Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel! Get up to 65% OFF your subscription ➡ HERE: go.babbel.com/1200m65-youtube-sandrhomanhistory-june-2022/default
I could imagine a total war game, featuring 'Company D'Ordinance' which would let you produce Gendarme, but increases unhappiness in the town, reduces gold produced by the town and gives any General negative traits of corruption.
Note that French mounted archers sometimes shot their bows or crossbows from horseback. David Potter mentions this in Renaissance France at War (page 80), quoting a 1515 royal decree that archers & crossbows should draw the bow well from the saddle or on foot. This decree was repeated in 1526. Even earlier, under Charles the Bold, mounted archers might shoot from horseback, though his army moved away from this practice. & there's ample evidence that mounted crossbowers shot from the saddle across Western & Central Europe.
This is fantastic, just one thing though. While composite bows were a thing in Europe since before the Roman Republic, they weren't widely used for many reasons; it was expensive to maintain and build and the aristocracy's martial tradition wasn't founded on bowmanship, thus it was nearly virtually a peasant's weapon, who opted for the cheaper option; the selfbows, like the English longbow. While cheaper and more durable, they were less effective in converting weight to power, thus professional archers with selfbows loosed arrows from unprecedented poundages, only to meet or slightly exceed the power of the eastern composite bows. This trait rendered a construction of tall bows to sustain high poundages, but they were unsuited for riding men due to this overwhelming stature, and so were wielded by footmen. So when it comes to French archers shooting their bows as horsemen, did they use composite bows or settle for more underpowered cousins of their footmen counterparts.
@@theZXDgames The evidence I'm aware of indicates that French, Burgundian, & English archers who shot from the saddle used yew longbows. That's certainly what Sir John Smythe advocated in his 1590s military manual: mounted archers with English-style bows shooting from horseback. Smythe also claimed that the English bow was better than the Turkish bow. In 1430s, the Burgundian Bertrandon de la Broquière traveled to the Ottoman Empire & compared Turkish bows with European ones. He thought latter more effective against armor, if only because of using more robust arrows. While Turkish bows are more efficient, historical Turkish military archers seem to have used quite light arrows. This meant they didn't deliver more kinetic than a yew bow of the same draw weight shooting heavier arrows, & could deliver less, depending on the details. I'd love to see evidence for 15th/16th-century European mounted archers shooting composite bows. It's possible, as composite bows do seem to appear in period artwork sometimes. Composite bows are better, but the power different between a Turkish-style bow & an English-style one isn't huge. & it takes a well-made & well-maintained composite bow to perform significantly better than a good yew warbow. Now, if that one test of a Manchu bow is accurate, Manchu-style bows deliver a lot more kinetic energy than yew bows when shooting heavy arrows. But I don't know of any evidence for such bows in 15th/16th-century Europe.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I imagined longbows were too awkward or unwieldy to shoot on horseback, with shorter warbows being favored over it, or more adapted ones like the Yumi.
@@theZXDgames Other bows are better suited for shooting on horseback & that's likely one reason why shooting from the saddle was never that popular in Western/Central Europe, but we have various depictions of yew bows being shot from horseback & some texts that specify this, like Smythe's. & people have tried to do it, & it certainly works even if the length of the bow restricts possible shooting angles.
Fantastic video, I don't understand how so many are so hasty in commenting that they weren't the first standing army... Apparently they haven't been watching your videos for long.
Do you mean the Pike&Shot published by Slitherine? This is a real gem of a game. There still are some people playing multiplayer to this day. Feel free to join.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 indeed! There are also some pretty sweet free historical downloads made by the community. The late Odenathus in particular is known for his/her excellent historical scenarios! Highly recommend!
Dear SandRhoman, your french pronunciation is indeed quite good ! Love your content. Btw, the gendarmerie is still active today as one of our 2 police forces
small correction: the war over the succession of Naples in 1494, which would involve the spaniards as opponents of the french still happened at a time when Castille and Aragon were under the rule of the house of Trastamara, the Habsburg reign over Spain came only with Charles V in 1516.
You have a great voice for this. I really appreciate the high quality, the fun bits of humor, and how the flow of the videos just feels right. GREAT SHOW, Thank you
The Gendarmes still exists today, they are part of the military but affected often with countryside police, special police (antigang, anti terror) and can be mobilized in case of war (100 000 men).
General: "Gentlemen, we have a situation. Heavily armed terrorists have taken a dozen hostages and are demanding a ransom" Knight: "Say no more. Saddle up, men. To arms!" *flips down visor*
In France Police has actually two names : in towns it's called "Police", but everywhere else (countryside) it's called "Gendarmerie" and it's quite a separate institution, you cant miss them if you ever travel to the French countryside as they wear the blue as well as the black képi. Lovely video.
That's interesting and something I never knew in America. we have something similar in the city. We have the police but all our rural areas out of city limits are managed by Sherrifs and deputies
The Gendarmes still exist but now it's military with the role of the police, it's also the GIGN (Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale) and the Republican guard
The term "Gendarmes" is used to describe military police in a couple of countries apart from France. Like Poland (Żandarmieria Wojskowa), Romania (Jandarmeria Română) and Serbia (Žandarmerija). I remember that Austria also used to call its MP "Bundesgendarmerie"
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Canada has Gendarme as a federal police that is supposed to stop arms and drug trafficking, but does not actually do anything. Cool isn't it? They wear red uniforms and have fancy horses, so I guess that completely justifies their existence.
@@cpp3221 Most likely, especially in Poland. France had a huge influence on European militaries in general, especially in the early XIX century due to Napoleon. The first Polish unit of mounted Gendarmes (military police) that I know of was created around that time period. It also served as heavy cavalry.
@Nisr Masry88 𓅓𓁺𓄿𓁼𓃭𓎦𓏭 𓂝 battle of lepanto, but yeah polish winged hussars was a mighty force as well but that was in the final age of the tercios, during siege of viena
Excellent material, as always! Big thanks! PS. One thing that I find strange though about the French Army is they were practically for CENTURIES acclaimed for developing a vast park of (heavy) artillery ("siege"-artillery and "field"-artillery regardless) and even standardizing them to a good degree - but at the same time - remained much behind in developing individual fire-arms - something they would pay dearly for during the Battle Of Pavia (1525).
I was today year's old, despite being a native French speaker, when I realised that Gendarmes is literally gen-d'armes. I-am-not-a-smaty-man-meme. As others have pointed out, the name is still used for part of the national police. Curiously, the Italian Carabinieri seems to have followed the same path from heavy cavalry to police. Anyone know why the same etymological trajectory happened twice?
@@seanmarkham6965 It seems to me that light cavalry or dragoons would be better suited for the role though. Heavy cavalry is expensive, slow to get ready, and overkill to deal with a mob.
Carabinieri means a soldier armed with a carbine, not a cavalryman. In their earliest form they are known as dragoons. The heavy cavalry connection is more with the corazzieri (cuirassiers), their ceremonial mounted division
In Canada our national police force are the RCMP which stands for Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their colloquial name is mounties. Seems like mounted units are quite effective at intimidating crowds of people, especially when they charge, which makes them effective at internal suppression.
This is my favourite history related youtube channel, and I'm following like 10 other ones. I also like the host's accent. I find it oddly comforting and pleasant to the ear.
Hello community. And congratulations for the treatment of this subject. I'm amazed how well an Englishman could shake our gendarmerie, a true pillar of the French state. Of course the history of the gendarmerie will experience a much higher development with the Napoleonic wars. When the "Royal Maréchausée" became the "National Gendarmerie". Institution always so active within the France of the 21st century.
Many things from centuries prior were not phased out until WW1, brutal awakening everyone had to receive and my words really don’t do much justice explaining here. Poor Italians charging those Austrians over and over lol.
Different tactics and equipment. Gendarmes are super heavy armoured and normally armed cavalry while Winged Hussars are armoured normally and armed with special super long lances. The former are exposed to a pike formation during a charge the latter outreach them.
It's worth noting however that till about 1570's the backbone of polish cavalry formations was made of heavy lancers (pl. Kopijnicy) similiar to french gendarmes of the era. They were replaced with lighter cavalry formations around the same time as the french gendarmes.
the low countries (more or less the modern benelux) had an answer to the "gen d'armes" namely the "Bande d'ordonnance" of knights and men at arms from the low countries lead by the Gruuthuse family from Bruges, Europe's second standing army. Maximilian of Austria, emperor of the HRE, managed to keep is empire together, and enlarge it even thanks to them.
I love the animations!!! It doesn't matter the subject - your animations make any subject interesting. You could even make an episode of 18th century regimental uniform buttons and I would still find it fascinating! 😁
I think the reason the Gendarmes is often being overlooked is because in the debate between who has the first permanent standing army in Europe between France and the Ottoman Empire and most of the times, people often said that it is the Janissary Corps that is the first permanent standing army in Europe. Even Wikipedia said that, believe me. And since you made a contradiction with this video, why is this the case? Why do you think the Gendarmes, not the Janissary Corps, is the first permanent standing army in Europe?
we don't really think that (as we point out later on in the video). Hence the inverted commas in the title. Generally speaking, this is highly controversial. However, most historians that dedicate their time to the Gendarmes name them as a contender of for either being the first standing army in Europe or in France. It's a matter of definition. Does "standing army" refer to a force that is permanently ready or is the vital criteria that the army is centrally controlled ir that it is structured similarly to a modern military? Well, one historian says one thing, another says another thing. our task is merely to point out the controversy and discuss it.
Janissaries were neither a standing army neither a new thing on its own. They were slave/domestic soldiers, basically retainerd praetorians whose loyalty wasn't going to the Sultan, even less to the State, but to whose they basically chose to support. More often than not Sultans had to buy out the Janissary of the Porte as to be officially recognized. They were organized on the Ghulam system of the Persians or the Abbasid califate. Meanwhile the rest of Ottoman forces were based upon the Iqta system, which is roughly a variation of the feudal military system we know in Europe. Gendarmes were proper soldiers however, paid by the state on regular basis and regulated. They were not palace guards or praetorians.
@@imperator7828 they did mention the Romans in the video
2 ปีที่แล้ว +12
Excellent topic, I would like you to make a video at some point about the first modern Marine Infantry in history, which were the so-called Spanish "Tercios del Mar", fundamental troops to maintain control of the Mediterranean against the Turks and Barbary pirates (the Battle of Lepanto is the most outstanding); also to carry out military operations in America (for example the Battle of San Cristobal in 1629 against the French and English) and Oceania (the Battle of Cagayan in 1582 against the Wako Pirates); It will surely be a very interesting topic for the channel, greetings.
They were the first standing army. That gave Spain an advantage over other countries, and is perhaps the main reason why Spain turned into the mightiest empire of the world. The tercios were trained in Italy and the men trained togheter and their experience were maintained over time - unlike other countries armies which were dissolved as soon as a war was over. But the tercios learned from their combat experience and passed their knowledge on to new troops. Spain became a country for inspiration for other countries and many spanish words have become standard use in other armies.. I don't access to Jan Glete's book so I type from my own fallible memory now, but I think he said that the word spanish word regimiento from that time was copied by other countries and came into use all over Europe. So Spain became an empire that included America, Italy, the Benelux countries and Portugal thanks to royal marriages and exploration. Its army was super modern for its day. But the empire itself was a relic of the past. It was a feudal medieval Kingdom. All those small places were members of the Spanish empire but they paid nearly no taxes and the Spanish state had limited power over those areas. And the push for more centralization, more catholicism and more taxes angered the Netherlands who declared independence. Italy and Portugal did not want to pay taxes either. And the Spanish state did for a while let them get away with it. The Spanish army was good. Too good for Spains own good. The Spanish Kings stopped caring about longwinded and difficult diplomatic negotiations with other countries to get what they want. But instead did they take the faster and more easy solution to use the worlds most powerful army to ram through their will. And it first it did work well. But soon did all dreams and imperial ambitions and use of force become too much for Spain. They got involved in war after war. They fought against the Netherlands who sought independence. They fought against North African pirates. They fought against the muslim Ottomans. They sent their Spanish armada towards England. They involved themselves in the 30 years war and fought against Swedish and French troops. Portugal had enough of all wars that had costed them their colonies so they also started a war with Spain. And all those wars did cost money. But the decentralized Spanish state could not afford it - especially not since it only was Castile who paid taxes, while Italy, Belgium and Portugal did not. The Spanish state were in desperate times, and the many provinces finally agreed to paying a little taxes to the Spanish state - but only if they got more local independence. So the once strong and centralized Spanish state which had been ahead of the rest of the world did not become more decentralized and weak compared to other countries. Its economy was in decline while other countries were on the rise with more centralized and effiecent buraucracies. England, Netherlands, Sweden and France was on the rise. And Spain never really retook its once dominant role in Europe.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +2
@@nattygsbord Ok, but I don't understand what the history of the first Marine Corps has to do with everything you've just said, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. In addition, you forget that the history of the Spanish Empire did not end with the fall of the Spanish Habsburgs, many of those problems that you say were solved with the arrival of the first Bourbon kings and although Spain ceased to be the first power, it did not stop forming part of the group of European powers (at least in the first 5 empires), until the Napoleonic Wars, which is when the decline is definitive, practically more than 1 century after everything you say. I know that this is already in question of the opinion and the historical appreciation that each one gives it, but it is not as dark as you paint it, but look at the influence that Spain had in conflicts such as the War of Austrian Succession, The War of Polish Succession and in the Independence of the 13 Colonies in North America; So I'm not as ignorant of the subject as you might think.
@ *"I don't understand what the history of the first Marine Corps"* I realize now that I did waste both your time and my time because I did not read properly. I thought you wondered about the tercio :P Sorry amigo. *"it is not as dark as you paint it"* That question is always up for debate. Like with almost all other empires. Its usually said that Spain declined in the 1650s. But it was however possible that the empire could have recovered. It still had much lands in America. And it cannot be denied that the Habsburgs had a lot of diplomatic power as well. But to me its more interesting if the empire could have taken another path while it was strong, could it have centralized itself and made all lands outside castile pay their fair share of taxes for military protection? Could the country have become a hub of manufacturing industry like England and the Netherlands? What would have happened if the country had been less eager to go to war and commit religious prosecution? To me it seems possible that Spain could have conquered half of Europe if it had taken another path. *"I'm not as ignorant of the subject as you might think"* I am not from the Spanish speaking world so my knowledge is probably limited compared to yours.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +3
@@nattygsbord Okay, no problem friend, that's why I miss your comment, because that's not what mine was about. Well, speculation can exist with the subject of the Empire, but the reasons are more complex than they seem and the answers are almost elusive because it needs to be understood far beyond the historical perspectives from which each of us has studied or read. Although I am quite a fan of the history of my Spanish motherland, I have to admit that perhaps a possible reason for the path that was taken in terms of early industrialization in the Empire, was due to a large extent to the dependence on trade with its large territorial extensions, compared to Netherlands, France and England, which had to expand their internal manufacturing system to be able to compete and then get ready in the sense of international powers. The Count-Duke of Olivares in the government of Philip IV tried to make the reforms that the Empire needed to keep the path with the other European nations, but there came a cultural problem that Ibero-Americans have always had and that is resistance to change, which that ended with a discontent of the different kingdoms that made up the monarchy and that in the end ended up weakening Spain. Regarding the Dutch issue, it must be taken into account that in those times it was believed that the kingdom should have the same faith as its monarch and that is why, for example, Protestantism triumphed in Northern Europe when the nobles converted very quickly; with that I say that Philip II was within his rights to defend the religious integrity of his empire, the true origin of the Dutch error I do not give to him, but to his father Charles V, who being a Flemish, was not able to understand that those territories were going to be problematic for his son who had grown up on the peninsula unlike him, so the most successful thing should have been to leave the Netherlands as part of the Habsburg Austrian heritage, instead of the Spanish. The Portuguese case is actually different from what its historiography says, the Empire was one, but each one was in charge of keeping their part and it is true that the war was Spanish fault, but the weakness to defend the Portuguese territories was due to themselves, Spain supported the military efforts and even managed to recover several of its lost overseas territories, but the Portuguese positions were weakly protected and the only thing that kept them before was their pre-unification diplomacy, the separation of the kingdoms was due more To a conspiracy caused by the hunger for power of the family of the wife of the future monarch of Portugal, who was of Spanish noble origin and their independence weakened them more than helped them, it took them many years to gain strength again. In any case, the Empire resisted and maintained the integrity of a large part of its territory until the end of the War of Spanish Succession, where the territorial loss balanced the European balance, although it did not mean, as I said above, the end of Iberian power. I do not say this with the intention of extending the discussion or going against it, but to share what I know just like you did, perhaps it will help to understand things in a more global way, the truth is that no truth is absolute and no perspective is close to 100% of the total reality. No creas amigo, de seguro en muchas partes sabes más que yo, lo bueno es que con estas discusiones constructivas, uno aprende algo más del otro, saludos. =)
Possible correction: the default strategy during the early parts of the hundred years war was 'Chevauchée' - raiding of enemy territory. The book I read on the hundred years war made it clear that the british longbowmen were mounted on campaign (though with less remounts than the men at arms) & this mobility contributed to the english side's ability to choose the field of pitched battle in early campaign(s).
5:45 Here you say that the average man in the company of ordinance would be a nobleman. Does this include the archers, light cavalryman, etc. or by "man" do you mean just the fully armored man at arms?
10:10 entire thing got a chuckle from me. Whether today or hundreds of years back, one can find numerous stories of people being extremely petty & stupid.
Oh, yeah! I forgot that the French peasants and city-dwellers used to call ALL "men at arms" (French or English - regardless!) as "escourcheur". It comes from the Latin "(EX)-CORTEX-TICIS", where "cortex" is the "bark" of the tree, so the FULL WORD means "THOSE WHO TAKE OFF THE SKIN" (the GOT "house Of Bolton" comes to mind! :)... ) In Italy we have the verb "SCORTICARE" and they were called "SCORTICATORI" as in - PROBABLY! - they used FLAYING as their favourite method of extracting informations regarding the whereabouts of hidden stashes of gold or silver, when ransacking a city, an "area" or a castle ... whatever you have! ...QUITE probably!... :)
All this hair splitting in the comments over who had the first standing army in Europe. I don't care who was first. It is the informative and interesting content about a group I knew little about that concerns me.
werent the gendarmes pretty effective during the italian wars in the early 16th century alongside and working as combined arms with swiss pikemen? I remember that on a good few occasions, as the pikes would pin down other pikes, the gendarmes would swoop in from the flanks or back to break the enemy pike formation.
can u do the next video on Spanish Jinetes :D!? SPECIALLY since ck3 just released the Iberia struggle dlc Spanish history is all the suddent very interesting
heaviest cavalry in the west ..? i suppose itd be a close run thing, but id imagine theyd be the heaviest cavalry in the world at the time and the most shock dedicated
I have a video suggestion: The last great cavalry battles before cavalry disappeared from the battlefield. The Franco-Prussian war and the Battle of Littlebig Horn come to mind.
I cant speak or understand spoken french, but weirdly enough I can read it. My province is English/French so I've been seeing french words beside english words my whole life.
The prime reason of the pike & shot (tercio) system's creation was the French victory against the Spaniards at the battle of Seminara in 1495. The French Gendarmes and Swiss pikemen trounced the opposing troops and the Spaniards decided that they had to come up with a reform to be able to efficiently face this threat. It worked so well that the Spaniards were almost undefeated for alost 150 yrs. The French victory at the battle of Rocroi in 1643 against the Spaniards, was the end of their supremacy (After Rocroi, the Spanish abandoned the Tercio system and adopted the line infantry doctrine used by the French).
Everybody laughs at the times French cavalry failed forgetting the way, WAY more numerous times they charged and trampled, inflicting devastation. In the Strategikon, Maurice says about the Franks "don't let their cavalry charge you" or something like that. Little changed in the region for centuries and centuries.
i think "escorcherie" fits better as "the flaying" or "the scorching" due to escorchier "to strip off the skin" coming from excorticare and the fact that these roving marauders essentially practiced scorched earth tactics
Gendarmes acctually evolved to become a lighter cavalry with guns and they were reformed a few times after that until they were disband, after that another kind of group/soldier became the gendarme we know today.
Why is it that in many of the movies, documentaries, video games etc , full plate-armoured knights and men at arms are shown without shields? shields are used to recieve blows, cover from missile fire and shattered lances during cavalry charges. For example in Malta in the Grandmaster's armoury we still have full suits of plate-armour with buckler shields carrying the coa and guilded the same. Many of them were used in battles and sieges. The full Armoured knights and men at arms of the XV-XVI centuries did use shields and many still survive to this day in armouries, museums and private collections, etc. The only way full-plate armoured knights , men at arms and lords didn't carry a shield is when they fought dismounted carrying 2 handed swords, halberds, pole axes etc.
First in case of documentaries they sometimes get things wrong. And the others don't care. But why can't a zweihander/ two handed sword be used on horseback. It would really bring deadly.
@@jihanessa4132 You made a good point, cos Actually some did carry them on horseback even polearms especially during the renaissance gunpowder weapons had traditions and tactics changed rapidly but thats my point, that without shields how would mounted or unmounted knights and men at arms cover against axe blows, warhammers, maces, flails, hails of arrows, crossbow bolts and even arquebusiers etc? As for documentaries you're right these days they are nothing compared to documentaries of decades ago.
@@stefanvella9807 just imagine being a random jannisary and seeing crazy German and french cavalry wielding huge 2 metres swords and halberd to your face. Lol no wonder these defended vienna so well.
If these guys were the heaviest cavalry in the West rocking that kind of armored weight, who in the heck rode around more heavily equipped lol? Outside of war elephants I guess
It's more than that and it varies a bit between countries. In France the terme "homme d'arme" (actual translation of man at arm whereas the "gens d'armes" first refers to the heavy knight of the 15 to 16 century) would refer to any soldier fighting with a melee weapon. Meaning a knight, a non noble cavalry man or any infantryman with a pole weapon etc would be under the category of man at arm. The other category being called "homme de trait" (can't really translate it well, you could say "man at range" or "man at shoot" if you want to keep in the theme) who are all the soldiers using any range weapon.
Does anyone know why the free archers at 5:33 are armed with what appear to be composite recurve bows? I have no doubt that they may have been familiar with them, but I don’t usually see western archers depicted with composite bows.
@@battlez9577 the bows seem to have reflexed tips (siyahs) that point forward when it’s not drawn. Even at full draw, the tips point almost straight up and down, rather than back towards the archer, as a self bow. So these are definitely composite recurves (not compound, which uses pulleys and gears and is a decidedly modern design)
First "Noteable" Standing army belonged to the Egyptian Pharoes and their MASSIVE Chariot armies in the Bronze Age. There might have been Semi-Permanent forces before that or even fully fledged pro's. However by the time we reach "Ramses The great" or "Ramses the Second" We start seeing large formations of Trained and professional charioteers, considering the great expense and the absolutely Insane difficulty of keeping 20,000 Thousand horses and Charioteers and footmen ready at a moments notice (Aka About a month if I recall) To collect the entire at any given point in the Kingdom (Transported Via the Nile), it is rather safe to say that the Organisational level rivals that of other great powers later on. (Edit: All of which was controlled and commanded directly by the Pharaoh in times of war, without any feudal ties)
The First Bulgarian Empire (that is in Europe right, in fact the third largest after the East Roman/Byzantine and Charlemagne's ones) had a standing army of around 12-15, 000 cavalry (light and heavy) and it was augmented by recruitment of infantry consisting of peasantry levies!
Honestly there is a issue with definition of standing army. Because even Greek ancient cities had some standing armies like 3000 years ago. But I think the main change when we consider it a standing army from our point of view is a professional army which is directly serving the nation or the government effectively. So there are lot of historical armies or organizations which we could probably consider standing armies or even professional standing armies but they often lack in the economical, organizational and strategical side to be truly consider a proper standing and elite army. But honestly the first standing and professional army in Europe were Roman legions in Imperial era, because they fit in almost all criteria.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel! Get up to 65% OFF your subscription ➡ HERE: go.babbel.com/1200m65-youtube-sandrhomanhistory-june-2022/default
e
bruh
I've got to stay, I love the trolling/clickbait in the title leading to many people making smarmy comments before watching the actual video :D
@@QuantumHistorian e
Akkad and Egypt would not be Europe, though.
"The archers are charging!"
**gets run down by heavy cavalry**
Such is life in Medieval France
Babe wake up, new SandRhoman video just dropped!
Unironically me
I'm up, babe. Thanks for waking me up.
Dont call me babe
But babe
Hey bro (massive nose)
Leave her (Sterling) alone
I could imagine a total war game, featuring 'Company D'Ordinance' which would let you produce Gendarme, but increases unhappiness in the town, reduces gold produced by the town and gives any General negative traits of corruption.
Those negative traits are way to easy to get in TW. Anyway, not sure if CA is going to do anything other than Warhammer related in the future.
@@Dayvit78 yeah, WH has fucked Total War. And they arent as keen on modding now either so you cant expect too many massive changes.
They are in medieval total war 2
@@janlaan9602 yeah but its not exactly like that.
I wanted to contribute to the ad1212 mod, but it seemd cities are hardcoded to only allow a few buildings with limited possibility for work arounds.
Note that French mounted archers sometimes shot their bows or crossbows from horseback. David Potter mentions this in Renaissance France at War (page 80), quoting a 1515 royal decree that archers & crossbows should draw the bow well from the saddle or on foot. This decree was repeated in 1526. Even earlier, under Charles the Bold, mounted archers might shoot from horseback, though his army moved away from this practice. & there's ample evidence that mounted crossbowers shot from the saddle across Western & Central Europe.
This is fantastic, just one thing though. While composite bows were a thing in Europe since before the Roman Republic, they weren't widely used for many reasons; it was expensive to maintain and build and the aristocracy's martial tradition wasn't founded on bowmanship, thus it was nearly virtually a peasant's weapon, who opted for the cheaper option; the selfbows, like the English longbow. While cheaper and more durable, they were less effective in converting weight to power, thus professional archers with selfbows loosed arrows from unprecedented poundages, only to meet or slightly exceed the power of the eastern composite bows. This trait rendered a construction of tall bows to sustain high poundages, but they were unsuited for riding men due to this overwhelming stature, and so were wielded by footmen.
So when it comes to French archers shooting their bows as horsemen, did they use composite bows or settle for more underpowered cousins of their footmen counterparts.
@@theZXDgames The evidence I'm aware of indicates that French, Burgundian, & English archers who shot from the saddle used yew longbows. That's certainly what Sir John Smythe advocated in his 1590s military manual: mounted archers with English-style bows shooting from horseback. Smythe also claimed that the English bow was better than the Turkish bow. In 1430s, the Burgundian Bertrandon de la Broquière traveled to the Ottoman Empire & compared Turkish bows with European ones. He thought latter more effective against armor, if only because of using more robust arrows. While Turkish bows are more efficient, historical Turkish military archers seem to have used quite light arrows. This meant they didn't deliver more kinetic than a yew bow of the same draw weight shooting heavier arrows, & could deliver less, depending on the details. I'd love to see evidence for 15th/16th-century European mounted archers shooting composite bows. It's possible, as composite bows do seem to appear in period artwork sometimes. Composite bows are better, but the power different between a Turkish-style bow & an English-style one isn't huge. & it takes a well-made & well-maintained composite bow to perform significantly better than a good yew warbow. Now, if that one test of a Manchu bow is accurate, Manchu-style bows deliver a lot more kinetic energy than yew bows when shooting heavy arrows. But I don't know of any evidence for such bows in 15th/16th-century Europe.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I imagined longbows were too awkward or unwieldy to shoot on horseback, with shorter warbows being favored over it, or more adapted ones like the Yumi.
@@theZXDgames Other bows are better suited for shooting on horseback & that's likely one reason why shooting from the saddle was never that popular in Western/Central Europe, but we have various depictions of yew bows being shot from horseback & some texts that specify this, like Smythe's. & people have tried to do it, & it certainly works even if the length of the bow restricts possible shooting angles.
So why he wasn't called Charles the Bolt?! :p
Fantastic video, I don't understand how so many are so hasty in commenting that they weren't the first standing army... Apparently they haven't been watching your videos for long.
haha, I'll try and upvote this. Maybe people see this comment fist, so I don't have to answer so many hasty comments individually!
then dont claim it in the first sentence of the video? lmao
My stupid ass watching the whole video waiting for the Roman Legion to Appear
@@mondaysinsanity8193 Don't you know the format where you have a thesis and discuss it and at the end give a conclusion?
@@mondaysinsanity8193 then don't comment on a video before finishing watching it?
I was always fascinated with French Gendarmes after playing the game “Pike and Shot”
Do you mean the Pike&Shot published by Slitherine? This is a real gem of a game. There still are some people playing multiplayer to this day. Feel free to join.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 im gonna take a look
@@kamilszadkowski8864 indeed! There are also some pretty sweet free historical downloads made by the community. The late Odenathus in particular is known for his/her excellent historical scenarios!
Highly recommend!
Dear SandRhoman, your french pronunciation is indeed quite good ! Love your content.
Btw, the gendarmerie is still active today as one of our 2 police forces
The guys tear gassing the Liverpool fans in Paris?
@@malarkey5323 CRS are regular police.
Vivé la France!
Not quite the same thing anymore, it's essentially a just police that becomes national guard in wartime.
Being swiss he propably learned it in school. His balto slavic pronouncations are quite off.
small correction: the war over the succession of Naples in 1494, which would involve the spaniards as opponents of the french still happened at a time when Castille and Aragon were under the rule of the house of Trastamara, the Habsburg reign over Spain came only with Charles V in 1516.
You have a great voice for this. I really appreciate the high quality, the fun bits of humor, and how the flow of the videos just feels right.
GREAT SHOW,
Thank you
Medieval Warfare are quite horrifying, imagine standing in formation and your buddy just explodes into small piece of paper.
That's what we call magical attacks.
Ask an Ukrainian, they know what it feels like.
You know that means. Its PTSD time baby.
Modern warfare is just as horrifying.
@@Gramatic69I feel like what this person described would be possible at pretty much any point in military history, not just the Middle Ages
The Gendarmes still exists today, they are part of the military but affected often with countryside police, special police (antigang, anti terror) and can be mobilized in case of war (100 000 men).
@Alaric WSG Aux gauchites
Can they not purge France from all the animals?
@Alaric WSG non.
General: "Gentlemen, we have a situation. Heavily armed terrorists have taken a dozen hostages and are demanding a ransom"
Knight: "Say no more. Saddle up, men. To arms!" *flips down visor*
@@knightshousegames😂
I first heard of these guys when playing the original Medieval Total War, they were a cheaper Knight-Heavy cavalry unit.
I just heard of them! Glad I did
I’m so glad that I’m not the only one who thought of Medieval and Medieval II:Total War when I saw this video. 😊😊😊
In France Police has actually two names : in towns it's called "Police", but everywhere else (countryside) it's called "Gendarmerie" and it's quite a separate institution, you cant miss them if you ever travel to the French countryside as they wear the blue as well as the black képi.
Lovely video.
That's interesting and something I never knew in America. we have something similar in the city. We have the police but all our rural areas out of city limits are managed by Sherrifs and deputies
The Gendarmes still exist but now it's military with the role of the police, it's also the GIGN (Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale) and the Republican guard
The term "Gendarmes" is used to describe military police in a couple of countries apart from France. Like Poland (Żandarmieria Wojskowa), Romania (Jandarmeria Română) and Serbia (Žandarmerija). I remember that Austria also used to call its MP "Bundesgendarmerie"
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Canada has Gendarme as a federal police that is supposed to stop arms and drug trafficking, but does not actually do anything. Cool isn't it? They wear red uniforms and have fancy horses, so I guess that completely justifies their existence.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 do these appellation come from French influence ?
@@cpp3221 Most likely, especially in Poland. France had a huge influence on European militaries in general, especially in the early XIX century due to Napoleon.
The first Polish unit of mounted Gendarmes (military police) that I know of was created around that time period. It also served as heavy cavalry.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 thanks for your answer. Appreciate it
Finally Documentary about other Europe Army beside English Longbowmen, Swiss Pikemen, Spanish Tercio, Janissaries or Landsknecht.
Gendarme is the best
Spanish Tercio's and landsknecht dominate europe 2 centuries, and fight the jenissaries the other counterpart of the otoman empire whit the same power
@William Ewart Gladstone Lepanto and viena siege: im a joke to you?
@Nisr Masry88 𓅓𓁺𓄿𓁼𓃭𓎦𓏭 𓂝 battle of lepanto, but yeah polish winged hussars was a mighty force as well but that was in the final age of the tercios, during siege of viena
13:50
Knight: What was that?!... must be the wind.
Excellent material, as always! Big thanks! PS. One thing that I find strange though about the French Army is they were practically for CENTURIES acclaimed for developing a vast park of (heavy) artillery ("siege"-artillery and "field"-artillery regardless) and even standardizing them to a good degree - but at the same time - remained much behind in developing individual fire-arms - something they would pay dearly for during the Battle Of Pavia (1525).
I was today year's old, despite being a native French speaker, when I realised that Gendarmes is literally gen-d'armes. I-am-not-a-smaty-man-meme.
As others have pointed out, the name is still used for part of the national police. Curiously, the Italian Carabinieri seems to have followed the same path from heavy cavalry to police. Anyone know why the same etymological trajectory happened twice?
Cavalry Units were often used to put down unrest and maintain order in town’s villages and cities. I think that’s loosely the reason why.
@@seanmarkham6965 It seems to me that light cavalry or dragoons would be better suited for the role though. Heavy cavalry is expensive, slow to get ready, and overkill to deal with a mob.
I think it used to refer specifically to mounted police.
Carabinieri means a soldier armed with a carbine, not a cavalryman. In their earliest form they are known as dragoons. The heavy cavalry connection is more with the corazzieri (cuirassiers), their ceremonial mounted division
In Canada our national police force are the RCMP which stands for Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their colloquial name is mounties. Seems like mounted units are quite effective at intimidating crowds of people, especially when they charge, which makes them effective at internal suppression.
Anyone else remember when this channel was at 20k subs? So cool to see it grow. Quality content you guys deserve it
Wow your French is very good ! Congrats ! Very good vidéo as Always btw !
Love the é
Not the first guy here but definitevly the most happy over a new video.
French mounted units have 20% HP. 🛡️🐎
Finally someone covered it.
most sources on it i found are bit brief, thanks for this.
First standing army in Europe or not, this video is fantastic, as usual
This is my favourite history related youtube channel, and I'm following like 10 other ones. I also like the host's accent. I find it oddly comforting and pleasant to the ear.
Hello community. And congratulations for the treatment of this subject. I'm amazed how well an Englishman could shake our gendarmerie, a true pillar of the French state. Of course the history of the gendarmerie will experience a much higher development with the Napoleonic wars. When the "Royal Maréchausée" became the "National Gendarmerie". Institution always so active within the France of the 21st century.
Do we casually ignore the fabulous story of the archer and his worms?
A wonderful video about French grandarmy...thanks for sharing
awesome. you guys cover such an under reported area of history, and so thoroughly.
Not often I learn something new about these matters from youtube, but I did today. Well done.
brilliant content. people should learn to watch the video before commenting though. it's ridiculous how many comments are about romans, ottomans etc.
Yes, just watch this excellent video... Who cares who were the first standing army of Europe...
French cavalry armour would not be fully phased out until WW1, funnily enough.
Many things from centuries prior were not phased out until WW1, brutal awakening everyone had to receive and my words really don’t do much justice explaining here. Poor Italians charging those Austrians over and over lol.
@@cjclark2002 12 battles of the Isonzo River….
English tried their damnedest Agincourt
Was gone from TH-cam for a few days and come back to the pleasant surprise of a new SandRhoman video! Best way to return. 🏰 😁
I love the art style. So unique. It's like a mixture of realism and caricature.
How is the late Gendarmes compare to Winged Hussar of Poland? Poland cavalry certainly seems to adapt well in a pike and shot era.
Different tactics and equipment.
Gendarmes are super heavy armoured and normally armed cavalry while Winged Hussars are armoured normally and armed with special super long lances.
The former are exposed to a pike formation during a charge the latter outreach them.
@@lars9925 how long were their lances? They must have been pretty insane to be able to outreach pikes?
@@seanmarkham6965
They were pretty insane and usually ranged from 4.5 to 6.2 metres.
It's worth noting however that till about 1570's the backbone of polish cavalry formations was made of heavy lancers (pl. Kopijnicy) similiar to french gendarmes of the era. They were replaced with lighter cavalry formations around the same time as the french gendarmes.
Nicely informative video. I like it when little known subjects are talked about.
Thank you for this vidéo 🇨🇵♥️
Très bel effort de français, bravo !
How did i just find his channel this is amazing content
Brilliant video with a great artstyle.
the low countries (more or less the modern benelux) had an answer to the "gen d'armes" namely the "Bande d'ordonnance" of knights and men at arms from the low countries lead by the Gruuthuse family from Bruges, Europe's second standing army. Maximilian of Austria, emperor of the HRE, managed to keep is empire together, and enlarge it even thanks to them.
I love the animations!!! It doesn't matter the subject - your animations make any subject interesting. You could even make an episode of 18th century regimental uniform buttons and I would still find it fascinating! 😁
I think the reason the Gendarmes is often being overlooked is because in the debate between who has the first permanent standing army in Europe between France and the Ottoman Empire and most of the times, people often said that it is the Janissary Corps that is the first permanent standing army in Europe. Even Wikipedia said that, believe me.
And since you made a contradiction with this video, why is this the case? Why do you think the Gendarmes, not the Janissary Corps, is the first permanent standing army in Europe?
we don't really think that (as we point out later on in the video). Hence the inverted commas in the title. Generally speaking, this is highly controversial. However, most historians that dedicate their time to the Gendarmes name them as a contender of for either being the first standing army in Europe or in France. It's a matter of definition. Does "standing army" refer to a force that is permanently ready or is the vital criteria that the army is centrally controlled ir that it is structured similarly to a modern military? Well, one historian says one thing, another says another thing. our task is merely to point out the controversy and discuss it.
Roman legionaries: am I a joke to you?
The byzantines/Romans did this millenia earlier
Janissaries were neither a standing army neither a new thing on its own. They were slave/domestic soldiers, basically retainerd praetorians whose loyalty wasn't going to the Sultan, even less to the State, but to whose they basically chose to support. More often than not Sultans had to buy out the Janissary of the Porte as to be officially recognized. They were organized on the Ghulam system of the Persians or the Abbasid califate. Meanwhile the rest of Ottoman forces were based upon the Iqta system, which is roughly a variation of the feudal military system we know in Europe.
Gendarmes were proper soldiers however, paid by the state on regular basis and regulated. They were not palace guards or praetorians.
@@imperator7828 they did mention the Romans in the video
Excellent topic, I would like you to make a video at some point about the first modern Marine Infantry in history, which were the so-called Spanish "Tercios del Mar", fundamental troops to maintain control of the Mediterranean against the Turks and Barbary pirates (the Battle of Lepanto is the most outstanding); also to carry out military operations in America (for example the Battle of San Cristobal in 1629 against the French and English) and Oceania (the Battle of Cagayan in 1582 against the Wako Pirates); It will surely be a very interesting topic for the channel, greetings.
They were the first standing army. That gave Spain an advantage over other countries, and is perhaps the main reason why Spain turned into the mightiest empire of the world. The tercios were trained in Italy and the men trained togheter and their experience were maintained over time - unlike other countries armies which were dissolved as soon as a war was over.
But the tercios learned from their combat experience and passed their knowledge on to new troops.
Spain became a country for inspiration for other countries and many spanish words have become standard use in other armies.. I don't access to Jan Glete's book so I type from my own fallible memory now, but I think he said that the word spanish word regimiento from that time was copied by other countries and came into use all over Europe.
So Spain became an empire that included America, Italy, the Benelux countries and Portugal thanks to royal marriages and exploration.
Its army was super modern for its day. But the empire itself was a relic of the past. It was a feudal medieval Kingdom.
All those small places were members of the Spanish empire but they paid nearly no taxes and the Spanish state had limited power over those areas. And the push for more centralization, more catholicism and more taxes angered the Netherlands who declared independence. Italy and Portugal did not want to pay taxes either. And the Spanish state did for a while let them get away with it.
The Spanish army was good. Too good for Spains own good. The Spanish Kings stopped caring about longwinded and difficult diplomatic negotiations with other countries to get what they want. But instead did they take the faster and more easy solution to use the worlds most powerful army to ram through their will. And it first it did work well. But soon did all dreams and imperial ambitions and use of force become too much for Spain.
They got involved in war after war. They fought against the Netherlands who sought independence. They fought against North African pirates. They fought against the muslim Ottomans. They sent their Spanish armada towards England. They involved themselves in the 30 years war and fought against Swedish and French troops. Portugal had enough of all wars that had costed them their colonies so they also started a war with Spain.
And all those wars did cost money. But the decentralized Spanish state could not afford it - especially not since it only was Castile who paid taxes, while Italy, Belgium and Portugal did not. The Spanish state were in desperate times, and the many provinces finally agreed to paying a little taxes to the Spanish state - but only if they got more local independence.
So the once strong and centralized Spanish state which had been ahead of the rest of the world did not become more decentralized and weak compared to other countries. Its economy was in decline while other countries were on the rise
with more centralized and effiecent buraucracies.
England, Netherlands, Sweden and France was on the rise. And Spain never really retook its once dominant role in Europe.
@@nattygsbord Ok, but I don't understand what the history of the first Marine Corps has to do with everything you've just said, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. In addition, you forget that the history of the Spanish Empire did not end with the fall of the Spanish Habsburgs, many of those problems that you say were solved with the arrival of the first Bourbon kings and although Spain ceased to be the first power, it did not stop forming part of the group of European powers (at least in the first 5 empires), until the Napoleonic Wars, which is when the decline is definitive, practically more than 1 century after everything you say. I know that this is already in question of the opinion and the historical appreciation that each one gives it, but it is not as dark as you paint it, but look at the influence that Spain had in conflicts such as the War of Austrian Succession, The War of Polish Succession and in the Independence of the 13 Colonies in North America; So I'm not as ignorant of the subject as you might think.
@
*"I don't understand what the history of the first Marine Corps"*
I realize now that I did waste both your time and my time because I did not read properly. I thought you wondered about the tercio :P
Sorry amigo.
*"it is not as dark as you paint it"*
That question is always up for debate. Like with almost all other empires. Its usually said that Spain declined in the 1650s.
But it was however possible that the empire could have recovered. It still had much lands in America. And it cannot be denied that the Habsburgs had a lot of diplomatic power as well.
But to me its more interesting if the empire could have taken another path while it was strong, could it have centralized itself and made all lands outside castile pay their fair share of taxes for military protection?
Could the country have become a hub of manufacturing industry like England and the Netherlands?
What would have happened if the country had been less eager to go to war and commit religious prosecution?
To me it seems possible that Spain could have conquered half of Europe if it had taken another path.
*"I'm not as ignorant of the subject as you might think"*
I am not from the Spanish speaking world so my knowledge is probably limited compared to yours.
@@nattygsbord Okay, no problem friend, that's why I miss your comment, because that's not what mine was about.
Well, speculation can exist with the subject of the Empire, but the reasons are more complex than they seem and the answers are almost elusive because it needs to be understood far beyond the historical perspectives from which each of us has studied or read. Although I am quite a fan of the history of my Spanish motherland, I have to admit that perhaps a possible reason for the path that was taken in terms of early industrialization in the Empire, was due to a large extent to the dependence on trade with its large territorial extensions, compared to Netherlands, France and England, which had to expand their internal manufacturing system to be able to compete and then get ready in the sense of international powers. The Count-Duke of Olivares in the government of Philip IV tried to make the reforms that the Empire needed to keep the path with the other European nations, but there came a cultural problem that Ibero-Americans have always had and that is resistance to change, which that ended with a discontent of the different kingdoms that made up the monarchy and that in the end ended up weakening Spain. Regarding the Dutch issue, it must be taken into account that in those times it was believed that the kingdom should have the same faith as its monarch and that is why, for example, Protestantism triumphed in Northern Europe when the nobles converted very quickly; with that I say that Philip II was within his rights to defend the religious integrity of his empire, the true origin of the Dutch error I do not give to him, but to his father Charles V, who being a Flemish, was not able to understand that those territories were going to be problematic for his son who had grown up on the peninsula unlike him, so the most successful thing should have been to leave the Netherlands as part of the Habsburg Austrian heritage, instead of the Spanish. The Portuguese case is actually different from what its historiography says, the Empire was one, but each one was in charge of keeping their part and it is true that the war was Spanish fault, but the weakness to defend the Portuguese territories was due to themselves, Spain supported the military efforts and even managed to recover several of its lost overseas territories, but the Portuguese positions were weakly protected and the only thing that kept them before was their pre-unification diplomacy, the separation of the kingdoms was due more To a conspiracy caused by the hunger for power of the family of the wife of the future monarch of Portugal, who was of Spanish noble origin and their independence weakened them more than helped them, it took them many years to gain strength again. In any case, the Empire resisted and maintained the integrity of a large part of its territory until the end of the War of Spanish Succession, where the territorial loss balanced the European balance, although it did not mean, as I said above, the end of Iberian power. I do not say this with the intention of extending the discussion or going against it, but to share what I know just like you did, perhaps it will help to understand things in a more global way, the truth is that no truth is absolute and no perspective is close to 100% of the total reality.
No creas amigo, de seguro en muchas partes sabes más que yo, lo bueno es que con estas discusiones constructivas, uno aprende algo más del otro, saludos. =)
Very interesting. Thanks!
Great content, as always!!
Possible correction: the default strategy during the early parts of the hundred years war was 'Chevauchée' - raiding of enemy territory. The book I read on the hundred years war made it clear that the british longbowmen were mounted on campaign (though with less remounts than the men at arms) & this mobility contributed to the english side's ability to choose the field of pitched battle in early campaign(s).
New video! Exciting :3
Great video!
New animations are very nice.
5:45 Here you say that the average man in the company of ordinance would be a nobleman. Does this include the archers, light cavalryman, etc. or by "man" do you mean just the fully armored man at arms?
Oh ouah tu prononce vraiment bien. Bien joué. Continue le français.
Well done for your french.
I really like how alot of medieval helmets look different from one-another
Great video
10:10 entire thing got a chuckle from me. Whether today or hundreds of years back, one can find numerous stories of people being extremely petty & stupid.
Needs more COMMERCIALS! 😃
Oh, yeah! I forgot that the French peasants and city-dwellers used to call ALL "men at arms" (French or English - regardless!) as "escourcheur". It comes from the Latin "(EX)-CORTEX-TICIS", where "cortex" is the "bark" of the tree, so the FULL WORD means "THOSE WHO TAKE OFF THE SKIN" (the GOT "house Of Bolton" comes to mind! :)... ) In Italy we have the verb "SCORTICARE" and they were called "SCORTICATORI" as in - PROBABLY! - they used FLAYING as their favourite method of extracting informations regarding the whereabouts of hidden stashes of gold or silver, when ransacking a city, an "area" or a castle ... whatever you have! ...QUITE probably!... :)
evolved into modern French "écorcher" / "écorcheur"
What was the name of the cavalry quote:"cavalry are not bothered with killing unless in the pursuit of victory"? Blaia demolux?
You mean Blaise de Montluc?
Lancers were used effectively up until the development of the repeating rifle
They were pretty effective at Omdurman
All this hair splitting in the comments over who had the first standing army in Europe. I don't care who was first. It is the informative and interesting content about a group I knew little about that concerns me.
This is the word.
12:42 CROWN OF ARAGORN? The autocorrect is (too) strong in this one ...
werent the gendarmes pretty effective during the italian wars in the early 16th century alongside and working as combined arms with swiss pikemen? I remember that on a good few occasions, as the pikes would pin down other pikes, the gendarmes would swoop in from the flanks or back to break the enemy pike formation.
Kinda remind me of the hungarian banderium, except they were funded by nobles and clergy.
The Gendarmes look great in total full plate.
I Love your Channel
When we start creating power armor we should draw inspiration from this time period.
can u do the next video on Spanish Jinetes :D!? SPECIALLY since ck3 just released the Iberia struggle dlc Spanish history is all the suddent very interesting
Yeah this may be interesting, all I know is that they were influenced by Berber light cavalry and the name jinete comes from the Berber tribe zenata
heaviest cavalry in the west ..?
i suppose itd be a close run thing, but id imagine theyd be the heaviest cavalry in the world at the time
and the most shock dedicated
Perhaps he missed this in the video, but what were the differences between the Gendarmes and Knights? Were they different?
Same man. Learned French in school and forgot most of it
always liked ultra heavy knights
Pls make this the next medieval total war.
I have a video suggestion: The last great cavalry battles before cavalry disappeared from the battlefield. The Franco-Prussian war and the Battle of Littlebig Horn come to mind.
Polish-Soviet War, too.
Age of Empire 4 Brought me here.
I love the french Knights. My opponents don't love'em that much
Well apparently I've been pronouncing Valois very wrong all my life. I'm 34 and think this is the first time I've knowingly heard Valois spoken.
How did you pronounce Valois? If you pronounce it the English way just remember "oi" in French is pronounced as "wa"
@@SaintJust1214 like va lose. So very wrong
13:40 *as an french king once said, the Archer class IS made of archers*
great video, but at 12:30 it says Crown of Aragorn, rather than Aragon.
Fun fact: In the game Europa Universalis IV, the Crown of Aragon (Aragorn) has some missions to conquer Gondar (Gondor) and defeat Saruhan (Saruman).
I cant speak or understand spoken french, but weirdly enough I can read it. My province is English/French so I've been seeing french words beside english words my whole life.
The companies d’ordonnance, the original dnd parties of real life.
The prime reason of the pike & shot (tercio) system's creation was the French victory against the Spaniards at the battle of Seminara in 1495. The French Gendarmes and Swiss pikemen trounced the opposing troops and the Spaniards decided that they had to come up with a reform to be able to efficiently face this threat.
It worked so well that the Spaniards were almost undefeated for alost 150 yrs.
The French victory at the battle of Rocroi in 1643 against the Spaniards, was the end of their supremacy (After Rocroi, the Spanish abandoned the Tercio system and adopted the line infantry doctrine used by the French).
Do ou draw your art yourself?
Whenever I hear Crécy I say out loud Crécy!
VIVE LA FRANCE !
Would the English longbowmen not be considered an earlier professional army compared to the Gendarmes?
Everybody laughs at the times French cavalry failed forgetting the way, WAY more numerous times they charged and trampled, inflicting devastation.
In the Strategikon, Maurice says about the Franks "don't let their cavalry charge you" or something like that. Little changed in the region for centuries and centuries.
i do wonder how they managed to get horses to charge at infantry , a potentialy interesting topic to explore
i think "escorcherie" fits better as "the flaying" or "the scorching" due to escorchier "to strip off the skin" coming from excorticare and the fact that these roving marauders essentially practiced scorched earth tactics
Hasn't plate mail been more accurately discovered to weigh about 40lbs at most?
Knights around 4:20 are actually Polish knights charging at mercenary infantry of Teutonic order.
Gendarmes acctually evolved to become a lighter cavalry with guns and they were reformed a few times after that until they were disband, after that another kind of group/soldier became the gendarme we know today.
"Gens" is better translated as "People" than as "Men".
Not really, "gens d'armes" is literally men-at-arms.
Why is it that in many of the movies, documentaries, video games etc , full plate-armoured knights and men at arms are shown without shields? shields are used to recieve blows, cover from missile fire and shattered lances during cavalry charges. For example in Malta in the Grandmaster's armoury we still have full suits of plate-armour with buckler shields carrying the coa and guilded the same. Many of them were used in battles and sieges. The full Armoured knights and men at arms of the XV-XVI centuries did use shields and many still survive to this day in armouries, museums and private collections, etc. The only way full-plate armoured knights , men at arms and lords didn't carry a shield is when they fought dismounted carrying 2 handed swords, halberds, pole axes etc.
First in case of documentaries they sometimes get things wrong. And the others don't care. But why can't a zweihander/ two handed sword be used on horseback. It would really bring deadly.
@@jihanessa4132 You made a good point, cos Actually some did carry them on horseback even polearms especially during the renaissance gunpowder weapons had traditions and tactics changed rapidly but thats my point, that without shields how would mounted or unmounted knights and men at arms cover against axe blows, warhammers, maces, flails, hails of arrows, crossbow bolts and even arquebusiers etc? As for documentaries you're right these days they are nothing compared to documentaries of decades ago.
@@stefanvella9807 I understand. I also think that old domentaries are better and you can't even find them
@@stefanvella9807 just imagine being a random jannisary and seeing crazy German and french cavalry wielding huge 2 metres swords and halberd to your face. Lol no wonder these defended vienna so well.
@@stefanvella9807 well I am pretty sure they had shields. They are still used today by riot police. It is essential.
If these guys were the heaviest cavalry in the West rocking that kind of armored weight, who in the heck rode around more heavily equipped lol? Outside of war elephants I guess
So Calais?
What is a man-at-arms? That basically a calvarymen?
It's more than that and it varies a bit between countries. In France the terme "homme d'arme" (actual translation of man at arm whereas the "gens d'armes" first refers to the heavy knight of the 15 to 16 century) would refer to any soldier fighting with a melee weapon.
Meaning a knight, a non noble cavalry man or any infantryman with a pole weapon etc would be under the category of man at arm. The other category being called "homme de trait" (can't really translate it well, you could say "man at range" or "man at shoot" if you want to keep in the theme) who are all the soldiers using any range weapon.
@@reym_8229 that's kind of what I thought, men-at-arms being more of a generic term for non-noble soldier. The regular Infantry.
Me clicking on this video to FINALLY figure out how to pronounce it after seeing them in Medieval 2 TW:
Does anyone know why the free archers at 5:33 are armed with what appear to be composite recurve bows? I have no doubt that they may have been familiar with them, but I don’t usually see western archers depicted with composite bows.
That's a pulled bow, not a compound
@@battlez9577 the bows seem to have reflexed tips (siyahs) that point forward when it’s not drawn. Even at full draw, the tips point almost straight up and down, rather than back towards the archer, as a self bow. So these are definitely composite recurves (not compound, which uses pulleys and gears and is a decidedly modern design)
First "Noteable" Standing army belonged to the Egyptian Pharoes and their MASSIVE Chariot armies in the Bronze Age. There might have been Semi-Permanent forces before that or even fully fledged pro's. However by the time we reach "Ramses The great" or "Ramses the Second" We start seeing large formations of Trained and professional charioteers, considering the great expense and the absolutely Insane difficulty of keeping 20,000 Thousand horses and Charioteers and footmen ready at a moments notice (Aka About a month if I recall) To collect the entire at any given point in the Kingdom (Transported Via the Nile), it is rather safe to say that the Organisational level rivals that of other great powers later on. (Edit: All of which was controlled and commanded directly by the Pharaoh in times of war, without any feudal ties)
The First Bulgarian Empire (that is in Europe right, in fact the third largest after the East Roman/Byzantine and Charlemagne's ones) had a standing army of around 12-15, 000 cavalry (light and heavy) and it was augmented by recruitment of infantry consisting of peasantry levies!
Honestly there is a issue with definition of standing army. Because even Greek ancient cities had some standing armies like 3000 years ago. But I think the main change when we consider it a standing army from our point of view is a professional army which is directly serving the nation or the government effectively. So there are lot of historical armies or organizations which we could probably consider standing armies or even professional standing armies but they often lack in the economical, organizational and strategical side to be truly consider a proper standing and elite army. But honestly the first standing and professional army in Europe were Roman legions in Imperial era, because they fit in almost all criteria.