The biggest & most badass battle in England was the Battle of Towton in 1461. Absolute Medieval hell on earth ! Thousands of combatants all in steel armour, slashed & hacked each other all day in a raging snowstorm. Literally thousands died. Biggest battle ever on British soil.
The crossbow wasn't 'technologically superior' to the longbow at all. Effective use of the longbow required strength and training but the English and Welsh longbowmen had plenty of that. Weekly practice with the longbow was compulsory and most other sports were banned to make sure that bowmanship was given priority. The longbow not only had a much longer range than the crossbow, it also had a MUCH faster rate of fire. It could reliably pierce all armour except steel plate and could even pierce that, just not as reliably. The longbow was superior to the crossbow in every respect. The only advantage to the crossbow was that it didn't take much training to use effectively...
I am a medieval re-enactor and even as a not-very-skilled archer, can usually get 10-12 arrows in the air in a minute. As we like to tell the audience at shows, there was nothing with a really comparable rate of fire until the repeating rifle (which then had to be reloaded) or the machine gun
Thats not the only advantage of the crossbow. The crossbow could be fired by anyone with little training, it had a much faster load speed and the projectile traveled at a much higher speed, this penetrating plate with much more effectiveness. The longbow was essentially a long range weapon, the crossbow could be used at much shorter ranges with direct fire. The weapon is smaller and more easily aimed as a direct fire projectile.
Agincourt I've always pronounced soft g (close to z-sh) and lose the 't' to sound like core. When it comes to archery, it's far easier to take out the horse than the rider. There is even an arrowhead specifically for that - the Divisor's Swallowtail (named after the butterfly), also known as the Horse Dropper.
At least in my country (Czech Republic) King John isn't a very unpopular King. But at least his death in the field allowed for his son, the King of Germany, Charles IV (who fled Crecy) to assume the Czech Crown. He's widely considered to be the father of Bohemia. On the other hand, in Luxembourg, the same John, their count, is a national hero. So this battle is a big deal in many European countries.
Simon Whistler and Thoughty2 are my favourite youtube narrator's. Their eleqution skills are second to none and their dry humour is amazing too. I know Simon Whistler has script writers, (Not sure about Thoughty2), but it doesn't take away from their brilliant talking skills.
@Connor - Simon did explain, when the English archers rushed out to recover their arrows and maybe do some looting, they would shove their daggers into the visors or necks of the bodies on the field to ensure they were all dead. There would have been very few left alive afterward, especially as there was a "no prisoners" order in effect.
I would suggest that although the King of Bohemia was brave, riding alongside a blind man waving a sword around makes the two knights with him, even braver.
I have visited Agincourt, stood on the English (Welsh!) line and fired a long bow at the ghostly French. Agincourt was immortalised by Shakespeare in "Henry V" as magnificent propaganda. The Eve of Crispin speech has become an iconic bit of British pre-battle prep talk right through history. Kenneth Branagh, as in the 1989 movie Henry V. His version of the speech, and for me the post battle clip "I am Welsh you know". I would also love to see one day a reaction to another Kenneth Branagh moment - his portrayal of Col. Tim Collins' speech to 1 Batt., Royal Irish Regiment from the BBC production 10 Days to War. Great channel, and keep up the learning!
Edward I (Longshanks) was the Grandfather of Edward III, in answer to your question. And NO! he was not the child of Wallace as suggested in that silly film. Isabella, Edward's Mother, would have been around 10 years old at the time of Wallace's death.
"Men-at-arms" were the rank and file soldiers who were relatively well armed and armored, but not Knights (or archers). At least a step above the peasant levy, depending on the nation and culture.
Men at arms were more of less professional soldiers and Yes it did include knights on foot and their retainers. The spearmen would have comprised of some professionals but mostly free men. The archers were also free men. Serfs at the time would not have been allowed to leave their villages.
Men-at-arms meant a professional armed and armoured soldier, typically heavy cavalry equipped similar to the knights of the period. Looting was definitely a big thing - a decent sword might cost months of income for a peasant, a chainmail shirt as much as a decent cow or horse, and if you've been marching around in the mud for weeks you'd probably not turn your nose up at a good pair of boots.
I know the narrator on this clip pronounced Agincourt sounding the T, but Agincourt, located in Northern France, is pronounced without the sound of the t at the end, and more of a Z sound in place of the G th-cam.com/video/v0Xwx12ekSU/w-d-xo.html
Interesting fact: After the battle of Waterloo in 1815 many of the bodies were looted especially for the teeth which were made into false dentures. After the bodies had rotted away much of the bones were ground down to make fertiliser! After the battle in medieval times the bodies would be stripped of the armour as it cost a lot to make a suit of armour. Looting of bodies on battlefields has gone on from time immemorial and is probably going on in the Ukraine war today!
What is crucial in order to understand the outbreak of the Hundred Years War is to know that the "English" kings were much more French than English as well as all the "English" chivalry and nobility which in addition were only French-speaking (during these battles, very few people spoke English). In their doctrine, their homeland was primarily Normandy + Angevin possessions and also France, which was its inalienable base. England only came in 3rd position because it was only a possession totally dominated and administered by them and not the land of their ancestors and their dynasty. Moreover, at that time, France was much more populated than England (almost 10 times more) so that made the interest even more obvious. The irony is that if the "English" had won the Hundred Years' War, there is a strong possibility that England would have been absorbed and assimilated into a large Franco-Norman kingdom and the English language would now have become a mere dialect. banal (despite this, almost 50% of the words of the modern English language come from French...). In this reversed scenario, I think this kingdom would have been almost unstoppable because it was overpowering compared to all the other kingdoms in Europe...
Yes imagine what would have happened if the French and English combined back then. America and Canada would be one and not the same gun culture. The empire would have been even more huge and all pervasive, I wonder if the world would have been conquered or brought into its orbit.
The longbow wasn't technologically inferior to the crossbow at all and wasn't your average bow. The longbow was a powerful medieval type of bow, about 6 ft (1.8 m) long used by the Welsh and English as a weapon of war. It also had a range of over 320-370 metres (350-400 yards), it was much cheaper and less complicated to produce. The only drawback was that you needed a lot of practice to become proficient, but once trained you could fire up to 12 arrows a minute (in reality you could have 2 or 3 arrows in flight at the same time). All the practicing paid off because the victories in Crecy and Agincourt were attributed to the speed of the longbows beating out the French’s slower crossbows.
The saying a Bolt from the Blue comes from fact that crossbow bolts were much smaller than arrows and were almost impossible to see in flight whereas salvos of arrows where easily seen in flight as I can attest as a longbow archer in my younger days
The French King wasn't, 'the English King's boss...". The French King was his lord, re' certain territories in France. The English King had sovereignty over England and Wales and was also the vassal lord over Scotland, Ireland and those parts of English controlled France over which the French King didn't have sovereignty. Feudalism was complicated, lol. Thus he was a vassal to the French King in Normandy and Anjou, both English holdings but not in Brittany or Calais, which were also English holdings in France...
Hi! Great reaction! I'm at the bit where you are discussing long range weapons. I'm sure many others have said it, but the longbow was the key element. It could pierce knight's (cavalry) armour at range. Made from yew trees that have a soft core, the science of why it worked so well was not fully understood at the time. Amongst the French, it had a semi-mystical reputation. We still have yew trees in most of our church yards because it was a great, safe, place to grow this unique type of wood. (Ok, its not unique but, because we didn't know it was just a 2-layer lamination of soft wood next to hard, we THOUGHT it was unique.) As a man who obviously loves to know why stuff happens, I reckon you might enjoy delving into the long bow's history? :)
Stripping bodies after a war was common, post Waterloo even teeth were extracted for use in dentures, they were called "Waterloo teeth ". Its a recent thing to treat the dead with respect.
The bow was an old and familiar technology, the long or hunting bow was known throughout medieval europe. The innovation was the massing of them and the variety of heads used to overcome the enemy's armour.
You should most definitely check out Agincourt. It was a great battle from the English point of view. Many, many French nobles were captured including the king. These were all ransomed for absolute fortunes, even by today’s standards. For great fiction, but based on fact, check out Bernard Cornwell. His trio of books incorporated in The Grail Quest and Agincourt are fantastic reading and very un-put downable.
Just a few things to remember doing older history 1) most people could not read so paintings / drawings were done for information also they of course couldn't be drawn to scale hence army's were drawn close to each other , all thought hand to hand fighting was the norm. 2) Normally after battle the serfs / bowmen etc were killed off as they had no value but the Knights etc were kept alive for a ransom but on this occasion the french declared " no prisoners " were to be taken by flying that flag , hence all were killed . I believe it was normal when someone was about to die they would raise a arm so the person with the knife / dagger / sword would push it into their armpit and stab the heart for a quick death . 3) Flags and Banners were captured / stolen as souvenirs and Honours showing all people that you / your Regiment / King had won a battle against certain foes , plus these were also used as gathering places in battles when soldiers etc got lost. You yourself have seen these flags and banners on TH-cam and/ or television , for example when Sharpe wins the golden eagle from the french ( he may of been humming " over the hills and far away " lol ) , you have certainly seen them in the UK at Horse Guards when they are Trooping the Colour and the Flag / Banner / Colour shows the battle honours of the Regiment There is a good film about King Henry V with Agincourt on Netflix simply called King , plus a older film made during WW2 to pickup the moral of the British with Laurence Olivier , it may be called just Agincourt but there's plenty of real horses and knights etc
In England at around the 1250's there was a Royal statute that decreed that it was compulsory for all males in the towns and villages from the age of 14 yrs to be trained in archery and they had to practise nearly every day, this helped not only to develop muscles in their pulling arm to enable them to draw the bow string which required a lot of strength and muscle power, but it honed their aiming skills.The English bow was made of Yew which worked well under tension and the best bowmen were from Wales.The Bow was an efficient fighting machine and thank God we had it, also the saying that practise makes perfect definitely helped against our arch enemy at the time...the French. Check out the book The Longbow by Robert Hardy ( he was a well known actor in UK) ........loving your interest and love of History
Greetings, don't know if you know this at this point or if someone else commented on it already, but standards were inherited from Rome as major moral symbols and also served as rallying points during battle. As far as "looting the corpses," yes, this occurred, and if no prisoners were taken, they'd slaughter any knocked out soldier (they just had to notice them breathing). Horses were NOT targeted unless an incredible advantage could be gained by so doing, as they were worth up to a village's worth of men at certain times and places. Thus more horses than riders survived.
I believe the Hollywood depiction of arrows lobbed high in the air is wrong. The arrow will only start to come down when it has lost most of its energy. Then it is just like dropping it off a high building. Dangerous but hardly deadly to someone wearing mail or plate armour. Similar to small arms, fired slightly upwards for range but not lobbed.
Love learning with you mate. I’m really interested in history, and I’ve genuinely learned so much by watching your videos. Your comments keep me engaged and usually reaffirm my own thoughts. Keep it up lad!
@@ThePhantomMajor If we’re still talking medieval history how about the war of Saint Sardos, where France crushed England in 6 weeks despite’s being outnumbered almost 4-1. If we’re talking modern times how about Bir Hakeim in 1942, where 3,700 French held off 37,000 troops of Rommel for weeks and saved the entire British army from destruction. Or the Siege of Lille, where 40,000 French beat back 200,000 Germans long enough to allow the British to run away to their island.
You might be interested in seeing a demonstration of the surgical procedure used on the 16 year old Prince of Wales to remove an arrow head imbedded in his face, the tool created is still used.
No it's not. What a pretentious thing to write. Agincourt was all about hacking Frenchmen to death while they floundered in thick mud. Don't recall much of that in what was in effect a WWII propaganda film.
@@christineharding4190 And magnificent Te Deum ... but there is an early scene in English court that had poor acoustics. Branagh had the spirit of it for my generation, as Olivier had it for his generation. Vis-a-vis other comments, we are talking theater, not Sam Peckinpauh slow motion butchery. And no Franco-phobia for me, been free of that since the Napoleonic Wars ;-)
Hello, Connor! Something to point out... Most of historian & war researchers had established that, in numbers, the English side was somewhat between 10.000 or 12.000 men. Yes, at least a third of them were longbowmen and most of the time, both men-at-arms and knights fought at foot or dismounted, even the "Black Prince". The French were between 25.000 or 35.000 men.... There was no possible way they could ever afford such number of troops as the given one in the video (though the narrator says the numbers were exagerated), neither by logistical issues nor population reasons. In any case, the chosen video and reaction are very entertaining and historically well documented.
I am British and I learned all this at junior school in history class at 7 years old and at my secondary school. British history is a passion of mine especially British military history. My Ancestor who was a French Knight at close friend to King William the Conqueror fought with the King at the Battle of Hastings. My Ancestor was appointed the King's representative to rule Ireland in his name, my Ancestor based himself in County Waterford. Here in the UK we have a thing called Education which America has not got, according to all the Americans on TH-cam who have not got any idea outside the American Bubble or think that they know everything, which they don't and I have many accounts of there lack of education when I was in America. 💂♂️💂♂️💂♂️💂♂️🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴🏴🏴🏴💙💛🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
In the middle ages the day and place of the battle was agreed between both parties. After the battle, reprensentatives of both camps gathered and negociated who won. Crecy is traditionally considered as the first battle when primitive artillery was used.
Well at that battle the french had cavalry out in front of everyone, where our troops where deployed behind stakes dug into the group with pikemen in front and then the french did the french thing of calloping towards the English lines and then men at arms shouted loose and about half of the french nobility died in about 20 minutes. General rule of thumb at the time of crecy was after a battle you sent a messenger and mututally agreed to revcover the dead and no combat would take place back then especially if the day was a sunday as that was still a sacred day.
The battle of Agincourt is featured in Shakespeare's play of Henry V (5th), the classic one starred Laurence Olivier & a later one with Kenneth Brannagh
All I know is that the battle of Agincourt was not what people thought like you get in Hollywood films you didn’t have lots of archers randomly shooting into the air these people were like snipers they looked at somebody shot and that person died.
Volley fire would have preceded any closer-range accurate shooting - simply to even the odds a bit. When a mass of people is advancing (with some difficulty) then you're pretty much guaranteed to hit something.
The real importance of Crecy was that it led to England taking Calais and its Pale. They held it until 1558(Mary I) it was hugely important in building England's wealth particularly through the wool and cloth trade with Flanders. There were always more years of trade than days of fighting and it was through wealth that Nations grew powerful ( wars tended to end regimes both winners and losers). Wars and Battles are really just punctuation in History and progress but generate fascination.
men at arms, are Knights, fully armoured. The French knights being hit by multiple arrows which didn't pierce the armour but delivered sledge type hammer blows which knocked them off their horses or over, the English archers then moved forward with knives stabbing through the visors to finish the job.
Men at arms are not knights, they are the (non archer) professional soldiers of the time, also known as house troops, they could be mounted men at arms (who would fight alongside the knights and their Squires), or foot troops (who would be alongside or among the levy). Knights were Nobel, men at arms were commoners.
@@jonathongraham2419 hi Jonathon, I concur, I was just trying to get the point over the arrows seldom pierced the armour and that these were probably loosed at relatively close quarters.
Don't forget that the nobility and royalty of England were still Norman blooded at this stage and were basically anti-French. Normans were after all, Vikings at heart and wanted to conquer France as well. That is why the British inherited this natural desire to conquer the whole world. Who said the Brits are not sarcastic? Some of my ancestors came from Brittany ( part of Normandy at one time) and ended up in Jersey, so I too am to blame for all this mayhem. Let's not forget that the trenches of WWI were often only a 100-200m apart, so by Medieval times, pretty comparable to armies facing off.
Crecy and Agingcourt tend to get the publicity, but at Poitiers we actually captured the French King. What followed was a fantastic example of chivalry and honour
I had several ancestors at Crecy including Sir John Atte Wode and his son Peter Atte Wode. John was the Captain of Edrawd III's Royal Guard and his son was a Serjeant in the Guard, both were killed defending the king during the frantic attack on his position. John and Peter are my 21st and 20th great grandfather's. I'm also descended from King Edward III, which isn't a great claim because 90% of modern indigenous Britons are, not all can prove it but he was very much the grandfather of the nations including Scotland and Wales due to the marriages his many offspring had with the nobility of all the nations of Britain. I'm also descended from Blind King John of Bohemia who was of course killed charging the English lines despite being totally blind.... nutter... he was my 22nd gt grandfather on my mother's side. None of this, by the way is claiming some sort of exclusivity, anyone with British or French or Flemish ancestry almost certainly had a bunch of ancestors at this battle and many of them would have been royalty and many many more common soldiers
The Battle of Agincourt is definitely worth learning. It’s similar in many ways to a battle that occurred in 19th century in South Africa. The Battle of Rorkes Drift which is worth taking a look at.
I do agree: comparison worths taking a look at. And that leads to the conclusion the two battles are nothing alike (sorry to be blunt). 1. We don't have two powers (France and England) as technologically apart as Britain and Zulus were. 2. The fields and weathers (not to say climates) were so different and played such a role that those matters can't be ignored (especially the rainy weather in Agincourt's case) 3. The course of the battle itself has shown incredible mistakes in command from the French at Agincourt that can't be put on Zulu leaders at Rorke Drift... So, no, the comparison stops almost at the battlefield edge
@@francoisdebellefroid2268 they are horribly outnumbered in an impossible situation relying on a superior weapons facing repeated attacks. All similarities. I think you’re being a little specific. But yeah I get your points
Spearmen were often levies or not professional soldiers (until the advent of the professional swiss style pikemen) and a good counter to men at arms or cavalry when in a formation, men at armes were professional soldiers, usually heavily armoured with shields and shorter hand weapons like swords, maces and hammers, heavy infantry, knights were heavily armoured cavalry, usually nobility and semi nobility, archers were often professionals who operated in companies.
mistakes in this. Edward was Charles IV's grandson, not nephew. If you've seen Braveheart, the french princess married to longshanks' son was Isabella of France, daughter of Philip IV of France. Philip IV had 3 sons who wall became kings of france and all died young. Isabella had a son with edward II, and eventually overthrew her husband and had him killed, crowning her son Edward III. After all Isabella's brothers died, she was not allowed the throne of france because she was a woman, so the french throne was disputed between her son Edward III of England, and charles of Valois, who was isabella's cousin.
The first victory for the English combination of archers and dismounted men-at-arms was in 1332 at Dupplin Moor in Perthshire which resulted in the effective annihilation of the Scots army.
I suggest you watch some of the videos on Agincourt featuring Dr. Tobias Capwell. He is very knowledgeable and has been fighting and riding in armor since he was a teen. “Agincourt: Myths and Misconceptions” might be a good one to start with. The others are longer and very in-depth, but worth every second if you’re into the Hundred Years War.
Isn't it ironic that its he descendant of a William the Conqueror, from France, Ruling England, turning against the French King. This is actually English history. These people are all the same family and it is still true today.
Check out Tod Cutler's channel Tod's Workshop for lots of interesting content on the hardware and weapons used throughout this period. Particularly his videos comparing longbows vs. crossbows.
The longbow could shoot over 400 yards; but almost certainly, in most cases, the yeomanry shot their volleys much, much closer - perhaps at only a 150 yards or less, so that each arrow was likely to find its target. Even so, even at that range, modern tests suggest that longbow arrows could not penetrate well-made steel plate. The same can't be said for horses though. P.S. - the "Black Prince" was never actually known by that name in his lifetime; he was Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales.
Brave attempt at pronunciation from, I guess, a non-French speaker. You were close. Crecy is Cressie like Jessie. Agincourt is more complicated: Ah-Zhin-Cor. I’ve been to both villages, and they are literally just villages. :-) Ed III was Longshank’s grandson. A surprise to everyone seeing as Ed II was certainly bisexual and probably gay, indeed records suggest that Ed III’s father may have been a squire or knight in the Queen’s service … because Ed II was documented as being a long way (in France) from his Queen (in England) during the likely month of conception. If you want to know more of Agincourt, you should watch Kenneth Branagh‘s brilliant film of Henry V, which culminates in the Battle. Fine work, by the way. “I’m just a guy who wants to learn” should be the mantra we all live by.
Kevin Hicks on the History Squad on TH-cam gives good accounts of Medieval war fare and the use of the longbow, which he is a dab hand at using. Good site with interesting take on things.
Men-at-arms are melee soldiers including both knights and their retainers (as a kind of tax for holding land from the king knights and nobility had to provide armed men for the army in times of war). Knight by this point in time was a social rank whereas man-at-arms was a purely military designation. Yes armour would not have been uniform, the quality would largely have depended on the wealth of the wearer or their patron.
The standard/flag was a crucial piece of equipment in all armies from antiquity to modern times with the invention of smokeless propellant and radios. As such they were highly prized be they ancient Roman eagles or Napoleonic eagles. Here in the UK on the Monarchs official birthday there is a ceremony- trooping the colour - which commemorates what each unit would do prior to each battle, parade the standard/flag in front of the relevant troops so they can recognise it. The standard/flag was the rallying point for the company/battalion/regiment and each soldier had to be able to recognise it. Think of the closing sequence of the book Red Badge of Courage, the young soldier picks up the regimental flag and runs up the hill towards the Confederate lines, the rest of his regiment swarm forward following the flag. To lose the standard/flag means the unit loses its focal point and is disorganised and demoralised for the rest of the battle. Ergo it is a very important symbol and worthy of mention amongst the spoils of war.
The King (film) I'd imagine is so more real to life than Henry the 5th (Olivier) except for a few fictional character's, some memorable Historical events get a better more accurate account the more we learn and uncover ,fantastic film although it takes a French/American lead 😉
The longbow can shoot 10 aimed arrows per minute ... even I could achieve this after minimal practice ... crossbowmen could only achieve about two shots pm
Thanks for this Connor. Aaaand yet again you come up with a reaction producing more questions than answers!!! I can't keep up lol. I'm hugely interested in all matters relating to military history, not an expert but a better than layman's knowledge. All battles are brutal but for some reason I find medieval one's contradictory; a noble defeated in 1-2-1 combat could yield on the battlefield, go home to his family after promising to go back to the victor after the war, in order to be ransomed for their freedom...??? A chivalric POW so to speak... then there's the lower ranked; Yeomanry etc. They've no time for this chivalry nonsense! Rob what you can carry that's worth some money and back to camp. As an aside; in the RAF we got basic (very basic) infantry training and one thing was that you NEVER rob the dead (friend or foe) of personal possessions, huge huge no-no. They had to be left alone for the battlefield clean up crew to identify the person and try to send them back to their family. Great reaction once again. Oh, and for those critics about your interruptions; well it's your channel.... I rest my case!
Knights are men at arms and men at arms are knights, the invention of the word men at arms came after the title of knights came to mean a guy with land and enough money to be nobility, not wanting to pay for more knights they started calling the type of soldier men at arms, but it’s always safe to assume a decent proportion of men at arms are knights even if not stated, the only real difference was that knights had more and nicer things
Connah go fined steptoe and sun two rag and bone men late 60s rag and bone means second hand goods They collected items on a horse and cart. So funny ❤
'Men at arms' is a term for melee soldiers (not archers) who are 'commoners' as opposed to knights, aristocracy, etc. 'Arms' is a rather old term for weapons, as in 'take up arms'.
John of Bohemia charged on purpose, according to some chronicles, his last words were: "Far be it that the King of Bohemia should run away. Instead, take me to the place where the noise of the battle is the loudest. The Lord will be with us. Nothing to fear. Just take good care of my son."
26:39 It was quite usual for the ordinary soldiers on the winning side to strip their dead opponents of anything that was better than they had - a decent pair of boots, a better dagger etc. When quarter _was_ given they could become very wealthy if they captured a nobleman for ransom.
Football was banned in favour of compulsory archery practice. Sadly, the legend isn’t true about the French capturing English archers and chopping their two fingers off, triggering the English to proffer the two fingered traditional gesture at the French.
Edward 3rd and the aristocratsif his spoke French as a first language and its not certain if they evev understood the English language. They considered themselves French or rather Norman.
Interesting fact was you were only supposed to loot the bodies after word was given, the word being "Havoc!", And only certain high ranking members of the army were allowed to give the order. The order would only be given once the battle was considered won, that way the troops would concentrate on fighting rather than falling to looting before the job was done. Also were the saying "Cry Havoc and let loose the dog's of war!" After the cry was given an orderly force could fall into an orgy of looting.
Based English. Poitiers and Agincourt were also examples of ... France should not close with the English. Longbows! After the battle? At Waterloo, much later. the most feared were the dentists ... they went around knocking out the good teeth of the dead or enemy wounded, because that is how you got the raw material for dentures! Later again, one British soldier lay wounded on the Somme (same location but WW I) for three days before being recovered and tended to. The blind German king who died .... the Order of the Garter was named for him. Loosing a standard was a dishonor for a Roman legion, and for a Napoleonic regiment. General Custer's younger brother, won two Congressional Medals of Honor, for taking two Confederate flags during the final retreat of General Lee, in one week.
This guy doing the narration talks like Alan Whicker (see the Mony Python skit "Island of Alan Whickers") Like Alan Whicker, this dude has this strange way of elongating his vowels through his nose...anyone of my generation aged in England from the 1970's will remember Alan Whicker and understand what i mean. I think they do it to make themselves sound more impressively educated, the more to wow the colonials in America? I don't know
Archery practice was compulsory every Sunday from the age of 6 in England at this time
not just a ordinary bow but the longbow more power and range which made alongbowmen a feared memeber of a english army.
The biggest & most badass battle in England was the Battle of Towton in 1461. Absolute Medieval hell on earth ! Thousands of combatants all in steel armour, slashed & hacked each other all day in a raging snowstorm. Literally thousands died. Biggest battle ever on British soil.
You could argue it was England's first civil war .
Difficult to be precise with numbers but it is believed that 27,000 were killed in one morning at Towton - 1% of the population of the country.
I like Simon so much - he is laid back (like most of us) but with a great dash of sarcasm when needed lol!
Simon is a TH-cam machine. How many channels is he up to now? I've lost count
The crossbow wasn't 'technologically superior' to the longbow at all. Effective use of the longbow required strength and training but the English and Welsh longbowmen had plenty of that. Weekly practice with the longbow was compulsory and most other sports were banned to make sure that bowmanship was given priority. The longbow not only had a much longer range than the crossbow, it also had a MUCH faster rate of fire. It could reliably pierce all armour except steel plate and could even pierce that, just not as reliably. The longbow was superior to the crossbow in every respect. The only advantage to the crossbow was that it didn't take much training to use effectively...
Also "handling was much easier". I can imagine trained bowmen laughing at that nonsense.
I am a medieval re-enactor and even as a not-very-skilled archer, can usually get 10-12 arrows in the air in a minute. As we like to tell the audience at shows, there was nothing with a really comparable rate of fire until the repeating rifle (which then had to be reloaded) or the machine gun
Thats not the only advantage of the crossbow. The crossbow could be fired by anyone with little training, it had a much faster load speed and the projectile traveled at a much higher speed, this penetrating plate with much more effectiveness. The longbow was essentially a long range weapon, the crossbow could be used at much shorter ranges with direct fire. The weapon is smaller and more easily aimed as a direct fire projectile.
I have taken to saying that the longbow is the superior weapon, but the crossbow is perhaps a superior weapon SYSTEM as it is easier to train users.
Agincourt I've always pronounced soft g (close to z-sh) and lose the 't' to sound like core.
When it comes to archery, it's far easier to take out the horse than the rider. There is even an arrowhead specifically for that - the Divisor's Swallowtail (named after the butterfly), also known as the Horse Dropper.
Azincourt, historically known in English as Agincourt, is a commune in the Pas-de-Calais department in northern France. Wikipedia
And that gave rise to the two fingers salute, as any captured bowmen had them cut off to prevent them from using a bow again
@@tonyhaynes9080 "bolt from the blue", "cock up" and "keep it under your hat" are expressions we get from archery as well.
Agincourt is fairly close to Crecy between Calais and Abbeville you could easily visit both in same afternoon
Indeed, you must be French.
At least in my country (Czech Republic) King John isn't a very unpopular King. But at least his death in the field allowed for his son, the King of Germany, Charles IV (who fled Crecy) to assume the Czech Crown. He's widely considered to be the father of Bohemia.
On the other hand, in Luxembourg, the same John, their count, is a national hero. So this battle is a big deal in many European countries.
Interesting. I'm sadly lacking in East european history, but would be interested to know why he was unpopular.
Simon Whistler and Thoughty2 are my favourite youtube narrator's. Their eleqution skills are second to none and their dry humour is amazing too. I know Simon Whistler has script writers, (Not sure about Thoughty2), but it doesn't take away from their brilliant talking skills.
@Connor - Simon did explain, when the English archers rushed out to recover their arrows and maybe do some looting, they would shove their daggers into the visors or necks of the bodies on the field to ensure they were all dead. There would have been very few left alive afterward, especially as there was a "no prisoners" order in effect.
I would suggest that although the King of Bohemia was brave, riding alongside a blind man waving a sword around makes the two knights with him, even braver.
He never saw it coming. They did.
I have visited Agincourt, stood on the English (Welsh!) line and fired a long bow at the ghostly French. Agincourt was immortalised by Shakespeare in "Henry V" as magnificent propaganda. The Eve of Crispin speech has become an iconic bit of British pre-battle prep talk right through history. Kenneth Branagh, as in the 1989 movie Henry V. His version of the speech, and for me the post battle clip "I am Welsh you know". I would also love to see one day a reaction to another Kenneth Branagh moment - his portrayal of Col. Tim Collins' speech to 1 Batt., Royal Irish Regiment from the BBC production 10 Days to War. Great channel, and keep up the learning!
Edward I (Longshanks) was the Grandfather of Edward III, in answer to your question. And NO! he was not the child of Wallace as suggested in that silly film. Isabella, Edward's Mother, would have been around 10 years old at the time of Wallace's death.
That film was beyond silly.
I take it that film was the now SNP's rallying call....."Braveheart"? Biggest load of bollocks to come out of hollyWEIRD!
It couldn't have been more unrealistic if it had starred a plasticine Mel Gibson and been called William Wallace and Grommet.
Braveheart - UGH! Have you seen Nick Hodges' review on History Buffs?
"Men-at-arms" were the rank and file soldiers who were relatively well armed and armored, but not Knights (or archers). At least a step above the peasant levy, depending on the nation and culture.
Men at arms were more of less professional soldiers and Yes it did include knights on foot and their retainers. The spearmen would have comprised of some professionals but mostly free men. The archers were also free men. Serfs at the time would not have been allowed to leave their villages.
Men-at-arms meant a professional armed and armoured soldier, typically heavy cavalry equipped similar to the knights of the period.
Looting was definitely a big thing - a decent sword might cost months of income for a peasant, a chainmail shirt as much as a decent cow or horse, and if you've been marching around in the mud for weeks you'd probably not turn your nose up at a good pair of boots.
A crossbow was relatively easy to use Longbows a weapon that took practice and skill
and we did practice it was law
@@peterchapman3740 Actually still is :)
Pronunciation: Agincourt- A-jin-cor (silent t), Crecy- Cre-see
I know the narrator on this clip pronounced Agincourt sounding the T, but Agincourt, located in Northern France, is pronounced without the sound of the t at the end, and more of a Z sound in place of the G
th-cam.com/video/v0Xwx12ekSU/w-d-xo.html
His French pronunciation is terrible.
@@okantichrist Like french words.
I wish I was taught history by this guy when I was in school
Interesting fact: After the battle of Waterloo in 1815 many of the bodies were looted especially for the teeth which were made into false dentures. After the bodies had rotted away much of the bones were ground down to make fertiliser! After the battle in medieval times the bodies would be stripped of the armour as it cost a lot to make a suit of armour. Looting of bodies on battlefields has gone on from time immemorial and is probably going on in the Ukraine war today!
What is crucial in order to understand the outbreak of the Hundred Years War is to know that the "English" kings were much more French than English as well as all the "English" chivalry and nobility which in addition were only French-speaking (during these battles, very few people spoke English). In their doctrine, their homeland was primarily Normandy + Angevin possessions and also France, which was its inalienable base. England only came in 3rd position because it was only a possession totally dominated and administered by them and not the land of their ancestors and their dynasty. Moreover, at that time, France was much more populated than England (almost 10 times more) so that made the interest even more obvious. The irony is that if the "English" had won the Hundred Years' War, there is a strong possibility that England would have been absorbed and assimilated into a large Franco-Norman kingdom and the English language would now have become a mere dialect. banal (despite this, almost 50% of the words of the modern English language come from French...). In this reversed scenario, I think this kingdom would have been almost unstoppable because it was overpowering compared to all the other kingdoms in Europe...
Yes imagine what would have happened if the French and English combined back then. America and Canada would be one and not the same gun culture. The empire would have been even more huge and all pervasive, I wonder if the world would have been conquered or brought into its orbit.
Oh dear, a frenchman.
@@SuperMYSHKIN not wrong though. And I’m English.
The longbow wasn't technologically inferior to the crossbow at all and wasn't your average bow. The longbow was a powerful medieval type of bow, about 6 ft (1.8 m) long used by the Welsh and English as a weapon of war. It also had a range of over 320-370 metres (350-400 yards), it was much cheaper and less complicated to produce. The only drawback was that you needed a lot of practice to become proficient, but once trained you could fire up to 12 arrows a minute (in reality you could have 2 or 3 arrows in flight at the same time). All the practicing paid off because the victories in Crecy and Agincourt were attributed to the speed of the longbows beating out the French’s slower crossbows.
The saying a Bolt from the Blue comes from fact that crossbow bolts were much smaller than arrows and were almost impossible to see in flight whereas salvos of arrows where easily seen in flight as I can attest as a longbow archer in my younger days
The French King wasn't, 'the English King's boss...". The French King was his lord, re' certain territories in France. The English King had sovereignty over England and Wales and was also the vassal lord over Scotland, Ireland and those parts of English controlled France over which the French King didn't have sovereignty. Feudalism was complicated, lol. Thus he was a vassal to the French King in Normandy and Anjou, both English holdings but not in Brittany or Calais, which were also English holdings in France...
Hi! Great reaction! I'm at the bit where you are discussing long range weapons. I'm sure many others have said it, but the longbow was the key element. It could pierce knight's (cavalry) armour at range. Made from yew trees that have a soft core, the science of why it worked so well was not fully understood at the time. Amongst the French, it had a semi-mystical reputation. We still have yew trees in most of our church yards because it was a great, safe, place to grow this unique type of wood. (Ok, its not unique but, because we didn't know it was just a 2-layer lamination of soft wood next to hard, we THOUGHT it was unique.) As a man who obviously loves to know why stuff happens, I reckon you might enjoy delving into the long bow's history? :)
Stripping bodies after a war was common, post Waterloo even teeth were extracted for use in dentures, they were called "Waterloo teeth ". Its a recent thing to treat the dead with respect.
The bow was an old and familiar technology, the long or hunting bow was known throughout medieval europe. The innovation was the massing of them and the variety of heads used to overcome the enemy's armour.
A longbow in the right hands was a killing machine.
You should watch kings and generals series on the hundred years war.
You should most definitely check out Agincourt. It was a great battle from the English point of view. Many, many French nobles were captured including the king. These were all ransomed for absolute fortunes, even by today’s standards.
For great fiction, but based on fact, check out Bernard Cornwell. His trio of books incorporated in The Grail Quest and Agincourt are fantastic reading and very un-put downable.
Hi Connor one thing you should know don,t f**k with the English
Just a few things to remember doing older history
1) most people could not read so paintings / drawings were done for information also they of course couldn't be drawn to scale hence army's were drawn close to each other , all thought hand to hand fighting was the norm.
2) Normally after battle the serfs / bowmen etc were killed off as they had no value but the Knights etc were kept alive for a ransom but on this occasion the french declared " no prisoners " were to be taken by flying that flag , hence all were killed . I believe it was normal when someone was about to die they would raise a arm so the person with the knife / dagger / sword would push it into their armpit and stab the heart for a quick death .
3) Flags and Banners were captured / stolen as souvenirs and Honours showing all people that you / your Regiment / King had won a battle against certain foes , plus these were also used as gathering places in battles when soldiers etc got lost.
You yourself have seen these flags and banners on TH-cam and/ or television , for example when Sharpe wins the golden eagle from the french ( he may of been humming " over the hills and far away " lol ) , you have certainly seen them in the UK at Horse Guards when they are Trooping the Colour and the Flag / Banner / Colour shows the battle honours of the Regiment
There is a good film about King Henry V with Agincourt on Netflix simply called King , plus a older film made during WW2 to pickup the moral of the British with Laurence Olivier , it may be called just Agincourt but there's plenty of real horses and knights etc
In England at around the 1250's there was a Royal statute that decreed that it was compulsory for all males in the towns and villages from the age of 14 yrs to be trained in archery and they had to practise nearly every day, this helped not only to develop muscles in their pulling arm to enable them to draw the bow string which required a lot of strength and muscle power, but it honed their aiming skills.The English bow was made of Yew which worked well under tension and the best bowmen were from Wales.The Bow was an efficient fighting machine and thank God we had it, also the saying that practise makes perfect definitely helped against our arch enemy at the time...the French. Check out the book The Longbow by Robert Hardy ( he was a well known actor in UK) ........loving your interest and love of History
Greetings, don't know if you know this at this point or if someone else commented on it already, but standards were inherited from Rome as major moral symbols and also served as rallying points during battle. As far as "looting the corpses," yes, this occurred, and if no prisoners were taken, they'd slaughter any knocked out soldier (they just had to notice them breathing). Horses were NOT targeted unless an incredible advantage could be gained by so doing, as they were worth up to a village's worth of men at certain times and places. Thus more horses than riders survived.
I believe the Hollywood depiction of arrows lobbed high in the air is wrong. The arrow will only start to come down when it has lost most of its energy. Then it is just like dropping it off a high building. Dangerous but hardly deadly to someone wearing mail or plate armour. Similar to small arms, fired slightly upwards for range but not lobbed.
Love learning with you mate. I’m really interested in history, and I’ve genuinely learned so much by watching your videos. Your comments keep me engaged and usually reaffirm my own thoughts. Keep it up lad!
Battle of Crécy, Battle of Poitiers, Battle of Agincourt (Azincourt) : giving the Frogs a good pasting ...
Ironically, it was necessary for them to win the war.
Battle of Cocherel, Battle of Pontvallian, Battle of Patay, Battle of Formigny, Battle of Castillon: giving the roastbifs a good pasting ...
@@Heisenberg882 1940 : 6 wks 🤷♂️
@@ThePhantomMajor Next time we French won’t save your ass at Dunkirk while you run away to your little Island.
@@ThePhantomMajor If we’re still talking medieval history how about the war of Saint Sardos, where France crushed England in 6 weeks despite’s being outnumbered almost 4-1.
If we’re talking modern times how about Bir Hakeim in 1942, where 3,700 French held off 37,000 troops of Rommel for weeks and saved the entire British army from destruction.
Or the Siege of Lille, where 40,000 French beat back 200,000 Germans long enough to allow the British to run away to their island.
You might be interested in seeing a demonstration of the surgical procedure used on the 16 year old Prince of Wales to remove an arrow head imbedded in his face, the tool created is still used.
That was a truly regal documentary ;-)
the best way to 'experience' the battle of agincourt is to watch Henry V - the Lawrence Olivier version - the battle scene is truly epic.
But still historically inacurate.... Though, we'll agree, it's nothing compared to netflix's "the king" that is absolutely ridiculous.
No it's not. What a pretentious thing to write. Agincourt was all about hacking Frenchmen to death while they floundered in thick mud. Don't recall much of that in what was in effect a WWII propaganda film.
No ;-) Henry V (Shakespeare) by Branagh
@@williambranch4283 Agree. Very realistic battle scene.
@@christineharding4190 And magnificent Te Deum ... but there is an early scene in English court that had poor acoustics. Branagh had the spirit of it for my generation, as Olivier had it for his generation. Vis-a-vis other comments, we are talking theater, not Sam Peckinpauh slow motion butchery. And no Franco-phobia for me, been free of that since the Napoleonic Wars ;-)
If you want to know about Agincourt, watch any of the Shakespeare "Henry V" movies.
Hello, Connor! Something to point out...
Most of historian & war researchers had established that, in numbers, the English side was somewhat between 10.000 or 12.000 men. Yes, at least a third of them were longbowmen and most of the time, both men-at-arms and knights fought at foot or dismounted, even the "Black Prince". The French were between 25.000 or 35.000 men.... There was no possible way they could ever afford such number of troops as the given one in the video (though the narrator says the numbers were exagerated), neither by logistical issues nor population reasons.
In any case, the chosen video and reaction are very entertaining and historically well documented.
A banner taken was a grave blow of honour to the enemy and the regiment, a forgotten circumstance of war.
I am British and I learned all this at junior school in history class at 7 years old and at my secondary school. British history is a passion of mine especially British military history. My Ancestor who was a French Knight at close friend to King William the Conqueror fought with the King at the Battle of Hastings. My Ancestor was appointed the King's representative to rule Ireland in his name, my Ancestor based himself in County Waterford. Here in the UK we have a thing called Education which America has not got, according to all the Americans on TH-cam who have not got any idea outside the American Bubble or think that they know everything, which they don't and I have many accounts of there lack of education when I was in America. 💂♂️💂♂️💂♂️💂♂️🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴🏴🏴🏴💙💛🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
In the middle ages the day and place of the battle was agreed between both parties. After the battle, reprensentatives of both camps gathered and negociated who won. Crecy is traditionally considered as the first battle when primitive artillery was used.
Well at that battle the french had cavalry out in front of everyone, where our troops where deployed behind stakes dug into the group with pikemen in front and then the french did the french thing of calloping towards the English lines and then men at arms shouted loose and about half of the french nobility died in about 20 minutes. General rule of thumb at the time of crecy was after a battle you sent a messenger and mututally agreed to revcover the dead and no combat would take place back then especially if the day was a sunday as that was still a sacred day.
The battle of Agincourt is featured in Shakespeare's play of Henry V (5th), the classic one starred Laurence Olivier & a later one with Kenneth Brannagh
All I know is that the battle of Agincourt was not what people thought like you get in Hollywood films you didn’t have lots of archers randomly shooting into the air these people were like snipers they looked at somebody shot and that person died.
Volley fire would have preceded any closer-range accurate shooting - simply to even the odds a bit. When a mass of people is advancing (with some difficulty) then you're pretty much guaranteed to hit something.
The real importance of Crecy was that it led to England taking Calais and its Pale. They held it until 1558(Mary I) it was hugely important in building England's wealth particularly through the wool and cloth trade with Flanders. There were always more years of trade than days of fighting and it was through wealth that Nations grew powerful ( wars tended to end regimes both winners and losers). Wars and Battles are really just punctuation in History and progress but generate fascination.
men at arms, are Knights, fully armoured. The French knights being hit by multiple arrows which didn't pierce the armour but delivered sledge type hammer blows which knocked them off their horses or over, the English archers then moved forward with knives stabbing through the visors to finish the job.
Men at arms are not knights, they are the (non archer) professional soldiers of the time, also known as house troops, they could be mounted men at arms (who would fight alongside the knights and their Squires), or foot troops (who would be alongside or among the levy).
Knights were Nobel, men at arms were commoners.
@@jonathongraham2419 hi Jonathon, I concur, I was just trying to get the point over the arrows seldom pierced the armour and that these were probably loosed at relatively close quarters.
A movie on Netflix The King is about Henry V and Agincourt but it lends itself more to Shakespeare's Henry than the real historical king.
Don't forget that the nobility and royalty of England were still Norman blooded at this stage and were basically anti-French. Normans were after all, Vikings at heart and wanted to conquer France as well. That is why the British inherited this natural desire to conquer the whole world. Who said the Brits are not sarcastic?
Some of my ancestors came from Brittany ( part of Normandy at one time) and ended up in Jersey, so I too am to blame for all this mayhem.
Let's not forget that the trenches of WWI were often only a 100-200m apart, so by Medieval times, pretty comparable to armies facing off.
Crecy and Agingcourt tend to get the publicity, but at Poitiers we actually captured the French King. What followed was a fantastic example of chivalry and honour
I had several ancestors at Crecy including Sir John Atte Wode and his son Peter Atte Wode. John was the Captain of Edrawd III's Royal Guard and his son was a Serjeant in the Guard, both were killed defending the king during the frantic attack on his position.
John and Peter are my 21st and 20th great grandfather's. I'm also descended from King Edward III, which isn't a great claim because 90% of modern indigenous Britons are, not all can prove it but he was very much the grandfather of the nations including Scotland and Wales due to the marriages his many offspring had with the nobility of all the nations of Britain. I'm also descended from Blind King John of Bohemia who was of course killed charging the English lines despite being totally blind.... nutter... he was my 22nd gt grandfather on my mother's side.
None of this, by the way is claiming some sort of exclusivity, anyone with British or French or Flemish ancestry almost certainly had a bunch of ancestors at this battle and many of them would have been royalty and many many more common soldiers
The Battle of Agincourt is definitely worth learning. It’s similar in many ways to a battle that occurred in 19th century in South Africa. The Battle of Rorkes Drift which is worth taking a look at.
I do agree: comparison worths taking a look at. And that leads to the conclusion the two battles are nothing alike (sorry to be blunt).
1. We don't have two powers (France and England) as technologically apart as Britain and Zulus were.
2. The fields and weathers (not to say climates) were so different and played such a role that those matters can't be ignored (especially the rainy weather in Agincourt's case)
3. The course of the battle itself has shown incredible mistakes in command from the French at Agincourt that can't be put on Zulu leaders at Rorke Drift...
So, no, the comparison stops almost at the battlefield edge
@@francoisdebellefroid2268 they are horribly outnumbered in an impossible situation relying on a superior weapons facing repeated attacks. All similarities.
I think you’re being a little specific.
But yeah I get your points
men at arms were quite literally, men holding arms ( armaments, swords, spears, halyards, axes or maces)
The link in the description takes me to how Cornish pasties are made.
Me too, but with carrots also.
Spearmen were often levies or not professional soldiers (until the advent of the professional swiss style pikemen) and a good counter to men at arms or cavalry when in a formation, men at armes were professional soldiers, usually heavily armoured with shields and shorter hand weapons like swords, maces and hammers, heavy infantry, knights were heavily armoured cavalry, usually nobility and semi nobility, archers were often professionals who operated in companies.
You asked about guns the last picture in the castle on the right shows a gun in action . Cheers
mistakes in this. Edward was Charles IV's grandson, not nephew. If you've seen Braveheart, the french princess married to longshanks' son was Isabella of France, daughter of Philip IV of France. Philip IV had 3 sons who wall became kings of france and all died young. Isabella had a son with edward II, and eventually overthrew her husband and had him killed, crowning her son Edward III. After all Isabella's brothers died, she was not allowed the throne of france because she was a woman, so the french throne was disputed between her son Edward III of England, and charles of Valois, who was isabella's cousin.
Braveheart was like totally accurate and awsome lol.
Read Jonathan Sumption's 'The Hundred Years War' - four volumes (2,500 pages), and a fifth volume due for publication in October 2022.
Bathroom hoodie snap. Dan Snow debunks the Agincourt myth. Is a great watch👀
The first victory for the English combination of archers and dismounted men-at-arms was in 1332 at Dupplin Moor in Perthshire which resulted in the effective annihilation of the Scots army.
I suggest you watch some of the videos on Agincourt featuring Dr. Tobias Capwell. He is very knowledgeable and has been fighting and riding in armor since he was a teen.
“Agincourt: Myths and Misconceptions” might be a good one to start with. The others are longer and very in-depth, but worth every second if you’re into the Hundred Years War.
Dude if you wanna learn about the Battle of Agincourt you must watch The King on Netflix. Amazing movie.
Pronunciation tips - 'Cressy', Agin-core'
Wait ! For a Minute think how the sheep felt knowing the Welsh were coming to French Countryside. After alot of Lambs were Named BARRBARA .😮
Isn't it ironic that its he descendant of a William the Conqueror, from France, Ruling England, turning against the French King. This is actually English history. These people are all the same family and it is still true today.
You should do a video on the Longbow, its not quite the archaic weapon you presume.
A great book, The Eagle of the Ninth, would make a great reaction. There's sure to be a video of it.
Simon has done one. It rocks :)
Check out Tod Cutler's channel Tod's Workshop for lots of interesting content on the hardware and weapons used throughout this period. Particularly his videos comparing longbows vs. crossbows.
Longbow are accurate at between 400 and 500 yards.
The longbow could shoot over 400 yards; but almost certainly, in most cases, the yeomanry shot their volleys much, much closer - perhaps at only a 150 yards or less, so that each arrow was likely to find its target. Even so, even at that range, modern tests suggest that longbow arrows could not penetrate well-made steel plate. The same can't be said for horses though. P.S. - the "Black Prince" was never actually known by that name in his lifetime; he was Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales.
Brave attempt at pronunciation from, I guess, a non-French speaker. You were close.
Crecy is Cressie like Jessie.
Agincourt is more complicated: Ah-Zhin-Cor. I’ve been to both villages, and they are literally just villages. :-)
Ed III was Longshank’s grandson. A surprise to everyone seeing as Ed II was certainly bisexual and probably gay, indeed records suggest that Ed III’s father may have been a squire or knight in the Queen’s service … because Ed II was documented as being a long way (in France) from his Queen (in England) during the likely month of conception.
If you want to know more of Agincourt, you should watch Kenneth Branagh‘s brilliant film of Henry V, which culminates in the Battle.
Fine work, by the way. “I’m just a guy who wants to learn” should be the mantra we all live by.
Great history lesson...
Men at Arms are the most heavily armoured knights and sergeants who fought with spears. swords, axes etc .... longbowmen were almost wholly unarmoured
Kevin Hicks on the History Squad on TH-cam gives good accounts of Medieval war fare and the use of the longbow, which he is a dab hand at using. Good site with interesting take on things.
Men-at-arms are melee soldiers including both knights and their retainers (as a kind of tax for holding land from the king knights and nobility had to provide armed men for the army in times of war). Knight by this point in time was a social rank whereas man-at-arms was a purely military designation.
Yes armour would not have been uniform, the quality would largely have depended on the wealth of the wearer or their patron.
The standard/flag was a crucial piece of equipment in all armies from antiquity to modern times with the invention of smokeless propellant and radios. As such they were highly prized be they ancient Roman eagles or Napoleonic eagles.
Here in the UK on the Monarchs official birthday there is a ceremony- trooping the colour - which commemorates what each unit would do prior to each battle, parade the standard/flag in front of the relevant troops so they can recognise it. The standard/flag was the rallying point for the company/battalion/regiment and each soldier had to be able to recognise it. Think of the closing sequence of the book Red Badge of Courage, the young soldier picks up the regimental flag and runs up the hill towards the Confederate lines, the rest of his regiment swarm forward following the flag.
To lose the standard/flag means the unit loses its focal point and is disorganised and demoralised for the rest of the battle. Ergo it is a very important symbol and worthy of mention amongst the spoils of war.
The King (film) I'd imagine is so more real to life than Henry the 5th (Olivier) except for a few fictional character's, some memorable Historical events get a better more accurate account the more we learn and uncover ,fantastic film although it takes a French/American lead 😉
The longbow can shoot 10 aimed arrows per minute ... even I could achieve this after minimal practice ... crossbowmen could only achieve about two shots pm
Thanks for this Connor. Aaaand yet again you come up with a reaction producing more questions than answers!!! I can't keep up lol. I'm hugely interested in all matters relating to military history, not an expert but a better than layman's knowledge. All battles are brutal but for some reason I find medieval one's contradictory; a noble defeated in 1-2-1 combat could yield on the battlefield, go home to his family after promising to go back to the victor after the war, in order to be ransomed for their freedom...??? A chivalric POW so to speak... then there's the lower ranked; Yeomanry etc. They've no time for this chivalry nonsense! Rob what you can carry that's worth some money and back to camp. As an aside; in the RAF we got basic (very basic) infantry training and one thing was that you NEVER rob the dead (friend or foe) of personal possessions, huge huge no-no. They had to be left alone for the battlefield clean up crew to identify the person and try to send them back to their family. Great reaction once again. Oh, and for those critics about your interruptions; well it's your channel.... I rest my case!
History of most of the 100 Years War......the French snatching defeat from the jaws of victory......
Knights are men at arms and men at arms are knights, the invention of the word men at arms came after the title of knights came to mean a guy with land and enough money to be nobility, not wanting to pay for more knights they started calling the type of soldier men at arms, but it’s always safe to assume a decent proportion of men at arms are knights even if not stated, the only real difference was that knights had more and nicer things
Have a look at the Timeline video of the battle of Towton. Britain's bloodiest battle.
Anglo history is way too overrepresented.
@@Joe-wq9lf who the fk asked you?
The bloodiest battle was surely the destruction of Boudiccas force by the Romans
@@alextaxi2593 no, it was Towton.
@@alextaxi2593 vast numbers, brits on both sides.....
Connah go fined steptoe and sun two rag and bone men late 60s rag and bone means second hand goods
They collected items on a horse and cart. So funny ❤
Arrows were hand made and it took skill to make them You didn't waste them unless you knew you were going to hit something
'Men at arms' is a term for melee soldiers (not archers) who are 'commoners' as opposed to knights, aristocracy, etc. 'Arms' is a rather old term for weapons, as in 'take up arms'.
.... and immediately proven wrong by the programme. Ha! Not all commoners, seemingly.
Looting the dead was a given for hundreds of years
John of Bohemia charged on purpose, according to some chronicles, his last words were: "Far be it that the King of Bohemia should run away. Instead, take me to the place where the noise of the battle is the loudest. The Lord will be with us. Nothing to fear. Just take good care of my son."
26:39 It was quite usual for the ordinary soldiers on the winning side to strip their dead opponents of anything that was better than they had - a decent pair of boots, a better dagger etc. When quarter _was_ given they could become very wealthy if they captured a nobleman for ransom.
The terms and are often used interchangeably, but while all knights equipped for war certainly were men-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights.
Football was banned in favour of compulsory archery practice. Sadly, the legend isn’t true about the French capturing English archers and chopping their two fingers off, triggering the English to proffer the two fingered traditional gesture at the French.
Edward 3rd and the aristocratsif his spoke French as a first language and its not certain if they evev understood the English language. They considered themselves French or rather Norman.
Yes I think looting (spoils of war) was a soldiers perogative back then, like written into their service contract.
Interesting fact was you were only supposed to loot the bodies after word was given, the word being "Havoc!", And only certain high ranking members of the army were allowed to give the order.
The order would only be given once the battle was considered won, that way the troops would concentrate on fighting rather than falling to looting before the job was done.
Also were the saying "Cry Havoc and let loose the dog's of war!" After the cry was given an orderly force could fall into an orgy of looting.
"Where they really that close to each other firing arrows" lol "What!"
You are trolling us or just being the average American! lol [Joke].
yep yep bit thick lol
Edward III refused to help his son 'the black prince' who was in trouble in the battle saying to his men "let the boy earn his spurs"
Based English. Poitiers and Agincourt were also examples of ... France should not close with the English. Longbows! After the battle? At Waterloo, much later. the most feared were the dentists ... they went around knocking out the good teeth of the dead or enemy wounded, because that is how you got the raw material for dentures! Later again, one British soldier lay wounded on the Somme (same location but WW I) for three days before being recovered and tended to. The blind German king who died .... the Order of the Garter was named for him. Loosing a standard was a dishonor for a Roman legion, and for a Napoleonic regiment. General Custer's younger brother, won two Congressional Medals of Honor, for taking two Confederate flags during the final retreat of General Lee, in one week.
French and English men at arms would have looked almost identical
An interesting one is waterloo teeth ,bad as it sounds
This guy doing the narration talks like Alan Whicker (see the Mony Python skit "Island of Alan Whickers") Like Alan Whicker, this dude has this strange way of elongating his vowels through his nose...anyone of my generation aged in England from the 1970's will remember Alan Whicker and understand what i mean. I think they do it to make themselves sound more impressively educated, the more to wow the colonials in America? I don't know
At Waterloo teeth was taken for dentures
Watch The King on Netflix………Battle of Agincourt