Hey Matt! I actually got the opportunity to write a dissertation on this topic, specifically the development of English warfare between 1314 and 1346. I was thrilled to see you take on this topic. You're very true about a strong tradition being present in England before its widespread proliferation by Edward I and Edward III. Jim Bradbury goes over this very well in his book, 'The Medieval Archer', highlighting the Forest of Dean and Chester as areas of archery expertise in England. However, one thing we're unsure of is the participation of Welsh longbowmen at Falkirk. While there is a record of 1,000 men from Gwent being levied, they are not mentioned as archers. However, you are right to see the Welsh as incorporating a greater number of archers into the English tactical system. The period between Bannockburn and Crecy was particularly marked by three battles; Boroughbridge, Dupplin Moor, and Hallidon Hill. These three battles show a clear progression of the way English armies fought. It seems that Henry de Beaumont, who advised Edward III at Hallidon Hill, was forced by circumstance to fight without cavalry and with a high number of archers; he was low on funds and recruiting primarily from the north. However, once Edward III utilised this tactic of fighting on foot, and -defensively-, it proliferated to other commanders such Sir Thomas Dagworth and William de Bohun, the Earl of Northampton. One point I would contest is the idea of 'spears' being a key point in the Edwardian tactical system. From what I read, primarily in the Scalachronica, Le Bel's True Chronicles, and Froissart's work, the English favoured axes, swords, shortened lances, and maces for their melee combat. I'm unsure if the inclusion of shortened lances would constitute a schiltrom, but that's just a point I would argue. The final point I might add is that English armies were often extremely keen to use field fortifications. At Crecy, Hallidon Hill, Morlaix, we see mentions of pits and trenches being dug by the English forces to impede the enemy. It almost seems as if the English were more than willing to pass on the tricks their fathers had faced at Loudon Hill and Bannockburn against the French! Indeed, the core point of any argument as to the question of 'why' is that the battles of Hallidon Hill, Dupplin Moor, and Crecy all highlighted that fighting on foot was both tactically sound for the army as a whole, and more economically viable for the individual - it allowed a larger portion of the population to function as an effective military combatant. Compare this to the armies of Edward I, where a significant portion of the army were ill-equipped and drawn up via commissions of array, by Crecy we are seeing more and more well-paid and well-equipped troops being formed up via contracts of indenture. The 'tipping point' between levy and contract, I would argue, was reached in no small part due to the disaster at Bannockburn. Anyway, apologies for rambling, a really nice and digestable video!
Thanks for this - a really good addition to have here in the comments. Regarding fortifications, I totally agree. I meant to mention this in passing, especially in regard to stakes/spikes, but I forgot and didn't have time to film extra. This connects to my point about spears - Firstly, I do indeed believe that the English men at arms fighting with shortened lances counts as a shiltron and I do class those as spears. I think that the fact we know they went to the effort of using their lances on foot (and this being supported in the art work, as well as what the French copied at Poitiers) shows that they recognised the use of spears on foot and weren't simply using their normal swords and pollaxes. Secondly, the archers' stakes - I believe that they were essentially based on the shiltron and formed a sort of proto-bayonet for missile troops. I think the combination of shortened lances for the men at arms and stakes for the archers equals a shiltron and was probably inspired by the Scottish tactics. Lastly, when we look at later 15th century English armies we see them making extensive use of polearms like bills for infantry, alongside archers, which again I think is consistent with their tactical ideas. Essentially they found a cheaper alternative to men at arms with shortened lances - billmen. Bills were imported into London and other ports in huge numbers during the wars of the roses - as many as longbow staves.
There is one big thing i don`t get regarding the use of cavalry in europe in the middle ages. The terrain was not as developed / domesticated as it was later and as it is today so it`s my guess that it was much harder to move fast & with minimalised danger. To put it into a modern perspectiv: When you jump with military parachutes (automatic) out of a plane and land in the fields somewhere you`d run in my pov into simmilar problems to an horseman (but the horseman have it all the time) ----> holes in the ground you do or don`t see but you can`t do anything about as well as all kind of obstacles. Speaking of obstacles. In the woods horseman get simmilar problems to modern military which patrols with vehicles. Sound, ambushes, traps, limited mobility and in general a higher vulnerability. It would be interesting to know if there are informations about the "little war" at that time out there. In my pov this kind of warfare has always been there bu the problem are sources.
@@scholagladiatoria A fair point, but I would also highlight that the evidence for any kind of schiltrom at Crecy is not conclusive. For example, in Froissart's account of the engagement, there is no mention of spears or lances. A decent translation by Anniina Jokinen can be found here - www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/crecyfroissart.htm Another point of evidence against the use of a 'schiltrom' like formation is Le Bel's account, saying 'The arrows of the English were directed with such marvellous skill at the horsemen that their horses refused to advance; some leapt backwards stung to madness, some reared hideously, some turned their rear quarters towards the enemy, others merely let themselves fall to the ground, and their riders could do nothing about it. The English soldiers who were on foot advanced among them, striking them at their will.' Adding into this Le Bel's mention of 'pikemen' in the French forces, implying he knew what a spear formation might appear to be, lends me to the belief that a Scottish-inspired formation was not present at Crecy. Lastly, Geoffrey Le Baker specifically mentions 'swords and axes' being used. 'The French knights pressed forward but many of their horses were killed and wounded by the English archers. Those who reached the English were beaten down with axes and swords. Many Frenchmen were crushed to death by the weight of numbers.' From these accounts, I would argue that shortened lances and spears were not a pivotal part of the English formation at Crecy, or atleast not so considerable enough to be mentioned. I do agree that the two contemporary pieces of artwork displaying Crecy do show clear signs of the use of lances, but I feel that the contrasting accounts throws this heavily into doubt. Another point to add is that there is strong evidence for the use of bills at Agincourt, certainly, but the Gesta Henrici Quinti is mentioned as saying 'When their arrows had been used up, they took up axes, stakes, swords and the heads of lances that lay between them' referring to the archers after their missiles had been expended. Source here: www.agincourt600.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/169/2015/10/New-translation-of-the-Latin-text-in-the-Gesta-Henrici-Quinti.pdf This is what I feel is the most likely use of shortened lances by the English; as a knightly weapon, individually, mixed in with poll-axes, swords, maces, and such. I would need to see evidence of its use as a formation for me to ascribe the Scottish schiltrom to the English way of warfare at Crecy. I would like to add here that I'm not trying to pull some 'GOTCHA' kind of moment on a TH-camr. I feel your video is very valuable for the way it presents the development of the English way of warfare, and Scotland certainly had a huge influence on the way Edward III conducted his campaigns in France. However, in turn, I feel I might be tip-toeing into pedantry here, so I'll be clear; the Scottish shiltrom formation, utilised a large number of long spears to form a tactical barrier against the foe, as occurred at Bannockburn, Falkirk, and Stirling Bridge. Once more, I apologise if this comes across as arguing for the sake of arguing.
Not at all, it's appreciated and great to have more source input and other perspectives. If we just take the archers' stakes in isolation, I could not even say when or where they started. As far as I'm aware, they were intrinsic by Henry V's time and certainly the Ottomans also used them at Nicopolis, but whether they were a feature of the earlier half of the Hundred Years War, I don't know. I'm not personally convinced that we can take much information from the description of the use of 'swords and axes', as to me that reads like shorthand for 'close combat', i.e. melee rather than formation. If you want to chase a fleeing or disordered foe then anybody armed with a pike will drop it and go for the sword, as it's more appropriate to that circumstance.
All the countries with poor cavalry you mentioned share one trait: a severe lack of good horse pasture. Reasons differ from country to country, from the climate in Scandinavia and Celtic countries to too much urbanization for any pasture to be left unconverted into food producing field or orchard in the Netherlands, as well as a mix of both in England. The bottom line is: it is hard to have cavalry without a grazing land suited to horse breeding.
I think the main reasons why cavalry was so rare in northern Europe and the Isles are climate and geography: there isn't a lot of pasture ground in the north (the little farmable land basically has to be farmed) and a lot of places are mountainous, dense with forests or swampy. Horses are also very expensive and a lot of the societies north of Charlemagne were pretty small scale and decentralized. There was also a vibrant culture of seaborne travel and warfare and horses are not very convenient on boats.
The Northern European climate is also cold and wet, which is not ideal for large horses required to carry knights in battle (the native breeds are small and hairy, for good reasons).
@@jrd33 Yeah, they make great work horses but not so great chargers. And mounted knights make are not an economical solution if you have to import all the horses.
@@Oxtocoatl13 great for pulling mine carts until the invention of the water wheel and linked rod power conveyor. And logs and farming implements until the arrival of the internal combustion engine and self propelled tractor.
I once rode into battle with the English on on a horse with my Dane axe a few swings later and wouldn't you know it I was fighting on foot again the horse shall be remembered
Love the video, as always, but one correction: Scotland in the late thirteenth-century/early fourteenth-century (Wars of Independence era) was categorically not a series of petty kingdoms. It had a far less centralised royal administration, but there was a sole King of Scots to whom all Scottish landholders were accountable. There are always isolated examples of individuals who could at various times act independently of royal authority, but this is equally true in England and France (consider the relationship of the dukes of Burgundy to the French crown in the fifteenth-century; no one would refer to fifteenth-century France as 'a series of small kingdoms', but it was more politically fractured tha Scotland in the period in question). The crucial feature of the Wars of Independence that give the impression of a divided Scotland is the fact that it was essentially a civil war - between a Bruce faction and a Balliol-Comyn faction - that England involved itself in. Technically, there were time when there were rival Kings of Scots (e.g. Edward Balliol is crowned in 1332, despite David II having been crowned in 1329 and still being alive), but they were invariably claiming to be king of the same, single political unit. Anyway, I thought this was another great video. Thanks for producing such excellent material!
Yep. Scotland became a unified political entity around the same time England did: circa 950. That's one of the reasons conquering the Welsh and the Irish worked and conquering the Scots didn't. Wales and Ireland never progressed beyond petty kingdoms and were thus vastly more vulnerable to marauding English armies. Still we came pretty close to conquering Scotland as well.
Yes, Bernard Cornwall has a series of books detailing this. He details Scottish unification as a side note with King Aed with Alfred the Great and the unification of England and the raids on England being the main story.
Isn't there also the fact that the English armies in the Hundred Years War often fought on foot in large scale battles because they were outnumbered and were fighting defensively to hold ground, and that is a thing you do more effectively on foot? It isn't as if they didn't have horses (even the longbowmen were often mounted).
Thanks for that one Matt, I miss one point in your video. The big battles where the English fought on foot were defensive ones, which reduces the role of a horse as well and in hostile lands it is not that easy to support a army on horseback. Great channel with awesome stuff, thanks.
I think it's important to note, as you allude to but not necessarily emphasize, that the English men-at-arms were cavalry units if they wanted to be. They'd still be trained in horse riding and horse combat, still brought horses on campaign, and there were plenty of occasions where they fought on horseback. It all just depends on the **context**. If it made sense to attack on horse, they'd attack on horse. If instead it made more sense to be on foot, then they'd fight on foot. As modern history has shown their armour was definitely geared towards foot combat, but in the same terms Italian armour was very clearly geared towards horse combat and yet Italian men-at-arms fought on foot if they needed to.
The English generally tried to defend rather than attack, but if they had to attack they would do so on horseback. Edit: And BTW, that was normal. French men-at-arms at Agincourt largely dismounted an fought on foot.
12:50 In an alternate universe where gunpowder and firearms never caught on, there's a Matt Easton talking about the "rate of loosing" and everyone immediately understanding that.
Great video, Matt. I think, just for clarity's sake, it's important to point out that the English men-at-arms were cavalry soldiers and had horses. During many of the major field battles of the Hundred Years War they dismounted and fought on foot as heavy infantry, but were able to mount up to pursue the enemy. They also functioned as cavalry while on the march, scouting, raiding, skirmishing, etc. In addition, the English used hobelars - a type of light cavalry - and mounted archers, who served as archers and filled a light cavalry role when not in battle. Cavalry had a lot of strategic uses other than charging the enemy on the battlefield, and the English certainly used horsemen in those non-battlefield roles during the Hundred Years War.
I Appreciate Your Knowledge of medieval warfare! I feel a little more educated everytime I watch your videos!!! Thank You for taking time to elaborate and share your input!!!
Well, in pitched battle, the English commanders usually considered that the enemy cavalry was so numerous that, to avoid their forces to be enveloped and outflanked, dismounted and established their famous array of archers, staves, infantry and some cavalry at the flanks. But when not in pitched battle, they English forces were basically cavalry of all kinds. They mounted their archers to take them along, and used this mounted forces for very deep strikes. The Black Prince was a specialist in the infamous "chevaucheés" and I've read that, before the raid that would end up in the battle of Poitiers, the Black Prince made a huge requisition of horses and send message to fetch as many "hobelars" as possible from the realm. The battle itself was won by a cavalry charge that enveloped the French King entourage. As you said, English cavalry was never very famous. But some English commanders were able to use an early version of combined arms warfare that ended being superior, until tactics, equipment and commander's ability turned the tables against them...
This is incredibly interesting. Pls carry on with topics similar to this. Essentially the English formation sound to me like the grandfather of a Tercio, but instead of firearmes they had longbows.
The tercio was the evolution of the tactics used by the gran capitan throught the isabellibe civil war/conquest of granada and the italian wars, guns were already used extensively in the peninsula prior to the conquest of granada
Hey Matt, saw the movie Black '47 recently and I thought it'd be a perfect fit for your channel to talk about if you hadn't seen it. It deals with a very interesting time period and it has muzzle loading rifles/pistols and kukri action scenes displayed with what I think is very competent choregraphy and historical accuracy. Was actually interesting to see that the main character who's a retired soldier who fought in afghanistan used the tactics you've mentionned in the past of unrelentless attack to fight a superior oponent and guerilla warfare.
One notable exception to the lack of English/Scottish cavalry performance would the Border Reivers, who were pretty highly rated as a source of skilled light cavalry.
Being from that region 1 thought the same, classed as some of the best light cavalry in Europe at the time a lot later 1520 -1603. the Reivers were a product of their time an unstable borderland between 2 Kingdoms with cross border alliances. James VI destroyed border culture banned riding horses carrying weapons but was happy to plantation the borderers in ulster? why .Be fore a single state during pitched battle between England and Scotland the men would wear either the Satire or cross of St George on their clothing do denote elegance best quote I've heard by an English general ' you can always tell a borderer their crosses are always thinner than everybody else's'.
welsh tuelu were javelin wielding retainers that were influenced by the normans and deadly effective as a cavalry force riding horses suited to the mountains ponys
Excellent video as always Matt. Are you planning on making a video about Netflix’s Outlaw King? I would love to hear your take on that awesome movie. Very interesting to hear one of your ancestors fought for Robert the Bruce.
It's also worth noting, and I thought you might bring it up when you touched on Rome, that as far back as Julius Caesar, the Romans turned to Gaul (later France) for auxiliary cavalry. The Gallic and even Germanic horsemen feature prominently in those accounts, at a time when infantry was still the king of the Roman battle order.
On a strategic level the English were the ones using fast cavalry tactics. The English were pursuing a strategy of attrition aiming to destabilise France. Their "war rides" out of Gascony and Normandy/Calais were very fast raids by mounted soldiers. If anything it was the French who were (strategically) slow and clunky. I think the key reason why they fought on foot was because a dense mass of heavy infantry was so effective. Of course being on foot they lacked mobility so it required an obliging foe who would attack into your defensive formation. The English had two key factors that allowed this defensiveness: Firstly, on a meta-level, in each of the key battles of the 100 years war the English army was a raiding force trapped by a larger defensive French army. The English were trying to escape so the French had to attack. Secondly the longbow has a much greater range than the French crossbow. If the French refuse to attack the English can just shoot them off the field, so the longbows pretty much force the opponent to engage. Maybe another "meta" factor related to the war rides is that the English cavalry would be equipped for rapid movement, essentially "light" cavalry and not equipped to engage the "heavy" French knights in mounted combat.
In the Battle of Poitiers 1356, the Captal de Buch led a force of cavalry against the French that consolidated the English victory. He led a small force , maybe 300 riders who circled back and attacked the French from the rear whilst they were under severe pressure from the front. Many of these knights were Gascons, but some undoubtedly were English.
Fascinating video, Matt! Great work. Do you also think the rocky terrain of the northern lands had something to do with the lack of cavalry? France, Spain, Germany, certainly the plains in Russia and the Steppes would be more acclimated to horses. But do you think the landscape of England, Scotland and Scandinavia might not accommodate? Finally, who made that Dane axe???? Arms & Armour? Beautiful...
Cavalry is suited in spain only in the south which is where the cavalry tradition developed, the north is full of mountains and forests(the country is essentially a massive high plateu)
I don't think Romans should be considered the (sole) starting point of knights. The Celts certainly used noble armoured cavalry and especially in Poland and eastern Germany, Germanic traditions of comites/*druhtiz mixed with Celtic, Baltic and steppe influence lead (in the Oksywie and Wielbark cultures) to ultimately the Germanic heavy horsemen of the migration period. And during the migration period, the steppe influence only becomes stronger. Also, many cavalrymen of the Romans were, of course, Celtic, Germanic or Sarmatic.
Correct and lets not forget the Parthians and Sassanids who's heavy horsemen were feudal lords and their retinues unlike the romans who were salaried state soldiery.
You mentioned the Hearse formation, that combined longbowmen and pikeman. I would imagine that the archers would be formed up in the center, much like the coffin would be, and then wheels of pikemen to the fore/sides that could quickly move to counter and cavalry charges that became apparent, as the unit moved. I've no basis for this, but its an image that appeared in my head and i think it could work.
Excellant response to a complicated question. I think as others pointed out, economics was also important. A horse was expensive to maintain. The average rank and file Saxon warrior could not afford to maintain one.
Matt you need to cover more Irish and Scottish warfare. Most medieval stuff you find is from a very anglophile point of view and the subject of Agincourt has been beat to death!
I would also add that societal changes probably played some role, which the historiography likes to label the shift from the "High" Middle Ages to the "Late" Middle Ages circa 1300. The Great Famine, of course the plague, economies downturned, etc, creating increased conflict. In addition to the tactical changes you mentioned, the ability to maintain a large horse-based army probably was more difficult, especially in Northern Europe where the famines were hardest. And then the mass mobilizations for the greater conflicts of the 14th-15th C. almost certainly created a sort of prole drift in the military to simplify tactics (and equipment) to meet the demand, sort of like Napoleonic or Thirty Years War eras. As you've said before, the death of the mounted knight was probably far more banal than arrows at Agincourt or gunpowder.
Thank you so much for making this post! People forget that the Welsh Marches (bow and spears i love Gerald of Wales accounts of Welsh harassing cavalry) and Scotland (schiltrons and William Wallace ftw ^_^) impacted their fighting and they added it to their tactics and also added Welsh Scots and Irish to their armies. :D. Yay anti-cavalry! I love your channel!
Horses are pretty expensive, and there's a good chance it would die. Best not risk it. Plus cavalry charges were typically, a limited affair, a couple of potentially devastating charges before losses or disorganisation takes them out the fight as a cohesive unit. Foot knights, have lots of fancy armour that can keep them in a fight against untrained* levies for longer, which imo, would mean the'd be a more consistent preformence on foot than on horseback. plus it's a lot harder to be an impetuous foot knight trying to start a charge by, well charging, when you have to run hundreds of yards. You wouldn't look glorious, just tired.
@@marsaspen-murray3797 It usually implies that they have a full harness or a near full harness. So yeah, the regular spearmen and archers weren't men at arms.
Great video Matt! I have another question, If you will, what was the Italian Wars? Who fought against who, and which types of weapons and tactics where used?
@@igorlins8194 the spanish troops were under the command of gpnzalo fernandes de cordoba famously known as the great captain, a military genius, he reformed the army during the late 15th century, implemented a heavy usage of gunners and switched the focus of heavy troops towards light armored ones like pikemen(already common in spanish armies at the time) and fast mobile cavalry, the context of the wars were a response of france's expansionist policies in italy in the late middle ages and early renaissance, france wanted the kingdom of naples and the papal states who allied themselves with spain, the wars were won by spain who anexed the kingdom of naples
@@kyomademon453 thanks, ManOhMan! Here in Brazil is all but unknown any good material speaking about this topic or the following spanish conquests on Europe, and is a theme that's increasingly facinates me because of the Variety of arms and tactics that supposedly appeared in this time. (Including one of Mat's new toys, the greatsword).
@@igorlins8194 if you need history of the mediterranean youll find very little in the english speaking side of youtube, since youre brasilian i take u can understand some bits of spanish, recommend you to check Pero eso es otra historia, the guy has lots of series on the mediterranean and does it in a great informative and entertaining way
Combining spears and archers in self-sufficient formations. I guess they were kinda pioneering a proto-form of what would essentially become the dominating style of warfare from the late 15th/early 16th century to the 17th century then.
The Swiss did that pioneering. The English had to learn this kind of warfare completely from the start in the early 16th century by importing mercenaries from the continent, because their kind of warfare of bows and billmen was completely outdated and unsuited for Early Modern warfare at that time. English Medieval warfare and Early Modern warfare were completely different things
John Keegan in his History of Warfare makes a lot of interesting observations regarding use of horses in warfare, linking the use of horses a lot to the prevalent geography of the region and the economic conditions that are required to sustain a large mounted force. From those observations I think it is fair to say that the british climate and as you said geography in parts of the isles is not really conducive to either keeping horses nor maintaining a mobile sweeping kind of warfare that is pretty typical for other areas of the world.
I think a great deal of the answer lies in the number of horses available to each side. Say England could field 2500 knights each has a squire and a page. That would easily mean 17000 horses. That is an incredible amount of shipping for the time period. Instead of a Lance of heavy cavalry much easier to send two dozen archers and a dozen billmen.
I’m very interested in the development of the English bill and how it came about during this period. Particularly how and why lighter infantry began to surplant men at arms. Maybe as you’re in the same ball park you could expand on this in a follow up video?
FINALLY got to watch this all the way through without the kids pestering me. And I'm going to say thanks for it, since I wanted it too. Very interesting, and many of the comments are useful too.
One point to take into consideration is that cavalry, horses to be specific, are quite expensive. The logistics of maintaining horses adds a degree of complication that has to be worthwhile in order to pursue the use thereof.
Plus simple practicality- the main advantage of cavalry is their mobility. If the backbone of your army is archers, then it makes sense to keep the army together and use your knights to protect them. If they're staying put anyway, then they're not getting any benefit from their horses, and may as well keep them out of harm's way, especially as soldiers on foot can be more densely packed, providing better defense. English knights of the Hundred Years War often mounted when it was time to go on the attack or pursue routing enemies. French knights also fought on foot when they thought it was the best course of action. Context strikes again.
Any way to get pointed to any sources on the herse (sp?) arrangement? I don't doubt Matt but I would like to do more research on what little information exists on the formation.
Short answer; logistics. Horses eat. Horses cost money to buy and train. Horses are hard to ship across bodies of water. Horses don't do hills so well.
Just throwing this out there but another possible issue with cavalry not being used all that much in the British Isles and Northern Europe could be the geography. Massed horses tend to work and move better over large, flat, open terrain, of which there isn't much in the British Isles and Northern Europe.
Exept there was cavalry like the Hakkapeliitta in later wars conducted by northern nations. More likly it makes litle sense to bring a bunch of horses if your plan is to besige towns in the middle ages.
@@CrowColdblade Except nothing you just said refutes the possibility. Again, it's just a thought. If anyone has anything to either support or counter the idea, I'd love to know. Unfortunately your point does neither.
Matt is correct to emphasize the daunting task of covering this topic in merely one video. I was, however, surprised that he didn't so much as mention what many medieval military historians have termed as the "infantry revolution". Although the English armies typify this development, especially during the Hundred Years War, it was by no means a purely English thing. What he seems to be describing, is just the English theater of a broader phenomenon that was occurring all over Western Europe. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages Also, I'm currently reading this article by John Clements about sword and buckler. One thing he covers is how the Spanish turned sword and buckler troops into what were effectively "light infantry", and how they gave the famous Swiss pikemen a tough lesson in fighting in one particular battle! www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm#_ftn6
Great video. Regarding the Scottish Schiltron, there's evidence that the Scots had this tactic long before they fought the English in the Wars of Scottish Independence. One big piece of evidence is a Pictish stone carving dePicting a battle in which infantry with two-handed spears defeats cavalry.
Bit late but for what it's worth. Great vid overral! However, I would like to contest or refine a few points particularly regarding the Welsh. Firstly, there is ample evidence for extensive cavalry use by the Welsh/ British throughout history since pre-Roman times, both "light" and "heavy" tactics (probably similar to Frankish or late "Roman.") The Irish were also regarded as brilliant (though light) horsemen throughout medieval times. The dichotomy between the North and South Welsh is largely overstated and artificial. Both used spears AND bows. Gerald of Wales' quote has often been taken to mean that they used different weapons but it's more likely he just meant the Northerners were spear experts and the Southerners bow experts which seems to be bourne out in sources. I'm sure we get references to the use of both weapons in accounts of combat from both regions but, granted it direct references to archery in the North are rarer. Gerald also states that all the Welshmen recruited for the crusade (from all across Wales) "were all skilled with spear and bow." The Welsh laws state all householders should own a bow, arrows, spear, shield and sword. The common charachterisation of the South Welsh fighting alongside the English against the North Welsh due to animosity between the two is largely wrong. The "North" and "South" were not homogenous groups in any way, while the Welsh overral shared a common culture. In reality the decision to fight for or against the English or other Welsh was driven by each individual Welsh Lord or Prince's unique political circumstances. In the 13th Century wars you mentioned, pretty much all the different South Welsh Lords fought against the English at different times for varying amounts of time. There was a slightly different situation in English Marcher Lordships in Wales which had been conquered long before. The lower-ranking Welshmen of these areas would often serve "the English" against other Welsh as their lords just so happened to be English and men usually served whomever they owed service to. It is understandable to see these common misconceptions as they were repeated in many otherwise good academic works, particularly older ones that didn't specifically focus on the Welsh or explore Welsh sources. I find it very sad that Medieval Welsh Military History is so unpopular as it contains important contributions to wider debates, such as the anomaly of the Welsh unbroken cavalry tradition. A great one-stop-shop for an accurate overview of medieval Welsh warfare is 'War and Society in Medieval Wales' by Sean Davies, though like most books it does have some weaker areas and misconceptions of its own. If anyone would like to discuss anything related, feel free to comment.
I got a theory: ''Herse'', whatever how it is written, ressemble the French word ''Hérisson'' which means hedgehog in English. The formation when feeling threathen, as a hedgehog or porcupine, can raise its pikes to threathen an ennemy, extensively project arrows ( the hedgehog can almost do that with their thorns, leaving them painfully planted in your skin)
Read Victor Davis Hansen's 'Carnage and Culture" - particular part - Greece vs Persia - war horses require HUGE amounts of pasture, and countries with lots of small farms make for armies of spearmen on foot.
I always thought (maybe I am wrong) that the reason for bad cavalry was terrain. I think if you look at countries famous for heavy (or at least very good cavalry) they are usually flat (France, Spain, Poland). I would argue that reason for this can be : a) it is hard to get cavalry into formation and get momentum on uneven terrain b) it is easier to form spike defense on hill or cover your flanks in forest/hill terrain and vice versa it is really hard to protect your flanks on open field. Something similar happened to romans when they tried to use phalanx in hills of Italy.
+ it was hard enough to drop men over the channel. and it was even harder to do the same thing with horses. if your cavalry is not really your main weapon anyway, this can be another reason to reduce its use (yes, I know, there were English territories on the mainland but still, many many things and soldiers had to come from the island)
Could you describe the local reenactment scenes? Do you notice a lot more archer reenactors from Wales for example? Do you notice local differences which might stem from a want for playing one's own heritage?
Hi Matt. I wonder if the Scandinavians who were maritime peoples, didn't favour cavalry because it is damned difficult to transport horses on long-ships? Apart from anything else with their high centre of mass they would tend to destabilise shallow draught vessels, In addition they would need fodder which would also decrease load carrying capacity which would be more usefully employed elsewhere. The other point worth noting is terrain. Particularly in Wales and Scotland the terrain was more mountainous and probably not conducive to the mass use of mounted troops. France and the Low Countries are much more favourable for mounted troops and this may have influenced the differing army development.
Good video Matt, but what about the availability of horses, their relative usefulness at the time, the quantity of food they consume, and the amount of food effectively harvested each year. its quite likely that while there is space in England for many horses, with no combustion engine horses would be remarkably important to the stability of the economy so these horses largely already had a working purpose and were bred for sending messages and driving machinery. To tie in with you're point if you don't absolutely need the warhorses (i.e. to counter other armies with cavalry) then why breed and train say 500 horses for a mounted division when your enemies only have pikemen, and are divided from Europe where they could hire divisions of horsemen almost anywhere.
In The Art of Ward in the Western World, Archer Jones has a nifty graphic for explaining the effectiveness of the various types of ancient to medieval troop types. The fourt types are: Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry, Heavy Infantry, and Light Infantry. In Shock Action; Heavy Infantry > Heavy Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry > Light Infantry, Light Cavalry > Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry > Light Cavalry. Incidentally, Alexander of Macedonia is credited with being the first miliraty leader to use all 4 troop types in his army, thus 'inventing' the combined arms form of warfare.
British cavalry c. 1900 (the build up to WW1) were, I thought, super proud. There's an incident where one unit was given a maxim gun and were undergoing maneuvers, when the guy with the machine gun decided to fire off blanks in the direction of that entire unit. When they were done, he ran up to the CO and said, "You're all dead! I've been firing the maxim the entire time" or something like that, and the CO, feeling offended (rather than realize how problematic a machine gun might be), ordered him to march back to camp on foot. I think that's how the story goes, anyway. But it seems like cavalrymen in the british empire were pretty proud, at least in 1900. There must have been a reason for that.
How would soldiers with atlatls fair during a pre-black powder battle? Would less accuracy for more power be a problem? Would supplying darts be too taxing since they are larger and more difficult to make?
Yes, Frisians tended to fight on foot too. A rather strong clue for this is the name Chevaux de Frise, French for Frisian Horse/Cavalry, used for the portable stake frame used as a measure of defence against cavalry. This implies a lack of actual Frisian cavalry. By the way, Frisians also relied heavily on the longbow, especially in their wars against the Hollanders.
I've always thought the infantry are the most important part of militaries. Everything is based on supporting them, complementing them, defeating the masses of enemy infantry, getting around them, etc. You can imagine an army without the other "forces" like cavalry, artillery, etc, but you cannot imagine an army without infantry. They are where wars are decided.
It's pretty funny how things repeat themselves. Because the Herse sounds a lot like the later Pike&Shot formations of the 16th century (and the square formation of the napoleonic wars). As for cavalry. Extensive forests, horse breeds that fare well in winter and less abundant harvests (so not a ton of spare grain->horses that are smaller and more capable of surviving on grazing) are not things that favor skilled heavy cavalry, and the lack of a roving herding culture means that you don't have the "born riders" for light cavalry either.
I always thought that Rome was mostly heavy infantry user. And all roman cavalry (in imperial period) consisted of barbarian allies (germans, sarmats, etc)
Nope. Legions were heavy infantry but pretty much always went into battle with auxiliary troops and one part of the auxiliary troops was cavalry. This was both light cavalry for scouting and screening and heavy cavalry for direct charges. Roman heavy cavalry was not as effective as later heavy cavalry for two reasons. Firstly their armour was not as good as high middle ages and later. Secondly they didn't have stirrups. Roman saddles were designed with protrusions allowing shock cavalry tactics but they weren't as effective as stirrups.
They had their own Roman cavalry. In fact, during one period, if you wanted to enter politics, you had to do 20 years in the infantry or 10 in cavalry - this made it easier for the wealthy to enter politics, because the wealthy would generally go into the Roman cavalry.
The Romans definitely have very effective native cavalry forces during the Republican period - yes they were defeated in a few battles but popular historians tended to focus on these and gloss over their successes. Yes the Republican Roman cavalry were defeated at Ticinus, Trebbia and Cannae, but they soundly defeated their opposition at Sentinum, Telamon, Clastidium, Magnesia and Vercellae. Its just that a lot of popular and casual historian probably did not even know that these battles existed! There were a period during the Late Republic and Principate era where the Roman gentry (the equestrian class) who traditionally supplied their cavalry were too busy with politics and getting rich to serve as troopers, and the entire cavalry business being handled by non-citizen auxilia. Note that during the Empire the auxilia were not primarily recruited from 'barbarian' foreigners, those would be foederati units, which were not the majority during the Empire. Anyway after Caracalla granted all free men in the empire citizenship that was no longer the case.
Heavy cavalry is best suited to open, firm and relatively level ground. Anything that hinders or restricts their charge is a good thing, from the defender's point of view. As always, know the terrain is a basic rule of warfare.
The period under discussion is also when the English start to use hobelar tactics to a much greater extent than before, which is something you want if you have lots of marching people on foot -- you need a fast-moving screen so you don't wind up getting into horrific ambushes.
Can you do a video about how people in plate armor were defeated in battle? I feel like people have swung from talking about how arrows and swords easily killed knights in full plate to how NOTHING kills men in plate. Was it grappling, blunt force, small wounds, or simple exhaustion that killed?
About the Franks and the Roman military legacy, whenever I look at Norman knights I see late Roman cavalry using stirrups. Regarding the Scandinavian preference for infantry, in the case of Norway/Sweden in particular the reason boils down to one factor which is their native landscape which did not lend itself to large sweeping cavalry manoeuvres. Generally, in these countries your best option to achieve a high degree of tactical and strategic mobility was travelling by sea and this they excelled at.
I think people give too much credit to the Romans in regards to cavalry. While they certainly did have it, they were never, ever known for their cavalry. You know who had a lot of cavalry in roman times? The Gauls. While the patrician use of cavalry translates over to the knight class, I think it's much more representative of Gallic horse culture, specially as it was preserved in Brittany and re-introduced in the rest of France after Charles the Bald's... adventures in Brittany.
@@Altrantis Since Rome lasted a fair bit (more than a 1000 years) the tactics and equipment vary a lot. By the late empire cataphract cavalry in the "persian" style was a very consistent part of the Roman army of manouver ("domestici")
@@francescofontana9707 Other than when Scipio had to adapt to the north African tactics, Roman cavalry was always a gimmick. They were never a cavalry people, they had them because they could afford them and other societies made extensive use of them, but it was kind of like the french attempt to copy the the English longbowmen. Their richest could do it so they did it, it was considered... basically "cool", so to speak. But the generals never relied on it, and they struggled to find a good way to use them. It was more of a symbol of status than a military requirement. Unless you're referring to the Byzantine Empire that is, I have met some people who insist in calling them the Romans despite the fact doing so causes confusion.
You know what's funny: nowadays, we associate England with Knighthood and Chivalry (namely due to the Arthurian legends) and they are, but back in the day, the FRENCH were considered the "Flower of Chivalry", whereas today, they're associated more with sterotypic Paris culture in general. Just a thought.
Well interesting vid, many thanks for making it. I suspect that in Britain, horses were primarily used as transport and not used for fighting because of 'frontage'. Even riding stirrup to stirrup five horsemen would have the same frontage as up to ten foot soldiers standing in close order and because a standing man isn't as long as a horse, if those five cavalrymen did try to close the distance they would also find themselves under attack from a second ten men standing in close order a short distance behind the front rank - the only way that the cavalry could prevail would be by creating or exploiting a flank. It was very rare for infantry squares to be broken by cavalry in the Napoleonic wars.
Heavy cavalry did charge head on, as opposed to on the flanks though.it's the whole point of heavy cavalry. Frontage happens anywhere, not just in Britain, yet cavalry was massively useful outside of the isles.
@@Altrantis Britain obviously did have heavy cavalry - the Scots Greys at Waterloo broke a French square and captured their eagle, a famous achievement. Why? - because it happened so rarely.
@@orkstuff5635 Heavy cavalry in the Napoleonic period is different. They weren't actually armored, except the French Cuirassiers. Napoleonic heavy cavalry would try to flank the enemy and then charge, while light cavalry would scour and go for non-military targets like supply trains and fleeing troops. In the medieval period both of those would have been considered light cavalry. Medieval heavy cavalry is a completely different beast. Also, in the Napoleonic period, the Brits did have plenty of cavalry, as opposed to the medieval period, and the reason was largely because of colonies.
@@Altrantis Infantry in the Napoleonic period is also different - they weren't armoured, had no shields and only relatively short improvised 'spears'. In the medieval period horses were used by the British for transport and scouting (with a possible side order of raiding). Possibly the most famous victory of cavalry in Britain is the battle of Hastings which, despite being heavily outnumbered Harold lost because at virtually the last possible moment an arrow just happened to hit him in about the only part of his body that wasn't protected, the Norman cavalry proved most effective when they were running away.
@@orkstuff5635 I'd say medieval British cavalry was most effective during the crusades. Throughout British history you'll find their cavalry (and generally their non-naval troops) have better performance outside of Europe. No idea why. As for Napoleonic infantry, they were dozens of times more of a threat to mounted troops than medieval infantry soldiers were to knights. All of them could shoot, and they had unwieldy short spears, true, but cavalry were largely armed with sabres, lancers were light cavalry for some reason, not heavies. They didn't have the means to charge into a wall of bayonets, whereas medieval knights did charge directly at walls of spears, in fact it was their primary tactic until the renaissance.
@@scholagladiatoria I'm still waiting for somebody to come pick my son up from me to look after him, I don't think I will be able to make it tonight there's been an accident on the road, I might have to give this week a miss and come next week, I was going to bring my antique sabre for the class to cut with. Tell Pedro sorry for me please, I was supposed to take measurements for his smallsword hilt.
Excellent video, great material. But I do believe that the main reasons why english army used man-at-arms mostly on foot was economic and geography. English king just hasn't resources to raise enough cavalry to stand against franch. And yes the experience of battles against Walsh and Scots gave English clear answer how to deal with enemy that has alot of cavalry.
To be fair, the horses are also on foot.
On hoof, flying fox, to be exact
@@danyoutube7491 Technically, they walk on the tips of their toes. Excellent for sneaking up to the enemy!
@@FlyingFox86 Horses are of course known for their stealth. That's their main strength.
@@Altrantis *Clop clop clop thu-thump thu-thump thu-thump*
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're banging 'em together!
Hey Matt! I actually got the opportunity to write a dissertation on this topic, specifically the development of English warfare between 1314 and 1346. I was thrilled to see you take on this topic.
You're very true about a strong tradition being present in England before its widespread proliferation by Edward I and Edward III. Jim Bradbury goes over this very well in his book, 'The Medieval Archer', highlighting the Forest of Dean and Chester as areas of archery expertise in England. However, one thing we're unsure of is the participation of Welsh longbowmen at Falkirk. While there is a record of 1,000 men from Gwent being levied, they are not mentioned as archers. However, you are right to see the Welsh as incorporating a greater number of archers into the English tactical system.
The period between Bannockburn and Crecy was particularly marked by three battles; Boroughbridge, Dupplin Moor, and Hallidon Hill. These three battles show a clear progression of the way English armies fought. It seems that Henry de Beaumont, who advised Edward III at Hallidon Hill, was forced by circumstance to fight without cavalry and with a high number of archers; he was low on funds and recruiting primarily from the north. However, once Edward III utilised this tactic of fighting on foot, and -defensively-, it proliferated to other commanders such Sir Thomas Dagworth and William de Bohun, the Earl of Northampton.
One point I would contest is the idea of 'spears' being a key point in the Edwardian tactical system. From what I read, primarily in the Scalachronica, Le Bel's True Chronicles, and Froissart's work, the English favoured axes, swords, shortened lances, and maces for their melee combat. I'm unsure if the inclusion of shortened lances would constitute a schiltrom, but that's just a point I would argue.
The final point I might add is that English armies were often extremely keen to use field fortifications. At Crecy, Hallidon Hill, Morlaix, we see mentions of pits and trenches being dug by the English forces to impede the enemy. It almost seems as if the English were more than willing to pass on the tricks their fathers had faced at Loudon Hill and Bannockburn against the French! Indeed, the core point of any argument as to the question of 'why' is that the battles of Hallidon Hill, Dupplin Moor, and Crecy all highlighted that fighting on foot was both tactically sound for the army as a whole, and more economically viable for the individual - it allowed a larger portion of the population to function as an effective military combatant. Compare this to the armies of Edward I, where a significant portion of the army were ill-equipped and drawn up via commissions of array, by Crecy we are seeing more and more well-paid and well-equipped troops being formed up via contracts of indenture. The 'tipping point' between levy and contract, I would argue, was reached in no small part due to the disaster at Bannockburn.
Anyway, apologies for rambling, a really nice and digestable video!
Thanks for this - a really good addition to have here in the comments. Regarding fortifications, I totally agree. I meant to mention this in passing, especially in regard to stakes/spikes, but I forgot and didn't have time to film extra. This connects to my point about spears - Firstly, I do indeed believe that the English men at arms fighting with shortened lances counts as a shiltron and I do class those as spears. I think that the fact we know they went to the effort of using their lances on foot (and this being supported in the art work, as well as what the French copied at Poitiers) shows that they recognised the use of spears on foot and weren't simply using their normal swords and pollaxes. Secondly, the archers' stakes - I believe that they were essentially based on the shiltron and formed a sort of proto-bayonet for missile troops. I think the combination of shortened lances for the men at arms and stakes for the archers equals a shiltron and was probably inspired by the Scottish tactics. Lastly, when we look at later 15th century English armies we see them making extensive use of polearms like bills for infantry, alongside archers, which again I think is consistent with their tactical ideas. Essentially they found a cheaper alternative to men at arms with shortened lances - billmen. Bills were imported into London and other ports in huge numbers during the wars of the roses - as many as longbow staves.
Way to come in and bring the knowledge! Thanks for this comment.
There is one big thing i don`t get regarding the use of cavalry in europe in the middle ages.
The terrain was not as developed / domesticated as it was later and as it is today so it`s my guess that it was much harder to move fast & with minimalised danger.
To put it into a modern perspectiv: When you jump with military parachutes (automatic) out of a plane and land in the fields somewhere you`d run in my pov into simmilar problems to an horseman (but the horseman have it all the time) ----> holes in the ground you do or don`t see but you can`t do anything about as well as all kind of obstacles. Speaking of obstacles. In the woods horseman get simmilar problems to modern military which patrols with vehicles. Sound, ambushes, traps, limited mobility and in general a higher vulnerability.
It would be interesting to know if there are informations about the "little war" at that time out there. In my pov this kind of warfare has always been there bu the problem are sources.
@@scholagladiatoria A fair point, but I would also highlight that the evidence for any kind of schiltrom at Crecy is not conclusive. For example, in Froissart's account of the engagement, there is no mention of spears or lances. A decent translation by Anniina Jokinen can be found here - www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/crecyfroissart.htm
Another point of evidence against the use of a 'schiltrom' like formation is Le Bel's account, saying
'The arrows of the English were directed with such marvellous skill at the horsemen that their horses refused to advance; some leapt backwards stung to madness, some reared hideously, some turned their rear quarters towards the enemy, others merely let themselves fall to the ground, and their riders could do nothing about it. The English soldiers who were on foot advanced among them, striking them at their will.'
Adding into this Le Bel's mention of 'pikemen' in the French forces, implying he knew what a spear formation might appear to be, lends me to the belief that a Scottish-inspired formation was not present at Crecy.
Lastly, Geoffrey Le Baker specifically mentions 'swords and axes' being used. 'The French knights pressed forward but many of their horses were killed and wounded by the English archers. Those who reached the English were beaten down with axes and swords. Many Frenchmen were crushed to death by the weight of numbers.'
From these accounts, I would argue that shortened lances and spears were not a pivotal part of the English formation at Crecy, or atleast not so considerable enough to be mentioned.
I do agree that the two contemporary pieces of artwork displaying Crecy do show clear signs of the use of lances, but I feel that the contrasting accounts throws this heavily into doubt. Another point to add is that there is strong evidence for the use of bills at Agincourt, certainly, but the Gesta Henrici Quinti is mentioned as saying 'When their
arrows had been used up, they took up axes, stakes, swords and the heads of lances that lay between them' referring to the archers after their missiles had been expended. Source here: www.agincourt600.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/169/2015/10/New-translation-of-the-Latin-text-in-the-Gesta-Henrici-Quinti.pdf
This is what I feel is the most likely use of shortened lances by the English; as a knightly weapon, individually, mixed in with poll-axes, swords, maces, and such. I would need to see evidence of its use as a formation for me to ascribe the Scottish schiltrom to the English way of warfare at Crecy.
I would like to add here that I'm not trying to pull some 'GOTCHA' kind of moment on a TH-camr. I feel your video is very valuable for the way it presents the development of the English way of warfare, and Scotland certainly had a huge influence on the way Edward III conducted his campaigns in France. However, in turn, I feel I might be tip-toeing into pedantry here, so I'll be clear; the Scottish shiltrom formation, utilised a large number of long spears to form a tactical barrier against the foe, as occurred at Bannockburn, Falkirk, and Stirling Bridge.
Once more, I apologise if this comes across as arguing for the sake of arguing.
Not at all, it's appreciated and great to have more source input and other perspectives. If we just take the archers' stakes in isolation, I could not even say when or where they started. As far as I'm aware, they were intrinsic by Henry V's time and certainly the Ottomans also used them at Nicopolis, but whether they were a feature of the earlier half of the Hundred Years War, I don't know. I'm not personally convinced that we can take much information from the description of the use of 'swords and axes', as to me that reads like shorthand for 'close combat', i.e. melee rather than formation. If you want to chase a fleeing or disordered foe then anybody armed with a pike will drop it and go for the sword, as it's more appropriate to that circumstance.
There was a shortage of coconuts in the Dark Ages.
That took me a moment... ;)
But lots of nice shubberies!
I actually only clicked on the video to leave an obligatory coconut comment :D
Or was it, a shortage of African Swallows?
NEE!
All the countries with poor cavalry you mentioned share one trait: a severe lack of good horse pasture. Reasons differ from country to country, from the climate in Scandinavia and Celtic countries to too much urbanization for any pasture to be left unconverted into food producing field or orchard in the Netherlands, as well as a mix of both in England. The bottom line is: it is hard to have cavalry without a grazing land suited to horse breeding.
Not all of them have poor grazing area. Some just find it better to grow crops in said grazing area.
@@dynamicworlds1 That is what population pressure is all about. Even good grazing area converted into arable land is no longer any grazing area...
good point, it requires large areas for rearing horse, let alone warhorses
"Why did they fight on foot?" Because their hands were full. 😂
Them aren't some aussies. They don't need no hands to fight on!
Also there was a shortage of aerial drones and jet fighters.
I think the main reasons why cavalry was so rare in northern Europe and the Isles are climate and geography: there isn't a lot of pasture ground in the north (the little farmable land basically has to be farmed) and a lot of places are mountainous, dense with forests or swampy.
Horses are also very expensive and a lot of the societies north of Charlemagne were pretty small scale and decentralized. There was also a vibrant culture of seaborne travel and warfare and horses are not very convenient on boats.
The Northern European climate is also cold and wet, which is not ideal for large horses required to carry knights in battle (the native breeds are small and hairy, for good reasons).
@@jrd33 Yeah, they make great work horses but not so great chargers. And mounted knights make are not an economical solution if you have to import all the horses.
@@Oxtocoatl13 great for pulling mine carts until the invention of the water wheel and linked rod power conveyor. And logs and farming implements until the arrival of the internal combustion engine and self propelled tractor.
I once rode into battle with the English on on a horse with my Dane axe a few swings later and wouldn't you know it I was fighting on foot again the horse shall be remembered
The lack of punctuation makes it all the more hilarious
friendly fire is never funny, you will be remembered horse
th-cam.com/video/O3rpmctmC_M/w-d-xo.html
We honor your glorious hoarce
@@GonzoTehGreat WTF?
I just turned in a quick research paper for my history class about how the English fought, and you confirmed most of what I wrote! Thanks Matt!
Love the video, as always, but one correction: Scotland in the late thirteenth-century/early fourteenth-century (Wars of Independence era) was categorically not a series of petty kingdoms. It had a far less centralised royal administration, but there was a sole King of Scots to whom all Scottish landholders were accountable. There are always isolated examples of individuals who could at various times act independently of royal authority, but this is equally true in England and France (consider the relationship of the dukes of Burgundy to the French crown in the fifteenth-century; no one would refer to fifteenth-century France as 'a series of small kingdoms', but it was more politically fractured tha Scotland in the period in question).
The crucial feature of the Wars of Independence that give the impression of a divided Scotland is the fact that it was essentially a civil war - between a Bruce faction and a Balliol-Comyn faction - that England involved itself in. Technically, there were time when there were rival Kings of Scots (e.g. Edward Balliol is crowned in 1332, despite David II having been crowned in 1329 and still being alive), but they were invariably claiming to be king of the same, single political unit.
Anyway, I thought this was another great video. Thanks for producing such excellent material!
I did think it was quite odd for him to say this. I think he was eluding to the fact that not all Scottish nobility supported Robert the Bruce.
Yep. Scotland became a unified political entity around the same time England did: circa 950. That's one of the reasons conquering the Welsh and the Irish worked and conquering the Scots didn't. Wales and Ireland never progressed beyond petty kingdoms and were thus vastly more vulnerable to marauding English armies. Still we came pretty close to conquering Scotland as well.
Yes, Bernard Cornwall has a series of books detailing this. He details Scottish unification as a side note with King Aed with Alfred the Great and the unification of England and the raids on England being the main story.
vivstan160907 good correction
@@davidpnewton I assume you are English. In what way did you "come close"?
Isn't there also the fact that the English armies in the Hundred Years War often fought on foot in large scale battles because they were outnumbered and were fighting defensively to hold ground, and that is a thing you do more effectively on foot? It isn't as if they didn't have horses (even the longbowmen were often mounted).
Yes. In fact, every time they didn't get to fight defensively they were crushed, even when they outnumbered the french.
@@Altrantis Except at Agincourt.
@@wyrmseyeview26 Uh, what? Agincourt was a perfect example of a successful English defensive.
Thanks for that one Matt, I miss one point in your video. The big battles where the English fought on foot were defensive ones, which reduces the role of a horse as well and in hostile lands it is not that easy to support a army on horseback. Great channel with awesome stuff, thanks.
when Matt says "yet again" I immediately think "yataghan"
Exactly me too lmao
lol
Captain Context is shaking his head in dissapointment.
I think it's important to note, as you allude to but not necessarily emphasize, that the English men-at-arms were cavalry units if they wanted to be. They'd still be trained in horse riding and horse combat, still brought horses on campaign, and there were plenty of occasions where they fought on horseback. It all just depends on the **context**. If it made sense to attack on horse, they'd attack on horse. If instead it made more sense to be on foot, then they'd fight on foot. As modern history has shown their armour was definitely geared towards foot combat, but in the same terms Italian armour was very clearly geared towards horse combat and yet Italian men-at-arms fought on foot if they needed to.
also by the time of Agincourt most of the english arcers had horses to move faster
The English generally tried to defend rather than attack, but if they had to attack they would do so on horseback. Edit: And BTW, that was normal. French men-at-arms at Agincourt largely dismounted an fought on foot.
12:50
In an alternate universe where gunpowder and firearms never caught on, there's a Matt Easton talking about the "rate of loosing" and everyone immediately understanding that.
Great video, Matt. I think, just for clarity's sake, it's important to point out that the English men-at-arms were cavalry soldiers and had horses. During many of the major field battles of the Hundred Years War they dismounted and fought on foot as heavy infantry, but were able to mount up to pursue the enemy. They also functioned as cavalry while on the march, scouting, raiding, skirmishing, etc. In addition, the English used hobelars - a type of light cavalry - and mounted archers, who served as archers and filled a light cavalry role when not in battle. Cavalry had a lot of strategic uses other than charging the enemy on the battlefield, and the English certainly used horsemen in those non-battlefield roles during the Hundred Years War.
I Appreciate Your Knowledge of medieval warfare! I feel a little more educated everytime I watch your videos!!! Thank You for taking time to elaborate and share your input!!!
Great Video Matt! Would live to see a video on bill technique specifically as it is such a unique (looking at least) weapon
Well, in pitched battle, the English commanders usually considered that the enemy cavalry was so numerous that, to avoid their forces to be enveloped and outflanked, dismounted and established their famous array of archers, staves, infantry and some cavalry at the flanks. But when not in pitched battle, they English forces were basically cavalry of all kinds. They mounted their archers to take them along, and used this mounted forces for very deep strikes. The Black Prince was a specialist in the infamous "chevaucheés" and I've read that, before the raid that would end up in the battle of Poitiers, the Black Prince made a huge requisition of horses and send message to fetch as many "hobelars" as possible from the realm. The battle itself was won by a cavalry charge that enveloped the French King entourage.
As you said, English cavalry was never very famous. But some English commanders were able to use an early version of combined arms warfare that ended being superior, until tactics, equipment and commander's ability turned the tables against them...
This is incredibly interesting. Pls carry on with topics similar to this.
Essentially the English formation sound to me like the grandfather of a Tercio, but instead of firearmes they had longbows.
The tercio was the evolution of the tactics used by the gran capitan throught the isabellibe civil war/conquest of granada and the italian wars, guns were already used extensively in the peninsula prior to the conquest of granada
@@kyomademon453 Yeah true, I was more aiming at the similarity between the formations, in that both used spears/pikes in addition to a ranged weapon.
Hi Matt, love your history focused vids :-) thanks
Man, haven't watched an SG video in a long while. Keep it up Matt.
Loved the vid. I shared it to my FB group that focuses on historical fighting
Love this Matt, fascinating history, thank you!
Another great episode! Cheers from your friends in Canada.
I'm excited to hear about Welsh hit and run tactics.
Hey Matt, saw the movie Black '47 recently and I thought it'd be a perfect fit for your channel to talk about if you hadn't seen it. It deals with a very interesting time period and it has muzzle loading rifles/pistols and kukri action scenes displayed with what I think is very competent choregraphy and historical accuracy.
Was actually interesting to see that the main character who's a retired soldier who fought in afghanistan used the tactics you've mentionned in the past of unrelentless attack to fight a superior oponent and guerilla warfare.
Perhaps you understated the fact that horses are expensive, hard to train, and very nervous
No need for excuse, i really enjoy watching longer videos.
"Until Charles Martel essentially forced them out"
_obligatory Duke Odo of Aquitaine did way more than Martel_
Good video! I would add that there was some battles were English knights fought on foot earlier, like the Battle of the Standard and Battle of Brémule
One notable exception to the lack of English/Scottish cavalry performance would the Border Reivers, who were pretty highly rated as a source of skilled light cavalry.
Being from that region 1 thought the same, classed as some of the best light cavalry in Europe at the time a lot later 1520 -1603. the Reivers were a product of their time an unstable borderland between 2 Kingdoms with cross border alliances. James VI destroyed border culture banned riding horses carrying weapons but was happy to plantation the borderers in ulster? why .Be fore a single state during pitched battle between England and Scotland the men would wear either the Satire or cross of St George on their clothing do denote elegance best quote I've heard by an English general ' you can always tell a borderer their crosses are always thinner than everybody else's'.
welsh tuelu were javelin wielding retainers that were influenced by the normans and deadly effective as a cavalry force riding horses suited to the mountains ponys
One of your ancestors fought for Robert the Bruce? What's next? One of Linybeige's ancestors fought for William the Conqueror?!
I wouldn't be surprised.
Oof
Well there weren't too many people who fought against Robert the Bruce around to reproduce.
Excellent video as always Matt. Are you planning on making a video about Netflix’s Outlaw King? I would love to hear your take on that awesome movie. Very interesting to hear one of your ancestors fought for Robert the Bruce.
Well prepared video; with a practical point of view.
It's also worth noting, and I thought you might bring it up when you touched on Rome, that as far back as Julius Caesar, the Romans turned to Gaul (later France) for auxiliary cavalry. The Gallic and even Germanic horsemen feature prominently in those accounts, at a time when infantry was still the king of the Roman battle order.
Another excellent video Matt!
On a strategic level the English were the ones using fast cavalry tactics. The English were pursuing a strategy of attrition aiming to destabilise France. Their "war rides" out of Gascony and Normandy/Calais were very fast raids by mounted soldiers. If anything it was the French who were (strategically) slow and clunky.
I think the key reason why they fought on foot was because a dense mass of heavy infantry was so effective. Of course being on foot they lacked mobility so it required an obliging foe who would attack into your defensive formation. The English had two key factors that allowed this defensiveness:
Firstly, on a meta-level, in each of the key battles of the 100 years war the English army was a raiding force trapped by a larger defensive French army. The English were trying to escape so the French had to attack.
Secondly the longbow has a much greater range than the French crossbow. If the French refuse to attack the English can just shoot them off the field, so the longbows pretty much force the opponent to engage.
Maybe another "meta" factor related to the war rides is that the English cavalry would be equipped for rapid movement, essentially "light" cavalry and not equipped to engage the "heavy" French knights in mounted combat.
I really love this kind of video Matt.
"Those men on Grey horses are terrifying."
"They are the best Cavalry in Europe and the worst led."
"That may be, That may be..."
@@TheUberguitar123 "But we'll match them with our Lancers"
I would honestly love another video on the concept of attacking a castle as it's being built/ Welsh conquest.
In the Battle of Poitiers 1356, the Captal de Buch led a force of cavalry against the French that consolidated the English victory. He led a small force , maybe 300 riders who circled back and attacked the French from the rear whilst they were under severe pressure from the front. Many of these knights were Gascons, but some undoubtedly were English.
Fascinating video, Matt! Great work.
Do you also think the rocky terrain of the northern lands had something to do with the lack of cavalry? France, Spain, Germany, certainly the plains in Russia and the Steppes would be more acclimated to horses. But do you think the landscape of England, Scotland and Scandinavia might not accommodate?
Finally, who made that Dane axe???? Arms & Armour? Beautiful...
Cavalry is suited in spain only in the south which is where the cavalry tradition developed, the north is full of mountains and forests(the country is essentially a massive high plateu)
I don't think Romans should be considered the (sole) starting point of knights. The Celts certainly used noble armoured cavalry and especially in Poland and eastern Germany, Germanic traditions of comites/*druhtiz mixed with Celtic, Baltic and steppe influence lead (in the Oksywie and Wielbark cultures) to ultimately the Germanic heavy horsemen of the migration period. And during the migration period, the steppe influence only becomes stronger. Also, many cavalrymen of the Romans were, of course, Celtic, Germanic or Sarmatic.
Correct and lets not forget the Parthians and Sassanids who's heavy horsemen were feudal lords and their retinues unlike the romans who were salaried state soldiery.
Key is Indo-Europeans. They domesticated the horse and started the tradition of equestrian elite
You mentioned the Hearse formation, that combined longbowmen and pikeman. I would imagine that the archers would be formed up in the center, much like the coffin would be, and then wheels of pikemen to the fore/sides that could quickly move to counter and cavalry charges that became apparent, as the unit moved. I've no basis for this, but its an image that appeared in my head and i think it could work.
As clearly shown in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
What do you mean? King Arthur was CLEARLY on a horse.
Excellant response to a complicated question. I think as others pointed out, economics was also important. A horse was expensive to maintain.
The average rank and file Saxon warrior could not afford to maintain one.
Matt you need to cover more Irish and Scottish warfare. Most medieval stuff you find is from a very anglophile point of view and the subject of Agincourt has been beat to death!
I would also add that societal changes probably played some role, which the historiography likes to label the shift from the "High" Middle Ages to the "Late" Middle Ages circa 1300. The Great Famine, of course the plague, economies downturned, etc, creating increased conflict. In addition to the tactical changes you mentioned, the ability to maintain a large horse-based army probably was more difficult, especially in Northern Europe where the famines were hardest. And then the mass mobilizations for the greater conflicts of the 14th-15th C. almost certainly created a sort of prole drift in the military to simplify tactics (and equipment) to meet the demand, sort of like Napoleonic or Thirty Years War eras. As you've said before, the death of the mounted knight was probably far more banal than arrows at Agincourt or gunpowder.
Thank you so much for making this post! People forget that the Welsh Marches (bow and spears i love Gerald of Wales accounts of Welsh harassing cavalry) and Scotland (schiltrons and William Wallace ftw ^_^) impacted their fighting and they added it to their tactics and also added Welsh Scots and Irish to their armies. :D. Yay anti-cavalry! I love your channel!
Horses are pretty expensive, and there's a good chance it would die. Best not risk it.
Plus cavalry charges were typically, a limited affair, a couple of potentially devastating charges before losses or disorganisation takes them out the fight as a cohesive unit. Foot knights, have lots of fancy armour that can keep them in a fight against untrained* levies for longer, which imo, would mean the'd be a more consistent preformence on foot than on horseback.
plus it's a lot harder to be an impetuous foot knight trying to start a charge by, well charging, when you have to run hundreds of yards. You wouldn't look glorious, just tired.
YES! FINALLY A SCHOLAGLADIATORIA VIDEO ABOUT DISMOUNTED MEN AT ARMS!!
That depends on your application of the term 'men at arms'. Archers weren't men at arms and neither were spearmen, as far as I know.
@@marsaspen-murray3797 It usually implies that they have a full harness or a near full harness. So yeah, the regular spearmen and archers weren't men at arms.
Great video Matt! I have another question, If you will, what was the Italian Wars? Who fought against who, and which types of weapons and tactics where used?
France vs Spain, france used heavy mounted gendarmes and spain used a prototype of what would become the tercios
@@kyomademon453 prototype? Care to ellaborate?
@@igorlins8194 the spanish troops were under the command of gpnzalo fernandes de cordoba famously known as the great captain, a military genius, he reformed the army during the late 15th century, implemented a heavy usage of gunners and switched the focus of heavy troops towards light armored ones like pikemen(already common in spanish armies at the time) and fast mobile cavalry, the context of the wars were a response of france's expansionist policies in italy in the late middle ages and early renaissance, france wanted the kingdom of naples and the papal states who allied themselves with spain, the wars were won by spain who anexed the kingdom of naples
@@kyomademon453 thanks, ManOhMan! Here in Brazil is all but unknown any good material speaking about this topic or the following spanish conquests on Europe, and is a theme that's increasingly facinates me because of the Variety of arms and tactics that supposedly appeared in this time. (Including one of Mat's new toys, the greatsword).
@@igorlins8194 if you need history of the mediterranean youll find very little in the english speaking side of youtube, since youre brasilian i take u can understand some bits of spanish, recommend you to check Pero eso es otra historia, the guy has lots of series on the mediterranean and does it in a great informative and entertaining way
Interesting ,knowledgeable and fascinating
Combining spears and archers in self-sufficient formations. I guess they were kinda pioneering a proto-form of what would essentially become the dominating style of warfare from the late 15th/early 16th century to the 17th century then.
The Swiss did that pioneering. The English had to learn this kind of warfare completely from the start in the early 16th century by importing mercenaries from the continent, because their kind of warfare of bows and billmen was completely outdated and unsuited for Early Modern warfare at that time. English Medieval warfare and Early Modern warfare were completely different things
John Keegan in his History of Warfare makes a lot of interesting observations regarding use of horses in warfare, linking the use of horses a lot to the prevalent geography of the region and the economic conditions that are required to sustain a large mounted force. From those observations I think it is fair to say that the british climate and as you said geography in parts of the isles is not really conducive to either keeping horses nor maintaining a mobile sweeping kind of warfare that is pretty typical for other areas of the world.
I think a great deal of the answer lies in the number of horses available to each side. Say England could field 2500 knights each has a squire and a page. That would easily mean 17000 horses. That is an incredible amount of shipping for the time period. Instead of a Lance of heavy cavalry much easier to send two dozen archers and a dozen billmen.
Nice video can you make a video why some cultures were not keen to using infantry ?
Love the Faith No More t-shirt.
I’m very interested in the development of the English bill and how it came about during this period. Particularly how and why lighter infantry began to surplant men at arms. Maybe as you’re in the same ball park you could expand on this in a follow up video?
FINALLY got to watch this all the way through without the kids pestering me. And I'm going to say thanks for it, since I wanted it too. Very interesting, and many of the comments are useful too.
One point to take into consideration is that cavalry, horses to be specific, are quite expensive. The logistics of maintaining horses adds a degree of complication that has to be worthwhile in order to pursue the use thereof.
Plus simple practicality- the main advantage of cavalry is their mobility. If the backbone of your army is archers, then it makes sense to keep the army together and use your knights to protect them. If they're staying put anyway, then they're not getting any benefit from their horses, and may as well keep them out of harm's way, especially as soldiers on foot can be more densely packed, providing better defense. English knights of the Hundred Years War often mounted when it was time to go on the attack or pursue routing enemies. French knights also fought on foot when they thought it was the best course of action. Context strikes again.
Any way to get pointed to any sources on the herse (sp?) arrangement?
I don't doubt Matt but I would like to do more research on what little information exists on the formation.
Came here in search for antidote against cavalry, was not disappointed.
Short answer; logistics. Horses eat. Horses cost money to buy and train. Horses are hard to ship across bodies of water. Horses don't do hills so well.
Thank you, Tristan.
Just throwing this out there but another possible issue with cavalry not being used all that much in the British Isles and Northern Europe could be the geography. Massed horses tend to work and move better over large, flat, open terrain, of which there isn't much in the British Isles and Northern Europe.
Exept there was cavalry like the Hakkapeliitta in later wars conducted by northern nations. More likly it makes litle sense to bring a bunch of horses if your plan is to besige towns in the middle ages.
@@CrowColdblade Except nothing you just said refutes the possibility.
Again, it's just a thought. If anyone has anything to either support or counter the idea, I'd love to know. Unfortunately your point does neither.
I think this is the first time hearing Matt talk about the Welsh. Made my day
Oh he's done so a number of times :p
Matt is correct to emphasize the daunting task of covering this topic in merely one video. I was, however, surprised that he didn't so much as mention what many medieval military historians have termed as the "infantry revolution". Although the English armies typify this development, especially during the Hundred Years War, it was by no means a purely English thing. What he seems to be describing, is just the English theater of a broader phenomenon that was occurring all over Western Europe.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages
Also, I'm currently reading this article by John Clements about sword and buckler. One thing he covers is how the Spanish turned sword and buckler troops into what were effectively "light infantry", and how they gave the famous Swiss pikemen a tough lesson in fighting in one particular battle!
www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm#_ftn6
Great video. Regarding the Scottish Schiltron, there's evidence that the Scots had this tactic long before they fought the English in the Wars of Scottish Independence. One big piece of evidence is a Pictish stone carving dePicting a battle in which infantry with two-handed spears defeats cavalry.
Bit late but for what it's worth. Great vid overral! However, I would like to contest or refine a few points particularly regarding the Welsh. Firstly, there is ample evidence for extensive cavalry use by the Welsh/ British throughout history since pre-Roman times, both "light" and "heavy" tactics (probably similar to Frankish or late "Roman.") The Irish were also regarded as brilliant (though light) horsemen throughout medieval times.
The dichotomy between the North and South Welsh is largely overstated and artificial. Both used spears AND bows. Gerald of Wales' quote has often been taken to mean that they used different weapons but it's more likely he just meant the Northerners were spear experts and the Southerners bow experts which seems to be bourne out in sources. I'm sure we get references to the use of both weapons in accounts of combat from both regions but, granted it direct references to archery in the North are rarer. Gerald also states that all the Welshmen recruited for the crusade (from all across Wales) "were all skilled with spear and bow." The Welsh laws state all householders should own a bow, arrows, spear, shield and sword.
The common charachterisation of the South Welsh fighting alongside the English against the North Welsh due to animosity between the two is largely wrong. The "North" and "South" were not homogenous groups in any way, while the Welsh overral shared a common culture. In reality the decision to fight for or against the English or other Welsh was driven by each individual Welsh Lord or Prince's unique political circumstances. In the 13th Century wars you mentioned, pretty much all the different South Welsh Lords fought against the English at different times for varying amounts of time. There was a slightly different situation in English Marcher Lordships in Wales which had been conquered long before. The lower-ranking Welshmen of these areas would often serve "the English" against other Welsh as their lords just so happened to be English and men usually served whomever they owed service to.
It is understandable to see these common misconceptions as they were repeated in many otherwise good academic works, particularly older ones that didn't specifically focus on the Welsh or explore Welsh sources. I find it very sad that Medieval Welsh Military History is so unpopular as it contains important contributions to wider debates, such as the anomaly of the Welsh unbroken cavalry tradition. A great one-stop-shop for an accurate overview of medieval Welsh warfare is 'War and Society in Medieval Wales' by Sean Davies, though like most books it does have some weaker areas and misconceptions of its own. If anyone would like to discuss anything related, feel free to comment.
Also, keep in mind that the English came close to winning Hastings with a phalanx type formation.
I got a theory: ''Herse'', whatever how it is written, ressemble the French word ''Hérisson'' which means hedgehog in English. The formation when feeling threathen, as a hedgehog or porcupine, can raise its pikes to threathen an ennemy, extensively project arrows ( the hedgehog can almost do that with their thorns, leaving them painfully planted in your skin)
Read Victor Davis Hansen's 'Carnage and Culture" - particular part - Greece vs Persia - war horses require HUGE amounts of pasture, and countries with lots of small farms make for armies of spearmen on foot.
I always thought (maybe I am wrong) that the reason for bad cavalry was terrain. I think if you look at countries famous for heavy (or at least very good cavalry) they are usually flat (France, Spain, Poland). I would argue that reason for this can be :
a) it is hard to get cavalry into formation and get momentum on uneven terrain
b) it is easier to form spike defense on hill or cover your flanks in forest/hill terrain and vice versa it is really hard to protect your flanks on open field.
Something similar happened to romans when they tried to use phalanx in hills of Italy.
+ it was hard enough to drop men over the channel. and it was even harder to do the same thing with horses. if your cavalry is not really your main weapon anyway, this can be another reason to reduce its use
(yes, I know, there were English territories on the mainland but still, many many things and soldiers had to come from the island)
Could you describe the local reenactment scenes? Do you notice a lot more archer reenactors from Wales for example? Do you notice local differences which might stem from a want for playing one's own heritage?
Hi Matt. I wonder if the Scandinavians who were maritime peoples, didn't favour cavalry because it is damned difficult to transport horses on long-ships? Apart from anything else with their high centre of mass they would tend to destabilise shallow draught vessels, In addition they would need fodder which would also decrease load carrying capacity which would be more usefully employed elsewhere. The other point worth noting is terrain. Particularly in Wales and Scotland the terrain was more mountainous and probably not conducive to the mass use of mounted troops. France and the Low Countries are much more favourable for mounted troops and this may have influenced the differing army development.
Looking at the Areas of northern Europe you mention they were also heavily forested and have mountains neither lend themselves to cavalry.
Good video Matt, but what about the availability of horses, their relative usefulness at the time, the quantity of food they consume, and the amount of food effectively harvested each year. its quite likely that while there is space in England for many horses, with no combustion engine horses would be remarkably important to the stability of the economy so these horses largely already had a working purpose and were bred for sending messages and driving machinery. To tie in with you're point if you don't absolutely need the warhorses (i.e. to counter other armies with cavalry) then why breed and train say 500 horses for a mounted division when your enemies only have pikemen, and are divided from Europe where they could hire divisions of horsemen almost anywhere.
The Normans often dismounted about 1/3 of their "knights" to stiffen the infantry. They also utilized archery.
1302 gold plated spurs battle in Courtrai!!! You should make a video about the Goeiendag (weapon)
In The Art of Ward in the Western World, Archer Jones has a nifty graphic for explaining the effectiveness of the various types of ancient to medieval troop types. The fourt types are: Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry, Heavy Infantry, and Light Infantry. In Shock Action; Heavy Infantry > Heavy Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry > Light Infantry, Light Cavalry > Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry > Light Cavalry. Incidentally, Alexander of Macedonia is credited with being the first miliraty leader to use all 4 troop types in his army, thus 'inventing' the combined arms form of warfare.
How about the border reivers? They were light cavalry using sturdy ponies. Could be a good video in of itself if you haven't done one before.
British cavalry c. 1900 (the build up to WW1) were, I thought, super proud. There's an incident where one unit was given a maxim gun and were undergoing maneuvers, when the guy with the machine gun decided to fire off blanks in the direction of that entire unit. When they were done, he ran up to the CO and said, "You're all dead! I've been firing the maxim the entire time" or something like that, and the CO, feeling offended (rather than realize how problematic a machine gun might be), ordered him to march back to camp on foot.
I think that's how the story goes, anyway. But it seems like cavalrymen in the british empire were pretty proud, at least in 1900. There must have been a reason for that.
How would soldiers with atlatls fair during a pre-black powder battle? Would less accuracy for more power be a problem? Would supplying darts be too taxing since they are larger and more difficult to make?
The use of the sling was very normal and even dominant in alot of early warfare. I think the atlatl would occupy the same tactical space more or less.
Yes, Frisians tended to fight on foot too.
A rather strong clue for this is the name Chevaux de Frise, French for Frisian Horse/Cavalry, used for the portable stake frame used as a measure of defence against cavalry. This implies a lack of actual Frisian cavalry.
By the way, Frisians also relied heavily on the longbow, especially in their wars against the Hollanders.
I've always thought the infantry are the most important part of militaries. Everything is based on supporting them, complementing them, defeating the masses of enemy infantry, getting around them, etc. You can imagine an army without the other "forces" like cavalry, artillery, etc, but you cannot imagine an army without infantry. They are where wars are decided.
It's pretty funny how things repeat themselves. Because the Herse sounds a lot like the later Pike&Shot formations of the 16th century (and the square formation of the napoleonic wars).
As for cavalry. Extensive forests, horse breeds that fare well in winter and less abundant harvests (so not a ton of spare grain->horses that are smaller and more capable of surviving on grazing) are not things that favor skilled heavy cavalry, and the lack of a roving herding culture means that you don't have the "born riders" for light cavalry either.
I'd read that another reason was that archers were a lot cheaper to field than mounted knights.
I always thought that Rome was mostly heavy infantry user. And all roman cavalry (in imperial period) consisted of barbarian allies (germans, sarmats, etc)
Late roman armies learned a lot about cavalry and introduced a lot of it into their forces. They of course stole it mostly from the persians.
Nope. Legions were heavy infantry but pretty much always went into battle with auxiliary troops and one part of the auxiliary troops was cavalry. This was both light cavalry for scouting and screening and heavy cavalry for direct charges.
Roman heavy cavalry was not as effective as later heavy cavalry for two reasons. Firstly their armour was not as good as high middle ages and later. Secondly they didn't have stirrups. Roman saddles were designed with protrusions allowing shock cavalry tactics but they weren't as effective as stirrups.
Btw, they even had a mounted gladiator
They had their own Roman cavalry. In fact, during one period, if you wanted to enter politics, you had to do 20 years in the infantry or 10 in cavalry - this made it easier for the wealthy to enter politics, because the wealthy would generally go into the Roman cavalry.
The Romans definitely have very effective native cavalry forces during the Republican period - yes they were defeated in a few battles but popular historians tended to focus on these and gloss over their successes. Yes the Republican Roman cavalry were defeated at Ticinus, Trebbia and Cannae, but they soundly defeated their opposition at Sentinum, Telamon, Clastidium, Magnesia and Vercellae. Its just that a lot of popular and casual historian probably did not even know that these battles existed!
There were a period during the Late Republic and Principate era where the Roman gentry (the equestrian class) who traditionally supplied their cavalry were too busy with politics and getting rich to serve as troopers, and the entire cavalry business being handled by non-citizen auxilia. Note that during the Empire the auxilia were not primarily recruited from 'barbarian' foreigners, those would be foederati units, which were not the majority during the Empire. Anyway after Caracalla granted all free men in the empire citizenship that was no longer the case.
Heavy cavalry is best suited to open, firm and relatively level ground. Anything that hinders or restricts their charge is a good thing, from the defender's point of view. As always, know the terrain is a basic rule of warfare.
The period under discussion is also when the English start to use hobelar tactics to a much greater extent than before, which is something you want if you have lots of marching people on foot -- you need a fast-moving screen so you don't wind up getting into horrific ambushes.
Can you do a video about how people in plate armor were defeated in battle? I feel like people have swung from talking about how arrows and swords easily killed knights in full plate to how NOTHING kills men in plate. Was it grappling, blunt force, small wounds, or simple exhaustion that killed?
About the Franks and the Roman military legacy, whenever I look at Norman knights I see late Roman cavalry using stirrups.
Regarding the Scandinavian preference for infantry, in the case of Norway/Sweden in particular the reason boils down to one factor which is their native landscape which did not lend itself to large sweeping cavalry manoeuvres. Generally, in these countries your best option to achieve a high degree of tactical and strategic mobility was travelling by sea and this they excelled at.
what about sea horses ?
iopklmification Your jokes need some serious work.
I think people give too much credit to the Romans in regards to cavalry. While they certainly did have it, they were never, ever known for their cavalry. You know who had a lot of cavalry in roman times? The Gauls. While the patrician use of cavalry translates over to the knight class, I think it's much more representative of Gallic horse culture, specially as it was preserved in Brittany and re-introduced in the rest of France after Charles the Bald's... adventures in Brittany.
@@Altrantis Since Rome lasted a fair bit (more than a 1000 years) the tactics and equipment vary a lot.
By the late empire cataphract cavalry in the "persian" style was a very consistent part of the Roman army of manouver ("domestici")
@@francescofontana9707 Other than when Scipio had to adapt to the north African tactics, Roman cavalry was always a gimmick. They were never a cavalry people, they had them because they could afford them and other societies made extensive use of them, but it was kind of like the french attempt to copy the the English longbowmen. Their richest could do it so they did it, it was considered... basically "cool", so to speak. But the generals never relied on it, and they struggled to find a good way to use them. It was more of a symbol of status than a military requirement. Unless you're referring to the Byzantine Empire that is, I have met some people who insist in calling them the Romans despite the fact doing so causes confusion.
You know what's funny: nowadays, we associate England with Knighthood and Chivalry (namely due to the Arthurian legends) and they are, but back in the day, the FRENCH were considered the "Flower of Chivalry", whereas today, they're associated more with sterotypic Paris culture in general. Just a thought.
Well interesting vid, many thanks for making it. I suspect that in Britain, horses were primarily used as transport and not used for fighting because of 'frontage'. Even riding stirrup to stirrup five horsemen would have the same frontage as up to ten foot soldiers standing in close order and because a standing man isn't as long as a horse, if those five cavalrymen did try to close the distance they would also find themselves under attack from a second ten men standing in close order a short distance behind the front rank - the only way that the cavalry could prevail would be by creating or exploiting a flank. It was very rare for infantry squares to be broken by cavalry in the Napoleonic wars.
Heavy cavalry did charge head on, as opposed to on the flanks though.it's the whole point of heavy cavalry. Frontage happens anywhere, not just in Britain, yet cavalry was massively useful outside of the isles.
@@Altrantis Britain obviously did have heavy cavalry - the Scots Greys at Waterloo broke a French square and captured their eagle, a famous achievement. Why? - because it happened so rarely.
@@orkstuff5635 Heavy cavalry in the Napoleonic period is different. They weren't actually armored, except the French Cuirassiers. Napoleonic heavy cavalry would try to flank the enemy and then charge, while light cavalry would scour and go for non-military targets like supply trains and fleeing troops. In the medieval period both of those would have been considered light cavalry. Medieval heavy cavalry is a completely different beast.
Also, in the Napoleonic period, the Brits did have plenty of cavalry, as opposed to the medieval period, and the reason was largely because of colonies.
@@Altrantis Infantry in the Napoleonic period is also different - they weren't armoured, had no shields and only relatively short improvised 'spears'. In the medieval period horses were used by the British for transport and scouting (with a possible side order of raiding). Possibly the most famous victory of cavalry in Britain is the battle of Hastings which, despite being heavily outnumbered Harold lost because at virtually the last possible moment an arrow just happened to hit him in about the only part of his body that wasn't protected, the Norman cavalry proved most effective when they were running away.
@@orkstuff5635 I'd say medieval British cavalry was most effective during the crusades. Throughout British history you'll find their cavalry (and generally their non-naval troops) have better performance outside of Europe. No idea why. As for Napoleonic infantry, they were dozens of times more of a threat to mounted troops than medieval infantry soldiers were to knights. All of them could shoot, and they had unwieldy short spears, true, but cavalry were largely armed with sabres, lancers were light cavalry for some reason, not heavies. They didn't have the means to charge into a wall of bayonets, whereas medieval knights did charge directly at walls of spears, in fact it was their primary tactic until the renaissance.
Please make a video on this ancestor of yours! Woud be awesome :)
If I'm late for training tonight Matt it's because I was watching this video, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.
Remember it's christmas bash tonight rather than class - sparring open though.
@@scholagladiatoria I'm still waiting for somebody to come pick my son up from me to look after him, I don't think I will be able to make it tonight there's been an accident on the road, I might have to give this week a miss and come next week, I was going to bring my antique sabre for the class to cut with. Tell Pedro sorry for me please, I was supposed to take measurements for his smallsword hilt.
Excellent video, great material. But I do believe that the main reasons why english army used man-at-arms mostly on foot was economic and geography. English king just hasn't resources to raise enough cavalry to stand against franch.
And yes the experience of battles against Walsh and Scots gave English clear answer how to deal with enemy that has alot of cavalry.