A key difference between the cavaliers and the round-heads: although royalist troops are more experienced, and defeated ireton’s cavalry, they may aswell have lost that flank, since they practically routed off the field by charging after the baggage train. Compare this to Cromwell’s cavalry, who could reform and lead a decisive charge against Astley, helping win the battle. The civil war shows a turning point in military history - veteran experience became second best to discipline and ability to follow orders, since without discipline, an army cannot be commanded effectively.
What are your sources for the battle? The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars, 1642-1651 (Young & Holmes, 2000); Cromwell's War Machine: The New Model Army 1645-1660 (Roberts, 2005); and Battles and Generals of the Civil Wars (Rogers, 1968) give a wholly different order of battle: (1) the Royalist center charged, Skippon was wounded; (2) Ireton repulsed Maurice's cavalry but Ireton was captured and the Parliamentarian cavalry fled the field, some as far as Northampton with Maurice (Rupert) cavalry in hot pursuit; (3) Cromwell routs Langdale but Maurice's infantry repulses every attack; (4) Rupert's cavalry returns after capturing baggage train but does not enter fight; (5) Fairfax's infantry clears the field; and (6) Parliamentarians butcher over 100 women in Royalist camp.
This was just what I was looking for. Thanks for the nice summary. One suggestion. Add a phase 2.5 to your map. Something to show the infantry engaged BEFORE the Cromwell charge. "The infantry at the center exchange volleys then meet in close combat" or something. That would make the map outline image a wee bit clearer to the viewer.
Excellent tutorial, just one question, after Okey provoked Maurice to attack Ireton and then move toward the Parlimentarian cannon, what happened to Maurices’ forces? Did they move away from the field or did they turn toward the rear of Skiptons’ position?, or were they reduced as an effective fighting force and became irrelevant? Cheers Dave
Puck in hell Old comment but I’ve heard that longbows were used in the ECW, though only very minutely. I guess they would still have been an effective weapon at that time, no? Common armour in the Mid 17th Century really wasn’t too dissimilar to that of the late Middle Ages, most soldiers still wore cloths/wools and leathers and usually equipped maybe with a breastplate and helmet. Well trained bowmen were more accurate than guns(at this time), though in pitched battles it was still mainly about volume/firepower so shotte would probably win that contest by this stage. Also lets not forget that English bowmen were regularly employed by the Dukes of Burgundy to combat the great Swiss pike formations in the late 15th Century. Who knows? Maybe some old Elizabethan blokes who were still kicking it still formed bands of longbowmen and decided to get stuck in 😂😂.
@@joesteers1940 The use of bows and crossbows in combat was significantly suppressed in the 16th century (and for example even partly in Japan) and almost completely disappeared by the 17th century. Gunpowder weapons have been generally and gradually conquered since the late 15th century (and were already in use in Europe in the Late Middle Ages, in the mid-14th century, such as the Siege of Calais in 1346-47, Hundred Years War). The Battle of Cerignola (1503; Italian or Renessaince Wars 1494-1559) was one of the first battle is European history, where the gunpowder weapons was the primary victory key, and that battle was the rise of the "pike and shot" era.
Theoretically, longbows would likely have worked well on that battlefield. It is just that longbowmen had ended up being not worth it due to armour improving, while heavy muskets could counter heavy armour. Which in turn led to a reduction in the use of armour, resulting in a situation where longbows would theoretically become viable again, but the institutional ability to train longbowmen had already been lost at that time.
@@SantomPh quite wealthy , any idea how much an army costs, while you have no income , as you are in a civil fucking war , again I ask where did the money come from , sounds like typical Jew banking , sponcer both sides ,
@@derekbainbridge55 it wasn't even a group ratified by people, 4th is was civil war , you need infrastructure for that , so again where did all this money come from
@For The Love Of The Truth funny how during a time of civil war , no infrastructure we are told a professional army was raised and equipped and these were the "rebels " , I smell matza balls ,
![The Battle of Agincourt | Unravelling a Most Famous Victory | Hundred Years War [Episode 14]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vnpcd-HX5FE/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent video ! I really love the map graphics and how you explain the tactical situation . Well done !
thanks for helping me with my homework
A key difference between the cavaliers and the round-heads: although royalist troops are more experienced, and defeated ireton’s cavalry, they may aswell have lost that flank, since they practically routed off the field by charging after the baggage train. Compare this to Cromwell’s cavalry, who could reform and lead a decisive charge against Astley, helping win the battle. The civil war shows a turning point in military history - veteran experience became second best to discipline and ability to follow orders, since without discipline, an army cannot be commanded effectively.
thanks man. this helped me with my homework.
thanks for helping with my homework
What are your sources for the battle? The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars, 1642-1651 (Young & Holmes, 2000); Cromwell's War Machine: The New Model Army 1645-1660 (Roberts, 2005); and Battles and Generals of the Civil Wars (Rogers, 1968) give a wholly different order of battle: (1) the Royalist center charged, Skippon was wounded; (2) Ireton repulsed Maurice's cavalry but Ireton was captured and the Parliamentarian cavalry fled the field, some as far as Northampton with Maurice (Rupert) cavalry in hot pursuit; (3) Cromwell routs Langdale but Maurice's infantry repulses every attack; (4) Rupert's cavalry returns after capturing baggage train but does not enter fight; (5) Fairfax's infantry clears the field; and (6) Parliamentarians butcher over 100 women in Royalist camp.
That is A LOT OF HORSES on one battlefield at one time. The thunder of the hooves must have been impressive!!
Or terrifying.
thank you another great factual video!!
This was just what I was looking for. Thanks for the nice summary. One suggestion. Add a phase 2.5 to your map. Something to show the infantry engaged BEFORE the Cromwell charge. "The infantry at the center exchange volleys then meet in close combat" or something. That would make the map outline image a wee bit clearer to the viewer.
Thank you for this I need help for my common enterance exam so thanks
Excellent tutorial, just one question, after Okey provoked Maurice to attack Ireton and then move toward the Parlimentarian cannon, what happened to Maurices’ forces? Did they move away from the field or did they turn toward the rear of Skiptons’ position?, or were they reduced as an effective fighting force and became irrelevant? Cheers Dave
The cavaliers charged of the battle field in search of the baggage train perfectly portraying the cavaliers lack of discipline.
Hope that helps
I always think how much Wellington would have appreciated Cromwell as a cavalry commander in the peninsular.
Mason Moor 1644 was a larger battle and the turning point battle of the Civil War. It gave Parliament full control of the North of England.
good video andy donaldson
Even later battles like this, make me think how much damage longbows could still do.
if you had archers chilling out the back the cavalry could just hit and run that shit all day
Puck in hell Old comment but I’ve heard that longbows were used in the ECW, though only very minutely. I guess they would still have been an effective weapon at that time, no? Common armour in the Mid 17th Century really wasn’t too dissimilar to that of the late Middle Ages, most soldiers still wore cloths/wools and leathers and usually equipped maybe with a breastplate and helmet. Well trained bowmen were more accurate than guns(at this time), though in pitched battles it was still mainly about volume/firepower so shotte would probably win that contest by this stage. Also lets not forget that English bowmen were regularly employed by the Dukes of Burgundy to combat the great Swiss pike formations in the late 15th Century. Who knows? Maybe some old Elizabethan blokes who were still kicking it still formed bands of longbowmen and decided to get stuck in 😂😂.
@@joesteers1940 The use of bows and crossbows in combat was significantly suppressed in the 16th century (and for example even partly in Japan) and almost completely disappeared by the 17th century. Gunpowder weapons have been generally and gradually conquered since the late 15th century (and were already in use in Europe in the Late Middle Ages, in the mid-14th century, such as the Siege of Calais in 1346-47, Hundred Years War). The Battle of Cerignola (1503; Italian or Renessaince Wars 1494-1559) was one of the first battle is European history, where the gunpowder weapons was the primary victory key, and that battle was the rise of the "pike and shot" era.
Theoretically, longbows would likely have worked well on that battlefield. It is just that longbowmen had ended up being not worth it due to armour improving, while heavy muskets could counter heavy armour. Which in turn led to a reduction in the use of armour, resulting in a situation where longbows would theoretically become viable again, but the institutional ability to train longbowmen had already been lost at that time.
Oliver Cromwell leading the new model army's cavalry while Charles I stays at the back. Imagine the psychological advantage this had over his men.
I am a relative of John okey
Where did the money come from to form this army ?
the lords that formed the leadership of Parliament (which is literally half made up of Lords) were also quite wealthy
@@SantomPh quite wealthy , any idea how much an army costs, while you have no income , as you are in a civil fucking war , again I ask where did the money come from , sounds like typical Jew banking , sponcer both sides ,
The usual way- taxation. Parliament had the population of London, England's biggest city, behind them.
@@derekbainbridge55 it wasn't even a group ratified by people, 4th is was civil war , you need infrastructure for that , so again where did all this money come from
@For The Love Of The Truth funny how during a time of civil war , no infrastructure we are told a professional army was raised and equipped and these were the
"rebels " , I smell matza balls ,