Carbon 12 quite write...thank you SOOO much four tayking the tyme to corect my speling and pour gramar, as opozed to reeding between tha lines with such joy in youre hart that you wrekognise That in this day and age spells and gramar areent as impotent az keeping chins up and spirits hi. ya wukfit.
You lads had entirely too much fun doing this. I think it should be a weekly series where you and Lloyd talk about hypothetical Alien biology and the martial implications. Thanks for sharing Matt!
I personally don't consider myself enough of an expert on the subject to argue the point, but I can recommend a really good video on it if you've got a spare 25 minutes :) th-cam.com/video/ojBwASARAzo/w-d-xo.html
For anybody who didn't realise, it was 100% sarcasm. Braveheart is often voted as the most unhistorical 'historical movie' ever made. It is literally made of bullshit, even if it's quite enjoyable as a film.
"Literally made of bullshit" May I quote you on that? because that's absolutely brilliant! hahaha Also don't worry, my original comment was made with the knowledge that you were being sarcastic.
That Battle of Jutland movie would be good but the 2nd punic war one would be amazing. Especially if it portrayed both sides kind of like Clint Eastwood did with Flag of Our Father's and Letters From Iwo Jima.
Hi, Matt . On the bow question -- irregular bashkir cavalry brought to Europe by the Russian empire to fight napoleonic wars were using bows as a weapon. They had to equip themselves as good as possibe so bows were used by a lot of them. That gives us around 1812.
I'd like to see films or shows about the Thirty Years' War. For its enormous influence on the development of Europe and broader European civilization, it gets overlooked. The only movie I know about that deals with it is The Last Valley, and public awareness of the Thirty Years' War's existence and importance is severely lacking.
Thanks for the ideas about historical films, Matt/Lloyd/commenters! I have forty browser tabs open now, and will research every single one eventually. I'm a small-time filmmaker, and while the unlimited budget part of my question isn't coming true any time soon, I do hope to make an accurate historical combat film some day. (I must say, I expected the answers to be all medieval/renaissance. We must have some serious history buffs in this audience, not just sword geeks.)
ooh! I Was originally running this one just so you'd both get the views, I didn't realize that you'd actually have different questions! Glad I didn't shut the volume off!
I'd like to see a good battle of Grunwald movie. Major event in history, one of the largest medieval battles and underrepresented in the west (I have seen an old Polish one that was interesting, can't remember or spell the title) and I think has a lot of moments that could be made into good drama. Easy enough to portray the Teutonic Knights as the bad guys, continuing their crusade even after the justification of bringing Christianity was irrelevant via conversions. (they kind of overdid this in the polish one I saw, including a scene with the knights talking about how they'll rule for "a thousand years" and all joining together to shout "Heil!" this was the communist era after-all everything had to have propaganda). It's got a real underdog story going on with the Poles and Lithuanians beating back the well disciplined and equipped knights. The presentation of the two swords is just great drama, and then of course the massive battle with tons of cavalry.
I cannot agree more! I would also love if Matt would cover this topic. Although I don't believe he is an expert on the subject, I would still like to see what he has to say about it in terms of the new technology and variety of tactics used in the battle, and continuing into the Hussite Wars (handgonnes, fortified wagons with handgonners, mobile forts made of these wagons, mixed heavy and light cavalry with false retreats from the light cavalry, Eastern horse archers, etc...)!
Yeah, the Hussite wars would be cool to see. You could even have the first Defenestration of Prague in there to help kick things off. It's a pretty important set of events, a precursor of sorts to the Protestant Reformation. And you've again got the underdog story of the Hussites facing down well armed and armored knights, and winning. And handgonnes are very much non-represented on screen. I don't think I've ever seen one. And combined with the war wagons, would really be dramatic to see on screen.
They could do the Battle of Jutland tomorrow with CGI if they really wanted to, but who would go and see it (apart from me)? Now, a movie about Bert Trautmann - that would be something!
I would love an endless budget film or... Actually just make it a bunch of films from different points of view, like Letters From Iwo-Jima and Flags of Our Fathers or a long tv-series, of the 30 years war. A whole ton of participants, mercenaries switching sides, pike blocks and greatswords, cuirassiers, cannons, muskets, sieges, witch-hunts... It has everything one could want. Well, nasty shit, but still very interesting.
30 Years War is a damn fine choice. Massively important, but I don't know of any movies about it oddly enough. There likely are some European ones, but in the US? Not that I know of.
Yeah, it's underrepresented as hell. And I don't understand why, because you can really do almost anything with it and 17th century combat is ridiculously awesome... Even from a movie point of view it's great because you can have both the meat-grinder-hell of war movies set in, say WWII, as well as melee combat with flashing swords, pikes, and all that.
Bow actually does sound like a GOOD IDEA to deal with un-armored and un-shielded musketeers, the rate of fire and the ability to LOB arrows over obstacles makes the musketeers an easy target. - The armor is removed from soldiers because a bullet/ball can penetrate it, so they wear just PLAIN UNIFORMS with muskets, so if you have a line of archers hidden in the forest and you got a battalion of musketeers marching, until they face you in formation and start shooting probably half of them are going to be WOUNDED. :D
and to ADD something based on Lindybeige's video, only 2% of the Musketeers will shoot to kill, while an ARCHER has no idea if he is going to hit the enemy on long-distance so he has no problem to shoot fast as possible with the intention NOT TO KILL and still kill someone :D
On guns replacing bows. Arrows take up a lot more space in transport than bullets and powder and requires working people making them while bullets can easily be stamped by the soldiers themselves. So logistic wise, guns make more sense for a large army looking for a sustained fight.
While that is true, the fact that muskets are more accurate over 100 yards than bows, have a flatter trajectory and do much more damage to bodies... these reasons are all nails in the coffin for archery. There is really no reason to use a bow if a musket is available, with the one possible exception of 'rate of fire'.
Heck the most under-represented period of history plus geography is probably pre-colonial America, what with the Aztecs, Incans, and Maya. Pretty sure they've only even been mentioned in pop culture as a whole in relation to how they were killed by the Spanish. Here's essentially an entire alternate human history and it goes completely untouched.
Would that be due in part to a lack of written material being left behind by them? I'm actually curious. I have no idea how much we know of them and would love to see a TV show or movie set in this era + location!
SirMuffinCat Yes, that's a huge part of the issue. With so little recorded in writing, the alternative way to acquire similar knowledge is when you can link an archaeological sight to an extant oral tradition. It's not an easy business, and I suspect our perception of Pre-Colombian America will always be rather murky.
Both the Aztecs and the Maya have left some written sources (though the Spanish burned hundreds of Mayan codexes as pagan artefacts) and we have tons of imagery and archaeological sources. The fact that individual events are hard to trace should not stand in the way of making a good and reasonably accurate film.
6:16 Norwegian resistance using bows and crossbows That sounds interesting. Could anyone recommend some site where I could read more about it? Quick googling it up wasn't very helpful.
"Bows in European battlefields." I've read an account of an American using a bow during the Vietnam War. Truly, he put Rambo to shame! He was part of MACVSOG (the unit you are in Black Ops 1), a top-secret special ops group that ran missions only in Laos, North Vietnam, and Cambodia. The CIA handed control of covert operations over to the US Army in 1964 (CIA direct involvement dates to 61), a year before Gulf of Tonkin in 65. Thus, MACVSOG was born to wage illegal acts of war well before America declared war. SOG missions were usually stealth recon - 5 man missions. The main idea was to spot targets for B-52 "Arc Light" strikes, plant listening devices along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and monitor the trail's traffic. They were at first called the "Special Operations Group" but that makes what they are OBVIOUS (in a war famous for intelligence leaks, often the VC or NVA knew of American operations before our own troops or commanders did). They were later re-named the "Studies and Observation Group," meant to be a bunch of nerds studying statistics (Vietnam was fought by the numbers and in line with McNamara's Whiz Kids philosophy... stupid...). Most of the time Nung, Montagnard, and Hmong mercenaries were used to supplement an American or two - keeping Americans only 10% of the force kept US casualties down! Because only American bodies matter in the body count... That's important when your unit doesn't officially exist, they signed Non-Disclosure agreements for 50 years (which is why we only recently heard so much about them!), and they go in "sterile" which means using only equipment anyone could have got. Uncle Sam would 100% deny knowledge of their existence, if captured they could never expect rescue; except by their own comrades, who went to truly Herculean efforts to rescue their POWs, they never recovered any Americans but they did save some of their foreign mercenaries. Years after the war, North Vietnam offered Ronald Reagan a few hundred "left over prisoners" in exchange for a million dollars a piece. They were probably SOG, because they didn't exist they were not part of the peace treaty. Reagan refused... and people think he's a strong military man and big tough patriot... I'd have said give them back or we'll TAKE them back. About the bow. Stealth was a big deal on SOG missions, not every weapon could be silenced or even had silencers made for it. So this particular soldier has a collapsible compound bow that he decided to bring along in case because "What the hell." The squad of 5 ended up pinned down and surrounded on all sides in a shell crater from a B-52 strike. As the enemy closed in, this soldier once again figured "What the hell" and broke out his bow, knocked an arrow, figured about where the enemy was in the closest bit of brush, stood straight up out of the crater and loosed his arrow towards the guessed enemy position before instantly squatting back down. IMMEDIATELY enemy fire ceased, and the enemy fell back! The SOG guys thought it was a trick, the enemy was conserving ammo, or preparing to rush the crater with bayonets, SOMETHING! But no, they eventually crawled out and found their enemies had all fled, and they were evacuated no problems. IMO, SOG soldiers were known as terrifying boogeymen to the VC/NVA - real life Rambos. There were special units trained and dedicated to hunting them with radio direction finders, dogs, expert trackers, etc. Anyone who killed or captured a SOG soldier was given a gold watch, HUGE cash bonus, and weeks of leave in the cushiest spots the Commies could send their soldiers. When SOG conducted an operation to capture a live truck driver for interrogation, and they got their hands on the poor bastard, he almost shit himself to death in fear and panic at the sight of them opening the door to his truck and dragging him into the jungle night. I have no trouble believing that seeing an incredible display of almost psycho bravery might break the Vietnamese in that firefight. Also, Spetsnaz has noted an interesting fact. First, Spetsnaz carries sharp entrenching shovels and uses them as effectively as any samurai ever used his Nihonto swords. They must swing the shovel between their own fingers and not miss, and be able to throw it hard at distance until it sticks into a tree and is difficult to remove. Spetsnaz has found that if 2 people see each other and shoot, they tend to stay shooting until one is hit. However, if one combatant throws a shovel (or hatchet or other large visible weapon) the enemy tends to cease fire and move out of the way of the thrown weapon. I think that factor (visible, large, sharp, projectile weapon) is what caused the Vietnamese to retreat from the SOG in that particular firefight. I"m not saying it's a reliable or common effect, only that it happened that time. Additional fact: SOG were the first to use the HALO jump. They also invented it. Every single place to land choppers was watched by Communist Vietnamese with radio direction finders to track the commandos and a radio to inform HQ the Americans were landing. Zones could be carved out by bombing or artillery, but that also telegraphs that they are coming. So, they decided to jump out a plane REALLY high up and open their chutes REALLY low. A few Nung/Homong/Montagnard mercenaries volunteered for the training, and were present on the world's 1st HALO jump. The technique was remarkably successful, when most other insertions resulted in enemy contact and the (typically) 5 day mission being cut short and ending in a dangerous evac. SOG used out-dated helicopters (the type we used in Korea) because they were better and hovering close to the sides of a hill and other dangerous positions to extract the commandos, where a Huey would have no hope.
@ 15:01 The Romans would simply have started using the Dolabrae they were issued with, to deal with knights. We know, because they did in fact fully-armored people in strong armor. This was IIRC during a Gallic rising in the 1st Century AD, led by one Sacrovir.
Underrepresented = 30 years war. Seriously are there ANY movies about this? I'm hoping there might be some German language ones out there but my searches haven't found any yet.
To be honest, even as a german I found only two, both from the 70tys: The last Valley en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Valley_(1971_film) and Wallenstein de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenstein_(1978). The first is british/american and the second a german one. Furthermore we have a few novels and plays about it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Courage_and_Her_Children en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krabat_(film) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicius_Simplicissimus and they also get filmed but are not entirely connected to the real history. And we have some documentarys but not many and not translated to english. I hope I was able to help you and my horrible english is at lest understandable.
Well what I've taken from this is the hand switching during the duel in the Princess Bride was not only plausible but highly likely between master fencers. :)
Once you get to know enough people of different backgrounds you come to realize, good, intelligent, decent people will be wrong about things you care about. (and you may just be in that camp yourself) It is fine to like a person who is wrong. And if they are wrong on one thing it doesn't immediately invalidate their status as an intelligent or decent person. Some stances might be deal breakers for you. That is what it is. But I'm friends with a lot of people who are idiots on certain subjects, (even who, en masse, I could make the claim are 'harming' the world) and yet as they indulge my idiocy on other subjects we get along fine. If I can befriend people who are WRONG, surely I can enjoy youtube videos by others.
You might end up with a few people trying to be DM there ;-) It would probably work better if someone else hosted and ran it and we were all forced to be players. That would certainly be a lot of fun.
Was your time commander bit with Lloyd ever recorded? I seem to recall that you or someone else there had said there would be a video, but I never found one.
As to why the Thirty Years' War gets overlooked in the public imagination and is relatively unknown by the public, I can think of a few reasons. It's mainly the complexity of the conflict. It involved the decaying Holy Roman Empire that consisted of hundreds of semi-autonomous principalities, each with its own head and motivations. It involved most European powers, who wanted spoils and to keep central Europe fragmented and weak for the sake of future geopolitics. All this of course means that just studying it in depth and understanding it requires knowledge of numerous European languages, including Latin, since many official documents were still written in Latin at the time. The motives behind the war were a mishmash of religious ideologies and political and economic concerns, and where the ideal ends and the material begins can be difficult and maybe impossible to tease apart, especially since it's convenient to conceal base motives with lofty religious rhetoric. But this doesn't mean that religious feeling wasn't real and wasn't a motivator in the wars. Then there's the issue that presenting the conflict truthfully would show many European powers in a bad light and might even provoke sympathy or at least understanding for the aggressive, Prussian-dominated Germany of centuries later that was heavily shaped by the Thirty Years' War. That's not convenient. And understanding the war's end requires understanding the nation-state and how it differs from a a system of religiously justified states in which other polities adhering to the wrong faith is a pretext for invasion. This sort of history of ideas or history of the evolution of political systems is difficult to boil down for the public in a broadly consumable way but is integral to the story of the Thirty Years' War's ending and of the conflict's significance. On the whole, this series of wars is one of the all-time clusterfucks.
Not to disagree, but at least one movie HAS been made about the 30 Years War; The Last Valley. Michael Cain (of Zulu and Batman fame) was one of the stars, and has said that it was his favorite movie in making.
"One of the things Ford had always found hardest to understand about humans was their habit of continually stating and repeating the very very obvious, as in ‘It’s a nice day’, 'You’re very tall’, or 'You seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you alright?’ At first Ford had formed a theory to account for this strange behaviour. If human beings don’t keep exercising their lips, he thought, their mouths probably seize up. After a few months’ consideration and observation, he abandoned this theory in favour of a new one. If they don’t keep exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working."
I actually think the early 18th century is underrepresented, and some good realistic films on colonial warfare would be epic. Also, early 1800s America sounds like a good film setting as well, especially the Texas vs Mexico conflict.
Hello Matt, great to see you both together again! The video is always amazing when you too are in, at the same time very informative and funny! By the way, I would want to translate your videos, to allow the most interested french community to understand your videos! But for now it seems that this option is not allowed for the community members. I hope you can fix that, I sent you a more detailed message already.
The Elephant question - in the 18th Century (Clive of India period) the Native Indian armies were typically hed by an Elephant mounted leader. The standard British response was to fire artillery at the offending pachyderm - 6 pounder v Elephant is a fairly one sided match up!
I'm not mad my question was dodged, just disappointed. :( Still a big fan though, I was not trying to be mean! The reason I said 'him' and not Loyd was because the title of your video was: 'Questions for Lindybeige (Lloyd) & scholagladiatoria (Matt Easton)'. So in that context it made sense. And obviously I was referring to 'man-made' climate change in the context of Loyd's earlier videos on the subject, but I think you both knew that already ;)
@Avant-garde Student. I studied Environmental Science in college, but I have learned better than to argue climate change on the internet with strangers. So no sir I can not, 'really look into scientific studies and draw conclusions'. I suspect if you actually were inclined to look at the facts in an impartial manner you yourself would of come to the sensible conclusion without my help. Lets just agree to disagree and not clog up the comment section though shall we?
The only reason I asked the question is because Lindy made a series of videos on the subject, if he had just made a passing comment I would never have been so forward as to have asked in the first place.
Patrick McCurry the fact you think he confused climate for weather is not a good sign for your knowledge. Climate is literally always changing. The ice ages? Triassic heatwave? The time scale may be massively longer but it is literally always changing.
The mongols or Tamerlane could definitely make the imperial Rome run for their money. And during the mongol invasion several European countries amassed armies comparable sizes to Roman armies. By the 10th-14th century armies 20-100 000 men were not uncommon. These armies were also pretty well equipped. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kulikovo en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Achelous_(917) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717%E2%80%93718)
Frederick I had an army of 100k, including 20 000 knights. There's no way legions with only swords and throwing spears could hold up against that many knights.
Jutland with real ships....... best suggestion of the year. (PS add the battle of coronel and the Falkland's and we would be in for a treat). Now how to get a kick starter for this?
the thing about rome though is that the actual evidence supports that even during the fall the later romans were still well trained, welll disciplined, well armed and well armoured. the most effective roman army battle field wize was actually the later roman army, however the period of the byzantines after the 700s becomes more of a mercenary army mixed with a few locals because the territory was lost. the myth of the roman soldier becoming worse is a myth started by one historian who had nor millitary background or experiance and contradicts all other contemporary sources and the archilogoical evidence. roman soldiers of 300-600 AD were still well trained, well disaplined, well armoured, and well motivated soldiers. Rome's main problem was political and ecconomic in the west, there is alot of evidence that the federatii were trained and equiped as roman soldiers.
Bertrand du Guesclin used the pavise tactic to close with the English. I don't agree that the Roman Empire collapsed because of economic or military decline (see Peter Heather's excellent book which covers modern archaeological revelations on the topic). The Northern European enemies of Rome advanced significantly in population, agriculture and trade in the interim from the rise of Rome to its fall, making them far more able to organize well-armed and politically unified forces. The Romans lost as much as they won in any period of their history. What made them unable to contend with the crises at the fall was not their ability to win battles, but their ability to survive defeat thanks to the de-militarization of the civilian population.
Ahahaah I loved it please make this into a series :D
Why not? more questions + more meetings with Lloyd + more videos = Cool series :)
The light in England is only good enough to do this once per year.
I want a series where Lindy engages in baseless speculation, and Matt continually brings us back to what's actually documented.
Lol yeah....
If there's a series, I hope Matt goes around visiting more history buffs/HEMAists; that way there's variety
Who would win? 100 Matts vs 1 Editing.
"Nevermind the story just think of the job creation scheme and the steal industry...We'd be HEROS in Sheffield!"
THAT was fucking funny 10/10
"Steel" "Heroes", also "Never mind" in this context.
Carbon 12
quite write...thank you SOOO much four tayking the tyme to corect my speling and pour gramar,
as opozed to reeding between tha lines with such joy in youre hart that you wrekognise That in this day and age spells and gramar areent as impotent az keeping chins up and spirits hi.
ya wukfit.
quite* right* so* for* taking* tyme* correct* spelling* poor* grammar* opposed* reading* the* your* heart* recognise/recognize* spelling* grammar* aren't* important* as* high* you* fuckwit*
camel 104
PMSL
Clearly you missed the joke...
I'm from Sheffield, and you're already heroes to me.
5:51 Wow, you actually nailed the pronunciation of my last name. Color me impressed.
Isn't the o pronounced as an actual O and the W as a V?
@@gabrielthomsen3703
Pedant.....
@@gabrielthomsen3703 yes I know because I am Polish.
Ale on powiedział Szadkoułski.
The name appearing on your screen right now
*nothing appears¨*
Classic Matt
I didn't want to sell out.
understandable have great day
Hehehehe...
Thank you both so much for your thoughtful answer! I agree 👍
Just came here trying to find out if you are really THE Elon Musk?
lol
PLEASE be Elon Musk.
If he says he is or is not elon then the mystery is gone and he dissapears.
+Douglas Fulmer
i bet he's just a guy named Elon who is, erhm.... well, musky.
You lads had entirely too much fun doing this. I think it should be a weekly series where you and Lloyd talk about hypothetical Alien biology and the martial implications. Thanks for sharing Matt!
I audibly snarled when Matt gave his answer of Braveheart to the first question :p
I don't see why people hate on braveheart it is pretty accurate even if Mel Gibson isnt scottish.
I personally don't consider myself enough of an expert on the subject to argue the point, but I can recommend a really good video on it if you've got a spare 25 minutes :)
th-cam.com/video/ojBwASARAzo/w-d-xo.html
Chocolate Icecream its fucking what now?
For anybody who didn't realise, it was 100% sarcasm. Braveheart is often voted as the most unhistorical 'historical movie' ever made. It is literally made of bullshit, even if it's quite enjoyable as a film.
"Literally made of bullshit"
May I quote you on that? because that's absolutely brilliant! hahaha
Also don't worry, my original comment was made with the knowledge that you were being sarcastic.
Unlimited budget fantasy? The Horus Heresy
I support that
Klavak Khazga Oh mama yes.
Yes please
I'm really happy that these have completely different sets of questions.
HELL FKNG YEAH! Need more of such collabs
That Battle of Jutland movie would be good but the 2nd punic war one would be amazing. Especially if it portrayed both sides kind of like Clint Eastwood did with Flag of Our Father's and Letters From Iwo Jima.
MY DREAM HAS COME TRUE
You were first?
Technically yes.
The casual messer-and-buckler toss turned this video from good to excellent.
I love the increasing amount of collaboration videos within the TH-cam HEMA community lately. Great content!
Hi, Matt . On the bow question -- irregular bashkir cavalry brought to Europe by the Russian empire to fight napoleonic wars were using bows as a weapon. They had to equip themselves as good as possibe so bows were used by a lot of them.
That gives us around 1812.
I'd like to see films or shows about the Thirty Years' War. For its enormous influence on the development of Europe and broader European civilization, it gets overlooked. The only movie I know about that deals with it is The Last Valley, and public awareness of the Thirty Years' War's existence and importance is severely lacking.
Thanks for the ideas about historical films, Matt/Lloyd/commenters! I have forty browser tabs open now, and will research every single one eventually. I'm a small-time filmmaker, and while the unlimited budget part of my question isn't coming true any time soon, I do hope to make an accurate historical combat film some day.
(I must say, I expected the answers to be all medieval/renaissance. We must have some serious history buffs in this audience, not just sword geeks.)
Two of my favorite TH-cam content creators. Excellent. More of this.
ooh! I Was originally running this one just so you'd both get the views, I didn't realize that you'd actually have different questions! Glad I didn't shut the volume off!
Can't believe I'm only getting to this today. I love it and hope you'll do this more often!
I went from paying close attention from the start of the video to being completely distracted of you two at 12:41
Hahaha, same. She squats
I'd like to see a good battle of Grunwald movie. Major event in history, one of the largest medieval battles and underrepresented in the west (I have seen an old Polish one that was interesting, can't remember or spell the title) and I think has a lot of moments that could be made into good drama. Easy enough to portray the Teutonic Knights as the bad guys, continuing their crusade even after the justification of bringing Christianity was irrelevant via conversions. (they kind of overdid this in the polish one I saw, including a scene with the knights talking about how they'll rule for "a thousand years" and all joining together to shout "Heil!" this was the communist era after-all everything had to have propaganda). It's got a real underdog story going on with the Poles and Lithuanians beating back the well disciplined and equipped knights. The presentation of the two swords is just great drama, and then of course the massive battle with tons of cavalry.
I cannot agree more! I would also love if Matt would cover this topic. Although I don't believe he is an expert on the subject, I would still like to see what he has to say about it in terms of the new technology and variety of tactics used in the battle, and continuing into the Hussite Wars (handgonnes, fortified wagons with handgonners, mobile forts made of these wagons, mixed heavy and light cavalry with false retreats from the light cavalry, Eastern horse archers, etc...)!
Yeah, the Hussite wars would be cool to see. You could even have the first Defenestration of Prague in there to help kick things off. It's a pretty important set of events, a precursor of sorts to the Protestant Reformation. And you've again got the underdog story of the Hussites facing down well armed and armored knights, and winning.
And handgonnes are very much non-represented on screen. I don't think I've ever seen one. And combined with the war wagons, would really be dramatic to see on screen.
Thank you for answering my question!
They could do the Battle of Jutland tomorrow with CGI if they really wanted to, but who would go and see it (apart from me)? Now, a movie about Bert Trautmann - that would be something!
ur2c8 real ships he said but Id go and see it
"we'd be heroes in Sheffield" :')
I would love an endless budget film or... Actually just make it a bunch of films from different points of view, like Letters From Iwo-Jima and Flags of Our Fathers or a long tv-series, of the 30 years war. A whole ton of participants, mercenaries switching sides, pike blocks and greatswords, cuirassiers, cannons, muskets, sieges, witch-hunts... It has everything one could want. Well, nasty shit, but still very interesting.
Pentti Koivuniemi or the war of austrian succession. Basically a live action version of Hetaila
30 Years War is a damn fine choice. Massively important, but I don't know of any movies about it oddly enough. There likely are some European ones, but in the US? Not that I know of.
Yeah, it's underrepresented as hell. And I don't understand why, because you can really do almost anything with it and 17th century combat is ridiculously awesome... Even from a movie point of view it's great because you can have both the meat-grinder-hell of war movies set in, say WWII, as well as melee combat with flashing swords, pikes, and all that.
Well, there is Alatriste which is close to that.
Annnnd my afternoon just got better! Bring out the popcorn!
What do mahoots say when they meet? Howdah.
H S Well played.
Nice. Have a biscuit.
I had a chuckle
That elephant ate my entire platoon
-Principal Seymour Skinner
The historical film/series I want to see is that of British surveyors and regulars mapping out and exploring Africa in the mid 1800s.
Gungriffen Dr Livingston, I presume
Have you seen The Mountains of the Moon? Good actors, good movie.
I have not, Thanks
If *Basil Fawlty* was a man interested in old weaponry his name would be *Lindybeige!*
INDECISION! NOOOO WHICH VIDEO DO I WATCH FIRST!!!
Bow actually does sound like a GOOD IDEA to deal with un-armored and un-shielded musketeers, the rate of fire and the ability to LOB arrows over obstacles makes the musketeers an easy target.
- The armor is removed from soldiers because a bullet/ball can penetrate it, so they wear just PLAIN UNIFORMS with muskets, so if you have a line of archers hidden in the forest and you got a battalion of musketeers marching, until they face you in formation and start shooting probably half of them are going to be WOUNDED. :D
and to ADD something based on Lindybeige's video,
only 2% of the Musketeers will shoot to kill,
while an ARCHER has no idea if he is going to hit the enemy on long-distance so he has no problem to shoot fast as possible with the intention NOT TO KILL and still kill someone :D
On guns replacing bows.
Arrows take up a lot more space in transport than bullets and powder and requires working people making them while bullets can easily be stamped by the soldiers themselves.
So logistic wise, guns make more sense for a large army looking for a sustained fight.
While that is true, the fact that muskets are more accurate over 100 yards than bows, have a flatter trajectory and do much more damage to bodies... these reasons are all nails in the coffin for archery. There is really no reason to use a bow if a musket is available, with the one possible exception of 'rate of fire'.
This is like a good dream comes true.
I think a four-armed being would do well using two shields in the lower arms, with a short spear and maybe a saber or similar sword in the upper arms
Heck the most under-represented period of history plus geography is probably pre-colonial America, what with the Aztecs, Incans, and Maya.
Pretty sure they've only even been mentioned in pop culture as a whole in relation to how they were killed by the Spanish. Here's essentially an entire alternate human history and it goes completely untouched.
Would that be due in part to a lack of written material being left behind by them? I'm actually curious. I have no idea how much we know of them and would love to see a TV show or movie set in this era + location!
SirMuffinCat Yes, that's a huge part of the issue. With so little recorded in writing, the alternative way to acquire similar knowledge is when you can link an archaeological sight to an extant oral tradition. It's not an easy business, and I suspect our perception of Pre-Colombian America will always be rather murky.
Both the Aztecs and the Maya have left some written sources (though the Spanish burned hundreds of Mayan codexes as pagan artefacts) and we have tons of imagery and archaeological sources. The fact that individual events are hard to trace should not stand in the way of making a good and reasonably accurate film.
6:16 Norwegian resistance using bows and crossbows
That sounds interesting. Could anyone recommend some site where I could read more about it? Quick googling it up wasn't very helpful.
Jutland was a great suggestion by Lindybeige, but if the story doesen't cut it, then I suggest the hunt for the Bismarck with replica ships!
martinborgen Sink the bismarck is a movie though?
what a nice duo!
To the four armed question:
The correct answer is clearly four lightsabers!
"Bows in European battlefields." I've read an account of an American using a bow during the Vietnam War. Truly, he put Rambo to shame! He was part of MACVSOG (the unit you are in Black Ops 1), a top-secret special ops group that ran missions only in Laos, North Vietnam, and Cambodia. The CIA handed control of covert operations over to the US Army in 1964 (CIA direct involvement dates to 61), a year before Gulf of Tonkin in 65. Thus, MACVSOG was born to wage illegal acts of war well before America declared war.
SOG missions were usually stealth recon - 5 man missions. The main idea was to spot targets for B-52 "Arc Light" strikes, plant listening devices along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and monitor the trail's traffic. They were at first called the "Special Operations Group" but that makes what they are OBVIOUS (in a war famous for intelligence leaks, often the VC or NVA knew of American operations before our own troops or commanders did). They were later re-named the "Studies and Observation Group," meant to be a bunch of nerds studying statistics (Vietnam was fought by the numbers and in line with McNamara's Whiz Kids philosophy... stupid...). Most of the time Nung, Montagnard, and Hmong mercenaries were used to supplement an American or two - keeping Americans only 10% of the force kept US casualties down! Because only American bodies matter in the body count... That's important when your unit doesn't officially exist, they signed Non-Disclosure agreements for 50 years (which is why we only recently heard so much about them!), and they go in "sterile" which means using only equipment anyone could have got. Uncle Sam would 100% deny knowledge of their existence, if captured they could never expect rescue; except by their own comrades, who went to truly Herculean efforts to rescue their POWs, they never recovered any Americans but they did save some of their foreign mercenaries. Years after the war, North Vietnam offered Ronald Reagan a few hundred "left over prisoners" in exchange for a million dollars a piece. They were probably SOG, because they didn't exist they were not part of the peace treaty. Reagan refused... and people think he's a strong military man and big tough patriot... I'd have said give them back or we'll TAKE them back.
About the bow. Stealth was a big deal on SOG missions, not every weapon could be silenced or even had silencers made for it. So this particular soldier has a collapsible compound bow that he decided to bring along in case because "What the hell." The squad of 5 ended up pinned down and surrounded on all sides in a shell crater from a B-52 strike. As the enemy closed in, this soldier once again figured "What the hell" and broke out his bow, knocked an arrow, figured about where the enemy was in the closest bit of brush, stood straight up out of the crater and loosed his arrow towards the guessed enemy position before instantly squatting back down. IMMEDIATELY enemy fire ceased, and the enemy fell back! The SOG guys thought it was a trick, the enemy was conserving ammo, or preparing to rush the crater with bayonets, SOMETHING! But no, they eventually crawled out and found their enemies had all fled, and they were evacuated no problems.
IMO, SOG soldiers were known as terrifying boogeymen to the VC/NVA - real life Rambos. There were special units trained and dedicated to hunting them with radio direction finders, dogs, expert trackers, etc. Anyone who killed or captured a SOG soldier was given a gold watch, HUGE cash bonus, and weeks of leave in the cushiest spots the Commies could send their soldiers. When SOG conducted an operation to capture a live truck driver for interrogation, and they got their hands on the poor bastard, he almost shit himself to death in fear and panic at the sight of them opening the door to his truck and dragging him into the jungle night. I have no trouble believing that seeing an incredible display of almost psycho bravery might break the Vietnamese in that firefight.
Also, Spetsnaz has noted an interesting fact. First, Spetsnaz carries sharp entrenching shovels and uses them as effectively as any samurai ever used his Nihonto swords. They must swing the shovel between their own fingers and not miss, and be able to throw it hard at distance until it sticks into a tree and is difficult to remove. Spetsnaz has found that if 2 people see each other and shoot, they tend to stay shooting until one is hit. However, if one combatant throws a shovel (or hatchet or other large visible weapon) the enemy tends to cease fire and move out of the way of the thrown weapon. I think that factor (visible, large, sharp, projectile weapon) is what caused the Vietnamese to retreat from the SOG in that particular firefight. I"m not saying it's a reliable or common effect, only that it happened that time.
Additional fact: SOG were the first to use the HALO jump. They also invented it. Every single place to land choppers was watched by Communist Vietnamese with radio direction finders to track the commandos and a radio to inform HQ the Americans were landing. Zones could be carved out by bombing or artillery, but that also telegraphs that they are coming. So, they decided to jump out a plane REALLY high up and open their chutes REALLY low. A few Nung/Homong/Montagnard mercenaries volunteered for the training, and were present on the world's 1st HALO jump. The technique was remarkably successful, when most other insertions resulted in enemy contact and the (typically) 5 day mission being cut short and ending in a dangerous evac. SOG used out-dated helicopters (the type we used in Korea) because they were better and hovering close to the sides of a hill and other dangerous positions to extract the commandos, where a Huey would have no hope.
@ 15:01
The Romans would simply have started using the Dolabrae they were issued with, to deal with knights.
We know, because they did in fact fully-armored people in strong armor. This was IIRC during a Gallic rising in the 1st Century AD, led by one Sacrovir.
Marvelous! Both Lloyd and Matt in one video!
actually if lloyd could pair up with an animation team to make animated historical films.. omfg.
Yay, two of my favourite youtubers in one video!
Underrepresented = 30 years war. Seriously are there ANY movies about this? I'm hoping there might be some German language ones out there but my searches haven't found any yet.
The Last Valley
To be honest, even as a german I found only two, both from the 70tys:
The last Valley en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Valley_(1971_film) and
Wallenstein de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenstein_(1978). The first is british/american and the second a german one.
Furthermore we have a few novels and plays about it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Courage_and_Her_Children
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krabat_(film)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicius_Simplicissimus and they also get filmed but are not entirely connected to the real history. And we have some documentarys but not many and not translated to english.
I hope I was able to help you and my horrible english is at lest understandable.
The Last Valley.
Alatriste is at least set shortly before it and i like the movie very much.
As for the question about the beating the Roman army... XV century the Kingdom of Hungary or Ottoman Empire would be my bets.
The Franks under Charlemagne could do it.
I realy don't know how well the romans would do against knightly-shock-cavalry, but romans could never take a land full of castles i believe.
I would not underestimate Roman siege skills, Gauls had some impressive fortifications.
Take a look at the siege of Masada, castles were no problem.
My mother with a rolled up newspaper
perfect collabs don't exi......
This was 'more questions' for me.
Well what I've taken from this is the hand switching during the duel in the Princess Bride was not only plausible but highly likely between master fencers. :)
Once you get to know enough people of different backgrounds you come to realize, good, intelligent, decent people will be wrong about things you care about. (and you may just be in that camp yourself)
It is fine to like a person who is wrong. And if they are wrong on one thing it doesn't immediately invalidate their status as an intelligent or decent person.
Some stances might be deal breakers for you. That is what it is. But I'm friends with a lot of people who are idiots on certain subjects, (even who, en masse, I could make the claim are 'harming' the world) and yet as they indulge my idiocy on other subjects we get along fine. If I can befriend people who are WRONG, surely I can enjoy youtube videos by others.
What sort of guards/techniques would you expect when using a modern baseball bat?
OrcinusDrake
That's a pretty good question indeed
You, Lindy, and Shad should play a D&D campaign.
Add Metatron and Skall
Don't forget Skall
Dream team, Id watch for sure.
You might end up with a few people trying to be DM there ;-) It would probably work better if someone else hosted and ran it and we were all forced to be players. That would certainly be a lot of fun.
Dont tease me man, youll get my hopes up.It's a pipe dream.
If you had an unlimited budget the only acceptable answer is 40K.
Was your time commander bit with Lloyd ever recorded? I seem to recall that you or someone else there had said there would be a video, but I never found one.
I think Matt said that in the end it turned out to have been more like a pilot and none of it ever got shown.
"Oh God, no! Editing..."
Excellent, great video, hope this becomes a tradition.
As to why the Thirty Years' War gets overlooked in the public imagination and is relatively unknown by the public, I can think of a few reasons. It's mainly the complexity of the conflict. It involved the decaying Holy Roman Empire that consisted of hundreds of semi-autonomous principalities, each with its own head and motivations. It involved most European powers, who wanted spoils and to keep central Europe fragmented and weak for the sake of future geopolitics. All this of course means that just studying it in depth and understanding it requires knowledge of numerous European languages, including Latin, since many official documents were still written in Latin at the time. The motives behind the war were a mishmash of religious ideologies and political and economic concerns, and where the ideal ends and the material begins can be difficult and maybe impossible to tease apart, especially since it's convenient to conceal base motives with lofty religious rhetoric. But this doesn't mean that religious feeling wasn't real and wasn't a motivator in the wars.
Then there's the issue that presenting the conflict truthfully would show many European powers in a bad light and might even provoke sympathy or at least understanding for the aggressive, Prussian-dominated Germany of centuries later that was heavily shaped by the Thirty Years' War. That's not convenient.
And understanding the war's end requires understanding the nation-state and how it differs from a a system of religiously justified states in which other polities adhering to the wrong faith is a pretext for invasion. This sort of history of ideas or history of the evolution of political systems is difficult to boil down for the public in a broadly consumable way but is integral to the story of the Thirty Years' War's ending and of the conflict's significance. On the whole, this series of wars is one of the all-time clusterfucks.
Not to disagree, but at least one movie HAS been made about the 30 Years War; The Last Valley. Michael Cain (of Zulu and Batman fame) was one of the stars, and has said that it was his favorite movie in making.
I mentioned The Last Valley in a previous post, and that it's the only movie I know of that deals with the Thirty Years' War.
Unlimited budget movie, how about a movie about Admiral Nelson from The battle of the Nile to Trafalgar?
CanadianNorthman or the chase of admiral Villeneuve
I want a film or mini-series of the English Civil War.
Rag Plays Quite agree. I have just read 'The King's General' by Daphne Du Maurier and thought it would make an excellent film/TV series.
16:38 have me laugh out loud, well done! XDD
This video is awesome. Really quite interesting comparison.
10:01 looks like the face of someone who really regrets making a certain video now.
Standard Wow lindybeige is really tall comment.
nah, Matt is just a manlet
"One of the things Ford had always found hardest to understand about humans was their habit of continually stating and repeating the very very obvious, as in ‘It’s a nice day’, 'You’re very tall’, or 'You seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you alright?’
At first Ford had formed a theory to account for this strange behaviour. If human beings don’t keep exercising their lips, he thought, their mouths probably seize up. After a few months’ consideration and observation, he abandoned this theory in favour of a new one. If they don’t keep exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working."
Matt is like 6 foot lmao, lindy is just a fuckin giant
Matt is (I believe) 6'1", whereas Lindybeige is 6'5"
Well fuck-me sideways....
Is he...?
I'll moderate my language when corresponding...
Can we just agree the best person in the world to have an infinite budget is Llyod?
I actually think the early 18th century is underrepresented, and some good realistic films on colonial warfare would be epic. Also, early 1800s America sounds like a good film setting as well, especially the Texas vs Mexico conflict.
Hello Matt, great to see you both together again! The video is always amazing when you too are in, at the same time very informative and funny! By the way, I would want to translate your videos, to allow the most interested french community to understand your videos! But for now it seems that this option is not allowed for the community members. I hope you can fix that, I sent you a more detailed message already.
The Elephant question - in the 18th Century (Clive of India period) the Native Indian armies were typically hed by an Elephant mounted leader. The standard British response was to fire artillery at the offending pachyderm - 6 pounder v Elephant is a fairly one sided match up!
I'm not mad my question was dodged, just disappointed. :(
Still a big fan though, I was not trying to be mean!
The reason I said 'him' and not Loyd was because the title of your video was: 'Questions for Lindybeige (Lloyd) & scholagladiatoria (Matt Easton)'. So in that context it made sense.
And obviously I was referring to 'man-made' climate change in the context of Loyd's earlier videos on the subject, but I think you both knew that already ;)
That he confused climate with weather isn't a good sign for his knowledge.
@Avant-garde Student. I studied Environmental Science in college, but I have learned better than to argue climate change on the internet with strangers.
So no sir I can not, 'really look into scientific studies and draw conclusions'. I suspect if you actually were inclined to look at the facts in an impartial manner you yourself would of come to the sensible conclusion without my help. Lets just agree to disagree and not clog up the comment section though shall we?
The only reason I asked the question is because Lindy made a series of videos on the subject, if he had just made a passing comment I would never have been so forward as to have asked in the first place.
I hope he has. Those videos were kinda crazy. I think he probably has, or at least realized his ideas needn't be advocated for online.
Patrick McCurry the fact you think he confused climate for weather is not a good sign for your knowledge.
Climate is literally always changing. The ice ages? Triassic heatwave?
The time scale may be massively longer but it is literally always changing.
Not too sure about the scutum defeating the longbow, the scutum definately didn't do well when it was put up against the parthian shot.
"We''d be heroes in Sheffield."
Really cool collab video.
The gambeson is not beige?
E.A. Nanes it will soon. I remember in an earlier video that he plans on staining it with tea
Christ, Lloyd is a tall one. And I thought Easton was big because he towered over Tim.
Lloyd didn't properly anser the global warming question - surely he knows what is actually being asked?
Ae Norist you are cop out
daddyleon he knows. I get the feeling he sticking to his guns and answers in a way that obliquely tells you his feelings.
I found the film "The Duellists" to be very realistic.
Has anyone else on here seen that film?
I myself enjoyed it.
love these vids more than life.. dunno whether to be happy or sad about it
How about: What if we had longbow archers at Waterloo?
A creature with 4 arms could have two shields below and have the top hands throw pommels everywhere
The mongols or Tamerlane could definitely make the imperial Rome run for their money. And during the mongol invasion several European countries amassed armies comparable sizes to Roman armies. By the 10th-14th century armies 20-100 000 men were not uncommon. These armies were also pretty well equipped.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kulikovo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Achelous_(917)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717%E2%80%93718)
Brave Heart... there's a limit to how far you can take a joke. That's too far...
Make a movie about the Emu War.
All Emus are trained professional "little people" in costume made to look like actual Emus through CGI.
Hey Matt, about Indian mutiny, theres a film "Mangal Pandey".
You two make a good comedy duo :P
I would love to see a good adaptation of the warlord chronicles.
Frederick I had an army of 100k, including 20 000 knights. There's no way legions with only swords and throwing spears could hold up against that many knights.
Thanks for the video
A creature with 4 arms would use a spear/two handed weapon, a shield, and a one handed weapon for maximum versatility, killing power and protection.
Jutland with real ships....... best suggestion of the year. (PS add the battle of coronel and the Falkland's and we would be in for a treat). Now how to get a kick starter for this?
Tars Tarkas, Jeddak of Thark!
Battle of Kadesh, hell yeah! Ramses versus Muwatalli.
Waaaahoooo
the thing about rome though is that the actual evidence supports that even during the fall the later romans were still well trained, welll disciplined, well armed and well armoured. the most effective roman army battle field wize was actually the later roman army, however the period of the byzantines after the 700s becomes more of a mercenary army mixed with a few locals because the territory was lost. the myth of the roman soldier becoming worse is a myth started by one historian who had nor millitary background or experiance and contradicts all other contemporary sources and the archilogoical evidence. roman soldiers of 300-600 AD were still well trained, well disaplined, well armoured, and well motivated soldiers. Rome's main problem was political and ecconomic in the west, there is alot of evidence that the federatii were trained and equiped as roman soldiers.
No Barry Lyndon on most accurate movie? You need to see it if you have not seen it yet.
Bertrand du Guesclin used the pavise tactic to close with the English. I don't agree that the Roman Empire collapsed because of economic or military decline (see Peter Heather's excellent book which covers modern archaeological revelations on the topic). The Northern European enemies of Rome advanced significantly in population, agriculture and trade in the interim from the rise of Rome to its fall, making them far more able to organize well-armed and politically unified forces. The Romans lost as much as they won in any period of their history. What made them unable to contend with the crises at the fall was not their ability to win battles, but their ability to survive defeat thanks to the de-militarization of the civilian population.
1. Come on Mr Easton. You wanted to say Blue Lagoon. Admit it!
Would a heavy calvary chart be effective against Romans though?