Medieval Battles What Went Down At The Front Lines
video description
Date: 2022-12-29
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Nicole
Okay, yes medieval weapons were horrible especially if you happened to be on the receiving end. This far, I agree. But what makes them more horrible than any other weapons throughout history up until today? Weapons, by definition, are meant to kill or at least injure. That's their purpose. That's what they have been invented for and thinking about it, it is scary to see what humanity came up with in order to harm others. However, with medieval weapons being bad enough already, it is nothing in comparison to what we use in warfare today. With the press of one tiny button, we can destroy thousands of people. And on top of that, we're not so much fighting another army anymore, but a group of people and this group more often than not includes children, women and the elderly - in short people who have little to nothing to do with fighting and war. And all for 'the greater good'. So, how dare we judge our ancestors for basically doing the same? And let's face it, at least they had balls back then by facing their opponents up front instead of operating out of a bunker. No-one would've taken a medieval king serious if he didn't fight as well. In comparison, our politicians are nothing but (occaaionally warmongering) cowards. In short, we are not in any position to point fingers.
reply
Okay, yes medieval weapons were horrible especially if you happened to be on the receiving end. This far, I agree. But what makes them more horrible than any other weapons throughout history up until today? Weapons, by definition, are meant to kill or at least injure. That's their purpose. That's what they have been invented for and thinking about it, it is scary to see what humanity came up with in order to harm others. However, with medieval weapons being bad enough already, it is nothing in comparison to what we use in warfare today. With the press of one tiny button, we can destroy thousands of people. And on top of that, we're not so much fighting another army anymore, but a group of people and this group more often than not includes children, women and the elderly - in short people who have little to nothing to do with fighting and war. And all for 'the greater good'. So, how dare we judge our ancestors for basically doing the same? And let's face it, at least they had balls back then by facing their opponents up front instead of operating out of a bunker. No-one would've taken a medieval king serious if he didn't fight as well. In comparison, our politicians are nothing but (occaaionally warmongering) cowards. In short, we are not in any position to point fingers.
reply
Jay
Archers were also used as fairly effective light infantry in hand to hand fighting. I was reading about a more recent theory on the battle of Agincourt that, after studying the landscape, climate and scans of the grounds where the battle was fought, proposes that the success of the English had much to do with poor terrain and the use of lightly armored archers in melee combat as well as utilizing their bows. Supposedly what may have happened was that the French, using primarily heavily armed and armoured mounted knights, became herded together by the Archers fire an mired in a thick mud as the ground had been made into a muck pit by the heavy horses churning up the rain soaked earth. Then while they struggled with the terrain the much lighter armed and armored Archers, in large numbers and able to move easily, closed in and slaughtered the French knights. I read somewhere also that they killed many of the knights, which was not really what was done at the time because they were more often captured and ransomed back to their families.
reply
Archers were also used as fairly effective light infantry in hand to hand fighting. I was reading about a more recent theory on the battle of Agincourt that, after studying the landscape, climate and scans of the grounds where the battle was fought, proposes that the success of the English had much to do with poor terrain and the use of lightly armored archers in melee combat as well as utilizing their bows. Supposedly what may have happened was that the French, using primarily heavily armed and armoured mounted knights, became herded together by the Archers fire an mired in a thick mud as the ground had been made into a muck pit by the heavy horses churning up the rain soaked earth. Then while they struggled with the terrain the much lighter armed and armored Archers, in large numbers and able to move easily, closed in and slaughtered the French knights. I read somewhere also that they killed many of the knights, which was not really what was done at the time because they were more often captured and ransomed back to their families.
reply
chandar
The notion that the French were better prepared at Agincourt is ludicrous. Also, your contention that medieval soldiers received little training is only partially true. As you yourself made clear in your video on knights, they were in constant training. And crossbowmen and longbowmen also underwent years of training. What is true is that once battle was joined, command, control, and communication fell by the wayside, and fighting resembled a barbrawl, with weapons. Please read some Keegan. His The Face of Battle would be a good start. In light of the dross misconceptions you peddle in this video, I'd suggest redoing it.
reply
The notion that the French were better prepared at Agincourt is ludicrous. Also, your contention that medieval soldiers received little training is only partially true. As you yourself made clear in your video on knights, they were in constant training. And crossbowmen and longbowmen also underwent years of training. What is true is that once battle was joined, command, control, and communication fell by the wayside, and fighting resembled a barbrawl, with weapons. Please read some Keegan. His The Face of Battle would be a good start. In light of the dross misconceptions you peddle in this video, I'd suggest redoing it.
reply
Sean
A high degree of practice in martial arts was actually a continuous pastime for the upper classes and much of the yeomanry in the Middle Ages. By the end of this period the fighting treatises describe a level of sophistication in hand-to-hand combat rivaling anything from Asia. The description of unskilled troops in this documentary only speaks of the bulk of the peasantry, that would often be mustered to fill out the armies. Indeed, the lack of skill of such troops could turn a battle against even a talented commander.
reply
A high degree of practice in martial arts was actually a continuous pastime for the upper classes and much of the yeomanry in the Middle Ages. By the end of this period the fighting treatises describe a level of sophistication in hand-to-hand combat rivaling anything from Asia. The description of unskilled troops in this documentary only speaks of the bulk of the peasantry, that would often be mustered to fill out the armies. Indeed, the lack of skill of such troops could turn a battle against even a talented commander.
reply
tillrisen
y'know. im really disappointed. this didn't explain anything about what happened on the FRONT LINES this explains the ethics of battle. I came here hoping id learn what the front line saw first as they approached the enemy. how they would operate while in battle on the front line. how they would carry out orders and new formations. the difficulties of command. but naw. none of that happened in this video. very disappointed.
reply
y'know. im really disappointed. this didn't explain anything about what happened on the FRONT LINES this explains the ethics of battle. I came here hoping id learn what the front line saw first as they approached the enemy. how they would operate while in battle on the front line. how they would carry out orders and new formations. the difficulties of command. but naw. none of that happened in this video. very disappointed.
reply
education
Um no normal people were trained and soldiers were well equippet or had basic armor and were most likely battle hardened especially in English and French army's if you could not hold or fight with a sword, mace, waraxe and shield in medieval times 13th 16th century you were a woman or a young child and don't hate me for history woman just did not fight back then so send you hate mail to king of ower past
reply
Um no normal people were trained and soldiers were well equippet or had basic armor and were most likely battle hardened especially in English and French army's if you could not hold or fight with a sword, mace, waraxe and shield in medieval times 13th 16th century you were a woman or a young child and don't hate me for history woman just did not fight back then so send you hate mail to king of ower past
reply
volpe1718
I love your videos but as a Medievalist this one made me want to cry right from the start. We don't call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages anymore. This made me want to stop watching right there but I stuck it out. I wish I didn't. There are so many inaccuracies. Please remake the video. Prof. Bernard Bachrach is an expert in the field of Medieval warfare and has written a lot on the subject.
reply
I love your videos but as a Medievalist this one made me want to cry right from the start. We don't call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages anymore. This made me want to stop watching right there but I stuck it out. I wish I didn't. There are so many inaccuracies. Please remake the video. Prof. Bernard Bachrach is an expert in the field of Medieval warfare and has written a lot on the subject.
reply
Mister
What I find interesting is that movies and videogames all seem to get sword fighting wrong. Sword fighting actually involved stabbing motions to get inbetween gaps of armour. And armour was not simply cut into like in the movies.
I think movies changed it because the realistic sword fighting would be boring to watch?
reply
What I find interesting is that movies and videogames all seem to get sword fighting wrong. Sword fighting actually involved stabbing motions to get inbetween gaps of armour. And armour was not simply cut into like in the movies.
I think movies changed it because the realistic sword fighting would be boring to watch?
reply
nightlightabcd
I really don't think the Dark Ages were any more violent than the Roman era or even before! Ever since mankind started walking upright, mankind has always been their own worst enemy, and it will always be! Was the Dark ages battles any worse than the US Civil War, WW1 or WW2?
reply
I really don't think the Dark Ages were any more violent than the Roman era or even before! Ever since mankind started walking upright, mankind has always been their own worst enemy, and it will always be! Was the Dark ages battles any worse than the US Civil War, WW1 or WW2?
reply
Val
Uh, the collapse of the Roman empire. in 565? You know, I'm glad you said that at the beginning so I don't have to waste any time on this low-grade infotainment. PS: actual historians haven't taken the term Dark Ages seriously for about a century. You're welcome.
reply
Uh, the collapse of the Roman empire. in 565? You know, I'm glad you said that at the beginning so I don't have to waste any time on this low-grade infotainment. PS: actual historians haven't taken the term Dark Ages seriously for about a century. You're welcome.
reply
Belbras
Weird History, it is time to hire a real Historian: Shakespeare wrote a speech to Henry V for the Battle of Agincourt? Helloooo! Did the famous 16th-century English playwriter had a time machine and travel back to inspire the 14th-century king?
reply
Weird History, it is time to hire a real Historian: Shakespeare wrote a speech to Henry V for the Battle of Agincourt? Helloooo! Did the famous 16th-century English playwriter had a time machine and travel back to inspire the 14th-century king?
reply
Mike
I had to rewind it 3 times and Im still not sure I heard it right. Did you say Shakespeare wrote a speech for King Henry the 5th for Agincourt? Agincourt was fought in 1415 and Shakespeare wasn't alive until the middle of the 16th century
reply
I had to rewind it 3 times and Im still not sure I heard it right. Did you say Shakespeare wrote a speech for King Henry the 5th for Agincourt? Agincourt was fought in 1415 and Shakespeare wasn't alive until the middle of the 16th century
reply
Tony
Can you even explain how you drove 45 miles in 1 day accurately? Explain every single detail the same exact way you explained the drive the first time? All of history is inaccurate thats why a lot of people believe in conspiracies lol
reply
Can you even explain how you drove 45 miles in 1 day accurately? Explain every single detail the same exact way you explained the drive the first time? All of history is inaccurate thats why a lot of people believe in conspiracies lol
reply
Gordon
i like this show. but, 1) the knights templar e. g. were trained soldiers and 2) william shakespear couldn't have written the speech for King Henry at Acincourt, because the battle took place about 150 years before his time.
reply
i like this show. but, 1) the knights templar e. g. were trained soldiers and 2) william shakespear couldn't have written the speech for King Henry at Acincourt, because the battle took place about 150 years before his time.
reply
JessiNewNew
Any time someone is lecturing about the Medieval Age and starts talking about The Dark Ages, I just want to cringe. Coming from people who are teaching history they should know better and educate better.
reply
Any time someone is lecturing about the Medieval Age and starts talking about The Dark Ages, I just want to cringe. Coming from people who are teaching history they should know better and educate better.
reply
h4x0r
Bows, heck even crossbows couldn't penetrate the armor of the age. A lot of standard projectiles had problems even penetrating gambesons, let alone something like chain mail
reply
Bows, heck even crossbows couldn't penetrate the armor of the age. A lot of standard projectiles had problems even penetrating gambesons, let alone something like chain mail
reply
Phoeveezy
If there were no uniforms how did the soldiers know who to kill in the messy confusion of battle? I bet soldiers on the same side often killed themselves then.
reply
If there were no uniforms how did the soldiers know who to kill in the messy confusion of battle? I bet soldiers on the same side often killed themselves then.
reply
verzocktes
people in the middle ages: Maybe bows aren't ethical and shouldn't be used on the battlefield.
Modern people: Automated Killer Drone goes Brrr Brr
reply
people in the middle ages: Maybe bows aren't ethical and shouldn't be used on the battlefield.
Modern people: Automated Killer Drone goes Brrr Brr
reply
James
Please include sources sometimes in your videos. Many of the points you talk about are controversial, and I'm afraid many take your opinion as factual.
reply
Please include sources sometimes in your videos. Many of the points you talk about are controversial, and I'm afraid many take your opinion as factual.
reply
Engador
Didn't even know Shakespeare had a time machine. Writing a speech for a battle that took place 150 years prior to his birth is impressive though.
reply
Didn't even know Shakespeare had a time machine. Writing a speech for a battle that took place 150 years prior to his birth is impressive though.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
