The French having the upper hand at Fornovo is higly debatable. 1) The requests of the Italians to the King to let him pass were to give back the treasury conquered and to release the fortresses in French hands. With his baggage, Charles lost more than what had been requested (all the treasury conquered, all the money he needed to pay his mercenaries, his helmets, the royal standards, even his collection of erotic drawings). All of the fortresses in Italy had been lost in few weeks after Fornovo. 2) After the battle, the French withdrew on a hill to make camp. The battlefield remained in Italian hands, and the corpses of the French had been spoiled by the local peasants. Not the sign of a winning army. 3) Charles asked for a three days truce to bury the corpses, then fled the battlefield with his army in the night before the third day. Again, not what you expect from a winning army. 4) After having marched 200 km in 7 days, straight to Asti, Charles didn't answer to the calls for help of the Duke of Orlean, besieged at Novara, at only 68km distance, and remained in the city. Fact is that, thus both armies had lost about 10% of their strengh, only one of them was still able to fight. With the loss of the baggage, Charles could no more pay his mercenaries, so he had no more an army.
Point 1 is correct. 2 and 3 are irrelevant, since the point of the battle was to decide if the French can pass (and they did!), 4 is true, but doesn't really relate to the battle itself. Plus there was a psychological-political aspect too. The Italians saw what the French can do and were very afraid of them hence. In other words they gaind +1 prestige and +1 frighten enemy soldiers. In fact at Agnadello fear of the French was the main reason for Venice's reluctance, which in turn cost them the battle. So in balance it was more a victory than not.
@@pikeshotBattles First of all, Thanks for the answer and the like. Second, not really. "the point of the battle" had never been if the French could pass. Not at any cost. That "urge to pass" only raised AFTER the battle. Had Charles only wanted to pass, he could have done it form the start, without conceding battle. He was already west of the Italians, that couldn't be reasonably faster than him. A series of rearguard skirmishes would have been less costly than a full scale battle. But he din't just want to pass. Once challenged, he wanted to give the Italians a lesson, exactly like the Italians wanted to give him a lesson. His prestige was at stake. After the first day of battle, he and his "winning" soldiers, had lost anything they weren't wearing. In front of them, the "losing" italians, not only still had all of their previous possession, but also those of the French. And they had not intention to flee. Their goal still was to give Charles a lesson. What commander of an army that felt to have won wouldn't have assailed them and their baggages at the end of the truce HE requested (or, better, whithout asking for any truce. Who thinks to have the upper hand doesn't ask for truces)? The entire gain of the campaign was in front of him, in the pockets of an army of "losers" that had no intention to flee. Only the goal of Charles changed with the battle. Now the goal was "to pass", no matter how. He fled the battlefield with his army in the night before the third day of truce. Marched 200 km in 7 days. His men didn't even forage. At the arrival at Asti they were starved. Then Charles went straight to France, since his goal was to pass? NO. After having deserted the Duke of Orlean at Novara, he first went to Turin, and left it, to pass Alps, only on 22 October. The urge was only to leave the Battlefield of Fornovo. Not what you expect from a winning army. So, not only "who remained in possession of the battlefield" and "who fled" are among the traditional ways to assess the result of a battle, but they are PARTICULARLY relevant in this case. No "fear of the French" seems to have had any part in the result of Agnadello. The Republic decided to fight with an army of roughly the same dimension than that of the French even if, to obtain it, they had to resort to peasants' levy (so, where was the fear?). Simply D'Alviano, and Pitigliano, both capable commanders, were tactically at the extremes. D'Alviano, as demonstrated, IE, by his campaign in Cadore Vs. the Imperials, was an "offensivist" so much that he attacked the French even with only half of the army (so, where was the fear?). Pitigliano was a "defensivist" (It had been said of him "one that believes winning is to not loose"), and infact he too, later, defeated the Imperials, but with a defensive tactic. To put the Republic's army in the hands of both was a recipe for a defeat.
Kings and Generals made a video on this battle... but this series is still better. It does have a few extra details that were missed in this series, but mostly they miss out a lot of great details that were included here.
you say the french won because they retreated in good order, but they had to do it at night, in secret, while the italians were ready to fight again. Also the italians set up in 9 sections, not 3
“Had to retreat” is not correct They wanted to retreat, that was their goal from a begging, if they wanted they could have stayed, but there was no interest in doing so the king needed his men more
Alfonso II abdicó en favor de su hijo Fernando II, y murió en Sicilia ese mismo año. Creo que al final se confundieron entre Alfonso II y Fernando II de Nápoles.
"GIOCO DI TRONI" - PRIMA STAGIONE. TEMPO DI BALDORIA!!!!!!
11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
If the king of France had known the future consequences that his Invasion of Italy was going to have, he would have thought twice before; In the end, doing a "crusade" against the Ottomans was only an excuse for his actions; If the objective had been to defeat the Turks, it was best to carry it out through alliances, not by attacking the Kingdom of Naples. On the other hand, you failed to mention the Spanish help in the expulsion of the French from Naples, in which, despite the defeat at Seminara, General Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba managed, through guerrilla tactics and quick blows, to defeat the enemy resistance, gaining the renown that would make him stand out as a commander to be taken into account in the next phase of the conflict (which you will talk about in the following video).
Does anyone know what differences there were between the light and the heavy lance? I guess the light lance was more agile, while the heavy one was only suitable to be couched, perhaps?
I guess it is actually a mistaking of stradioti for italian cavalry. Italian cavalry used typical lances of the period (those huge and heavy with a conical shape), but stradioti cavalry indeed used a lance more akin to a pike or a "old style" cavalry lance. At least that is what i can see by contemporary representations.
Not so much unlucky as politically divided and militarily pathetic. It was pretty much of their own doing. And they were no match for the French. France knew that Italy was an easy target, and it was acting like any other great power by going after it.
@@nassauguy48 AHAHAHAHAHAHA there were no intervention, France had it lucky Italians were divided and let them pass instead of entering in provence and taking it as their own
It is weird to know that there was a time in non-nomadic countries when then cavalry outnumbered the infantry... Are you sure there weren't some ranks of irregular or peasant levies that might reinforce the professional infantry or men at arms mates?
Not gonna lie, the barely even ten second loop of music and very loud sound effects (like during the battle) on top of your quiet voice made it very hard to understand this. Subtitles are useful but I spend more time reading them than looking at the graphics.
Are you insane? The music is great! It's in the background, and doesn't distract from the video. The ending song works as well because it fits with the theme.
Please note how Savoy minds its own business for centuries and then succeeds in unifying Italy.
It was essentially a French puppet though for a while and then a Spanish puppet.
@@johnnotrealname8168 can’t beat ‘em, join em. Better fate than Lorraine, or burgundy, montferat, and nearly every other state they outlasted
Savoy playing the long game
5:41 Medieval 2 Multiplayer Flashbacks intensify
The French having the upper hand at Fornovo is higly debatable.
1) The requests of the Italians to the King to let him pass were to give back the treasury conquered and to release the fortresses in French hands. With his baggage, Charles lost more than what had been requested (all the treasury conquered, all the money he needed to pay his mercenaries, his helmets, the royal standards, even his collection of erotic drawings). All of the fortresses in Italy had been lost in few weeks after Fornovo.
2) After the battle, the French withdrew on a hill to make camp. The battlefield remained in Italian hands, and the corpses of the French had been spoiled by the local peasants. Not the sign of a winning army.
3) Charles asked for a three days truce to bury the corpses, then fled the battlefield with his army in the night before the third day. Again, not what you expect from a winning army.
4) After having marched 200 km in 7 days, straight to Asti, Charles didn't answer to the calls for help of the Duke of Orlean, besieged at Novara, at only 68km distance, and remained in the city.
Fact is that, thus both armies had lost about 10% of their strengh, only one of them was still able to fight. With the loss of the baggage, Charles could no more pay his mercenaries, so he had no more an army.
Point 1 is correct. 2 and 3 are irrelevant, since the point of the battle was to decide if the French can pass (and they did!), 4 is true, but doesn't really relate to the battle itself. Plus there was a psychological-political aspect too. The Italians saw what the French can do and were very afraid of them hence. In other words they gaind +1 prestige and +1 frighten enemy soldiers. In fact at Agnadello fear of the French was the main reason for Venice's reluctance, which in turn cost them the battle. So in balance it was more a victory than not.
@@pikeshotBattles First of all, Thanks for the answer and the like.
Second, not really. "the point of the battle" had never been if the French could pass. Not at any cost. That "urge to pass" only raised AFTER the battle.
Had Charles only wanted to pass, he could have done it form the start, without conceding battle. He was already west of the Italians, that couldn't be reasonably faster than him. A series of rearguard skirmishes would have been less costly than a full scale battle.
But he din't just want to pass. Once challenged, he wanted to give the Italians a lesson, exactly like the Italians wanted to give him a lesson. His prestige was at stake.
After the first day of battle, he and his "winning" soldiers, had lost anything they weren't wearing. In front of them, the "losing" italians, not only still had all of their previous possession, but also those of the French. And they had not intention to flee. Their goal still was to give Charles a lesson.
What commander of an army that felt to have won wouldn't have assailed them and their baggages at the end of the truce HE requested (or, better, whithout asking for any truce. Who thinks to have the upper hand doesn't ask for truces)? The entire gain of the campaign was in front of him, in the pockets of an army of "losers" that had no intention to flee.
Only the goal of Charles changed with the battle. Now the goal was "to pass", no matter how. He fled the battlefield with his army in the night before the third day of truce. Marched 200 km in 7 days. His men didn't even forage. At the arrival at Asti they were starved.
Then Charles went straight to France, since his goal was to pass?
NO. After having deserted the Duke of Orlean at Novara, he first went to Turin, and left it, to pass Alps, only on 22 October.
The urge was only to leave the Battlefield of Fornovo.
Not what you expect from a winning army.
So, not only "who remained in possession of the battlefield" and "who fled" are among the traditional ways to assess the result of a battle, but they are PARTICULARLY relevant in this case.
No "fear of the French" seems to have had any part in the result of Agnadello. The Republic decided to fight with an army of roughly the same dimension than that of the French even if, to obtain it, they had to resort to peasants' levy (so, where was the fear?). Simply D'Alviano, and Pitigliano, both capable commanders, were tactically at the extremes. D'Alviano, as demonstrated, IE, by his campaign in Cadore Vs. the Imperials, was an "offensivist" so much that he attacked the French even with only half of the army (so, where was the fear?). Pitigliano was a "defensivist" (It had been said of him "one that believes winning is to not loose"), and infact he too, later, defeated the Imperials, but with a defensive tactic. To put the Republic's army in the hands of both was a recipe for a defeat.
Kings and Generals made a video on this battle... but this series is still better. It does have a few extra details that were missed in this series, but mostly they miss out a lot of great details that were included here.
K&G is mostly focused on pop culture, its not a channel made to learn actual history.
Fornovo! Visited this site in the 1980s amazing battle in the rain
Truly 15th century music at the end of the video! Amazing!
Begun the Italian Wars have.
Charles VIII wearing sunglasses with a hip hop score took me by surprise! 👍
The background music reminds me of the strategic map from Medieval 2.
Amazingly presented and easy to understand
Great video, just...In Italian "Que?" is "Che".
I can't thank you enough for this series.
3:40 WTF?
I died
hahaha
you say the french won because they retreated in good order, but they had to do it at night, in secret, while the italians were ready to fight again. Also the italians set up in 9 sections, not 3
“Had to retreat” is not correct
They wanted to retreat, that was their goal from a begging, if they wanted they could have stayed, but there was no interest in doing so the king needed his men more
Just discovered this channel, really enjoying the videos!
One Of My New Favorite Channel’s! Keep Up The Good Work My Friend!
Alfonso II abdicó en favor de su hijo Fernando II, y murió en Sicilia ese mismo año. Creo que al final se confundieron entre Alfonso II y Fernando II de Nápoles.
Like your style, great content!
Excellent! Please keep up the good work
"GIOCO DI TRONI" - PRIMA STAGIONE. TEMPO DI BALDORIA!!!!!!
If the king of France had known the future consequences that his Invasion of Italy was going to have, he would have thought twice before; In the end, doing a "crusade" against the Ottomans was only an excuse for his actions; If the objective had been to defeat the Turks, it was best to carry it out through alliances, not by attacking the Kingdom of Naples. On the other hand, you failed to mention the Spanish help in the expulsion of the French from Naples, in which, despite the defeat at Seminara, General Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba managed, through guerrilla tactics and quick blows, to defeat the enemy resistance, gaining the renown that would make him stand out as a commander to be taken into account in the next phase of the conflict (which you will talk about in the following video).
Does anyone know what differences there were between the light and the heavy lance? I guess the light lance was more agile, while the heavy one was only suitable to be couched, perhaps?
I was wondering the same thing
I guess it is actually a mistaking of stradioti for italian cavalry. Italian cavalry used typical lances of the period (those huge and heavy with a conical shape), but stradioti cavalry indeed used a lance more akin to a pike or a "old style" cavalry lance. At least that is what i can see by contemporary representations.
French lost at Fornovo, lost everything and ran away in the night
3:40 N O I C E
Fantastic, enjoyed to a great extend, thank you! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
The sound effects are something else
Using English Civil War era cannons to depict Late Medieval/Early Modern artillery....😃
All of this aggressive expansion for the PU on Naples, leading to a coalition of Spain, Austria and the biggest Italian States?
What was the ending music? I swear I recognize it from some game I think, but I’m not sure.
Damn the Italians really got unlucky uh
The French would have conquered all of Italy in a matter of weeks had it not been for the intervention by Spain and others.
Not so much unlucky as politically divided and militarily pathetic. It was pretty much of their own doing. And they were no match for the French. France knew that Italy was an easy target, and it was acting like any other great power by going after it.
@@nassauguy48 clearly you don't know Jack shit about medieval Italy, do some research m8
@@nassauguy48 AHAHAHAHAHAHA there were no intervention, France had it lucky Italians were divided and let them pass instead of entering in provence and taking it as their own
It is weird to know that there was a time in non-nomadic countries when then cavalry outnumbered the infantry...
Are you sure there weren't some ranks of irregular or peasant levies that might reinforce the professional infantry or men at arms mates?
Nope that's how warfare worked between the 15th and 16th century, in Italy especially
The "Night's Watch" fought in many battles. But because of cowardice by Samwell Tarly a lot of battles were lost.
Viva La France!
Italy*.
Tactical nuke (Max I) incoming!
Love to France from Greece.
The “aged”parchment provided a poor contrast with the type face and I found it difficult to read.
I think you got the names of the kings of Naples wrong
Not gonna lie, the barely even ten second loop of music and very loud sound effects (like during the battle) on top of your quiet voice made it very hard to understand this. Subtitles are useful but I spend more time reading them than looking at the graphics.
The music was annoying me during the entire video
Music is horrid and no reason for it to be there. Down vote.
Are you insane? The music is great! It's in the background, and doesn't distract from the video. The ending song works as well because it fits with the theme.
@@youngarchivest9092 classical guitar has roots in spain so yea pretty cool