Quick reminder that this is an a reupload of an older video. We weren't happy with the visuals. They looked very dated, so we overhauled pretty much about all the animations and illustrations. Now the illustrations represent the time period much better. By the way, this is the last reupload. The next video is going to be about warfare in India.
You should really make a couple more videos about the advancement of warfare and all after the Spanish Tercios. I would personally really like to see a separate video on the whole Swedish Carolean Tactics and such, as from what I understand, they were kind of the first proper forms of what we know as line infantry tactics of the 1700s and 1800s. Though I could be slightly wrong, as I'm not a complete expert on those periods.
ha! i was a bit confused. I was an early backer of the channel but had to cease due to financial constrains. Glad to have helped anyways. Not sure how i feel about warfare in India, but let''s hope for a pleasant suprise.
El Gran Capitán is one of the most unappreciated military geniuses in history. He was an important commander in the end of the Reconquista, where he successfully defeated moorish light cavalry and archer armies. When he was deployed in Italy to fight the French, he wasn't prepared for "cavalry" meaning "giant French horses in a ton of armour", as horses in Spain are smaller and more suited to skirmish and flanking tactics. ... So he lost at Seminara and proceeded to reinvent warfare in record time and blow the French out of the water for the rest of the war, with a method that became a staple in Europe for the next 150-200 years. This guy is one of the GOAT generals.
10 หลายเดือนก่อน +21
Your assessment is completely correct, although we must not leave behind the Catholic Monarchs, who were the ones who made the first reforms that modernized the Spanish army (especially with their determination to make a large production of firearms), giving the tools to Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (the Great Captain) to create the rules and tactics, which would lay the foundations of Modern Warfare. Unfortunately, current historiography wrongly attributes the authorship of the invention of Modern Warfare to simple reformers of its tactics, such as Maurice of Nassau and Gustav Adolf II of Sweden, who only tweaked the method that Gonzalo established with his Coronelias and then it evolved into the well-known Spanish Tercios.
Spanish horses are not smaller, simply much of Spain is a plain and it was useful to use the cavalry as fast projectile and harassment troops than as medieval tanks with little marching capacity, it was simply a military adaptation to the terrain, besides it would not be very smart to put full armour and a bard on the horse to stand still for hours under the spanish sun waiting for the moment to charge the enemy troops, because when that moment came those knights and horses would be dead from the heat
Mad respect from Spain for taking notice of how the italian wars were the foundation for future spanish military success. Also apreciate the effort in respecting the spanish names. Solid video.
One key thing about the creation of the Tercios was that Spain (actually Castile, Aragon, and Navarre) had been fighting against the Moors for centuries. When Castile and Aragon took Granada, there was already a proto-version of the Tercios, which then went to Naples to fight the French. El Gran Capitán was a great leader and reformer, but we have to take into account the hundreds of decades of war experience these kingdoms had. That’s why, when Spain was unified and became a European power, it was unstoppable since no other nation had the same "training" they did. Great video
Their name may have also come from the structure of the Spanish forces in Italy. In the Ordenanza of Genoa of 1536, the Spanish army of Italy was divided in three thirds: Tercio de Nápoles, Tercio de Sicilia and Tercio de Lombardía. Later on the Tercio de Cerdeña was created. Those four, being the first tercios, were called old tercios, Tercios Viejos. They were really prestigious and veteran units but there were other elite Tercios which were not called Viejos. Great video by the way! Also, another famous quote (however maybe not authentic) from a Spanish officer in the battle of Rocroi was that, when the battle ended, a French officer asked him how many men were in his unit, the Spanish captain laconically replied "count the deads"
Fernando Gonzalez de Cordoba " The Great Captain" is a military genious to created the modern infantry and the Spanish Tercios one of the best armies of history.
The Tercios dominated the battlefields in Europe for 1 and a half centuries, from the Battle of Cerignola in 1503 to the Battle of the Dunes in 1658. They practically invented modern fencing, the "destreza". The Spanish defeated the French, Italians, Germans, Dutch, English, Swedes and Ottomans, as well as the Mexica and the Incas. Many centuries have passed since then, and the Spanish, a country of 5 million people in the 16th century, ended up exhausted and ruined, surpassed by France on land and by the English at sea, but of course the 16th century is their Golden Age.
Pike and shot warfare was utterly useless against the staggered firing lines of Algonquin woodlands nations. Prompting the creation of Rogers Rangers in King Phillips War 1676
Tecnicaly speaking the english did not surpass the spanish on sea, it was the dutch the ones who defeated Spain on sea in the last years of the Thirty Years War. The english were defeated by the spanish in the XVIII century in the War of the Jenkings Ear and suffered a lot during the War of American Independence against Spain and France, and did not really dominate the seas until the end of the XVIII century and early XIX century, during the Napoleonic Wars.
"By the way, would the primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Mayan warriors of the ancient Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Mesoamerica go up,👆 against the late 15th century to early 16th century renaissance,🎨 👤 Habsburg,👑 Spanish,🇪🇸 tercios gunpowder,🔫 cavalry,🏇artillery,🔫 pike and shot formations on horseback,🏇 of an English,🏴 standard thoroughbred horses,🐴 wearing Southern German,🇩🇪 Gothic plate,🍽 armor and chainmail,🔗⛓ for protection from the primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉age ancient mesoamerican indigenous tribal weapons,🔫 in the cold,❄wet, 💦 dense jungle and rainforest,🌴 alongside the hot,🔥 and humid desert,🏜 of Ancient Mexico,🇲🇽 in the year of fifteen hundred twenty-one, during the age of exploration,🔭 of the new world,🗺 in the year of fourteen hundred ninety-two to the year of fifteen hundred sixty-five?"
Imagine being a knight training for who knows how long and getting killed by a citizen with a couple months of training with a long sharp sticks Edit: Mother i am famous Edit: I relies I made some mistakes in this comment I meant that as technology and tatics advances knights or nobels who have trained for most for much longer and resources put In the training can be killed much easier.
That wouldn't have been considered particularly weird, because it was a part of medieval thought that if one becomes too proud God will in one way or another strike one down, and no matter how mighty one is, one should always be humble in front of the random forces of the World (described during the time as the intricate plans of God). Take this as an example, from the Castillian law code Siete Partidas from mid-1200's which was extremely influental throughout Latin Europe, wherein a chapter is related to what squires should contemplate during their knighting ceremony: "He should bear in mind that God has authority over all things, and can manifest it whoever He desires to do so, and that this is especially the case with regard to deeds of arms; for in his hand are life and death, the power to give and to take, and he can cause the weak to be strong and the strong to be weak. When he has made this prayer, he must remain upon his knees as long as he can endure it, while all the others stand; for the vigils of knights were not instituted as games, or for any other purpose but that they and the others present may ask God to preserve, direct, and assist them, as men who are entering upon a career of death."
The Conquistador Arsenal. A force of conquistadors could rely on the following impressive array of weaponry: 1)The cannons. 2)The arquebuses. 3)The crossbows. 4)The bow and arrow. 5)The swords. 6)The halberds. 7)The pikes. 8)The spears 9)The lances. 10)The daggers. 11)The knifes. 12)The attack dogs. The matchlock arquebus is considered the forerunner to the flintlock musket. The bow and the crossbow was used by the conquistadors for hunting and warfare when firearms or gunpowder were unavailable because of economic hardships or isolation.
This is the sign. I have been pondering whether to start learning Spanish because i honestly adore the language and culture. Lets see how difficult it is to learn Spanish for a Slavic speaker.
80% of the Slavics, at least former Yugoslavians, need six months and a dictionary to learn Spanish well. The other 20% don't need the dictionary. I'm a teacher of Spanish myself and I can testify.😉
Among the Latin languages, Spanish is among the two most easy to learn, next to Italian. People say English is easiest, but that's only because of the lack of varied conjugation. Grammar is very straightforward in Spanish, in my opinion.
Iam Soanish learn Soanish is not dificult when you.learn something the rest will come easily and you will be one of 600 million Spanish speakers around in the world; the second native most soeaking after Chinese and the second after English more global ; bienvenido!! ( welcome)
As an spanish myself i must say that hearing you say "jiñetes" is as funny as painfull 😂😂 I know is not easy to speack foreign lenguajes so, for those wondering, "jinete" is pronounced with an "n", not "ny" (or the spanish ñ) and is basicalle means horse rider
Funnyly enough, the only Total War game where you can come close to making a functional tercio is Shogun 2 (try with the otomo clan). Medieval 2's pikemen and arcabusiers are too bugged. (there are mods for pike and shot i'm speaking of vanilla). Loving the growth of the channel, i'm happy to have backed the project in its early stages. good luck guys!
Very interesting and well done!! I also really appreciated that you pronounced correctly the Italian, Spanish and French terms, which is a real rarity 😉Bravo👏
The way he says Archabasiers 🤣 stuck in my head all day 🤣 love this guy, these seige videos are helping me in relationship problems 🤣 its all I've watched for 6 weeks to distract me and realized this is how I'm gonna fix my relation ship issues 🤣
The name 'tercio' has stuck in Spanish military tradition. When the Spanish Foreign Legion was created in the early 1920s upon the French model was called 'Tercio de Extranjeros' (Foreigners' Tercio) and the Marines which were created as the 'Tercio de Armada' (Navy Tercio) in the early XVI century still retains the name Tercio for its main units.
@@mcrulas6576 sorry, but you are wrong here. When the Spanish Legion was created in 1920 its official name was 'Tercio de Extranjeros'. Later changed to 'Tercio de Marruecos' and then to 'Legión', but people usually referred to It as 'el Tercio'. Please check your sources before making a categoric statement.
I love how, prior to linear warfare, war basically didn't change. Sure, weapons and armor improved, new units and new tactics were developed, and armies had new ways of organizing, but so many aspects of war were ruggedly persistent. It's hilarious to think that, in the early days of gunpowder and they heyday of the "knight" style of heavily cavalry, there were still light cavalrymen chucking javelins at heavy cavalry like it's still the Punic wars. It also seems like the pike only existed to re-emerge every so once in a while to completely ruin a style of warfare before disappearing for centuries. Basically every "great unit" you hear people talking about in that entire period was either a new way of using pikes or something designed to beat pikes.
Technically, war didn't change much even after linear warfare. Pikes were cut down only because muskets all had socket bayonets, which allowed them to fulfill a dual role without comprising the ability to shoot. However, infantry could still charge in pell-mell as if in the age of pike and shot. Rather than harquebusiers and the like on horseback, you had carabiniers which still fulfilled the same roles, or dragoons capable of shooting both mounted and dismounted. The concept of how cavalry charged remained the very same: concentrate a mass with reserves to exploit gaps or disordered formations. In terms of army-level tactics, not small-scale tactics, the changes were even less pronounced. There still remained the core tactics which carried on even until the postmodern era of warfare. Hit the enemy on both flanks to draw their attention there, then mass a concentration of force to breakthrough the center. Refuse a weak flank while advancing with the other flank to roll up the enemy line. Attack both flanks in order to turn them and achieve a double envelopment. There's more than just these few, but they can be replicated with current day infantry squads as they could in lines back then or deep columns in medieval/ancient times. Operationally and strategically, war has seldom changed at all, with the only real thing that has changed being scale of application, yet the underlying concepts remain the same. Cut the enemy's lines of communications and destroy their base(s) of supplies. Establish efficient lines of communications for your own army to facilitate the transportation of supplies to the front. Manoeuvre-wise, the basic concepts of army-level tactics are brought to greater scale on the operational level. For instance, in the Roman Civil War, Caesar invaded Italia first, cutting the Pompeians into three divided sections and seizing the central position. This allowed him to swing west on Hispania, swing east on Makedonia, then swing south on Africa to defeat each in detail while preventing them from offering mutual support to one another. This was perhaps the first usage of the central position and interior lines on such a massive scale. In his Samarkand Campaign, Chinggis Khan drew the attention of the Khwarezmians on the border with one army while he led another army on a manoeuvre to the rear via an inhospitable desert to appear at their rear, cutting their communications with the rest of their empire and encircling the bulk of the Khwarezmian regular army. In his Marengo Campaign of 1800, Napoleon did very much the same thing. By making feints against the enemy left and right along various mountain passages, he drew their attention to those flanks, then he broke through the center with 51,400 men and manoeuvred to the rear of the Austrian army of Melas. The Austrians, some 86,000 strong, were cut in half, with 34,000 ending up encircled (plus an additional 15,000 Piedmontese still mobilizing). After the victory at the Battle of Marengo, he was able to draw up concessions with Melas and neutralize 49,000 enemies in one of the boldest campaigns in history (this is what I consider the proto-Ulm, his experiment before 1805). In WWII, the Allies were sure that the Ardennes Forest would present a significant obstacle to the passage of Axis forces, just as the Khwarezmians were sure that the desert would protect them from the Mongols. Their beliefs were dashed when the enemy broke through the center of their line, cutting the Allied army in half and neutralizing 400,000 at Dunkirk in the year 1940. The bulk escaped, but they were essentially removed from the French front, causing its collapse. In 2022, in their Kharkiv Counteroffensive, the Ukrainians pinned the Russian flanks before amassing a significant concentration of force to breakthrough the enemy center, cutting their army in half and forcing a precipitous withdrawal of the invaders. As you can see, the heart of warfare still remains the same. I'm sure that, for the great captains of history, if they are taught a few of the differences in more modern warfare, they would be able to easily adapt to the situation and perform rather well as generals still.
I'm more inclined to believe that the name tercio (literally 'a third') comes from each one of them being a third of the Spanish troops in Italy originally ('the third' of Lombardy, 'the third' of Naples and 'the third' of Sicily). As a Spaniard myself, this makes much more sense in my mind than the 3 weapons theory (again, tercio means a third, not three). There are people who support the 3 weapons theory in Spain too though, but the first one makes so much more sense if you think about it.
Nicely done! I get the impression that as time wore on, and firearms became more effective, that the pikeman's role was to just protect the musket men from cavalry.
@@Cake_Commander i can tell you, its not only accent its more like a french speaking english and missing entire leters or changing the sounds completly
During the Battle of Rocroi Louis II du borbon said "They are like moving fortress". The improvements of the artillery make the tercios weak because close formation is weak againts canons.
I love that you explain in this video that armies were losing too many soldiers, they started digging trenches for protection, and open battles were not so every day. I would love to see how war has changed until now. Like, we stopped seeing open battles in WW1? and how is war made now in contrast to the medieval times?
Stationary fortifications were used for millennia; temporary as well as permanent (for example, archers put stakes in the ground to defend against cavalry if they could). The main difference with WW1 was the unprecedented scale - Europe has been slowly climbing towards Roman levels of field troops over centuries, and then quite suddenly, leapt and bound straight over them. Logistics vastly improved, allowing ridiculously large armies to be supported "indefinitely" (of course, by the time the Germans were defeated in WW1, they had long been under horrific logistical pressures they couldn't possibly keep up with). I'd say that's the biggest difference, overall. In older European wars, armies necessarily had huge focus on manoeuvre - the "map" was gigantic compared to what armies could actually control; control was mainly about holding important strongpoints - cities, castles, ports. That was quite enough, because the main forces of the enemy armies could not possibly support themselves without them, and they were fairly fixed (raiding parties could of course go beyond such logistics for a time and could inflict damage to the countryside, but they couldn't force any decisive battle, obviously). In WW1, armies managed to grow so large they actually could maintain a trench line across (a relatively thin portion, but still) Europe - and the logistics to support them could be brought to bear thanks to railways which can pretty much be built wherever you want to get access to the full logistical power of your nation (and your allies). You can really see this in how war changed throughout and since WW1 - the same problem with massive concentrated firepower remained, but one of the ways to combat this has been the _dispersion_ of the defenders. WW1 trench lines had a lot higher concentration of soldiers. But it still works without such massive trench lines, because you still block enemy logistics - they simply can't afford to send their armies, no matter how strong, too far from solid logistic base. As long as you can keep disrupting their supply lines, they have to maintain virtual "lines" anyway, even if they aren't constrained by an opposing trench line. And needless to say, _existing_ roads, rails, bridges and rivers are still absolutely crucial, and are much easier to assault than to defend. This wasn't a problem for defence on the Western front of WW1 much, because of those trench lines with purposefully built logistic backing straight against the back of the lines on both sides... but even in WW1 in the West, it became painfully obvious when you tried to actually take the land you fought over - as you moved over the no man's land, you lost support from your logistics and artillery, while the enemy was in a much _stronger_ position than before. People really like the meme of the inept WW1 general sending their troops into the meatgrinder against enemy artillery and machine gun fire to be slaughtered, but most generals weren't Cadorna. In fact, most assaults had a _favourable_ kills:losses ratio in the assault phase - that only turned around after they took hold of the positions and the counter-attack came. Which of course led to the attrition tactics of forcing a successful assault at a favourable ratio... only to immediately retreat before the counter-attack arrived, not even trying to hold ground. Ah, as you can see, the problem with WW1 (and modern warfare) is that even just looking at a very small part of a war... you can easily create tens of hours of meaningful content :D These things are huge and complicated.
One thing I never understood: how do the sleeves, consisting of hundreds of men, fit into the main body, a solid pike square of some 2000 men, when shielding from cavalry? Wouldn't they become disorganised and dangerously cramped?
Think of something similar to the british squares in the battle of Waterloo. More cramped, and with waaaay thicker walls, so to speak, but the center of a Tercio was "empty" so officers could come and go, wounded could be tended, lines could rotate, and yes, so the there is room for the men carrying firearms to retreat inside.
Conte had to learn the hard way you can't just blast cav against the tercio. That's why he blasted them to hell with cannons and firearms. But damn it would've been cool to watch a tercio do formation drills
I don't get why the loss at Rocroi could be seen as a loss for the Tercios. The supporting combat arms were defeated and driven from the field and even then the French could not break the Tercios.
@@asuka7309 sure the defeat was bad but there was nothing the Tercios could have done to win the cav fight or make the Germans actually bring pikes to the battle.
@MeiEnjoyer that's not how war works, just because you stubbornly refuse to leave the field and the enemy is smart enough to not fight you one on one doesn't mean you didn't lose. The tercios got blown to pieces by artillery and the battle ended up with the overwhelming majority of them killed or captured, Spain and it's tercios could no longer fight back against the French and for the first time in ages France ended up invading the Spanish Netherlands and annexing part of it. The Spanish tercios never recovered and kept losing wars thereafter. It's not that hard to get.
@@asuka7309 ah yes the correct solution to losing your cavalry is obviously to rout near the enemy cavalry and get run down. And mind you subsequent advancements in infantry warfare would not solve the problem of needing to stay together for protection against cavalry in formations vulnerable to artillery for hundreds of years.
@MeiEnjoyer you could do a breakout, leave a battlefield in good order and/or surrender without getting blown to pieces with artillery first. As was done at plenty of other battles. Also line infantry stood only 3-5 ranks deep and wasn't nearly as vulnerable to artillery as the tercios were lol.
it's awesome. the movie got some awards for the custome design, if memory serves right. definitely looks very cool and one of the few movies focusing on this time period.
footnote: To put down the increasingly tough uprising against the Habsburgs, a sizable section of the Spanish army-which by the latter part of the 16th century was made up exclusively of tercio troops-was stationed in the Netherlands. These forces were the Tercio of Sicily and the Tercio of Savoy. When it came time to pay them, many Spanish tercios ironically became more of a problem than a solution because unpaid units frequently rebelled as a result of the Spanish coffers being empty from continuous conflict.
1:05 I apreciate that you say jinete in spanis (it just mean horseman) but it hurts how you say an ñ insted o an n. Even thougth, its cool that you are trying.
If I was told to go break the push of pike, given how dangerous it is, I'd probably want a sword and shield. But I guess halberdiers were more effective, which makes sense since halberds aren't as vulnerable to cavalry. I still love the look of the rodelero, though.
As the percentage of gunponder weapons increased, it became largely unnecessary to break the formation in melee. The unit with more firearms and more artillery support could usually just let the ranged troops do their thing, until the enemy fomation either fled the field, or was forced into a charge.
WIll you also at some point make a video about Spanish Lancers? and maybe how they were continued as Mexican Lancers and I believe also in Texas up until the Civil War
Mexican lancers ? Dragones de cuera? Was a Spanish unit , ( Spanish , natives , mestizos and some Irish ) than protracted the frontiers of nueva España , now Mexico , Texas , California
it’s mostly commissioned work by various artists we work with. i add, mix and match elements (arms, faces, weapons etc) and put them in new compositions myself.
La 1a,guerra d Nápoles, empezó en 1496 con la derrota española d Seminara, pero acabó en 1497 con la rendición por el Gran Capitán d Atella, último reducto francés. La 2a guerra d Nápoles, además d las victorias d Ceriñola y Garellano, cuenta con una 2a batalla d Seminara en 1503, ganada a los franceses por Andrade el lugarteniente del Gran Capitán. Entre las victorias d los Tercios están además La Bicocca en 1522, Pavía en 1525, Landriano en 1529; Serravalle, 1544; Düren en 1543; conquista,d Saint-Dizier en 1544; Mühlberg, 1547; Túnez 1535; Marciano,1554; San Quintín 1557; Gravelines, 1558; Jemmingen 1568; Haarlem 1573, Mook 1574, conquista d Zierickzie e islas d Zelanda, 1575-1576; Gembloux, 1578; Maasticht, 1579; Batalla d Alcántara, Portugal, 1580; Oudenarde, 1582; Niewpoort y Dunkerk, 1583; batalla d Steenbergen 1583; Toma d Bruselas en 1584 y d Amberes 1585; toma d Grave, batalla d Zutphen en 1586; toma de Sluys, 1587; toma d Bonn, Nuiss y Rheinberg, 1586-1589 ( campaña del Electorado d Colonia).Tomas d Lagny y Corbeil, y socorro d París, 1590; socorro d Rouán, 1592; batalla d Craon, Bretaña, 1592; toma d La chapelle, 1594; batalla d Doullens, 1595; batalla d Cornualles, 1595; toma d Calais, 1596; toma d Amiens, 1597, toma d Hulst, 1596; derrota d Niewpoort, 1600; toma d Ostende, 1604; toma d Oldenzaal, 1605; Guerra del Monferrat, batalla d Asti, 1615; invasión d Kleves-Jülich; tomas d Wessel, Aquisgrán y Düsseldorf, en 1614; guerra del Palatinado, conquista d Oppenheim en 1620; batallas d Fleurus, Höecht y Wimphen en 1622; conquista d Jülich estemismo año; toma d Frankenthal en 1623; toma d Breda, 1625; socorro d Konstanz y Breisach y toma d Rheinfelden en 1633. Batalla d Nordlingen, en 1634; toma d Treveris 1635; conquista d Corbie, 1636; batalla d Kollum, 1638; batalla d Honnecourt, 1642; derrota d Rocroi, 1643; batalla d Tuttlingen en 1643; defensa d Orbetello, 1646; derrota d Lens, 1648; defensa d Lérida, 1647; toma d Rocroi, 1653; 2a batalla d Pavía en 1655; batalla d Valenciennes, 1656; derrota en Las Dunas d Dunquerk 1658, y le sigue la Paz d los Pirineos en 1659 con Francia, q marca la hegemonía francesa d los ejércitos d Luís XIV. Aún combatieron los Tercios hasta su disolución por Felipe V ( primer rey d la dinastía Borbón en España) en 1704, teniendo particular importancia en la batalla d Seneffe en 1674, en la defensa d Louxemburg, en 1683 y en la reconquista d Namur en 1695.
Es alucinante el poco reconocimiento historico de esta unidad, acabo de ver un video de un americano atribuyendo la tecnica de combate de picas y arcabuces a suecos alemanes y franceses
@@mcrulas6576..Les han lavado el cerebro desde niños. No esperes otra cosa, si en las pelis, vídeos y libros q ven y leen desde q tienen uso d razón sólo aparecen estadounidenses ingleses, alemanes, franceses, italianos, rusos, japoneses y chinos; y ahí acaba la historia..Bueno es q se hagan estos vídeos...pero son muchos siglos d machaque continuo...Ah, por cierto, me he dejado muchas batallas, pero la q omití y q no puede faltar en una relación d hechos d armas d los Tercios es Lepanto en 1571, y ya d paso, el socorro d Malta d 1565.
@@mcrulas6576les podrán contar lo que quieran pero verdad solo hay una, y eso no se puede cambiar. Saludos desde España.
8 หลายเดือนก่อน +5
Es un gran aporte tu comentario, hay muchas batallas que tienden a ignorar (sobre todo después de Rocroi, que no fue catastrófica como lo pintan); yo en el comentario que puse cuando salio el video, traté de explicar todas las Ordenanzas hechas en los Tercios desde 1536 hasta 1685, puesto que estos anglosajones piensan que los Tercios se mantuvieron igual por 2 siglos, cosa que es errónea y otra creencia incorrecta es creer que eran como los Suizos, cuando los españoles desde Ceriñola se caracterizaron en llevar un gran número de arcabuceros (mantuvieron esta superioridad de disparos hasta que los holandeses y suecos modificaron las formaciones para potenciarlas).
8 หลายเดือนก่อน +3
@@mcrulas6576 totalmente y la mayor injusticia es que le dan la autoría de la "creación" de los ejercitos modernos al hereje rey sueco Gustavo Adolfo, cuando este solo se copio con leve diferencias de los holandeses, que a su vez solo modificaron lo que los españoles ya habían creado desde principios del siglo XVI. Por eso el verdadero padre de la Guerra Moderna es Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán), el que inició todo con las tropas recién modernizadas de los Reyes Catolicos; pero esto siempre lo omiten, porque no les agrada que haya sido un católico el que haya innovado la guerra (ya saben como son los protestantes de recelosos con la historia, miran a los países del sur como atrasados y les cuesta reconocer sus meritos). Se debe hacer más esfuerzos para difundir la verdad, que el primer ejército moderno no fue francés, ni inglés, ni holandes, ni sueco, ni suizo... sino el español con su uso combinado de armas de fuego y picas, bajo la tutela del Gran Capitán.
You mean that it was Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, El Gran Capitan, who was the first commander to apply the doctrine of combined arms?.... In that case there has been a lot of hiding and lying. Why?
The black legend exists and it still hurt Spain to this day, for example a lot of people believe we massacred the Mesoamericans, but history tells something very different. Mostly the English created these false accusations, the same way everyone thinks that Vikings were dirty barbarians (again, English enemies)
@@Roctech44 The irony is that many from the British isles are descendants of vikings (from 8-9 C.e. and the normands, which were naturalized vikings in Northern France).
@@Roctech44 The Black Legend is wrong, but not entirely false. The Spanish did commit attrocities, just not to the scale of the legend, as did the other European powers. The Vikings were called dirty barbarians by most of Europe not just the English.
0:48 *jinete is pronounced with an N, not an Ñ aslo, since I'm at it: whenever you see an accent on a spanish word, that's the syllable that has to be emphasized. Always. No exceptions. It's not like other languages where accents are sometimes there for obscure reasons, and can be ignored. In spanish they're always a helpful tip.
I think you keep making a tiny mistake in your animations about formations beeing shot at by artillery. Correct my if Im wrong. The way artillery shot at infantry usually wasnt like "direct hit" and *boom* and 5 men are dead. No they tried to aim the gun to either shoot *through* a formation or right before them so the ball bounces off the ground in a steep angle. Both canonballs would kill dozens of people in a line. I know thats hard to illustrate so its just a minor thing. Just wanted to give that hint.
This was great! It would also be wonderful if you could do some videos on warfare in the 18th century. You whetted my appetite for it there at the ending!😂
It wasn't that easy. Early arquebuses were heavy and clunky, and reloading it is a nightmare. It won't happen until better firearms, more sleek and sturdy, could take the role of the spear with bayonet.
It's not rare, was something taken from the reconquista, a light shield but very versatile and cheap, commonly used by the castillian, aragonese and navarre cavalry
It was a very efficient shield, light to be used on horseback, copied from the Moors whose use lasted for several centuries, including the 18th, by certain border troops against the Indians of California, New Mexico and Texas, but also in Europe. Metal shields were also used but especially by infantry such as the Rodeleros.
Indeed, it was a variant of the round metal "rodela" shield. These ones were made of lighter materials as they pointed before, and they were highly apreciated in the new world by the spanish conquistadors.
Because It Is. Its called Adarga and was widely adopted by the Spanish during and after the reconquista period. It Made all the way to the Américas and pesisted till about repeating firearms became a thing
The Ottoman Armies used a great variety of weapons, from swords and polearms to bows and guns. The Janissaries themselves were quite proficient with at least some of the weapons I mentioned prior if not all of them. They also didn't hesitate to utilize the armies of their subjects, so in several cases for example you would see Serbian and Hungarian Knights or Horse Archers from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe accompanying Turkish hosts. But as you said yes they did not use extensive pike formations, despite their use of swords, bows, and polearms they instead relied heavily on their gunpowder weaponry not only in the form of their hand-held firearms but also their massed artillery batteries. Combined with their discipline and organization they were very difficult to beat on the field.
I wonder how often European pikemen of this period would be armed with handguns? I can't imagine often, seeing they already had dedicated musketeers to protect them at range, but I imagine some armies or groups of mercenaries might have practiced it. Imagine the benefits of that. If you are in a group of pikemen, either without musketeers or your musketeers are low on ammo, and the enemy was advancing towards you but still at some range, you could, while holding your pike, whip out your pistol and shoot your foe before they reach you, then swiftly returning to your pike when closing for melee combat. If your army had the money to equip you all with pistols, it could be a smart idea. If you were a mercenary, I presume you bring your own weapons, including pikes, swords, knives and axes, and in this case handguns.
it's quite pointless since they can only fire one shoot and have shorter range, also long pikes are heavy, you have to fully put them down to aim at the enemy, by the time you bend down and pick up your pike back up, half your army would have been decimated
That wouldn't work out too well unfortunately, firearms were incredibly expensive and difficult to make, so making longer range muskets made more sense, and it wouldn't make sense for a pikeman to have to carry powder and ammunition either. Also as the guy above said, pikes are way too heavy to hold one-handed and fire with a pistol, and pistols of the time would probably only have an effective range (as in, having any semblance of accuracy) of about 3 to 4 times the length of the pikes themselves, so it makes sense to just brace the pikes for the charge. That said, pistols DID prove quite useful for several cavalry units throughout europe. Many would put one pistol on either side of their saddle in something akin to a wider, quickdraw holster, allowing them to quickly draw two pistols while either running parallel to infantry to thin out their lines or deal some damage while charging against enemy cavalry. For them, the light, one-hand pistols made a lot of sense. For infantry? Not so much.
Pike and shot was a historical infantry tactical formation that first appeared during the late 15th and early 16th centuries, and was used until the development of the bayonet in the late 17th century. This type of formation combined soldiers armed with pikes and soldiers armed with arquebuses and/or muskets.
Damm I love knowing, that my family in Ireland fought alongside the Spanish,Portuguese Germans and more. if I was to be in this era, I know for sure my dad would send me to be in the Tercio Irlanda which is a Ireland and Spanish tercio regiment which was used in Flanders. I would most likely be in the front lines, us Irish have been very close with the Spanish even when conquering the new world!
Irland and Spanish were always allies , dragones de cuera de unit how protect nueva España ( México , Texas , california ) had irland soldiers , Spanish, natives , mestizos and irland should be a funny unit
Quick reminder that this is an a reupload of an older video. We weren't happy with the visuals. They looked very dated, so we overhauled pretty much about all the animations and illustrations. Now the illustrations represent the time period much better. By the way, this is the last reupload. The next video is going to be about warfare in India.
consider me exited for the next video!
The next video is about diu?
You should really make a couple more videos about the advancement of warfare and all after the Spanish Tercios.
I would personally really like to see a separate video on the whole Swedish Carolean Tactics and such, as from what I understand, they were kind of the first proper forms of what we know as line infantry tactics of the 1700s and 1800s.
Though I could be slightly wrong, as I'm not a complete expert on those periods.
ha! i was a bit confused. I was an early backer of the channel but had to cease due to financial constrains. Glad to have helped anyways. Not sure how i feel about warfare in India, but let''s hope for a pleasant suprise.
the video on India is already up on the channel! @@ArtilleryAffictionado1648
El Gran Capitán is one of the most unappreciated military geniuses in history.
He was an important commander in the end of the Reconquista, where he successfully defeated moorish light cavalry and archer armies. When he was deployed in Italy to fight the French, he wasn't prepared for "cavalry" meaning "giant French horses in a ton of armour", as horses in Spain are smaller and more suited to skirmish and flanking tactics.
... So he lost at Seminara and proceeded to reinvent warfare in record time and blow the French out of the water for the rest of the war, with a method that became a staple in Europe for the next 150-200 years. This guy is one of the GOAT generals.
Your assessment is completely correct, although we must not leave behind the Catholic Monarchs, who were the ones who made the first reforms that modernized the Spanish army (especially with their determination to make a large production of firearms), giving the tools to Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (the Great Captain) to create the rules and tactics, which would lay the foundations of Modern Warfare. Unfortunately, current historiography wrongly attributes the authorship of the invention of Modern Warfare to simple reformers of its tactics, such as Maurice of Nassau and Gustav Adolf II of Sweden, who only tweaked the method that Gonzalo established with his Coronelias and then it evolved into the well-known Spanish Tercios.
@Eso es en los países protestantes antiespañoles. Aquí valoramos al Gran Capitán como se merece
Spanish horses are not smaller, simply much of Spain is a plain and it was useful to use the cavalry as fast projectile and harassment troops than as medieval tanks with little marching capacity, it was simply a military adaptation to the terrain, besides it would not be very smart to put full armour and a bard on the horse to stand still for hours under the spanish sun waiting for the moment to charge the enemy troops, because when that moment came those knights and horses would be dead from the heat
Horse in Spain small? No no mister. You not see to authentic andalusían Horse in her live.
@@jaimegarcia9408 Vete a alguna cabalgata o feria en el Norte de Europa, y me cuentas. Parecen elefantes esos caballos.
Mad respect from Spain for taking notice of how the italian wars were the foundation for future spanish military success.
Also apreciate the effort in respecting the spanish names.
Solid video.
One key thing about the creation of the Tercios was that Spain (actually Castile, Aragon, and Navarre) had been fighting against the Moors for centuries. When Castile and Aragon took Granada, there was already a proto-version of the Tercios, which then went to Naples to fight the French. El Gran Capitán was a great leader and reformer, but we have to take into account the hundreds of decades of war experience these kingdoms had. That’s why, when Spain was unified and became a European power, it was unstoppable since no other nation had the same "training" they did.
Great video
So "Pax Hispanica" weak Spain and lead to the defeat of the Thirty Years War with reason.
The spanish kingdoms didn't EXIST for hundreds of decades (also known as millennia) at that point.
Their name may have also come from the structure of the Spanish forces in Italy. In the Ordenanza of Genoa of 1536, the Spanish army of Italy was divided in three thirds: Tercio de Nápoles, Tercio de Sicilia and Tercio de Lombardía.
Later on the Tercio de Cerdeña was created. Those four, being the first tercios, were called old tercios, Tercios Viejos. They were really prestigious and veteran units but there were other elite Tercios which were not called Viejos.
Great video by the way! Also, another famous quote (however maybe not authentic) from a Spanish officer in the battle of Rocroi was that, when the battle ended, a French officer asked him how many men were in his unit, the Spanish captain laconically replied "count the deads"
Fernando Gonzalez de Cordoba " The Great Captain" is a military genious to created the modern infantry and the Spanish Tercios one of the best armies of history.
As a Spaniard, this is probably the best video I've ever seen on the subject.
10:26
"His exelency seems to forget hes facing a spanish regiment"
Brutal
The Tercios dominated the battlefields in Europe for 1 and a half centuries, from the Battle of Cerignola in 1503 to the Battle of the Dunes in 1658.
They practically invented modern fencing, the "destreza".
The Spanish defeated the French, Italians, Germans, Dutch, English, Swedes and Ottomans, as well as the Mexica and the Incas.
Many centuries have passed since then, and the Spanish, a country of 5 million people in the 16th century, ended up exhausted and ruined, surpassed by France on land and by the English at sea, but of course the 16th century is their Golden Age.
Indeed. Culturally, the Golden Century of Spain was the 17th.
Pike and shot warfare was utterly useless against the staggered firing lines of Algonquin woodlands nations. Prompting the creation of Rogers Rangers in King Phillips War 1676
Tecnicaly speaking the english did not surpass the spanish on sea, it was the dutch the ones who defeated Spain on sea in the last years of the Thirty Years War. The english were defeated by the spanish in the XVIII century in the War of the Jenkings Ear and suffered a lot during the War of American Independence against Spain and France, and did not really dominate the seas until the end of the XVIII century and early XIX century, during the Napoleonic Wars.
Giving your country praise for slaughtering tribes like the Inca and Aztecs. Especially what your country did to the icans. Shame
"By the way, would the primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Mayan warriors of the ancient Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉 age ancient Mesoamerica go up,👆 against the late 15th century to early 16th century renaissance,🎨 👤 Habsburg,👑 Spanish,🇪🇸 tercios gunpowder,🔫 cavalry,🏇artillery,🔫 pike and shot formations on horseback,🏇 of an English,🏴 standard thoroughbred horses,🐴 wearing Southern German,🇩🇪 Gothic plate,🍽 armor and chainmail,🔗⛓ for protection from the primitive Stone,🪨 age to early Bronze,🥉age ancient mesoamerican indigenous tribal weapons,🔫 in the cold,❄wet, 💦 dense jungle and rainforest,🌴 alongside the hot,🔥 and humid desert,🏜 of Ancient Mexico,🇲🇽 in the year of fifteen hundred twenty-one, during the age of exploration,🔭 of the new world,🗺 in the year of fourteen hundred ninety-two to the year of fifteen hundred sixty-five?"
Imagine being a knight training for who knows how long and getting killed by a citizen with a couple months of training with a long sharp sticks
Edit: Mother i am famous
Edit: I relies I made some mistakes in this comment I meant that as technology and tatics advances knights or nobels who have trained for most for much longer and resources put In the training can be killed much easier.
That wouldn't have been considered particularly weird, because it was a part of medieval thought that if one becomes too proud God will in one way or another strike one down, and no matter how mighty one is, one should always be humble in front of the random forces of the World (described during the time as the intricate plans of God).
Take this as an example, from the Castillian law code Siete Partidas from mid-1200's which was extremely influental throughout Latin Europe, wherein a chapter is related to what squires should contemplate during their knighting ceremony:
"He should bear in mind that God has authority over all things, and can manifest it whoever He desires to do so, and that this is especially the case with regard to deeds of arms; for in his hand are life and death, the power to give and to take, and he can cause the weak to be strong and the strong to be weak. When he has made this prayer, he must remain upon his knees as long as he can endure it, while all the others stand; for the vigils of knights were not instituted as games, or for any other purpose but that they and the others present may ask God to preserve, direct, and assist them, as men who are entering upon a career of death."
Skill issue
Oda Nobunaga:"Ashigaru is the weakest Infantry that destroy whole Takeda Calvary"
@Osvath97 that comment went hard.
Sus comment 💀
The Conquistador Arsenal.
A force of conquistadors could rely on the following impressive array of weaponry:
1)The cannons.
2)The arquebuses.
3)The crossbows.
4)The bow and arrow.
5)The swords.
6)The halberds.
7)The pikes.
8)The spears
9)The lances.
10)The daggers.
11)The knifes.
12)The attack dogs.
The matchlock arquebus is considered the forerunner to the flintlock musket.
The bow and the crossbow was used by the conquistadors for hunting and warfare when firearms or gunpowder were unavailable because of economic hardships or isolation.
Pike and shotte is the coolest period of warfare.
I'm trying to figure out in which accent I should read "Pike and shotte". Just a joke, cheers friend.
@@GrandMoffTarkinsTeaDispenser Try for Scottish while failing and sounding more Irish.
I spille tea to my combed moustache.🧐 The speakest in most cultyred speeche sir, shotte hmmm?
This is the sign.
I have been pondering whether to start learning Spanish because i honestly adore the language and culture.
Lets see how difficult it is to learn Spanish for a Slavic speaker.
80% of the Slavics, at least former Yugoslavians, need six months and a dictionary to learn Spanish well. The other 20% don't need the dictionary.
I'm a teacher of Spanish myself and I can testify.😉
Among the Latin languages, Spanish is among the two most easy to learn, next to Italian. People say English is easiest, but that's only because of the lack of varied conjugation. Grammar is very straightforward in Spanish, in my opinion.
Iam Soanish learn Soanish is not dificult when you.learn something the rest will come easily and you will be one of 600 million Spanish speakers around in the world; the second native most soeaking after Chinese and the second after English more global ; bienvenido!! ( welcome)
@@AlejandroLopez-ed8kj I am Serbian so six months you say.
Lets do it then.
Also thank you all for the kind words and support.
Buena suerte!
"Agradecemos su oferta, pero esto es un tercio Español"
How i wish fot Total War game in this era.
feel you bro
There are pike and shot units in Medieval 2 and there are mods that focus on this. Not a proper game but the next best thing.
Age of Empires III
@@zsx782Spanish, Dutch and Swedish players seeing Japanese players:"You are one of us but in Asian Versions"
It would be perfect; especially considering the use of the game engine to produce King and General's like videos.
La fiel infantería, la mejor infantería de la Historia.
💪🏻❌️💪🏻❌️💪🏻❌️💪🏻❌️💪🏻
Desperta Ferro!!!!!!
Now I have to watch the Tercio movie "Alatriste", with Viggo Mortensen 👌
As an spanish myself i must say that hearing you say "jiñetes" is as funny as painfull 😂😂
I know is not easy to speack foreign lenguajes so, for those wondering, "jinete" is pronounced with an "n", not "ny" (or the spanish ñ) and is basicalle means horse rider
plus there's the verb 'jiñar', which has a totally different meaning...
@@Yarblocosifiliticoit's jiñar
@@andresmartinezramos7513 you're correct, I'll edit my comment
Funnyly enough, the only Total War game where you can come close to making a functional tercio is Shogun 2 (try with the otomo clan). Medieval 2's pikemen and arcabusiers are too bugged. (there are mods for pike and shot i'm speaking of vanilla).
Loving the growth of the channel, i'm happy to have backed the project in its early stages. good luck guys!
Very interesting and well done!! I also really appreciated that you pronounced correctly the Italian, Spanish and French terms, which is a real rarity 😉Bravo👏
Being in a 300 man pike formation while being dressed like clowns has gotta be one of my favorite eras of warfare in history
On the flipside, people of that era could think of WW1-Modern soldiers as dirty peasants, whos king cant even afford the cheapest dyes for uniforms.
RPG drip suddenly makes a lot more sense now that you say that.
@@mateuszbanaszak4671 And they actually were
The best part is that it's practical for the time when black powder made the battlefield hard to see cause of all the smoke.
@@danilaodatunagem7193 its called better camouflage bubba don't speak on things you don't understand little man
Today Tercio applies to a 33 cl. bottle, the most common beer drinking unit.
Essential spanish vocabulary.
Ta chica la cerveza, pa
The way he says Archabasiers 🤣 stuck in my head all day 🤣 love this guy, these seige videos are helping me in relationship problems 🤣 its all I've watched for 6 weeks to distract me and realized this is how I'm gonna fix my relation ship issues 🤣
And he has the best pronunciation of all the craziest names and slang from the the period I fkn love this
The name 'tercio' has stuck in Spanish military tradition. When the Spanish Foreign Legion was created in the early 1920s upon the French model was called 'Tercio de Extranjeros' (Foreigners' Tercio) and the Marines which were created as the 'Tercio de Armada' (Navy Tercio) in the early XVI century still retains the name Tercio for its main units.
Thats wrong, its called 'Tercio de la Legion' , no foreignera
@@mcrulas6576 sorry, but you are wrong here.
When the Spanish Legion was created in 1920 its official name was 'Tercio de Extranjeros'. Later changed to 'Tercio de Marruecos' and then to 'Legión', but people usually referred to It as 'el Tercio'.
Please check your sources before making a categoric statement.
Enhorabuena por el vídeo! Muy bien explicado, muy buenas animaciones y sin el sesgo que se suele notar en los canales anglosajones, 10/10
I love how, prior to linear warfare, war basically didn't change. Sure, weapons and armor improved, new units and new tactics were developed, and armies had new ways of organizing, but so many aspects of war were ruggedly persistent. It's hilarious to think that, in the early days of gunpowder and they heyday of the "knight" style of heavily cavalry, there were still light cavalrymen chucking javelins at heavy cavalry like it's still the Punic wars.
It also seems like the pike only existed to re-emerge every so once in a while to completely ruin a style of warfare before disappearing for centuries. Basically every "great unit" you hear people talking about in that entire period was either a new way of using pikes or something designed to beat pikes.
Technically, war didn't change much even after linear warfare. Pikes were cut down only because muskets all had socket bayonets, which allowed them to fulfill a dual role without comprising the ability to shoot. However, infantry could still charge in pell-mell as if in the age of pike and shot. Rather than harquebusiers and the like on horseback, you had carabiniers which still fulfilled the same roles, or dragoons capable of shooting both mounted and dismounted. The concept of how cavalry charged remained the very same: concentrate a mass with reserves to exploit gaps or disordered formations.
In terms of army-level tactics, not small-scale tactics, the changes were even less pronounced. There still remained the core tactics which carried on even until the postmodern era of warfare. Hit the enemy on both flanks to draw their attention there, then mass a concentration of force to breakthrough the center. Refuse a weak flank while advancing with the other flank to roll up the enemy line. Attack both flanks in order to turn them and achieve a double envelopment. There's more than just these few, but they can be replicated with current day infantry squads as they could in lines back then or deep columns in medieval/ancient times.
Operationally and strategically, war has seldom changed at all, with the only real thing that has changed being scale of application, yet the underlying concepts remain the same. Cut the enemy's lines of communications and destroy their base(s) of supplies. Establish efficient lines of communications for your own army to facilitate the transportation of supplies to the front. Manoeuvre-wise, the basic concepts of army-level tactics are brought to greater scale on the operational level.
For instance, in the Roman Civil War, Caesar invaded Italia first, cutting the Pompeians into three divided sections and seizing the central position. This allowed him to swing west on Hispania, swing east on Makedonia, then swing south on Africa to defeat each in detail while preventing them from offering mutual support to one another. This was perhaps the first usage of the central position and interior lines on such a massive scale.
In his Samarkand Campaign, Chinggis Khan drew the attention of the Khwarezmians on the border with one army while he led another army on a manoeuvre to the rear via an inhospitable desert to appear at their rear, cutting their communications with the rest of their empire and encircling the bulk of the Khwarezmian regular army.
In his Marengo Campaign of 1800, Napoleon did very much the same thing. By making feints against the enemy left and right along various mountain passages, he drew their attention to those flanks, then he broke through the center with 51,400 men and manoeuvred to the rear of the Austrian army of Melas. The Austrians, some 86,000 strong, were cut in half, with 34,000 ending up encircled (plus an additional 15,000 Piedmontese still mobilizing). After the victory at the Battle of Marengo, he was able to draw up concessions with Melas and neutralize 49,000 enemies in one of the boldest campaigns in history (this is what I consider the proto-Ulm, his experiment before 1805).
In WWII, the Allies were sure that the Ardennes Forest would present a significant obstacle to the passage of Axis forces, just as the Khwarezmians were sure that the desert would protect them from the Mongols. Their beliefs were dashed when the enemy broke through the center of their line, cutting the Allied army in half and neutralizing 400,000 at Dunkirk in the year 1940. The bulk escaped, but they were essentially removed from the French front, causing its collapse.
In 2022, in their Kharkiv Counteroffensive, the Ukrainians pinned the Russian flanks before amassing a significant concentration of force to breakthrough the enemy center, cutting their army in half and forcing a precipitous withdrawal of the invaders.
As you can see, the heart of warfare still remains the same. I'm sure that, for the great captains of history, if they are taught a few of the differences in more modern warfare, they would be able to easily adapt to the situation and perform rather well as generals still.
A really interesting piece of military history. So thank you very much
I'm more inclined to believe that the name tercio (literally 'a third') comes from each one of them being a third of the Spanish troops in Italy originally ('the third' of Lombardy, 'the third' of Naples and 'the third' of Sicily). As a Spaniard myself, this makes much more sense in my mind than the 3 weapons theory (again, tercio means a third, not three). There are people who support the 3 weapons theory in Spain too though, but the first one makes so much more sense if you think about it.
Τhank you for making remastered versions.
love this shogun 2 tutorial
Nicely done! I get the impression that as time wore on, and firearms became more effective, that the pikeman's role was to just protect the musket men from cavalry.
Then horses were mostly replaced with vehicles and pikes were instead a fence stuck into the ground used to pop tires and get caught between treads.
*I love his accent, especially when he pronounces Spanish words.*
lmao same, though it makes me wonder a lot of the time whether he is saying a word properly or if it has a heavy accent on it
@@Cake_Commander more or less 😊
@@Cake_Commander i can tell you, its not only accent its more like a french speaking english and missing entire leters or changing the sounds completly
During the Battle of Rocroi Louis II du borbon said "They are like moving fortress".
The improvements of the artillery make the tercios weak because close formation is weak againts canons.
I love that you explain in this video that armies were losing too many soldiers, they started digging trenches for protection, and open battles were not so every day. I would love to see how war has changed until now. Like, we stopped seeing open battles in WW1? and how is war made now in contrast to the medieval times?
Stationary fortifications were used for millennia; temporary as well as permanent (for example, archers put stakes in the ground to defend against cavalry if they could). The main difference with WW1 was the unprecedented scale - Europe has been slowly climbing towards Roman levels of field troops over centuries, and then quite suddenly, leapt and bound straight over them. Logistics vastly improved, allowing ridiculously large armies to be supported "indefinitely" (of course, by the time the Germans were defeated in WW1, they had long been under horrific logistical pressures they couldn't possibly keep up with).
I'd say that's the biggest difference, overall. In older European wars, armies necessarily had huge focus on manoeuvre - the "map" was gigantic compared to what armies could actually control; control was mainly about holding important strongpoints - cities, castles, ports. That was quite enough, because the main forces of the enemy armies could not possibly support themselves without them, and they were fairly fixed (raiding parties could of course go beyond such logistics for a time and could inflict damage to the countryside, but they couldn't force any decisive battle, obviously). In WW1, armies managed to grow so large they actually could maintain a trench line across (a relatively thin portion, but still) Europe - and the logistics to support them could be brought to bear thanks to railways which can pretty much be built wherever you want to get access to the full logistical power of your nation (and your allies).
You can really see this in how war changed throughout and since WW1 - the same problem with massive concentrated firepower remained, but one of the ways to combat this has been the _dispersion_ of the defenders. WW1 trench lines had a lot higher concentration of soldiers. But it still works without such massive trench lines, because you still block enemy logistics - they simply can't afford to send their armies, no matter how strong, too far from solid logistic base. As long as you can keep disrupting their supply lines, they have to maintain virtual "lines" anyway, even if they aren't constrained by an opposing trench line. And needless to say, _existing_ roads, rails, bridges and rivers are still absolutely crucial, and are much easier to assault than to defend. This wasn't a problem for defence on the Western front of WW1 much, because of those trench lines with purposefully built logistic backing straight against the back of the lines on both sides... but even in WW1 in the West, it became painfully obvious when you tried to actually take the land you fought over - as you moved over the no man's land, you lost support from your logistics and artillery, while the enemy was in a much _stronger_ position than before. People really like the meme of the inept WW1 general sending their troops into the meatgrinder against enemy artillery and machine gun fire to be slaughtered, but most generals weren't Cadorna. In fact, most assaults had a _favourable_ kills:losses ratio in the assault phase - that only turned around after they took hold of the positions and the counter-attack came. Which of course led to the attrition tactics of forcing a successful assault at a favourable ratio... only to immediately retreat before the counter-attack arrived, not even trying to hold ground.
Ah, as you can see, the problem with WW1 (and modern warfare) is that even just looking at a very small part of a war... you can easily create tens of hours of meaningful content :D These things are huge and complicated.
The russians clearly dont think open battles are outdated
Condé: (fails to penetrate the Spanish tercios)
*So anyway, I started blasting*
Thank you. Great military history lesson.
If only someone in ancient times had thought to use pikes - or very long spears - for their main troops. They might have been truly great...
macedonian? alexander the GREAT?
@@judask13 Ding ding ding... we have a winner.
And might of had a name like Phillip, and a son Alexander
Yes, lol, and of course the chequer pattern was Roman legion formation
Alexander III lacked the funds to fabricate arquebuses 😉
One thing I never understood: how do the sleeves, consisting of hundreds of men, fit into the main body, a solid pike square of some 2000 men, when shielding from cavalry? Wouldn't they become disorganised and dangerously cramped?
Think of something similar to the british squares in the battle of Waterloo. More cramped, and with waaaay thicker walls, so to speak, but the center of a Tercio was "empty" so officers could come and go, wounded could be tended, lines could rotate, and yes, so the there is room for the men carrying firearms to retreat inside.
@@tikarimiekka8048 So a hollow square. Odd that it is never portrayed as such, but it makes a lot of sense. Much obliged for your answer!
After all the time I've been watching y'all's videos, the animations shattering each other still makes me laugh.
I live near Seminara, and hearing someone online talk about it is weird, especially since now it's a small and half abandoned rural town lol
Conte had to learn the hard way you can't just blast cav against the tercio. That's why he blasted them to hell with cannons and firearms. But damn it would've been cool to watch a tercio do formation drills
Best video EVER explaining tercios
I don't get why the loss at Rocroi could be seen as a loss for the Tercios. The supporting combat arms were defeated and driven from the field and even then the French could not break the Tercios.
Melo himself called it a one of their greatest defeats lol
@@asuka7309 sure the defeat was bad but there was nothing the Tercios could have done to win the cav fight or make the Germans actually bring pikes to the battle.
@MeiEnjoyer that's not how war works, just because you stubbornly refuse to leave the field and the enemy is smart enough to not fight you one on one doesn't mean you didn't lose. The tercios got blown to pieces by artillery and the battle ended up with the overwhelming majority of them killed or captured, Spain and it's tercios could no longer fight back against the French and for the first time in ages France ended up invading the Spanish Netherlands and annexing part of it. The Spanish tercios never recovered and kept losing wars thereafter. It's not that hard to get.
@@asuka7309 ah yes the correct solution to losing your cavalry is obviously to rout near the enemy cavalry and get run down. And mind you subsequent advancements in infantry warfare would not solve the problem of needing to stay together for protection against cavalry in formations vulnerable to artillery for hundreds of years.
@MeiEnjoyer you could do a breakout, leave a battlefield in good order and/or surrender without getting blown to pieces with artillery first. As was done at plenty of other battles.
Also line infantry stood only 3-5 ranks deep and wasn't nearly as vulnerable to artillery as the tercios were lol.
Interesting about Pike and shot warfare.
10:19 it was Aragorn who said it.
it's awesome. the movie got some awards for the custome design, if memory serves right. definitely looks very cool and one of the few movies focusing on this time period.
Bravo excellent video.
empire strikes back at the beginning
Oh my god I hear it
Nicely informative look into this Spanish formation.
Always learn something new!
how do you made these animations?
footnote: To put down the increasingly tough uprising against the Habsburgs, a sizable section of the Spanish army-which by the latter part of the 16th century was made up exclusively of tercio troops-was stationed in the Netherlands. These forces were the Tercio of Sicily and the Tercio of Savoy. When it came time to pay them, many Spanish tercios ironically became more of a problem than a solution because unpaid units frequently rebelled as a result of the Spanish coffers being empty from continuous conflict.
Wonderful presentation of this famous unit, superb animations and interesting informations!
Useful teaching tool, sensible points and no howlers.
1:05 I apreciate that you say jinete in spanis (it just mean horseman) but it hurts how you say an ñ insted o an n. Even thougth, its cool that you are trying.
Great video, like always
If I was told to go break the push of pike, given how dangerous it is, I'd probably want a sword and shield. But I guess halberdiers were more effective, which makes sense since halberds aren't as vulnerable to cavalry. I still love the look of the rodelero, though.
As the percentage of gunponder weapons increased, it became largely unnecessary to break the formation in melee. The unit with more firearms and more artillery support could usually just let the ranged troops do their thing, until the enemy fomation either fled the field, or was forced into a charge.
Excellent recreation of battles ❤
WIll you also at some point make a video about Spanish Lancers? and maybe how they were continued as Mexican Lancers and I believe also in Texas up until the Civil War
Mexican lancers ? Dragones de cuera? Was a Spanish unit , ( Spanish , natives , mestizos and some Irish ) than protracted the frontiers of nueva España , now Mexico , Texas , California
Where do you get your amazing graphics of all the soldiers ??
it’s mostly commissioned work by various artists we work with. i add, mix and match elements (arms, faces, weapons etc) and put them in new compositions myself.
La 1a,guerra d Nápoles, empezó en 1496 con la derrota española d Seminara, pero acabó en 1497 con la rendición por el Gran Capitán d Atella, último reducto francés. La 2a guerra d Nápoles, además d las victorias d Ceriñola y Garellano, cuenta con una 2a batalla d Seminara en 1503, ganada a los franceses por Andrade el lugarteniente del Gran Capitán.
Entre las victorias d los Tercios están además La Bicocca en 1522, Pavía en 1525, Landriano en 1529; Serravalle, 1544; Düren en 1543; conquista,d Saint-Dizier en 1544; Mühlberg, 1547; Túnez 1535; Marciano,1554; San Quintín 1557; Gravelines, 1558; Jemmingen 1568; Haarlem 1573, Mook 1574, conquista d Zierickzie e islas d Zelanda, 1575-1576; Gembloux, 1578; Maasticht, 1579; Batalla d Alcántara, Portugal, 1580; Oudenarde, 1582; Niewpoort y Dunkerk, 1583; batalla d Steenbergen 1583; Toma d Bruselas en 1584 y d Amberes 1585; toma d Grave, batalla d Zutphen en 1586; toma de Sluys, 1587; toma d Bonn, Nuiss y Rheinberg, 1586-1589 ( campaña del Electorado d Colonia).Tomas d Lagny y Corbeil, y socorro d París, 1590; socorro d Rouán, 1592; batalla d Craon, Bretaña, 1592; toma d La chapelle, 1594; batalla d Doullens, 1595; batalla d Cornualles, 1595; toma d Calais, 1596; toma d Amiens, 1597, toma d Hulst, 1596; derrota d Niewpoort, 1600; toma d Ostende, 1604; toma d Oldenzaal, 1605; Guerra del Monferrat, batalla d Asti, 1615; invasión d Kleves-Jülich; tomas d Wessel, Aquisgrán y Düsseldorf, en 1614; guerra del Palatinado, conquista d Oppenheim en 1620; batallas d Fleurus, Höecht y Wimphen en 1622; conquista d Jülich estemismo año; toma d Frankenthal en 1623; toma d Breda, 1625; socorro d Konstanz y Breisach y toma d Rheinfelden en 1633. Batalla d Nordlingen, en 1634; toma d Treveris 1635; conquista d Corbie, 1636; batalla d Kollum, 1638; batalla d Honnecourt, 1642; derrota d Rocroi, 1643; batalla d Tuttlingen en 1643; defensa d Orbetello, 1646; derrota d Lens, 1648; defensa d Lérida, 1647; toma d Rocroi, 1653; 2a batalla d Pavía en 1655; batalla d Valenciennes, 1656; derrota en Las Dunas d Dunquerk 1658, y le sigue la Paz d los Pirineos en 1659 con Francia, q marca la hegemonía francesa d los ejércitos d Luís XIV. Aún combatieron los Tercios hasta su disolución por Felipe V ( primer rey d la dinastía Borbón en España) en 1704, teniendo particular importancia en la batalla d Seneffe en 1674, en la defensa d Louxemburg, en 1683 y en la reconquista d Namur en 1695.
Es alucinante el poco reconocimiento historico de esta unidad, acabo de ver un video de un americano atribuyendo la tecnica de combate de picas y arcabuces a suecos alemanes y franceses
@@mcrulas6576..Les han lavado el cerebro desde niños. No esperes otra cosa, si en las pelis, vídeos y libros q ven y leen desde q tienen uso d razón sólo aparecen estadounidenses ingleses, alemanes, franceses, italianos, rusos, japoneses y chinos; y ahí acaba la historia..Bueno es q se hagan estos vídeos...pero son muchos siglos d machaque continuo...Ah, por cierto, me he dejado muchas batallas, pero la q omití y q no puede faltar en una relación d hechos d armas d los Tercios es Lepanto en 1571, y ya d paso, el socorro d Malta d 1565.
@@mcrulas6576les podrán contar lo que quieran pero verdad solo hay una, y eso no se puede cambiar. Saludos desde España.
Es un gran aporte tu comentario, hay muchas batallas que tienden a ignorar (sobre todo después de Rocroi, que no fue catastrófica como lo pintan); yo en el comentario que puse cuando salio el video, traté de explicar todas las Ordenanzas hechas en los Tercios desde 1536 hasta 1685, puesto que estos anglosajones piensan que los Tercios se mantuvieron igual por 2 siglos, cosa que es errónea y otra creencia incorrecta es creer que eran como los Suizos, cuando los españoles desde Ceriñola se caracterizaron en llevar un gran número de arcabuceros (mantuvieron esta superioridad de disparos hasta que los holandeses y suecos modificaron las formaciones para potenciarlas).
@@mcrulas6576 totalmente y la mayor injusticia es que le dan la autoría de la "creación" de los ejercitos modernos al hereje rey sueco Gustavo Adolfo, cuando este solo se copio con leve diferencias de los holandeses, que a su vez solo modificaron lo que los españoles ya habían creado desde principios del siglo XVI. Por eso el verdadero padre de la Guerra Moderna es Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán), el que inició todo con las tropas recién modernizadas de los Reyes Catolicos; pero esto siempre lo omiten, porque no les agrada que haya sido un católico el que haya innovado la guerra (ya saben como son los protestantes de recelosos con la historia, miran a los países del sur como atrasados y les cuesta reconocer sus meritos). Se debe hacer más esfuerzos para difundir la verdad, que el primer ejército moderno no fue francés, ni inglés, ni holandes, ni sueco, ni suizo... sino el español con su uso combinado de armas de fuego y picas, bajo la tutela del Gran Capitán.
You mean that it was Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, El Gran Capitan, who was the first commander to apply the doctrine of combined arms?.... In that case there has been a lot of hiding and lying. Why?
Black legend, they don't want to be outshine by Spain in the 16-17 century.
The black legend exists and it still hurt Spain to this day, for example a lot of people believe we massacred the Mesoamericans, but history tells something very different. Mostly the English created these false accusations, the same way everyone thinks that Vikings were dirty barbarians (again, English enemies)
@@Roctech44
The irony is that many from the British isles are descendants of vikings (from 8-9 C.e. and the normands, which were naturalized vikings in Northern France).
@@Roctech44 The Black Legend is wrong, but not entirely false. The Spanish did commit attrocities, just not to the scale of the legend, as did the other European powers. The Vikings were called dirty barbarians by most of Europe not just the English.
Awesome video as usual thank you
0:48 *jinete is pronounced with an N, not an Ñ
aslo, since I'm at it: whenever you see an accent on a spanish word, that's the syllable that has to be emphasized. Always. No exceptions. It's not like other languages where accents are sometimes there for obscure reasons, and can be ignored. In spanish they're always a helpful tip.
Gracias!
Now I have to rewatch Alatriste, thanks.
‘In combat all men are equal.’
No alatriste! Not even in combat! I am a Spanish Grandee! 🙄
*Alatriste swipes him aside in one stroke* 😂
I would like to watch some videos about 18th and 19th century formations. I think I'm not alone on that!
Very informative video
Wow the timing guys. Thanks a lot!
How do you do animations in your video? The figures of people, battlefield animaiton and design
Is there a way to get the Art for the French gendarme in 0:10 as a wallpaper ? The armour on the right is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen.
Shout out to the many fallen Jinetes from total war medieval 2
I think you keep making a tiny mistake in your animations about formations beeing shot at by artillery. Correct my if Im wrong.
The way artillery shot at infantry usually wasnt like "direct hit" and *boom* and 5 men are dead. No they tried to aim the gun to either shoot *through* a formation or right before them so the ball bounces off the ground in a steep angle. Both canonballs would kill dozens of people in a line.
I know thats hard to illustrate so its just a minor thing. Just wanted to give that hint.
🤓
Afaik bouncing shots were invented by Vauban. So later than the battles in this video.
Great video!
Tercio is the name of the pike and shot unit in Civ 5's Vox Populi mod!
This was great! It would also be wonderful if you could do some videos on warfare in the 18th century. You whetted my appetite for it there at the ending!😂
Great video. Thanks guys ❤
Buen resumen!
Excelente pronunciación en Español.
I wonder why it took so long before they realised that they could attach a sharp piece of metal (like a knife) at the end of their rifles.
It wasn't that easy. Early arquebuses were heavy and clunky, and reloading it is a nightmare. It won't happen until better firearms, more sleek and sturdy, could take the role of the spear with bayonet.
@@firmanimad Aha...Yes, that makes sense.
My logic: "Just set it to loop and let it play during combat training while not even here. You'll watch it in between breaks."
Why do the spanish light cavalry's depiction show the horseman holding what looks like a shield a berber would have? 0:58
It's not rare, was something taken from the reconquista, a light shield but very versatile and cheap, commonly used by the castillian, aragonese and navarre cavalry
Maybe it's a homage to Don Quijote 😀
It was a very efficient shield, light to be used on horseback, copied from the Moors whose use lasted for several centuries, including the 18th, by certain border troops against the Indians of California, New Mexico and Texas, but also in Europe. Metal shields were also used but especially by infantry such as the Rodeleros.
Indeed, it was a variant of the round metal "rodela" shield. These ones were made of lighter materials as they pointed before, and they were highly apreciated in the new world by the spanish conquistadors.
Because It Is. Its called Adarga and was widely adopted by the Spanish during and after the reconquista period. It Made all the way to the Américas and pesisted till about repeating firearms became a thing
Wow, you're fast with these remakes.
excellent
Please make a video how the Ottomans fought against pike and shot
Viva la Hispanidad
This time period is military high days of Ottoman empire. What did they use?
I know there was particular dislike for pike formations. Also they preferred individual aim and fire not volley fire.
That is extent of my knowledge.
The Ottoman Armies used a great variety of weapons, from swords and polearms to bows and guns. The Janissaries themselves were quite proficient with at least some of the weapons I mentioned prior if not all of them. They also didn't hesitate to utilize the armies of their subjects, so in several cases for example you would see Serbian and Hungarian Knights or Horse Archers from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe accompanying Turkish hosts. But as you said yes they did not use extensive pike formations, despite their use of swords, bows, and polearms they instead relied heavily on their gunpowder weaponry not only in the form of their hand-held firearms but also their massed artillery batteries. Combined with their discipline and organization they were very difficult to beat on the field.
Commenting for the algorithm.
Hi, which application use for animation
1:12 Trademark Italian maneuver ever after 😂
Thanks!
Real life noob square that works
Lmbo
I wonder how often European pikemen of this period would be armed with handguns?
I can't imagine often, seeing they already had dedicated musketeers to protect them at range, but I imagine some armies or groups of mercenaries might have practiced it.
Imagine the benefits of that.
If you are in a group of pikemen, either without musketeers or your musketeers are low on ammo, and the enemy was advancing towards you but still at some range, you could, while holding your pike, whip out your pistol and shoot your foe before they reach you, then swiftly returning to your pike when closing for melee combat.
If your army had the money to equip you all with pistols, it could be a smart idea.
If you were a mercenary, I presume you bring your own weapons, including pikes, swords, knives and axes, and in this case handguns.
it's quite pointless since they can only fire one shoot and have shorter range, also long pikes are heavy, you have to fully put them down to aim at the enemy, by the time you bend down and pick up your pike back up, half your army would have been decimated
That wouldn't work out too well unfortunately, firearms were incredibly expensive and difficult to make, so making longer range muskets made more sense, and it wouldn't make sense for a pikeman to have to carry powder and ammunition either. Also as the guy above said, pikes are way too heavy to hold one-handed and fire with a pistol, and pistols of the time would probably only have an effective range (as in, having any semblance of accuracy) of about 3 to 4 times the length of the pikes themselves, so it makes sense to just brace the pikes for the charge. That said, pistols DID prove quite useful for several cavalry units throughout europe. Many would put one pistol on either side of their saddle in something akin to a wider, quickdraw holster, allowing them to quickly draw two pistols while either running parallel to infantry to thin out their lines or deal some damage while charging against enemy cavalry. For them, the light, one-hand pistols made a lot of sense. For infantry? Not so much.
very age of empires
Thank you so much !
Viva España
Pike and shot was a historical infantry tactical formation that first appeared during the late 15th and early 16th centuries, and was used until the development of the bayonet in the late 17th century. This type of formation combined soldiers armed with pikes and soldiers armed with arquebuses and/or muskets.
Thanks, Carl
Damm I love knowing, that my family in Ireland fought alongside the Spanish,Portuguese Germans and more. if I was to be in this era, I know for sure my dad would send me to be in the Tercio Irlanda which is a Ireland and Spanish tercio regiment which was used in Flanders. I would most likely be in the front lines, us Irish have been very close with the Spanish even when conquering the new world!
Irland and Spanish were always allies , dragones de cuera de unit how protect nueva España ( México , Texas , california ) had irland soldiers , Spanish, natives , mestizos and irland should be a funny unit
Just stand there and hold this stick.
But they're shooting at me!
..so?
i loved the way you pronounced the word tercio with the typical zzz of the spanish people 😂
How about Almogavars?
Arriba España ‼️🗣️‼️
its time to play Europa Universalis IV again