disoriented. While when you attack all I have to do is step back and lean forward to keep hitting you. Your English is fine by the way.
@@charleslathrop9743 czcams.com/video/G9FrN58T-VE/video.html
skalagrim made a video on the topic ... both in it are trained and know what they are talking about
maybe it makes a better case than what i say ;) and thanks
If I've learned anything from playing Mount and Blade, the #1 tactic for a small force to overwhelm a larger one is for the small force's commander to singlehandedly slaughter more enemy soldiers than half of their own underlings did combined. Also, ONLY having cavalry helps lol.
Thats so true
I prefer the classic crossbow men on a hill but that's just me
@@ravirr8407cause you enjoy a blood bath😐
Me deploying a mostly infantry based company with a bit of cavalry for Hammer and Anvil tactics: "Try me"
@@vondantalingting only problem with that is there aren't any tier 6 infantry units, and that tactic doesn't do very well against cavalry-heavy forces (which are also harder to outrun with an infantry-heavy army). So, it's harder to maintain a higher average troop quality than the AI. Plus at some point, you'll inevitably need to fight the Kerghits or whoever ate most of their territory.
I feel like the ideal unit for whittling down any large force is the Faris. They're one of the best armored units in the game, they're relatively fast, they're one of the only cavalry units armed with javalins, they're also still a melee cavalry unit. If I time things right and their troop quality isn't ridiculously high, I can defeat a force 2-3 times larger as long as I'm only fielding faris units. and I won't lose more than half. A 100-faris army could probably even beat 2000-3000 peasants, though not without most of them dying too.
Me, studying for the exam of tomorrow: "32 minutes of shad playing with LEGO to explain tactics? SURE"
@@aggromemnon335 I would pay that than to play Three Kingdoms
Was the exam in medieval military history?
"It's over William! I have the high ground!"
"You underestimate my cavalry!"
*proceeds to Caesar it*
“It’s over William! I have the high-“
*sees his own men charging down the hill*
“WHAT ARE YOU FOOLS DOING!?”
@@operationstratos1013
William: "why _are_ you running, WHY _ARE_ you _running_ !!?"
@@MouseGoat
“GETTING EVEN HIGHER GROUND!!! WHERE YOU CAN’T REACH ME!!!”
William: "My Kingdom for the rank of Master!"
This needs to become an entire series. Talk about each aspect individually, terrain, unit types, supply lines, weather, money, politics, etc. You could do a whole episode about how a particular type of unit might be used, or about how a particular terrain type, such as a forrest, might affect a battlefield.
I wholeheartedly support this!
You have my axe!
A modern day “Art of War”
in the meantime, you can check out BazBattles. Very good breakdowns covering most of these points, but perhaps without the charisma of milord Shad
@@crimsonhawk52 Yo thank you! I just looked into that channel and it's awesome
with how relatively ineffectual and finnicky siege-craft would be, imagine a medieval army having access to a troll or ogre that could just shotput rocks or bowl the enemy over. Kind of explains why Goliath from the Bible would be so feared.
Goliath would have been a prime artilleryman for his detail. Imagine a single man carrying and setting up a mangonel whenever needed, the sheer tactical advantage with the proper terrain, especially in the rocky deserts of that region.
Theres a show called Attack on Titan where an appartment sized monkey can chuck rocks at supersonic speeds to shred hundreds of men to bloody pulps in an instant.
Thanks, now I can't enjoy movie battle scenes anymore and it's your fault! ;)
But you can make better battle scenes yourself :) (Btw. big fan of yours!)
Lindybeige and Shad be like: ruin every movie. But it's ok. Love them anyway.
Nice😀
My friends refuse to watch any movies about history or war with me because they get annoyed at all my huffing and puffing.
It's so nostalgic watching these videos from the time Shad wasn't ruling Australia
man i love overlord
@@temugebagira6592 from my experience I can tell you that Ainz doesn't like people though
@@afinoxi he doesnt dislike he just doesnt care for people outside of the towm
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
@Robin Caster anime ban ? What ? I've never heard of that.
It's not just lack of understanding, it's a complete lack of interest. I'm sure they could have made those battles realistic, they just don't want to, no amount of information is going to change these people because they just don't care
Most viewers know nothing about medieval battles. Hence why Braveheart was so well liked
Yeah. It's sad to watch someone like Shad put so much work into something that'll get completely ignored by the target audience.
There is so much historical incorrectness in Braveheart, but I can enjoy the battle scenes, because they are entertaining. :)
There's also two big misconceptions:
-HIstoricity is boring.
-Historicity is expensive.
Both are totally wrong, even if the average viewer does not get history, or does not like history, an historical realistic battle would be more entertaining than a fake one, or at least as entertaining. Especially in historical movies, there's really scenes where they change the historical events to something more dull and boring than the truth. Why? XD
And historicity is not expensive, or at least not more expensive than normal costumes. Worst of all, you pay some more salaries to do research on the period and ask historians what clothes and armours they ahd at the time. But apart from that, it's really not that expensive to make fake or realistic armours and clothes of the time. Mainly because recreating a thing made by hand with modern technology is often easy ^^
True. Most of these can just be figured out easily if you give it a little bit of logic thought and reading. Shad hasn't told me anything I haven't known about medieval battlefield tactics, and I am just casually interested in historical warfare, haven't done any profound research about this topic.
11:11 Not just hollywood. Gaming industry as a whole usually included catapults in an open field battle and treats them like fieldguns of the Renaissance and Enlightenment Era. Civilization series are the profound examples of the (mis) uses of siege units.
I think in medieval battles no other game series has come close to realism like some of the Total War series games (like SHOGUN 2 for example)
Bannerlord does it well theyre built at seiges and to defend from seiges
@@srsaito9262 ancient rocket launchers
As someone trying to plan out a battle in my writing, this was EXTREAMLY helpful!
When u finish your book give me a link and I might buy it.
Give me a link also and I might buy it. I'd love to see a film/book/TV show that uses real battle tactics.
What’s the title of your book, and where can it be found?
As a Visigoth trying to plan out a battle in Rome, this was also extremely helpful!
Harold: It's over William, I have the high ground!
You underestimates my power.
@@alexandrejose8362 Don't try it
@@egil8166 (Orders Norman bowmen to shoot)
@@egil8166 (runs away)
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
One thing about warfare I find quite interesting that has stayed pretty consistent through the ages and that ties a bit into the surrender vs slaughter them wholesale thing is the difference between Fighting for survival and, lets call it "War for Profit" and how the leadership of both sides may categorise the same conflict completely different from each other.
Hannibal for example may well have hoped that he could just do enough damage to Rome that they would just capitulate and sign a similar peace treaty like the one Catharge did after the end of the first Punic War, but the Romans perceived him to be such an existential threat that they not only kept throwing legions at him even after losing one of the most devastating curb stomps in history to this day but tried to make absolutely sure that Catharge would never rise again after their eventual victory.
I think Hannibal was probably counting on revenge, many people were not happy having lost the first war, and he also had a lot of Iberian an Gallic troops, which didn´t particulary liked Rome.
One thing that was in fact impressive from Rome was their determination and will, but that alone doesn´t win wars, they also had the advantage on being at their homeland and they had the luck of having another genious as Scipio was, they also had the luck of having Fabius Maximus which seem at the time to be the only one to realise that they had to employ the intelligence and not strenght to beat Hannibal
Pride and stuborness was also sometimes Rome demise, like on Cannae and Carrahe.
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
@@marcos1669 I don't doubt that Hannibal would have relished in the chance to destroy Rome, but one does not become a military genius of Hannibals calibre without being able to determine your abilities and that of your enemies.
If he had managed to turn Romes allies to his side the situation may have been different, but the way it was I don't think that he would have turned down the opportunity to force a lucrative and humiliating peace treaty on the Romans and go home, knowing that this was the best he was going to get
@@AtheistIII well leading siege to rome would be dificult even if theres no that big force they could have armed civilians or bring back their legions in the hispania or in macedonia
@@blecao yeah, this and that Hannibals key to victory always was choosing the best battlefield and time to maximise his advantages.
So getting bogged down in a siege would have been the worst course of action he could have chosen.
But Rome at this point already relied heavily on their italian allies/tributaries for supplies and I believe also soldiers. If Hannibal had suceeded in turning them against Rome in a coordinated Revolt he may had been able to break the back of the legions
This puts the idea that "wars are won by hearts and minds" into great perspective. Amazing! Thanks for the video, Shad! I'll definitely keep everything here in mind when I'm GMing.
Shad after watching Mulan remake: I have witnessed things no man should ever be subjected to
Does seem odd, individual soldiers in the region making their way to the main camp... instead of to a travel-camp then moving enmasse.
Rather like how enlistees will be shipped via bus to the Training Camp.
_She is no man_
Like Sun Tzu said, always leave an opening for the opponents to flee. As long as the enemy soldiers sees a way to retreat, they will use it instead of desperately fighting to the last man.
This reminds me of something I read about once a long time ago.
More experienced Old Norse battle tacticians would take great care in where they constructed their shield walls. If possible they would do so right behind a "natural inconvenience". A small bump or indentation in the terrain, some slightly marshy ground, a patch of thicker grass, etc. Sometimes they would even dig a small ditch themselves to serve as this "inconvenience".
Ideally this "natural inconvenience" wouldn't be severe enough to consider or even notice when forming a plan of attack, as that would make the army attacking the shield wall reconsider their strategy.
The "natural inconvenience" was simply to throw the opponents off just a little and give the shield wall an edge. It was said that these small variations in terrain quickly added up and made a far greater impact than one would think.
Medieval Crab The tactic of having archers embed sharpened stakes into the ground in front of them is a fairly similar concept, although more as a horse deterrent than anything else. Although, that is very crafty of those tacticians. A small ditch can either give the defending soldiers the high ground or force the enemy to readjust the formation and attack with fewer men at a time around the flanks.
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
When discussing battle tactics, one must keep in mind, that communication between elements of an army was limited to couriers, pretty much until the second world war, and communication between officers and their men limited to shouting until only a few decades ago.
Operations had to be simple enough to execute without the need for further orders once they commenced, and plans vague enough for them to be adaptable to unforseen elements.
Meanwhile tactics had to heavily rely on drill, as giving complex orders was all but impossible.
If one looks at the strategies employed within famously succesful engagements, they will always encounter one of a small number of extremsly simple tactical schemes, that the army could executewithout need for micromanagement.
Defense in depth, single or double envelopment, utilization of chokepoints to equalize numbers, ambush, decapitation strikes, defeat in detail.
Some combination of the above basically describes every famous battle in history.
_That's_ where military bands come in. With proper training and loud instruments, you could relay orders coded through a short handful of musical notes that travel VERY far with little risk of miscommunication. They were essentially the commander's radio broadcast.
Of course, that ended when explosive artillery became commonplace and made musical communication unusable, but that's far beyond medieval warfare and pretty much all fantasy settings.
After about 500 hours of Mount & Blade: Bannerlord, I'm surprised how much of this makes sense being something I learned from experience in the game. The true medieval combat simulator. Great video.
Even though i am late, is bannerlord good? I played mount and Blade warband and really liked It for its realism. And i am thinking of buying bannerlord, is It worth it?
@@gjota1371 Just buy and make sure you won't get problems with school or work because this game is as addictive as it gets. The massive battles are a medieval dream come true.
@@GrosserAndrew5000 thanks for the answer :)
@@gjota1371 Did you play the beta? Because it's practically nothing like Warband. I have over 1k hours in Warband, and I was disappointed with Bannerlord.
@@joezilla29 no, i did not, i thought to buy the game when the full version Will be released, is It for PC?
Logistics: exist
Movie makers: we don't do that here
Quite german of them👀
@@maade9642
Frenchies did it first, right Napoleon? 🇷🇺🤣
"Your army is as strong as your logistics"
I'd pay good money to watch a movie about a military logistics department. For real.
@@DinnerForkTongue Did you just inslut one of the best commanders in the world?
Interesting how skirmishes get overlooked, despite the smaller scale being a perfect opportunity for your protagonist to show off!
Llrd of the rings for example is abolutely full of them.
You have two pitched battles, and dozens of skirmishes.
Bruh! That is such a good point!
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 for real? I’ve been meaning to watch those movies. I think I will now
Hey Shad, I'm writing a medieval fantasy tv series with an emphasis on tactics and strategy. Your channel and this video in particular have been invaluable throughout the writing process
What’s it’s name?
@@steveisthecommissar4013 Working title is Quest: An Epic of Three Kings, Celtic inspired with a lot of culture clash in later seasons.
How is it going?
@@friendly-dreadnought4119 Well thanks! I have a few projects in the works but the first season is done :), going through now to make sure everything's got a good line of logic and everyone has arcs.
@@parduetheholyman I hope that when you finish, a company wants to work with you
Another great video. The biggest revelation for me was that “people don’t want to die.” Whaaaa? In terms of analysing The Long Night battle in Game of Thrones, you made one key mistake: Thinking that by Season 8 showrunners Dave & Dan gave a flying fark about realism, logic, consistency, or anything else. It is key to take this into account when considering anything to do with Game of Thrones, in an increasing arc from Season 5 through to 8.
Yup, having an interest in medieval tactics, the entire final season gave me an aneurism.
I knew it had gone to s*** on the episode where the Greyjoys whole massive fleet got destroyed in a few hours at night in the dark... Ridiculous! I think that was season 5.
@@stujitsu That season is definitely where it started to turn.
Mind blowing: people don't like to die.
I was lied for my entire life.
I think the comissar behind you want to speak a word with you.
Have you ever heard of the Deathkorps of Krieg?
Kriegsmen: **confused gasmask noises**
@@mxcherryblue5943
Well, we are not into 30th millennium yet. We are just in the 3rd millennium.
@@mxcherryblue5943 they were special units... most don't want to die.
Love the emphasis you put on skirmishers, scouting, and keeping soldiers well supplied. An army marches on it's stomach.
In high school I remember reading about a medieval army (during the crusades i think) that succeeded on a campaign and part of the explanation given by modern historians was due to the army having alot of dried lentils/peas in addition to the usual wheat, while their opponents mostly had just grain. The lentils gave them additional fiber, protein, B vitamins, and electrolytes (especially potassium) which would have massevly helped during a hot sweaty march. Japan also had tons of issues during the 1800s because their military mostly just ate white rice an of each ship arriving to port around a third of the crew was laid up with Bere-Bere (due to a lack of protein and B vitamins) and European soldiers into the 1800s suffered massive casualties due to scurvy. I think I remember hearing that George Washington lost far more men to Scurvy then the British.
@@arthas640 you’d think nations would treat their soldiers better, maybe less coup would have happened throughout history
The maneuvering and utilizing terrain point that you brought up is one thing that makes Frederick the Great of Prussia so incredibly fascinating! He deeply understood the importance of feints and getting advantageous terrain to the point that he won battles like the Battle of Rossbach, where his men were severely outnumbered almost 2:1!
Anyone at all thats played M&B knows instantly how medieval tactics work. Its always interesting to see how the AI employs tactics to stall your cav charges, trying to feint you into charges, etc.
Press F1, Press F3, Win!
What game is m&b ?
@@lick3227 Mount&Blade (in particular Warband and now Bannerlord) is a third-person sandbox RPG that takes place in the realm of Calradia. Part of the meat of the games is building an army that you can then command into battle.
Your character is present too and is who you will be controlling in battle. You caj issue commands to your army as the battle plays out ranging from simple follow, hold ground and charge to even more complex orders like ten steps forward and 'archers move here'.
That's just not true.
King Harald: It's over Normans, i have the high ground!
William; it's over Saxons, Your formation is broken!
William: "Alright men, just like we've practiced!"
**proceeds to viciously taunt the Saxons**
@@RJALEXANDER777 William: Now rings, but don't run!
William the Bastard: Oh no I'm dead *Laughs in Alive*
*run
Step 1: Spearmen in front
Step 2: Archers behind
Why yes I have played Total War games.
Just make a 17 Stegadon doom stack with a life Slann healing them and a couple heroes and you cheese everything.
Yes, I watched Legend of Total War.
@@andregon4366 nah you get a bunch of short bois with bazookas and a couple of other short bois waving hammers around to motivate the first lot of short bois to reload at mach 5
@@brijekavervix7340 you don't need hammerers, just get engineers to improve dmg and fire rate and dragon doomstacks are toast.
"God be praised! You have captured the enemy genERAAAL!"
Thanks Sean Pewtree's voice. I am proud if I do say so myself. ;)
the best strategy is javelin spam because unless the enemy is fielding a 100% horse doomstack, the javelins will screen even the strongest of charges and them moving out of the way will mitigate the damage, meanwhile the cavalry will lose momentum as it slogs through the loose crowd and soak up high damage fire. The real meta of total war is the fact that space is limited and you negate the main advantage of cavalry not by placing yourself strategically but by turning your own army into a mobility kill.
Hey Shad, just speaking from a guy that went through at least Platoon Leader training (so my practical knowledge of combined arms is limited, and I've never been in combat, so take that into account):
Most of these formations, and their advantages that you speak of, are still being employed more or less by modern militaries. If you move a platoon, you move your squad in those formations. If you move a company or a tank company you move more or less in these formations still.
We modify the formation based on whether we know where the enemy is coming from or whether we're scouting or on the march, but formations still exist and are dependent on the situation and are STILL used to gain a localized firepower advantage and so on, just like in ancient and medieval times.
The only difference is movement speed and we're more spread out for obvious reasons (explosives as an area effect weapon).
Honestly I think you should try and make some military contacts. Maybe some of your subscribers are military men in your area and could organize something. I'm not sure about the Australian military but my home country has sometimes opportunities for open-house, where they demonstrate some stuff and some tactics. Or maybe dig into some publicly available military manuals. I think you'll be surprised how much of it is still applicable to medieval times if you correct for obvious things like speed and available weapons. But very basic military principles like terrain scouting and logistics and evaluating a battlefield etc etc are mostly unchanged and just adjusted to modern weaponry. The core principles still apply. So maybe that kind of knowledge could help with your videos and your writing, or maybe even inspire you to go into a modern scenario or sci fi in a book.
Rah
@@MrpoopMan8152 Hooah.
Sir Patrick, they have set up a Trebuchet to destroy the city!
Sir Patrick: We must push the city somewhere else!
That Idea is just crazy enough... THAT IT MIGHT GET US ALL KILLED
Sounds worth trying.
In reference to your question about siege weapons in open battle.
The battle of mohi in Hungary- the mongols used light traction catapults to pelt the enemy infantry that were trying to contest a bridge.
Though you are right it was really rare to use siege weapons in pitched combat.
Also scorpions.
but they weren’t as common in medieval times
Neat! This also reinforces Shad’s comment on aiming a siege weapon is a horrendous process, but luckily bridges don’t usually run away and thus a “kill zone “ can be mapped out for the troops trying to take it :)
The situation was actually quite dire for the mongols here.
They’d been boxed in by the Hungarian crossbowmen who had parked them selves on the opposite side of the bridge.
They ended up holding the mongols off by piercing through their light armour.
However,
Some quick thinking by the mongol general had him move up the catapults (which were lighter and more mobile than the typical European design)
in combination with a river crossing near the bridge, they pushed the Hungarian crossbowmen and infantry back.
Letting the mongols win the engagement.
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
On supply lines, when something bad happens the US President asks where is the nearest Carrier Strike Group(CSG)? The CSG Commander asks, where is the nearest supply ship. This crosses to the land and across time. As the old saying goes, "an army marches on its stomach." Armor and weapons are nothing without food.
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
This is very true. There's a saying: "Amatures study Tactics, professionals study logistics."
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that a major factor in how the North won against South in the American Civil War
@@couragew6260 Pretty much. Also, the North had way more men...which is why General Grant just decided to trade man-for-man. The South lacked manufacturing for most arms, a severe shortage of manpower, and their cash crop economy did not allow for food agriculture. Lastly, the Union (North) employed a blockade (the South lacked a real navy) and prioritized capturing the Mississippi River, which resulted in cutting Louisiana and Texas off from the rest of the South, while cutting the South off from any foreign aid.
@@samuelzuleger5134
Cool. Btw I just recently made a comment about the Huns attack in the 1998 movie. I suggest you read it because it makes you appreciate the original movie even more than the 2020 version.
I am pleased that a knew most of this already, but I definitely did NOT give enough weight to the benefits of skirmishes and the breaking of formations. I also just realized that I have been absentmindedly employing basic battle tactics for goblin battles in DnD. I now know why the party had such a hard time despite the goblins being few in number with poor equipment.
Every adventurer gangsta until the trees start speaking Goblin
Shad, Alexander the Great during the battle of Battle of Pellium used his siege equipment (which would later be used in the Siege of Pellium) as field artillery against his enemy across the river. Also, during the battle of The Axona, Gaius Julius Caesar used his Siege Scorpions as defensive artillery against the Gauls when he fortified a hill.
Another thing to remember: pitched battles in the Medieval period were quite rare, since they required both sides to commit to it, which usually only happened when both sides thought they were going to win. This is why sieges were far more common.
Not just in the medieval period, but really throughout all of history
And yeah it is as you said, you dont fight a battle if you dont think you'll win
I mean its not like you can say no right? If youre moving your army and the enemy army spots you and starts marching towards you its not like you can just...not fight
@@mondaysinsanity8193 You can choose not to march in battle , if you have any fortified places you can retreat
@@kaganbaykal6984 i mean...not if you wanna gain ground really and cant retreat when youre already on the march?
@@mondaysinsanity8193 You can , in fact , choose to go a different direction , and you will mostly be able to outrun your opponent , since you can send skirmishers to slow them down.
Yes , it would leave anything not behind a wall at mercy of your enemy , but you can always take to the field , and keep your enemy under threat , without actually attacking
THIS. NEEDS. TO BE. A SERIES!!!
Yes please!
Agreed.
YESS!!
Yes please
Yes
Shad I really love and appreciate the content you make on youtube, it has really inspired me. I love that you're so invested in this and I hope you continue doing this
These details are so beautiful. The complexity and all the factors that could decide the outcome is just mind-blowing.
13:49 don't fortget the defenders can also pre-calibrate their siege weapons, so when enemy units walk into an area they can be hit by the siege equipment first time, the greeks at the siege of Syracuse did this to attack roman ships and ladder equiped infantry.
Wait. Isn't Syracuse in America? And it wasn't built until a few thousand years after the Greeks, so why would they be there if it didn't even exist yet?
@@brandonhey7797 Syracuse is one of the most famous cities of Sicily (the only famous city of Sicily? ^^'), and played a big role in roman and greek history.
I guess there is some cities in America called Syracuse, but there is also some Rome in America, taht's not a reason to assume Rome exists only in America :p
tl;dr: Americans had no imagination for their cities names :p
@@brandonhey7797 This comment is a big oof
@@krankarvolund7771 HEY HEY NOW COLD SPRING IS REALLY ORIGINAL
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
“But realism isn’t cool!”
Hmm... would I rather watch two masses of soldiers run at each other and instantly break up into one on one combat upon impact,
or would I rather watch those same groups of men use shield wall tactics and pike phalanxes, hammer and anvil cavalry charges, flanking and skirmishing with bows and crossbows on foot and horseback?
Would I rather a character who is a military leader demonstrate their competence by jumping into the fray themselves, making the scene the same thing as a street fight or a series of duels, or would I rather that the writer demonstrate the intelligence of the commander by using simple tactics that most people would be able to appreciate?
“Oh wow, their enemy is having a tough time getting up that hill! There’s stakes and traps and arrows and artillery are raining on them the whole time! Their army is a lot bigger, but this genius character might just turn it around!”
It doesn’t take a westpoint graduate or a doctor of medieval history to appreciate this, and all it would take is the CG blobs of guys doing something other than charging straight at each other.
I know it’s not perfectly historical and it’s a game, but directors could just watch some Total War gameplay for ideas.
I’m a little disappointed that Shad didn’t mention the utility of displaying these tactics in storytelling, too many of the comments are saying that people don’t care about tactics.
Realism can tie a piece of media down to earth to make it feel more believable, even to people who don’t know much about this. It can also add tension, knowing that a commander is trying to balance the tenuous morale of her men, making decisions in the planning and execution of the battle that actually matter, and we can show these decisions resulting in a loss or win with clear causality. Causality is important to storytelling, its literally the whole thing. Individual Agency in that causality is important to character development, and the continuity of cause and effect is how you have plot that the audience is invested in.
preferably older total war, modern total war has reduced alot of stuff to stat card data sheets, resulting in less intutive gameplay.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 yeah but the graphics are good which appeals to grug-brained directors, and even in Rome II you still have the basic mechanics which demonstrate that in a fight between infantry of even quality, flanking skirmishes, superior formations like hoplite phalanxes, and rear charges by aggressive troops like heavy cavalry, swordsmen, falxmen, etc can win an engagement.
I do think Medieval II has the best cav charges, even though they might not be they might not be the most realistic.
You’re right though, unit ability buttons are dumb in recent TW games, and they’re not even fun. It’s a historical (ish) battlefield, not a damn MOBA. The fun comes from the maneuvers, not from min maxing stat values.
Don't underestimate the stupidity of "fans."
People now think that the Emperor in Star Wars was an idiot in RotJ for building a second Death Star, because they do not consider that it was successful in drawing the Rebel Alliance into a trap that would have worked if not for an indigenous insurgency and a nearly suicidal gambit by the Rebel Fleet to engage the Imperial Fleet.
Meanwhile, people also seem to think that the battles in the sequels are just as good...
That aside, Rome: Total War is my ideal. The more recent entries focus more on intrigue, diplomacy, and court politics, which I can get. What I don't understand is that the actual battlefield gameplay has gotten worse. I don't say this as a fanboy or someone with nostalgia. I still play Rome: Total War and find the combat side of the game far more challenging than either Rome II or Three Kingdoms.
@@photosyntheticzee9915 I too believe more intuitively played out battle scenes would make for better watching but sadly I think that in the grand scheme of things we might actually be in the minority. The directors would be pandering to the wider public (presumably they would make more sales this way) and unfortunately the general public doesn't care so much for the technicalities of combat, preferring to see the 'heroic charge' and 'glorious one on one combat' etc because to them, that's what looks cool. That's what the intended audience expects to see so that's what the directors produce. Why? More people will watch it thus they will make a larger return on investment which is really all they care about. So long as dumb fantasy battles sell more over smart realistic battles, they will only make dumb fantasy battles. Perhaps there may be a significantly large enough market for the latter but it seems so far that not many in the big film industry have been brave enough to try it.
@@samuelzuleger5134 I personally like medieval II better, because of the wider selection of units for all factions, even if a lot of them overlap and I end up spamming feudal knights and armored sergeants.
On the whole I think Rome II now does pikes a lot better than Med II. Did Rome I also do a good job with sarissas?
On Star Wars, I think the Emperor’s trap was effective in the way the story was told in raising the tension of the confrontation with Luke. Luke was previously secure the rebels would win, but then he realized that if he didn’t defeat the Emperor, the whole resistance might be destroyed for nothing. At least a that’s how I saw it, but it’s a reasonable way to interpret the scene in my mind.
We can be smartasses about building a second Death Star but when the movie came out I don’t think it hurt the storytelling in achieving its desired affect.
That was hugely interesting, thank you Shad!
Man, finding your channel really was one of the most productive things I've done on youtube ^^ Keep up the great work!
Excellent video. Please consider making this a series. Please deep dive into this subject. This is exactly what we need more of. This video and others like it is definitely on the required viewing list for our team and our MMA classes.
Shad: medieval war isnt like rock-paper-scissors
some overrated, overadvertized mobile game: *Ill ignore that*
Which one?
@@dabbingperson9236 Shad: Raid Legend
@@EnsignRedshirtRicky raid shaddle legends
Legow shaend raids
RTS siege up. I think they did it. but in the end i just used mass archer to take down anything with some infantry too hold them off lol
Harold: Ok men, take the highground and NEVER BREAK FORMATION!
Saxons: Ok Your Majesty! ... Hey they're running away! Let's pursue!
Harold: Don't break forma- they're doing it anyway.
William: Haha! Now I can change my name from The Bastard to The Conqueror!
Imagine their facebook feed xD
He never used either for himself.
The reverse was true for Daylen lol
Then the poor sod took a stray arrow to the eye.
@@calvingreene90 yeah that's called a joke
Hey Shad! Ever thought about doing some episodes on the individual battles you just described? I think they would be quite popular.
Fantastic video! I really enjoyed this. I first got interested in battle tactics after watching "The Long Night" and, even as someone who knew nothing about battle tactics, knew it was horrible! So I got a book, and I found your channel, and I'm so glad I did! This could absolutely be a series! I wonder if Crash Course would be open to it...
"people in general dont want to die"
sad Death korps of krieg noises
The key words there are “in general”
FOR THE EMPEROR!!!
generals would want to die the most
Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne!!
@@chrismoseley4828 korne for the korne flaks edit I meant flakes
Shad: "Infantry, long ranged, cavalry..."
Me: "But what about DRAGONS??"
Got patched away in update 1.1 since people complained they were too overpowered.
They took away the wings and fire breathing alas, everyone’s archers said trying to shoot a tank with the mobility of a hawk was too much
Dragons with plot armour are even better 😏.
It depends... assuming you are talking about flying fire breathing dragons, the maximum mass of such a creature would be approximately 250-500kg based on our current understanding of biology and the limitations of the square-cube principle meaning your dragons are a lot like flying horse archers, but shooting a short ranged AoE fire breath instead of long ranged single target arrows. Much like ground based light cavalry, they would be very good at skirmishing, flanking, moving about the battle field quickly, and breaking up enemy formations in anticipation of a main offensive, but not good in a pitched battle. Generally speaking, their large profiles, limited spitting range, and inability to fly in armor would make them easier to take out with a bow than a horse so they would be extra vulnerable to against any sort of missile formations, but against melee infantry or heavy cavalry they could pretty much attack with impunity until running out of fire.
Testudo formations might be somewhat effective at protecting your infantry from them depending on how potent their fire breath is, but you're gonna ruin a lot of shields in the process so probably still a worthwhile to deploy dragons against such units. Despite being deployed a lot like light cavalry, their ability to fly sort of inverts the terrain considerations that light cavalry are often faced with. Whereas horses function best in open fields, dragons would best be deployed in the most unruly terrain possible. The less a ground army can see and maneuver, the more effectively the dragon can out maneuver them. If you imagine extreme examples of where cavalry would be useless like a mountain pass or a forest, dragons would become the undisputed champions of the battlefield by being able to come in unseen and attack from places that would otherwise be deemed impossible to attack from.
@@nosajimiki5885 Well that answers _that_ question ;)
i'm learning how war was like in medieval times to help with developing the characters in the story
Shad, watching this again I remembered a campaign that nearly ended in disaster because the enemy was SO GOOD at skirmishes. It's Mehmed the Conqueror's campaign against Prince Vlad Dracula of Wallachia in the later 15th century. Prince Dracula had a small army that knew the land, so they used a scorched earth policy and skirmishes on the supply line to starve out the Ottoman army. They even poisoned the rivers and threw slaughtered pigs into wells to cut the Ottoman water supply. It was very cruel, but also tactically genius.
Shad: walks in with a box:
Shad's wife: "What's in the box?"
Shad: giggles, hearing it in Brad Pitt's voice..."Legos".
Shad's wife: "Here we go again".
Shad: "Honey, I'm doing RESEARCH! This is a tool for doing demonstrations."
Shad's wife: "At least let the kids play with them when you're done this time."
lol. XD
Shad: NO! MINE!
He have a wife?
*this time* XD
@@romaniacountryball and many kids
Shad: "Muahahaha, now the youtube channel and patreon are exactly where I want them. I have enough subscribers and they'll all watch what I put on the channel. Finally I can bring to fruition the final phase of my plan to be paid to have thousands of people watch me play with legos..."
In all seriousness this must have been an especially fun episode to make.
HEMA: 1v1 with realistic armor and arms
HEMA tacticians and strategists: Legos
amazing ways of explaining these topics you possess, thanks so much for making these videos and for enlightening my knowledge, very much appreciated!
Thank you so much for this video! I’ve been designing a warfare system for Pokémon Tabletop United, and this video really gave me a direction to take things next. When I set out to make a unit, I’ll decide what purpose this unit will serve, then assign abilities accordingly. As you can imagine, creating a warfare system with magical creatures that can reshape the battlefield on the fly is an enormous challenge, but a fun one.
my man got so angry at Mulan he made a whole video about tactics
Sure its bad but did it cause physical pain in your brain like The Short Night's tactics did to mine?
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
@@kalxek1462 Watch the video he made on it. As a honest summary, it is worse.
@@kalxek1462 You're supposed to put the artillery BEHIND the defenses, not in front of them! UGH! I can not take that episode seriously.
@@edwardteach3000 well even Chinese people despise that film regarding the battles so yeah, you're right
Shad having fun with his toys. Even adults need playtime.
This channel is just incredible
I loved the brief explanation of medieval combat. I’m definitely looking up your other stuff, Shad. :)
Where may I procure some of those high quality tactic visualising aids? I need them for... Planning.. purposes...
Bricklink
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
In other words, medieval battles are rich with _plot twists_
Am I the only one who imagines a literal rope being cut when someone says "Cutting supply lines"
Shad, i'd actually really like a series on actual historical battles looked at from a tactical perspective. I really enjoyed this vid man, keep it up!
Shad you gave me PTSD every time you mentioned "The long night." Perhaps the most frustratingly disappointing thing I have ever seen on a screen.
Rise of Skywalker?
@@brodenmcdougall2698 The Last Jedi had already killed Star Wars for me. RoS was just the macabre rape of a corpse.
You saw it? I saw nothing.
Shad: "...Suddenly, you have less man."
Stannis's ghost: Fewer.
Stannis Fewer Baratheon!!!!!!
Stannis is well and alive
THE TRUE KING
Too soon my dude... Too soon
I'm currently in pre-production of a book following low fantasy mercenary story with the inclusion of other aspects of warfare than the fighting itself, like logistics, planning, diplomacy, sitting around during a siege with nothing to do, etc. This video has been a great help, thank you Shad, I might send you a copy when I'm done! ;)
In the lotr movies Saruman’s forces raid and destroy multiple settlements around Rohan which cuts of the western and eastern parts from each other. It also creates large amounts of refugees that when escorted to helms deep slows down the army (which gets attacked by wolf riders) and also thins out their resources.
100% historically accurate movie about battle would be amazing thriller. Just imagine, a bit of fog, rain, first on march, scouts going out, coming back to camp, skirmishes, deception, logistic line interrupted and finally battle, but with actual formations, rotation, battle for few days even... attacks on camp maybe..
I can't tell if this is sarcasm 🙄
@@robwright1286 It is not. Why? War nerds would love it.
@@nesa1126 Idk just reckon it would be boring, but proper formations would be cool ig
@@robwright1286 depends on how you do it. remember that one scene at beginning of Rome? Where they fight in formation but one dude gets punished because he thought he was in Hollywood. Still fun interesting scene but showed formations and all
@@nesa1126 Tbf a more authentic representation of warfare would be welcome cos I think fact is sometimes more fascinating than fiction, and tactics are cool lol
That's a good point that the side with the best morale that refuses to retreat has an advantage. On the flip side, if your side does lose, those individuals that route the earliest are probably the most likely to escape. At the same time, the more people on your side that run, the more likely you are to lose so you should probably also run. It becomes clear how morale can collapse very quickly.
Morale was a very decisive factor, and I actually think that was what decided hte battle of the 500 - the Spartans that defended against a whole army.
Because imagine being a soldier on the attacker side: You number in tens of thousands, they 500. And they not only not run, but they fight like beasts. You watch that for a while an start thinking: normally after 10% are dead the battle is over. I have a good chance to survive. But look at them! They are only 500! What if we are against 5000 tomorrow? Normally after 500 (10%) kills the battle would end, but with them, who never stop, we might go up to 10K losses or even more. My chances of suvival have suddenly dropped from 90% to 50%....
If at that moment an enemy army comes, you as a general better don't start the big fight, because the moment anything wents wrong, all your men will turn round and run.
@@steemlenn8797 Quick note: about 7000 Greeks for the first 2 days, then when a local turned traitor revealing an small unguarded path the entire Greek force, except the 300 Spartans and 700 hundred Thesbian archers, routed. The entire remaining force perished in battle the following day, there would be no survivors.
Oh, a quick fact, King Leonidas was in his mid seventies at the time of the battle. And most of his personal guard (the 300 Spartans present) where in their forties and fifties.
@@Hello-og Thanks for the details! I am not a history nerd, so I don't know the details. I just came up with that example that probably everyone has heard of in regads of morale.
Hey howdy hey, one of my biggest past times is writing and world building, and my big project is a book series based in a medieval setting. I love your videos and I actually use much of the information you give in my own research, particularly in the case of armor, weapons, and castles while still keeping that fantasy feel to the story. It's conquest heavy, so this video helps a lot in how I can create a story that's not just entertaining to everyone in general, but the medieval buffs (such as myself) can find satisfaction that I paid attention to how battles could play out in accordance to military tactics and strength of the competing powers.
Appreciate your hard work
There's another story from the battle of Crecy that shows that medieval warfare - even tho many people might think of it as simple due to the lack of modern technology - was a strategically complex situation:
The French had hired around 5000 Genoese Crossbowmen, a highly respected military corps that proved its mettle during the siege of Jerusalem whose units usually worked in teams of 3 consisting of one Crossbowman, one assistant deploying a pavise (big shield) and one assistant preparing a second crossbow to improve fire rate. Because the French marched very quickly, their supply line containing the Pavises and extra ammunition couldn't be uphold, so - when meeting the English - the Crossbowmen couldn't deploy their usual tactics. Even more so, a heavy rainfall started. While the English could easily remove their bowstrings and store them under their waterproof leathercaps, the Crossbowmen lacked the necessary equipment to unstring their crossbows. Thus their strings got drenched and stretched, and so, when the initial attack against the English started, the crossbows couldn't be used efficiently. Also lacking the Pavises to defend themselves against the heavy English fire, the commander of the Genoese Crossbowmen ordered his men to retreat, only to be cut down by the French Knights in the lines behind them, who saw this as an act of cowardice. The English could further inflict heavy casualties among the French with their prolonged fire, and in the end won the battle with up to 300 losses, while the French and their mercenaries lost about 4000 lives that day. Moral of the story? Don't know, don't underestimate the importance of supply lines or sth like that.
You know you're in for a treat when Shad makes a 30 minute video
Also, Shad fact: Shad owns a personal army of dragons with machicolations. Their power has been measured to be equivalent to a thrown pommel.
To put this statement in context he known to end people rightly.
Alright, I'm just gonna call bullshit on your so-called "fact" for one sole reason.
"Power _equivalent_ to a thrown pommel?" You're just gonna lie straight to our faces, like that?
The only power equivalent to a thrown pommel is another thrown pommel, for it is the one and only true way to end someone rightly. You cannot end someone rightly by burning them, that's just considered death by fire.
Jocose Sonata What if you throw a dragon at them? Does that count or is that just crushing someone to death?
@@joshuapowell6822
Well, yeah, it's just crushing someone to death under the weight of a, presumably, large dragon.
They were not ended rightly, they were just ended brokenly.
Now if a pommel was designed to resemble a dragon, and be _wielded_ by a dragon... now we're talking! But do keep in mind that size does not entail an increase in power.
Ending someone rightly is, as we all know and quite familiar with, a rather simple procedure, after all. Unscrew your pommel, and merely hurl it at your opponent to end them rightly.
Jocose Sonata What about a pommel shaped dragon? Or a dragon that’s been attached to a giant sword as a pommel?
I was a little disappointed that you didn't go over exhaustion. Fighting is tiring and utilizing all your men with a thin line has its draw backs when the enemy can commit reserves of fresh troops. Also pre-battle stuff like marching their men through a freezing river or having a warm meal before an engagement can do quite a bit to alter the fighting prowess of the soldiers before a battle even starts.
I think that part is already obvious so I don't think it's necessary
@@Le-eu4bf To be honest, most of the stuff explained here is already obvious and intuitive. Of course terrain and tactics and unit types matter! And of course there are advantages and disadvantages to a thin and thick line. And of course morale was a very important component of the battle.
@@jaideepshekhar4621 Yeah, the point is to be able to put them in context with each other.
@@jaideepshekhar4621 I get what you mean. Like if I'm gonna get dragged from one side of the country to another by some feudal lord for godknowswhat, you better believe I expect to stop by at the nearest medieval IHOP beforehand. Any less than that I'm finna calling the medieval labor unions or something.
I may not have fact-checked some of this.
Finally I find a video on this subject ! I've been writing stuff for a tabletop RPG campaign, and there's a battle at some point but the only inspiration I have for how battle happen is Total War, which I know isn't 100% accurate because of gameplay. Thank you for your hard work, providing accurate information on subjects such as this one !
In terms of siege engines being used on a battlefield, I can only really think of one example. During the Seventh Crusade (according to John of Joinville), the French Crusaders used siege towers to shelter their soldiers from enemy arrows while they forded a canal. Of course, they were on their way to besiege Mansurah, so its not like they brought along siege towers for that specific purpose.
School work, or Shad?
School work. Or Shad?
You know what I'm doing.
Update: I did the school work afterwards but it was tricky not to write about medieval battles in it
Priorities come first you know. Go with Shad.
It's not a matter of question , it's a matter of time. When I see it , I click it.
I have the same question and the same answer
School work AND Shad😏😏For they are one in the same....😤
Same... and deadline tomorrow😳
Guglielmo Ferrero writes about the relatively "civilised" nature of medieval warfare in 'Peace and War':
"war became limited and circumscribed by a system of precise rules. It was definitely regarded as a kind of single combat between the two armies, the civil population being merely spectators. Pillage, requisitions, and acts of violence against the population were forbidden in the home country as well as in the enemy country. Each army established depots in the rear in carefully chosen towns, shifting them as it moved about; ...Conscription existed only in a rudimentary and sporadic form, ...Soldiers being scarce and hard to find, everything was done to ensure their quality by a long, patient and meticulous training, but as this was costly, it rendered them very valuable, and it was necessary to let as few be killed as possible. Having to economize their men, generals tried to avoid fighting battles. The object of warfare was the execution of skillful maneuvers and not the annihilation of the adversary; a campaign without battles and without loss of life, a victory obtained by a clever combination of movements, was considered the crowning achievement of this art, the ideal pattern of perfection. ... It was avarice and calculation that made war more humane. ... [W]ar became a kind of game between sovereigns. A war was a game with its rules and its stakes -- a territory, an inheritance, a throne, a treaty. The loser paid, but a just proportion was always kept between the value of the stake and the risks to be taken, and the parties were always on guard against the kind of obstinacy which makes a player lose his head. They tried to keep the game in hand and to know when to stop."
During the English Civil War battles still sometimes happened at agreed upon times at agreed upon places. It was considered low-class to directly target enemy generals with ranged weapons. Many of our current rules of war are holdovers from this time.
"Pillage, requisitions, and acts of violence against the population were forbidden in the home country as well as in the enemy country." That seems an old-fashioned, romantic assessment. Raiding expeditions referred to as 'chevauchées or 'cabalgadas' were specifically aimed against the civil population of a district or region. In the C14th, Alfonso XI of Castile, for instance, had to send French 'estranjeros' home because they assumed the right to pillage civil populations on the Christian side of the frontera.
The point about avoiding general engagements is well made.
Is he referring to Italy?
Because none of this is true North of The Alps, particularly after the Infantry Revolution after 1300, when armies became much larger, and much more destructive to the civilian population.
Great video shad. The lego things you used to represent the units were awesome!
I think one of the best examples for this video, while not being mediaeval per se, is Hannibal. He was a brilliant general and tactician, but I believe one of the key reasons he was able to repeatedly beat a superior force was because of his understanding of psychology. He was very good at making the locals defect to his cause against the Romans, knowing exactly how to make them think it was worth joining the cause of an outnumbered army over simply remaining passive. Additionally, before the Battle of Cannae, where he was outnumbered 50,000 to 80,000, one of his subordinates was acting very stressed in front of the men, a man called Gisgo. Hannibal famously said in front of his men, "But you forget that for all their strength, there is not a single man among them named Gisgo." This simple sentence bolstered the morale of his men, as well as lightening the mood enough to prevent them from thinking about the strength of the enemy. Yes, his understanding of tactics was unmatched, but likewise was his understanding of psychology.
Around 27min: Yeah, I see that. considered that, as Lindybeige cited in a different video on modern warfare, inflicting 10% casualties with an artillery barrage reduces the effectiveness of the defense to almost 0% (not that that would translate 1:1, just follow the general psychology here), I can see how an important individual killed, like a general, could for a brief moment shake the side that´s actually winning at the moment, and encourage the other side to an extent, that they inflict sudenly so many casualties in the next minutes, or at least push so hard that they make the superior side lose momentum, position or group cohesion, that this completely crushes the resilience of the otherwise superior party, and once their first unit retreats, or falls from an orderly retreat into routing, this can flip the power dynamics, and the outnumbered side could then start wiping the floor with the army that was winning a mere 5min ago.
Yeah, definitely depends a lot on who dies, initial morale, and how well trained and experienced the individual soldiers are in the unit. A unit with inexperienced conscripts could break at 5% or less while an elite volunteer force that's seen some serious shit might fight to the death if retreat is not an option for one reason or another.
That's one big reason why when the US was further into Vietnam, officers would take off their rank insignia to prevent Vietcong snipers from gaining a hit against GI morale. Since so many GI's were conscripts whom were drafted, the loss of an officer giving them encouragement and leadership would be a disadvantage the Vietcong could exploit.
I was also thinking about team sports and how much effect morale can have on the performance of a team. It always seems like morale has a huge effect on soccer matches, for instance. And in the case of a battlefield, if a leader dies it's not just a loss for morale, but also leadership. Not only can they no longer inspire their men, they also can't give them orders anymore. It would be like taking out the star player and the coach at the same time.
21:55 This is a really great point! In the Napoleonic Wars the british army utilised this strategy a lot. They placed their infantry just behind the hilltop, so it couldnt be fired upon and be concealed from observation. When the enemy did come over the hilltop, they would blast away with devastating close range muscet fire followed by fierce bayonett charges.
At Waterloo they also did this concealment of troops to great effect when the french heavy cavalry, feeling a weakness, charged at a weakspot in the british lines, but it actually was a big chunk of british infrantrymen that formed square formations just behind the hill side and the cavalry rode into its doom. (square formations are very effective against horses, explaining why would be too much now, but you can google )
But the french also had such a moment, when the british Scots Greys heavy cavalry charged an artillery position, not realising french spear-cavalry, the Ulans, flanking them from the side, because the terrain had concealed them. So the Scots Greys were run down and whiped out. because = horse + spear > horse + sabre
I love all the education you offer in your video's! I can't wait to see you book become reality!!
Hastings was a bugger. Harold won that battle.....right up to the point when he lost it....
this is a summary of everyone of my lost total warhammer 2 battles
@@Pedro_Colicigno . The same with my experience with World of Tanks. You beat the enemy down until you have a clear advantage, and then, like a switch was flipped, everyone goes kill crazy and charges.
Arguably if you can't leave your nice hill without being devastated, it was going to end in a draw.
(Granted, a draw is probably worse for William than Harold under the circumstances, but as Shad kinda mentioned, the capacity for medieval military victories to be one army pulling back while maintaining the vast majority of its men and material is significant.)
Ironically, William imposing a strong central government probably propelled England to global dominance. But I guess we'll never really know.
I've been waiting this for a long time......
50years since I was painting airfix soldiers, is that long enough?
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
@@dlrowle reported for spam
I believe the words you were searching for are "I've been looking forward to this!"
Shad, PLEASE make another video like this one and the one on medieval sieges. They are my most favorite videos on Shadiversity! You need to cover this subject more!
Shad, love the content and insight into medieval battles.
A suggestion for future videos of this nature: you may benefit from a 2nd camera (one that focuses on the battlefield). Put an in-frame of yourself in the corner or something.
yup, medieval battles is one of the most misrepresented things in the fantasy genre. In all movies and series Ive seen, Medieval battle = suicide charge, followed by an incredibly messy melee. Not only that but usually cavalry and infantry are just spliced together, without any formation, rhyme or reason, they all just charge togethe some on foot and some on horse, and somehow they make contact at the same time, even though the cavarly is much faster.
And when both sides finally reach each others, most of the horses are gone.
And the battle is over in like 2 minutes.
>both sides run screaming head first into each other
>cut to black
>fade back in to 99% of one force killed while the remaining 10% survivors of the victorious force go around finishing off the last 1%
I almost made that mistake in a novel I'm working on, and when I was reviewing an old draft I was like "wait a minute..."
So far the best depictions of medieval war I have found so far in terms of books Raymond E. Feist and his Riftwar series and then Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion books where the main character joins a mercenary company and I highly recommend them to anyone who haven't read them.
Also thanks for the video, was looking for something to watch when I got the notification for this one :-)
Battle of the Nations 2017 - Ukraine vs Russia final of 21vs21 of the world championship, czcams.com/channels/yobEXFvKBsW274v0wSafNg.html
LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!!!!!!!
@@dlrowle Imagine if they hired these guys for movie fight-scenes :-)
@@widgren87 It would mostly be long, boring sieges where the besieging army ran out of food and went home for the winter.
Just saying...
Thank you for this video on the fundamentals can't wait to put it into action in Warhammer II!
I think this is really great! I've used various tactics and strategies in RPGs for years! Players crying about goblins using hit and run is a particular favorite of mine.
25:26 it depends, cuts didn't always get infected and they did have (more primitive) disinfectants back then. a wound was more deadly sure, but it is often exagerated how deadly it was.
I was always wondering about this. Surely everyone must have cut or scraped themselves at some point in their lives.
Like everything else wounds and how they can be taken care of is determined by circumstances. So yes, basic wounds could be taken care of and healed providing they had the time, supplies, and train/experienced personnel. And unfortunately often times they did not have all those things back then due to just a general lack of medical knowledge back then. Obviously deep or complex wounds back then were basically a death sentence back then.
It is more of a combination of factors. Most 'scratches' today can be dealt with by washing with water and perhaps holding some ice near it.
The problem with medieval sicknesses is not 'did they have something to have fight it', but rather 'how likely is that they would have something for it at hand'. Or, as many call it: Logistics is a nasty b**h. Just think of it like this: the german army still suffered thousands of incapacitations due to disinteria during the Battle of Stalingrad. (before Uranus). And WW2 medicine was still far, far better compared to what they had 500 years before.
Just think of it like this: you could wash the wound and help it close by using cold water. But how do you get cold water if the battlefield is not near a river? A well? Who the heck digs a well in the middle of nowehere? And how many people could a well serve. Soap might help reduce the spread of bacteria, but did people get enough soap with them and not have previously used it to wash clothes?
Last, but not least, the problem with infections is that they are not always apparent. Meningitis could take weeks to manifest and something like rabies could take a year or more.
This was really helpful. It's pretty difficult to write about battles when you sit down and really think about it, and there really isn't a whole lot of easy-to-find information out there about tactics and so on. I'd also appreciate a video on the timeframe of warfare: how long a battle actually took, how forces traveled, and how they spent their down time. According to movies, they sat in tents and pointed at maps.
I watch the channel kings and generals. Lots of visual stuff there. I would say there are things we have to make up like how did Calvary engage? Did they charge in? Did they ride in and jostle the line? We have scant little on this.
I love this man. I was not one for history when I was a boy and all throughout high school. Since I’ve graduated, I’ve become a fanatical history nerd and I only wish I paid more attention in my classes.
As a Total War fan I LOVE this stuff!
It has been fun looking at historic stratagys, seeing where I have re-created them within my own understanding as well as taking insperation to advance my own skill! :D